something I'm too lazy to look up...

foodworld · 01-25-2003, 12:03 AM

Tonight, Paul Pierce scored 45 points on almost 60% shooting while the entire Nuggets roster scored 58 points on just above 30% shooting. Has any NBA player ever outscored an opposing team?

Also, when was the last time a team has suffered a game without a single player scoring in double digits? The Nuggets were three points (taken away) shy of this.

I know that the Nugs were without their two best players, but they really are one poor NBA franchise. But they are well-coached and make the best with what they have. Their players know where to rotate on defense (especially at denying ball movement) and, despite the lack of a seven-footer, are always in good rebounding position. However this isn't enough to win ten games. The reason behind their "success" is the pace their halfcourt offense forces, like Mike Fratello's playoff-contending Cavs (who were also short on talent.) I have never seen so many shot-clock violations in a single game.

giddyup · 01-25-2003, 05:43 AM

Wilt's 100 points would be a possibility, but I'm too lazy to look it up, too.

carayip · 01-25-2003, 05:58 AM

On ESPN during the Lakers/Nets game, they showed that Pierce's is 2nd highest % of the whole game scoring (32~% I can't remember clearly). David Robinson's 70 odd pts game is the 1st (35~%). Wilt's 100 pt game is 3rd. I don't think there was a player ever who outscored the opponent team.

drapg · 01-25-2003, 08:47 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by giddyup
Wilt's 100 points would be a possibility, but I'm too lazy to look it up, too.

Nope. Philadelphia beat New York 169-147.

jello77 · 01-27-2003, 06:33 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by drapg
Nope. Philadelphia beat New York 169-147.

back in the days when the nba used to actually score points.

francis 4 prez · 01-28-2003, 12:56 AM

back when nobody played defense.

London'sBurning · 01-28-2003, 11:01 AM

Are you kidding? The NBA talent has decreased significantly over the years. I remember when scoring in the 100s wasn't such a rarity as it is today with the exception of the Kings and Mavs, who by the way are considered the frontrunners for getting a ring this year. There are alot more athletic players out there that can probably touch the top of the backboard with ease, but there are hardly any pure shooters anymore. I mean it's a rarity nowadays. Just because there are some athletes that can do some amazing stuff in the air, doesn't mean they're amazing shooters. Lets not forget there are a lot of teams who make boneheaded plays on a nightly basis and never seem to learn. Rockets are a good example of this. Do you guys even remember when Joe Smith averaged 20 ppg his rookie year and people were calling him a bust? But Yao who is averaging 13 points this season is being treated like the next NBA legend? I'm not denying he won't be, but lets face it. Standards have dropped considerably over the years. Lets also add in the fact that most all-stars now are shooting around 40% but are taking a lot more shots to get there 25 ppg. Remember that game the Rockets had against Mac Grady? I think he took 29 shots, and only made 9? But he still got his 29 that game I believe. You can't honestly tell me the standards for what makes an all-star, a rookie of the year, and a great team haven't decreased.

I'll agree that because there are more athletes that can defend better that the point total should drop a little bit, but nowhere near the plummet points totals have been over the years. Maybe it's due to all the young players being drafted and the fact that they haven't matured mentally enough to not make the bone headed plays, or the fact that their shooting touch hasn't been fully developed yet either, but whatever the case may be, it's still ashame the NBA has set its standards so much lower then what they used to be.

IVFL · 01-28-2003, 11:07 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by francis 4 prez
back when nobody played defense.

didnt we already talk about this? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?

dont make me do it again:D

you know the truth. and its not because of a lack of D

London'sBurning · 01-28-2003, 03:56 PM

I suppose you could also blame the expansion of teams in the NBA, and how talent is so spread out amongst teams, there simply aren't enough scoring stars all on the same team anymore. Whatever the case may be, it's definitely not defense thats caused such low scoring events over the past few years.

francis 4 prez · 01-28-2003, 06:42 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by IVFL
didnt we already talk about this? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?

dont make me do it again:D

you know the truth. and its not because of a lack of D

ahh i knew my buddy IVFL would be here to dispute what i said. you were the first thing that popped to mind when i said they didn't play D. all i'll say this time is there is a tradeoff in athleticism and shooting. more athletes, less shooters. this gets compounded when the athletes are also able to D up better (not even necessarily focusing on D more, just better at it), emphasizing the lack of shooting more. finally athletes can cover more ground and make offense's harder to run with less spacing.

and i still say there is a much bigger focus on D, but we'll just agree to disagree on that.

vj23k · 01-28-2003, 08:10 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by London'sBurning
Rockets are a good example of this. Do you guys even remember when Joe Smith averaged 20 ppg his rookie year and people were calling him a bust? But Yao who is averaging 13 points this season is being treated like the next NBA legend? I'm not denying he won't be, but lets face it.

Actually, Smith was very hyped after getting 18 and whatever his rookie year. It is the drop to the 12-15 ppg the next few seasons that made people call him a bust.