PDA

View Full Version : How much do scoring titles matter?



King P
03-31-2010, 12:01 PM
This has been an interesting topic as late around my place. Lebron talked about scoring titles not mattering. Even though many time when evaluating/comparing players. We tend to look at scoring titles.

But how much do they actually matter when evaluating players? If you compare 2 players, and 1 has a scoring title(s) while the other 1 doesn't, does that make him better?

JordansBulls
03-31-2010, 12:07 PM
Well in 60 years of NBA Basketball only 10-11 league leading scorers have won a championship... That's 18.333333%...
Their names are: Shaquille O'Neal, Michael Jordan, Kareem Abdul Jabbar, George Mikan and some guy named Joe Fulks...

Fulks - 1
Shaq - 1
Kareem - 1
Mikan - 1
MJ - 6

King P
03-31-2010, 12:07 PM
Here's an example of my friend using scoring titles when comparing players:

"You're wrong, Tracy McGrady is better than Vince Carter. You know why? Because T-Mac is a 2-time NBA scoring champion, something that VC has never accomplished and never will accomplish. Do you know what that means? That means that T-Mac is in the history books. In 50-60 years when both players are dead or in a nursing home, people will look up the list of scoring champions and see T-Mac twice on that list. And VC will be forgotten and/or just a footnote in the NBA."

Raph12
03-31-2010, 12:09 PM
Think about it this way;

If you're comparing VC to Tmac (cousins, both mediocre playoff performers, etc...), how heavily would Tmac's two scoring titles weigh on your decision?

or

If you're comparing AI to Dirk (came in around same time, both had a Finals run, both won MVP, etc...), how heavily would AI's four scoring titles weigh on your decision?

For me, it would be the deciding factor.

ballpd05
03-31-2010, 12:14 PM
Here's an example of my friend using scoring titles when comparing players:

"You're wrong, Tracy McGrady is better than Vince Carter. You know why? Because T-Mac is a 2-time NBA scoring champion, something that VC has never accomplished and never will accomplish. Do you know what that means? That means that T-Mac is in the history books. In 50-60 years when both players are dead or in a nursing home, people will look up the list of scoring champions and see T-Mac twice on that list. And VC will be forgotten and/or just a footnote in the NBA."

I totally agree, but vince will probably be remembered for arguably the best dunk contest performance ever.... and jumping over a 7'2 guy in the olymipcs.

But scoring is what gets recognition because now everyone equates the best players with who scores the most points. It is a sign that a player can't be guarded... but also it is a sign that a team relies heavily/too much on one player or said player is a ballhog. To be a NBA champion with the scoring title speaks volumes to the player because no one can win 1 on 5 so it shows he is a true playmaker.

Chronz
03-31-2010, 12:26 PM
Truly irrelevant, if you lost the scoring title by .1 should that really change the outlook of your season? Then there are players who only won the scoring title because they chucked with no abandon, if your a gunner you should win the title,

Tmac is better regardless of scoring titles, because of the level of play he displayed.

Raoul Duke
03-31-2010, 12:29 PM
It's an impressive accomplishment, but it can be made 100 times more impressive when it's part of a solid body of work. For example, McGrady's scoring titles aren't as impressive to me as Jordan's because of how underwhelming McGrady's overall body of work is and the fact that MJ's includes a DPOY award.

It can mean an awful lot about a player, but it still depends on the context.

MagicDojo
03-31-2010, 12:32 PM
Not that I am a TMAc fan but he really had no choice but to be the scoring champ those 2 years. The Magic had cleared cap space to sign him and Grant Hill. we all know Grant Got 100million from the Magic not to play. So Tmac was the only scorer on the team.
Btw the Magic won a combined 63 games in those 2 seasons that he was the scoring champ. So I guess it is good he got his individual award while the team stunk.
The good thing is that he left and the Magic got Dwight from the lottery.

