Superstar Potential

What about the ones others created for him? The point is pretty simple, if you give an NBa player enough time and shots without regard for efficiency he will score 20 pts. This is common sense I dunno how it's so hard to grasp.

Just look at inefficient black holes like WB, they just brute force their way to 20 pts via chucking. In Brooks case he isn't the franchise player so he got limited shot attempts and limited PT but if he was given the green light and enough time on the court he could average 20 pts.

 

Russel Westbrook is a perfect example of what I mean. Dude is absolutely elite at blowing by defenders and dribble seperation in his prime. That allows someone the ability to get up shots at will.

 

OK so first of all I'm one of the people who usually argues with Bobby esp on Jalen Green when he got compared to freaking Corey Brewer. But your posts are so way off base I'm starting to think you're the one who doesn't get it.

Reading from your post Bobby said any NBA player can score 20 ppg if given enough attempts right? So how does your bolded statement disprove that?

Bobby is saying IF you give Brooks enough attempts he will score 20 pts and your response is that's impossible cuz why would you give Brooks that many attempts? Am I missing something here? The premise is you would give Brooks enough attempts thats why the statement is IF You Give Brooks Enough Attempts. All your suppositions and factors don't matter because the given condition as Bobby said is IF GIVEN ENOUGH ATTEMPTS. If there are factors that limit his shot attempts then guess what the argument doesn't apply any more cuz he wasn't given enough attempts, duh. I also don't know how this devalues the top scorers because there is a concept called efficiency. Brooks can end up as a 30 ppg scorer but he would require vastly more attempts than KD, Steph, Lebron etc Thats the whole reason people started measuring efficiency to differentiate the volume scorers like WB from the efficient scorers like Harden.

Here you are calling other people dumb yet you can't even make logical arguments.

Lol wtf. Ok I'm done here you seem to be really lost and Confused.

 

If he's so elite why's his true percentage so bad? He ain't elite man he's just a chucker.

Career TS% of 52.6 that's barely better than Brooks' 51.2. The point stands if you give someone enough attempts he will score 20 pts whether it's WB or Brooks or Steph Curry. The difference will be in efficiency.

 

Because he sucks at shooting and has bad touch around the rim. He goes 100% speed at the rim abd just throws it up rather than softly laying it in.

I'm just saying Westbrook had the ability to get a clean shot off at will in his prime because of his elite seperation ability. Doesn't mean those shots go in. Handles, elite athleticism... Traits that help you get good shots up. Doesn't mean they have to go in.

 

So he's not elite cuz he sucks at shooting and has bad touch around the rim. Simple as that.

 

I mean he's a former MVP. Obviously it wasn't for his scoring efficiency.

And whatever efficiency Westbrook has is from almost entirely creating his own shot. Dylan Brooks has his scoring efficiency with teammates feeding most of his shots.

 

I just spelled it out for you dumbass.

 

Another dumbass take. You should pick up a ball and play a pickup game with lil bobby.

 

You’re missing the point. CREATING shots is a skill. Not every player can get a shot on every possession. Westbrook is undeniably elite at creating his own shot. He can get a good look basically whenever he wants. Whether it goes in or not is another story, and was one of his biggest weaknesses. But he was elite at getting shots up. Most players can’t do that.

 

You speak too much truth.

 

I'm surprised this has gone on this long. Anyone that has played or coached organized ball at any level should understand that a scoring average for a season is not a result of simple volume. I'd note that my original statement was in regards to a seasonal scoring average. Not a game or two where someone got hot.

It feels like folks are looking at this chicken and egg style.

Argument 1
"Player X averages a lot because they shoot more". If this was the case than the argument that any NBA player could average 20+pts a night might be valid. This argument revolves around PPG being a linear metric, which ignores entirely too many variables.

