Why is it that scoring points is seen as dominating?
Options
#1hiphopjunki3
Guests, Members, Writer, Content Producer Posts: 3,557 ✭✭✭✭✭
After reading a lot of posts in the NBA threads I've notice a trend with a lot of people who believe that scoring points is the most important factor in deciding if a player is a great or dominating presence while in the league.
Why do people tend to ignore that basketball is much more than scoring? For the knowledgeable posters please give examples of players who affected or dominated games and or eras of of the NBA without putting up huge scoring outputs.
Why do people tend to ignore that basketball is much more than scoring? For the knowledgeable posters please give examples of players who affected or dominated games and or eras of of the NBA without putting up huge scoring outputs.
Comments
-
oh look this ? again
-
I mean, they don't give points for rebounds, bruh.
Every championship ever won was won 'cause one team scored more than the other(s).
There are, of course, other stats to measure players, and there are negative stats that overshadow and even devalue a scoring average (turnovers, poor defensive skills, etc.) but even if you have a team full of great defenders and rebounders that can't score, you'll end up in the L column.
A better question is why b-ball fans say a player with good "handles" and other ? bravado is good regardless of their fg%, turnovers, team's record, etc.
-
oh look this ? again
Never knew there was a thread like this before. My bad for making another one.
@greenwood1921
Thanks for replying.
I understand 100% what you mean as far as points having to be scored in order for a team to actually win games but it seems to me posters on here undervalue every and anything that isn't scoring.
I think it is easier to answer your question. People love flashy players and want to be entertained so like you stated earlier you gotta score to win and people want to win but if they can't win at least they will enjoy being entertained.
-
greenwood1921 wrote: »I mean, they don't give points for rebounds, bruh.
Every championship ever won was won 'cause one team scored more than the other(s).
There are, of course, other stats to measure players, and there are negative stats that overshadow and even devalue a scoring average (turnovers, poor defensive skills, etc.) but even if you have a team full of great defenders and rebounders that can't score, you'll end up in the L column.
A better question is why b-ball fans say a player with good "handles" and other ? bravado is good regardless of their fg%, turnovers, team's record, etc.
Thread can be locked, now. -
#1hiphopjunki3 wrote: »After reading a lot of posts in the NBA thread I've notice a trend with a lot of people who believe that scoring points is the most important factor in deciding if a player is a great or dominating presence while in the league.
Why do people tend to ignore that basketball is much more than scoring? For the knowledgeable posters please give examples of players who affected or dominated games and or eras of of the NBA without putting up huge scoring outputs.
The bolded is is the problem this forums basketball iq is neck and neck wit a poppy seed.Scorers get all the glory that a role player won't get on the highlights for diving out of bounds to save a pass that gave them another possession
Bill russell,dennis rodman,robert horry are proof that you don't have to be a great scorer to impact the game.Defense,rebounding,hustle plays and creating scoring opportunities for teammates is just as important as dropping 50. -
Scoring a lot is being dominant tho. It means exactly that a dominant scorer but it's just one aspect. Carmelo is a dominant scorer but that's all he does and gets credit for.
If he focused on defense and play making he would see more success.
scoring is just easily identifiable. shows up in highlights, stat sheets, it's exciting etc.
It is important tho but it's just one of the many aspects that goes into winning. rebounding, defense, play making, hustling, the intangibles etc are just as important. -
Scoring is just what most casual fans identify with, you cant be mad at that...why make a thread?
-
In order to be in a position to score a lot of points, you to make good decisions throughout the game. Rebounding is def important too. One of the few players I can think of that can dominate a game without scoring is Rondo, but even then he's putting his team in good scoring situations and giving them high %age shots
-
honestly ...? aint really playing defense and contesting ? like that no more...
i see where the op is coming from...
? like Kobe think they are dominating....but they just hoggin the ball an shooting until they get a hot hand...how about the fact that being an overall player being dominating. -
honestly ...? aint really playing defense and contesting ? like that no more...
i see where the op is coming from...
? like Kobe think they are dominating....but they just hoggin the ball an shooting until they get a hot hand...how about the fact that being an overall player being dominating.
Yea. That explains why he only has 5 titles and 7 finals appearences... That shooting till you get a hot hand ? just never works....
The bottom line is, whatever it takes to win....
Ali = Lay on the ropes for 10 rounds, getting pounded, only to come back and score the knockout... nobody cares about the first 10 rouns...
Tebow = sucks for 3 and a half quarters, yet has highest QBR in last 5 minutes of games in the entire NFL...