PLAYERS FAN
03-31-2010, 03:28 PM
I still say Tmac second scoring title with the worst record in the NBA 03-04 can be use against him in arguments! For example: Iverson team made the playoffs with all his scoring titles. He did set the record with the lowest FG% to when the scoring title one year.

cheerio
03-31-2010, 03:35 PM
I think some players have some kind of bonus written into their contract or and incentive for awards received, or maybe its for PPG average, they write so many of these incentives into contracts, its crazy

Chronz
03-31-2010, 04:01 PM
I still say Tmac second scoring title with the worst record in the NBA 03-04 can be use against him in arguments! For example: Iverson team made the playoffs with all his scoring titles. He did set the record with the lowest FG% to when the scoring title one year.

Iverson also failed to win the scoring title in years he missed the playoffs, whats your point?

Hellcrooner
03-31-2010, 04:26 PM
Worth Nothing , like rebounding titls or assist titles

-Kobe24-TJ19-
03-31-2010, 04:36 PM
Scoring titles are worth nothing

The only thing that matters are championship titles

JasonJohnHorn
03-31-2010, 04:38 PM
LBJ is right: scoring titles dont matter.
When was the last time the team with the league's scoring leader won a title?
Shaq did it in 2000, but he was also one of the best rebounders in the league. Beofe that would be 1998, but that team also had the league's leading rebounder.

So Jordan's Bulls won six titles with the league's leading scorer, but bottom line, that was an anomoly.

Before that? You'd have to go back to the 50's and the pre-shot clock era.

The bottom line is any team that depends so much on one person to score is usually not deep, or not using their talent to their full potential.

It is no secret that Jordna's bulls had a worse record on games when Jordan scored over his average, or that when Jordan was scoring 35+ a game for a season at a time, that the Bulls werent winning. And how well do the Lakers do when Kobe dominates the ball and scores in the mid-high 30's or higher? About as well as they did the season he averages 35+ a game.

Deep teams with multiple weapons win. Jordan dropped lots of buckets on the Pistons for three straight years and nobody on that Pistons team put up much more than 20 points a game, yet three years in a row the Pistons knocked the bulls out of the playoffs and still to this day, that team beat the Bulls more than the Bulls beat them, winning 3 out of four series. It wasnt until Jordan brought his scoring average down and started sharing ball handling duties with Pippen that the Bulls became champions.

So let McGrady, and Iverson and and Nique have the scoring titles, I'm sure guys like James, Wade and Kobe would all rather have titles and MVP awards.

If you want to lead the league in something, try rebounds. The league leaders in rebounds have appeared in the finals and won more titles than the leading socrers: Ben Wallace, Moses Malone, Dennis Rodman, Kareem, Wilt (who never won as a league leading scorer but did as a league leading rebouder) Bill Walton, Mikan, and of course Bill Russell! Not to mention the guys who lead the league in rebounds the seasons before or after they won titles (Lambier, Hakeem, Robinson, Shaq, Petit Unseld and Garnett).

King P
03-31-2010, 04:42 PM
However, when you are comparing players, scoring titles hold more weight than rings IMO. Championships are a team thing. One person can't win a title by himself. Scoring titles are individual, which is what you are looking at when comparing Player A vs. Player B.

Chronz
03-31-2010, 05:07 PM
The bottom line is any team that depends so much on one person to score is usually not deep, or not using their talent to their full potential.
You do realize that MJ holds the record for highest usage rate in the playoffs, and he did this while winning his 3rd chip. Then again hes the closest we'll ever see to 1 player willing his team to victory.


It is no secret that Jordna's bulls had a worse record on games when Jordan scored over his average,
Wheres ChiSox with the #'s, are you sure it was a significant difference?


or that when Jordan was scoring 35+ a game for a season at a time, that the Bulls werent winning. And how well do the Lakers do when Kobe dominates the ball and scores in the mid-high 30's or higher? About as well as they did the season he averages 35+ a game.

UMM MJ averaged 35 for several championship runs. The real difference was that his teammates got better. He always did what it took to win, sometimes winning just wasnt possible.


Deep teams with multiple weapons win. Jordan dropped lots of buckets on the Pistons for three straight years and nobody on that Pistons team put up much more than 20 points a game, yet three years in a row the Pistons knocked the bulls out of the playoffs and still to this day, that team beat the Bulls more than the Bulls beat them, winning 3 out of four series. It wasnt until Jordan brought his scoring average down and started sharing ball handling duties with Pippen that the Bulls became champions.