Argument 2
"Player X shoots more because they're a better offensive player and likely a team's primary scorer". A byproduct of this is more points. Not everyone has the level of talent to create offense, agreed? The list of high FGA shooters bears this out. Almost all of that list is comprised of gifted scorers (keep in mind we're not focusing on efficiency at this point). If a player isn't a legit scoring threat, no coach that's interested in keeping their job is going to make that player a primary option, or give him those 20+ FGAs per game.

Here's a tongue in cheek example that might shed some light on why argument 1 is being refuted.

• Otis Thorpe shot 56% and 43% from 3 one year. Had he simply increased his FGA volume he would have led the league in scoring.

 

This is a simple minded understanding of the discussion.

No one suggested a linear progression when it comes to volume and PPG, but with more volume you will nearly always have increases in PPG.

Also, you don't seem to understand that quite often who dominates the ball is not based on who is best to do so, teams often make mistakes and feature the wrong players.

That's why I gave the example of Dillon Brooks, he was REALLY bad, but he still took nearly 14 shots per game....and of course my point was misunderstood by a moron, but here I am doing it again. Did Dillon Brooks deserve nearly 14 shots per game based on his talent on offense? No. Was it due to his amazing ability to create shots? No. Would it have been better if Brooks took fewer shots and someone like JJJ took more? Of course.

Literally any player can "create shots"....they just won't be good shots and that'll show in their efficiency stats.

You say "no coach that's interested in keeping their job" just lets a player who isn't some amazing scoring threat take 20 FGA's a game....well, SIlas gave Jalen 18 and it cost him his job while ensuring the Rockets were one of the worst teams in the league....so what does that say?


A player can shoot more because they are a better offensive player and they can shoot more simply because they have the ego for it and a green light from their coach.

You can usually tell which is which by looking at efficiency stats along with FGA per game numbers.

 

If you watch Westbrook’s career stats, he only had 2-3 seasons where he had massive scoring numbers in 16 seasons.

Compared to Durant, him blowing by people did not result in better scoring overall.

He is by far the fastest player, but not the best player. (That MVP was just a gift to him due to Adams handing him rebounds)

 

I think we're splitting hairs now and you've also qualified your original comment. Shoot more = score more sure sounds more like a straight line than a curve to me but I haven't taken statistics in decades so I may be missing a qualifier or some other terminology.

For entire seasons? If this is happening often I'd love to see some examples.

Throwing up a trash air ball is not the same as creating a legitimate shot. I'm assuming everyone knows the terminology when a player is labeled as a "shot creator". Yes, technically anyone can create a shot, just like anyone can create a post

First off, that's not exactly what I said and it does change the tenor of the comment.

I said, "If a player isn't a legit scoring threat, no coach that's interested in keeping their job is going to make that player a primary option, or give him those 20+ FGAs per game." Jalen Green is a legit scoring threat, even though he has a LONG way to go in the efficiency department. He's not amazing, and he didn't get 20 shots a game. He's also not the only reason Silas was fired, though Green's inefficiency and total lack of defensive effort sure didn't help.

I'm positive no one is going to change their minds about this, so I'll just leave it at that.

 

The basic statement that more shooting equals more scoring implies nothing about the rate of increase, it's simply saying that an increase happens. You added assumptions to make an obviously true statement into something you could attempt to disagree with.

You know what is an easy way to see if someone is creating "trash shots" or "legitimate shots"? Efficiency. A lot of what Jalen did last season was force up awful shots and pray for a whistle to bail him out. That's one of the reasons why his efficiency was so poor....well that and the fact that he's not a good shooter.

Very possible. Either way, I just wanted to clarify what I was saying this whole time and counter the narrative of "He had to be good, look at how many times he shot the ball!!!"

 

I didn't say he's a good scorer. I'm saying he can create a clean shot almost anytime. KD is much much much better at making the shot.

 

This is what you are referring to

 

Ok.....I also did not mean to disagree, just that his speed was not the aspect that won them too many games.

Speed is all good but it is better served in sports like track and field, short track running.