Really, it's whatever it takes to win... Kobe is going to win differently than somebody like Duncan, but still a winner none the less. -
scoring wins games ...
HOW , WHEN... and the effect it had on your squad and on the psyche of the opposition...not all like scoring games are equal.. -
honestly ...? aint really playing defense and contesting ? like that no more...
i see where the op is coming from...
? like Kobe think they are dominating....but they just hoggin the ball an shooting until they get a hot hand...how about the fact that being an overall player being dominating.
Tebow = sucks for 3 and a half quarters, yet has highest QBR in last 5 minutes of games in the entire NFL...
And is no longer in the ? league, either.....
There's more to this ? than you all are giving credit to. -
Scoring is just what most casual fans identify with, you cant be mad at that...why make a thread?
I agree 100% DR. JEK
I just think it's crazy that so many people on here who say they know the sport is quick to point out stats (especially scoring) as the main reason for somebody being better than another player. I guess a lot of the people are just casual fans masquerading as knowledgable fans.
-
ParallelRhymes wrote: »Okay...take away points from the equation. Who was the greatest player of all time?
Bill Russell
? Jordan could still be looked at as one of the greats even without all his points because he was a hellacious defender. The man even won Defensive player of the year one season
-
i guess you would say Magic ... he didnt just get assist he was a CREATOR.... Russell for his defensive mastery??
-
Because if you score more points than the opposing team, you win the game.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0r7bd9NM4Ts
Here's Kobe scoring more points than the entire opposing team combined. If you can beat a team by yourself, how are you not dominate should be the question? -
I actually think scorers aren't getting enough credit. Nowadays everyone is obsessed with the triple double ? , which is causing natural scorers to change their game. They want the super espn coverage so they're now trying to be point forwards, which is conflicting with their natural progression and the progression of the league.
Dudes be getting praised for making the right basketball play when they should be taking the final shot with no questions asked. It's almost like it's the beginning stages of turning the NBA into a coach's league where everything is based on the nerdy formulas showing how "effective" a player is SMH. Word to Marc Gasol winning defensive player of the year. -
there are different levels of scoring... ill save my paragraph ...see if anyone gets what imean by this
-
NothingButTheTruth wrote: »Because if you score more points than the opposing team, you win the game.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0r7bd9NM4Ts
Here's Kobe scoring more points than the entire opposing team combined. If you can beat a team by yourself, how are you not dominate should be the question?
They don't hear you tho -
Scoring is seen as dominate b/c that's what the game boils down 2, GETTING BUCKETS
-
And this thread is stupid, just another attempt to throw dirt @ players like Kobe,Jordan,Ai and other elite scorers who made the game exciting to watch and praise the boring players like Duncan
-
ParallelRhymes wrote: »playmaker88 wrote: »there are different levels of scoring... ill save my paragraph ...see if anyone gets what imean by this
I think the main difference would be total points vs. efficiency (FG% 3PT % FT% etc).
If you're putting up 30+ points but missing 20 shots to get there...really not a good look.
Not necessarily the amount of shot attempts, but more so WHEN you score.
A player having 30 points in the 1st 3 quarters and ending with 32 points for the game vs. a player having 20 points in the 1st 3 quarters and ending with 32 points for the game because it was needed to win.
Someone scoring empty points when their team is already in the lead/winning vs. someone scoring multiple points to bring their team back in the game.
Someone scoring as a result of a system vs. someone taking the responsibility to spark the team by scoring the next few buckets on their own because the system isn't working. -
ParallelRhymes wrote: »NothingButTheTruth wrote: »ParallelRhymes wrote: »playmaker88 wrote: »there are different levels of scoring... ill save my paragraph ...see if anyone gets what imean by this
I think the main difference would be total points vs. efficiency (FG% 3PT % FT% etc).
If you're putting up 30+ points but missing 20 shots to get there...really not a good look.
Not necessarily the amount of shot attempts, but more so WHEN you score.
A player having 30 points in the 1st 3 quarters and ending with 32 points for the game vs. a player having 20 points in the 1st 3 quarters and ending with 32 points for the game because it was needed to win.
Someone scoring empty points when their team is already in the lead/winning vs. someone scoring multiple points to bring their team back in the game.
Someone scoring as a result of a system vs. someone taking the responsibility to spark the team by scoring the next few buckets on their own because the system isn't working.
I wouldn't necessarily agree with this. Look at a player like Kobe...he'll miss 235236532632632 prior to the 4th quarter and finish with 18 points (14 in the 4th) and people will say he caught fire or something. But in reality had he been consistent the whole game the team likely wouldn't have needed him to "catch fire" in the 4th.
