PDA

View Full Version : How many primary scorers do you need?



Putnam
09-25-2006, 01:25 PM
During the past season, teams that obtained 50-55 percent of their total scoring from their top three players fared the best. Teams that got less than 50% or more than 55% from their top 3 scorers both did substantially less well both in wins and scoring.

Here's the data. Numbers given are the average wins and season scoring for the teams in the stated category.

Top 3 scorers scored < 50% of team total
36 wins
7863 points

Top 3 > 55%
45 wins
8050 points

Top 3 50-55%
50 wins
8132 points


There was a wide range of outcomes. The Wizards got 64.6% of their scoring from their top 3 scorers, while the Bobcats got only 35.0%. The Pacers, with their spate of injuries and ever-changing line-up got 40.7% from their top three scorers, but this is not indicative of the players' or the team's real potential and is hardly worth debating now.

I note also that the team's top scorer does not assert such a clear influence on the team's wins and scoring performance. There is the same pattern, but the correlation is weaker. You had Nowitzki and Wade hauling their teams to the championship series by scoring 26.4% and 24.9% of their respective team's total scoring. But teams that relied on Bryant (34.7%) and James (30.9%) ended up on the outside looking in.

Everyone knows that Phil Jackson's offensive scheme relies on three key players and two role players. You can't argtue with the success he's had with the triangle. But these data suggest that over-reliance on one or three players is not a good thing.

Three questions:

1. Does the 50-55% range seem about right to you from a basketball strategy standpoint?

2. Do you see the Pacers performing that way during the upcoming season?

3. What do you think of Stephen Jackson, and why? (Just kidding!!)

thunderbird1245
09-25-2006, 05:24 PM
During the past season, teams that obtained 50-55 percent of their total scoring from their top three players fared the best. Teams that got less than 50% or more than 55% from their top 3 scorers both did substantially less well both in wins and scoring.

Here's the data. Numbers given are the average wins and season scoring for the teams in the stated category.

Top 3 scorers scored < 50% of team total
36 wins
7863 points

Top 3 > 55%
45 wins
8050 points

Top 3 50-55%
50 wins
8132 points


There was a wide range of outcomes. The Wizards got 64.6% of their scoring from their top 3 scorers, while the Bobcats got only 35.0%. The Pacers, with their spate of injuries and ever-changing line-up got 40.7% from their top three scorers, but this is not indicative of the players' or the team's real potential and is hardly worth debating now.

I note also that the team's top scorer does not assert such a clear influence on the team's wins and scoring performance. There is the same pattern, but the correlation is weaker. You had Nowitzki and Wade hauling their teams to the championship series by scoring 26.4% and 24.9% of their respective team's total scoring. But teams that relied on Bryant (34.7%) and James (30.9%) ended up on the outside looking in.

Everyone knows that Phil Jackson's offensive scheme relies on three key players and two role players. You can't argtue with the success he's had with the triangle. But these data suggest that over-reliance on one or three players is not a good thing.

Three questions:

1. Does the 50-55% range seem about right to you from a basketball strategy standpoint?

2. Do you see the Pacers performing that way during the upcoming season?

3. What do you think of Stephen Jackson, and why? (Just kidding!!)


I love discussions like this, and analyzing data to see what it means. its why I like reading the site 82games.com....even though unlike baseball basketball can't be interpreted as easily thru numbers alone, you have to know the context. Here are my answers to your questions:

1. Generally speaking, I think that is about right, so yes. I think in general a team needs at least 3 primary scorers to be successful over the long haul. However, if you used your primary 3 guys the same way, but were able as coaches to increase the output of your bottom nine guys without hurting the top 3, then you'd skew these numbers some, and mess up its basic premise. But in general yes, I think a team needs 3 primary scorers who score approximately half of the total teams points.

2. Yes I think so, if everything works out like the Pacers plan. If you project Jo for about 21 pts per, Harrington for around 17 per, and Jackson for about 14 per, that adds up to 52 pts per game. If we score about 98-102 total, that puts your numbers exactly in the right area. The key I think for us will be keeping these 3 guys on the floor and healthy all season playing together.

3. I hope no one tries to answer this one...I still have a headache from reading the Jackson/Magette trade thread lol.

imawhat
09-25-2006, 05:29 PM
I'm almost without opinion on scoring division, but that's an awesome (and interesting) stat that you've come up with.

The Hustler
09-25-2006, 05:44 PM
in teresting thread ...

IMO this kind of area is exactly what i would expect from the pacers neaxt season ... as thunderbird said with about 50 points from JO Harrington and Jax ... lets hope its 50 wins aswell!

CableKC
09-25-2006, 06:34 PM
With JONeal slated as one of the 3 scorers.......one could ask who the 4th scorer would be....cuz you know that its always possible that we could hope that the 1st/2nd/3rd scorers are always healthy....but you never know when we would have to rely on the 2nd/3rd/4th scorer when the 1st scorer <<<cough>>> JONeal <<<<cough>>>> goes down with some injury.

So who would be the 4th scorer? Tinsley, Granger or Marquis?

imawhat
09-25-2006, 08:00 PM
With JONeal slated as one of the 3 scorers.......one could ask who the 4th scorer would be....cuz you know that its always possible that we could hope that the 1st/2nd/3rd scorers are always healthy....but you never know when we would have to rely on the 2nd/3rd/4th scorer when the 1st scorer <<<COUGH>>> JONeal <<<<COUGH>>>> goes down with some injury.

So who would be the 4th scorer? Tinsley, Granger or Marquis?

Who knows? Tinsley is definitely capable of 15+ ppg and Granger has a chance to really increase his scoring avg. with more playing time. In the second half of last season he was probably over 10 ppg. It just depends on how the offense is ran. We may have Jermaine and Al above 15 ppg and 3/4 other guys above 10. For some reason, I see that being the most likely scenario.

pizza guy
09-25-2006, 08:56 PM
That's a great question to be asking. "Who's the fourth scorer?" That means two things. First, we have three solid scorers. Second, we have multiple options after those first three.

I think our #4 is Granger, btw.

Also, great thread - did you do that research? More work than I'm into.

AesopRockOn
09-25-2006, 11:02 PM
In terms of the future, Danger should be the fourth scorer and probably will be since tinsley should stick to playmaking and avoiding shooting from far away (15 feet?). Marquis would probably help us more with some good passing and very solid defense; players who know their roles and a semi-free flowing offense will take this team very far on the offensive end. Being able to stay in the game defensively will make or break this team. I expect the Pacers to be a real contender in the East this year. Go Pacers!