Superior scorer: Allen Iverson vs Tracy McGrady

[Cavsfansince84]

Based on only scoring(volume and creation) Iverson is the GOAT, T-Mac also top 10, though.

I have no idea what this is actually supposed to mean. Ability to put up shots? Because that doesn't in itself make someone a good or great scorer. Just as Pete Maravich was great at putting up shots too but I don't consider him to be an atg level scorer. Both were good at it but you gotta be able to do it with some degree of efficiency to be an atg imo. Unless you want to give huge bonus points based on size or something.

[feyki]

Forget efficiency and percentages, If joined a tournament and you have one pick to select a legend(every team like 75/80 Jazz) to have most 50+ games. Who would you take? I definitely take Iverson.

I would take about 30-50 guys over him if all had the same teams around them and the point of the tournament was to have 50+ point games. Start with guys like Jordan, Wilt (who averaged over 50 a game), etc. and go on to many other players who don't shoot quite as often but are better at it and could get their shot that often if the team needed them to.

Do you think Wilt could create his own shots at the highest volume? He never did it.

Where are 50 guys? You just mentioned two players.

Based on only scoring(volume and creation) Iverson is the GOAT, T-Mac also top 10, though.

I have no idea what this is actually supposed to mean. Ability to put up shots? Because that doesn't in itself make someone a good or great scorer. Just as Pete Maravich was great at putting up shots too but I don't consider him to be an atg level scorer. Both were good at it but you gotta be able to do it with some degree of efficiency to be an atg imo. Unless you want to give huge bonus points based on size or something.

Yes, it's a capability to create his owns shots and keep the volume at the highest level. That's scoring creation.

Yes, total scoring including efficiency, but I think the two are different aspects of the game, as shooting/scoring efficiency and scoring creation/volume.

This is an interesting take by a person see Iverson and Maravich as "inefficient chuckers".

It's true, I generally do. They scored in volume which is a skill with some value, but they didn't shoot that well which hurts the value of their volume. And, neither did much of anything else well to provide secondary value.

Well relative to what? And what makes scoring creation linked to shot efficiency and why shot efficiency is the king but not the volume.

[McBubbles]

Forget efficiency and percentages, If joined a tournament and you have one pick to select a legend(every team like 75/80 Jazz) to have most 50+ games. Who would you take? I definitely take Iverson.

I would take about 30-50 guys over him if all had the same teams around them and the point of the tournament was to have 50+ point games. Start with guys like Jordan, Wilt (who averaged over 50 a game), etc. and go on to many other players who don't shoot quite as often but are better at it and could get their shot that often if the team needed them to.

Do you think Wilt could create his own shots at the highest volume? He never did it.

Where are 50 guys? You just mentioned two players.

Based on only scoring(volume and creation) Iverson is the GOAT, T-Mac also top 10, though.

I have no idea what this is actually supposed to mean. Ability to put up shots? Because that doesn't in itself make someone a good or great scorer. Just as Pete Maravich was great at putting up shots too but I don't consider him to be an atg level scorer. Both were good at it but you gotta be able to do it with some degree of efficiency to be an atg imo. Unless you want to give huge bonus points based on size or something.

Yes, it's a capability to create his owns shots and keep the volume at the highest level. That's scoring creation.

Yes, total scoring including efficiency, but I think the two are different aspects of the game, as shooting/scoring efficiency and scoring creation/volume.

This is an interesting take by a person see Iverson and Maravich as "inefficient chuckers".

It's true, I generally do. They scored in volume which is a skill with some value, but they didn't shoot that well which hurts the value of their volume. And, neither did much of anything else well to provide secondary value.

Well relative to what? And what makes scoring creation linked to shot efficiency and why shot efficiency is the king but not the volume.

Why would you care about volume if the ball doesn't go in? Shooting volume by itself is a useless measure. Scoring volume is what's important, and his scoring volume is awful for his shooting volume. Or in other words, there are several players who could shoot just as much as him and score more points.

Also how can you say the man that averaged 50PPG on 54TS% on 40 shots a game for a season couldn't create his own shot? D'you think he Wilt getting 40 alley oops and pick and rolls a game?

[LewisnotMiller]

Compare True Shooting Percentages when looking at PPG.

TS includes free throws buddy... It also values 3 point makes more than 2s...