I'd prefer a player consistent through the quarters to one that can turn it on when the team is down and in desperate need of somebody to light it up.
In fact, when a player does go off in the first 3 quarters and then struggles in the 4th, it says more about his coach and his teammates than it does about him.
Coaches make adjustments, so if a nikka drops 30 in 3 quarters, the defense will adjust. Which means now it's time for that Scorer's coach to draw up his own adjustments that get the supporting cast more involved to counter the defensive adjustments.
And it works both ways. If a player is building subdivisions with bricks in the first 3 quarters and then gets "hot" in the 4th, that's because he's benefiting from the defense rotating away from him because after 3 quarters of him choking or getting shut down, he's no longer a defensive priority and he takes advantage in the 4th.
That "can't get it done in the 4th quarter" ? is the best tell-tale sign of a "casual fan" or just a ? who doesn't understand the concept of a team sport.
-
ParallelRhymes wrote: »NothingButTheTruth wrote: »ParallelRhymes wrote: »playmaker88 wrote: »there are different levels of scoring... ill save my paragraph ...see if anyone gets what imean by this
I think the main difference would be total points vs. efficiency (FG% 3PT % FT% etc).
If you're putting up 30+ points but missing 20 shots to get there...really not a good look.
Not necessarily the amount of shot attempts, but more so WHEN you score.
A player having 30 points in the 1st 3 quarters and ending with 32 points for the game vs. a player having 20 points in the 1st 3 quarters and ending with 32 points for the game because it was needed to win.
Someone scoring empty points when their team is already in the lead/winning vs. someone scoring multiple points to bring their team back in the game.
Someone scoring as a result of a system vs. someone taking the responsibility to spark the team by scoring the next few buckets on their own because the system isn't working.
I wouldn't necessarily agree with this. Look at a player like Kobe...he'll miss 235236532632632 prior to the 4th quarter and finish with 18 points (14 in the 4th) and people will say he caught fire or something. But in reality had he been consistent the whole game the team likely wouldn't have needed him to "catch fire" in the 4th.
I'd prefer a player consistent through the quarters to one that can turn it on when the team is down and in desperate need of somebody to light it up.
Well Kobe has a career average of shooting 45% from the field, so on the grand scheme of things he shoots pretty well from the floor. And yes, that's apart of what makes Kobe so great. On a normal day he can play both scenarios. He can give you consistent points throughout the quarters AND then turn it up in the 4th. With most players it's either or.
....But wouldn't you as a teammate, fan, or coach like to know that even when your star is having a bad day, he can and more than likely will bounce back in the 4th quarter when the game is on the line? That's a huge intangible, that most players in the history of the league don't have.
So no I can't agree with you. I rather have the 4th quarter spark. If you have ever watched wack teams play on tv, you see that the only difference between them and the playoff teams is the fact that when the game is on the line, the wack teams don't have anybody to turn to. For the most part, every team in the league can play with each other for 3 quarters.
The real test is in the 4th when muscles tense up, fatigue sets in, and where every shot counts. -
greenwood1921 wrote: »
In fact, when a player does go off in the first 3 quarters and then struggles in the 4th, it says more about his coach and his teammates than it does about him.
Coaches make adjustments, so if a nikka drops 30 in 3 quarters, the defense will adjust. Which means now it's time for that Scorer's coach to draw up his own adjustments that get the supporting cast more involved to counter the defensive adjustments.
And it works both ways. If a player is building subdivisions with bricks in the first 3 quarters and then gets "hot" in the 4th, that's because he's benefiting from the defense rotating away from him because after 3 quarters of him choking or getting shut down, he's no longer a defensive priority and he takes advantage in the 4th.
That "can't get it done in the 4th quarter" ? is the best tell-tale sign of a "casual fan" or just a ? who doesn't understand the concept of a team sport.
Nosign, if dude can't score in the 4th, then it says everything about him. It says that he's tired, scared, or not that good of an offensive player in the first place (if the "adjustments" are stopping him). We're talking about star players here.
Btw how much adjusting can really be done? You knew he was a scorer before the game, you knew his basketball tendencies before the game, so obviously your plan is already set and activated. Plus like i said earlier, these are the best players in the world. A simple adjustment shouldn't affect their game really at all.
On the flip side, If a star is having a struggle day, you really think the defense is going to lighten up on him? Why would they stop doing something that's working? That's makes absolutely no sense at all.
![[Trillmatic]](https://us.v-cdn.net/5019160/uploads/customavatars/27/navatar_273727.jpg){kind=avatar}
This discussion has been closed.