Probably but it wasnt until Pippen was worthy and capable of shouldering some of the burden that MJ allowed it. Otherwise his team would have been worse off with him letting them miss.


So let McGrady, and Iverson and and Nique have the scoring titles, I'm sure guys like James, Wade and Kobe would all rather have titles and MVP awards.

Im pretty sure theyd rather have titles as well.

mikantsass
03-31-2010, 05:15 PM
Scoring titles are worth nothing

The only thing that matters are championship titles

Then was Horry a better player than TMac? How about Brian Scalabrine. He has a ring. Is he better than Iverson?

Scoring titles weigh towards the individual ranking of a player and contribute to their HOF resume. Where as Rings contribute to TEAM success, and have little HOF influence.

-Kobe24-TJ19-
03-31-2010, 06:21 PM
Then was Horry a better player than TMac? How about Brian Scalabrine. He has a ring. Is he better than Iverson?

Scoring titles weigh towards the individual ranking of a player and contribute to their HOF resume. Where as Rings contribute to TEAM success, and have little HOF influence.

horry's rings arguments are the most stupidest ones in PSD:facepalm:

I don't want kobe to average 35+ppg, I want him to win a ring with averaging 25+ppg

Do you think jordan would be considered as a goat if he hadn't won a single ring despite the fact that he had 10 scoring titles?

GSW Hoops
03-31-2010, 06:28 PM
I think the awards are far more important. ROY, MVP, DPOY, etc. Scoring titles just mean you scored a lot, but awards recognize a player's overall game. Monta Ellis is almost in the top-5 in scoring--what does that tell you?

RaiderLakersA's
03-31-2010, 06:28 PM
Scoring titles matter very little to me.

Mrphilly
03-31-2010, 06:44 PM
We might say the scoring title means nothing, but then you see a David Robinson go out and Score 71 points(I think) to clinch the title one year. Why would him and his teammates participate in a campain like that, if the scoring title didn't mean anything?

Those guys want to win that scoring title. It may not be the goal at the begining of the season, but you are the leader or a close second when the season is coming to an end, they will try and win it.

Hellcrooner
03-31-2010, 09:14 PM
Just playing by ear do Dantley, English, David Thommpson and Gervin have some scoring titles?

im not sure to lazy to check but at least some of them have one does that make them be more remembered than Joe Dumars or K Mchale or even Danny Ainge or cartwifhgt?

JasonJohnHorn
04-01-2010, 09:43 AM
You do realize that MJ holds the record for highest usage rate in the playoffs, and he did this while winning his 3rd chip. Then again hes the closest we'll ever see to 1 player willing his team to victory.


Wheres ChiSox with the #'s, are you sure it was a significant difference?


UMM MJ averaged 35 for several championship runs. The real difference was that his teammates got better. He always did what it took to win, sometimes winning just wasnt possible.


Probably but it wasnt until Pippen was worthy and capable of shouldering some of the burden that MJ allowed it. Otherwise his team would have been worse off with him letting them miss.


Im pretty sure theyd rather have titles as well.

87: Jordan average 37+ swept out of first round
88: 35+, lose 4-1 to Pistons

94 Bulls, sweep first round, one basket away from knocking the Knicks out in 6 games.

Jordan was the best player on the court, always. The Bulls needed him to score 35+ in 87 and 88. In the 90's the didnt. He scored 35+ in one championship run, and 34+ in another, but those 92 and 93 teams didnt need him to score that much, Jordan was just hungry for the ball because that is the type of drive he had, and the other guys on the court knew it. but the 91, 96, 97 and 98 Bulls didnt even need Jordan to score 32 point a game. His highest playoff averages, 43+, 36+ and 35.7, all saw the Bulls lose. Those teams needed Jordan to score that much to compete. The title teams didn't need him to score that much. Some season he did score big, but they didnt need him too, he needed to because of his personal drive.

I think we are arguing the same thing here. Scoring titles mean little and team that depend so much on one player don't often do well. Yes, Jordan dominated that ball. That was the way he played. The season where the Bulls NEEDED him to do that to compete, they lost, the season they didnt rely on it to win in the regular season, they won titles.

SirCalvin81
04-01-2010, 10:22 AM
nothing really its all about winning championships