Look at raw FG%, it tells you what percent of a player's shots go in. Simple and accurate. It doesnt reward guys just because they shoot from a different spot on the floor.

The FG% is too close between these guys to really matter, AI gives more volume so he's better.

"TS includes free throws buddy... It also values 3 point makes more than 2s..."

You know what else includes and values those things? Objective reality lmao. FG% has literally never been a measure of efficiency, not even before the 3 point line.

Quick example.

Player A takes 20FG's.
They get 0 free throws.
All their shots are 2's and they have a 2P% / FG% of 50%.
20PPG on 50% shooting.

Player B takes 20 FG's.
They gets 7 free throws and make all of them.
They go 6/20 from the field and make 6 3's
That's 25PPG on 30% shooting.

If you have in your head that FG% is a measure of efficiency, you'd think that Player A is a solid scorer on good efficiency and that Player B is a chucking piece of **** who's hurting their team and needs to take less shots. You'd think A>B as a scorer.

But that doesn't make sense, because player A takes just as many shots as Players B but gets fewer points.

Hence, if you go by TS%, then you can clearly see that Player A is less efficient with a TS% of 50.0, followed by Player C TS% of 54.2

This isn't a matter of debate. Field goal percentage isn't an efficiency statistic and hasn't measured anything particular useful since the 1980 NBA season.

Mark West wishes it was meaningful. He dominated this stat at one point, mostly because I think his coaches banned him from anything other than dunking.

[LewisnotMiller]

I'd take McGrady. It's not a slam-dunk for me, though.
Iverson was inefficient, and even at the time people knew that to be true (mostly), but he also had limited choices on some of those teams. Philly put out some truly bad offences, which made damn sure defences were loading up to stop the midget scorer. Iverson had to be a volume scorer for those teams, and at his height, and with his running mates, that basically necessitated low efficiency (although his ability to get to the line obviously helps).

Still, McGrady for me. He always felt like someone who had one more level to reach, but when healthy, etc, he was a very good offensive player.

[feyki]

I would take about 30-50 guys over him if all had the same teams around them and the point of the tournament was to have 50+ point games. Start with guys like Jordan, Wilt (who averaged over 50 a game), etc. and go on to many other players who don't shoot quite as often but are better at it and could get their shot that often if the team needed them to.

Do you think Wilt could create his own shots at the highest volume? He never did it.

Where are 50 guys? You just mentioned two players.

I have no idea what this is actually supposed to mean. Ability to put up shots? Because that doesn't in itself make someone a good or great scorer. Just as Pete Maravich was great at putting up shots too but I don't consider him to be an atg level scorer. Both were good at it but you gotta be able to do it with some degree of efficiency to be an atg imo. Unless you want to give huge bonus points based on size or something.

Yes, it's a capability to create his owns shots and keep the volume at the highest level. That's scoring creation.

Yes, total scoring including efficiency, but I think the two are different aspects of the game, as shooting/scoring efficiency and scoring creation/volume.

It's true, I generally do. They scored in volume which is a skill with some value, but they didn't shoot that well which hurts the value of their volume. And, neither did much of anything else well to provide secondary value.

Well relative to what? And what makes scoring creation linked to shot efficiency and why shot efficiency is the king but not the volume.

Why would you care about volume if the ball doesn't go in? Shooting volume by itself is a useless measure. Scoring volume is what's important, and his scoring volume is awful for his shooting volume. Or in other words, there are several players who could shoot just as much as him and score more points.

Also how can you say the man that averaged 50PPG on 54TS% on 40 shots a game for a season couldn't create his own shot? D'you think he Wilt getting 40 alley oops and pick and rolls a game?

I don't understand one point. These players don't shoot at the park. If it's not necessary there's no way a player would shoot as whatever he want. Turning to the impact, yes, I'd think the two are different aspects of the game and both equally important with depending on the team needs. Just volume, ehh, maybe; but with the creation(assisted/unassisted) it's really important. Even it explains why players efficiency depending on the circumstances(see 17 and 18 Durant in the Finals and against the Bucks last Playoffs).

Yes, I have estimated assisted/unassisted points data about past 97 and Wilt didn't create more than 15 points of his 50 by his own. Over the %70 of his shot mades were assisted.