## Ballhogs

Expand Messages
• I m curious if there could be some statistical definition of what a ballhog is. Some level of shots per assists, or shots per possesion. What would be the
Message 1 of 15 , Sep 11, 2002
I'm curious if there could be some statistical definition of what a ballhog is. Some level of shots per assists, or shots per possesion. What would be the benchmarks? What would be the ratios of a "team player"? I'd imagine the ratios would vary by position.

The reason I'm asking is that Paul Pierce is being called a selfish ballhog for his play in Indianapolis. But I look at his stats www.usabasketball.com/seniormen/02-mwc_cumstats.html and I see he was two assists away from leading the team for the tourney and he led the team in assists in four games.

Another way to ask the question would be: Are assists a reliable measure of "team player"?
• ... Maybe a better index would be some measure of percent of offensive touches , possibly ameliorated somewhat by assists. That is, there s the stereotypical
Message 2 of 15 , Sep 11, 2002
On Wed, 11 Sep 2002, McKibbin, Stuart wrote:

> I'm curious if there could be some statistical definition of what a ballhog
> is. Some level of shots per assists, or shots per possesion. What would be
> the benchmarks? What would be the ratios of a "team player"? I'd imagine the
> ratios would vary by position.
>
> The reason I'm asking is that Paul Pierce is being called a selfish ballhog
> for his play in Indianapolis. But I look at his stats
> <http://www.usabasketball.com/seniormen/02-mwc_cumstats.html> and I see he
> was two assists away from leading the team for the tourney and he led the
> team in assists in four games.
>
> Another way to ask the question would be: Are assists a reliable measure of
> "team player"?

Maybe a better index would be some measure of "percent of offensive
touches", possibly ameliorated somewhat by assists.

That is, there's the stereotypical "gunning ballhog" who does nothing but
shoot. But for decades people have recognized that there is such as thing
as the "selfish assist man" (Kevin Porter being the first prominent one
that I know of). He was willing to pass; okay fine. But he *insisted* on
passing, more specifically on being the passer and thus the guy who got
the assist and the guy who led the league in assists.

The bigger question though is what is the team's offensive strategy. Dale
Ellis with the Sonics took a lot of shots and had very few assists. But
that was his role. But if Jerome James started to do that, his teammates
would start calling him a ballhog.

Payton I'm sure dominates the Sonics in terms of percent of touches,
albeit with a good number of assists. Again that is his role. Pierce
may've had a lower percent of touches, and evidently had a good number of
assists, with the US team but if that wasn't his role, that would explain
the criticism.

--MKT
• Shammond Williams has been called a ballhog. Kevin McHale. Others? My sense is that the term does come up when a player insists on making _something_ happen
Message 3 of 15 , Sep 11, 2002
Shammond Williams has been called a ballhog. Kevin McHale. Others?

My sense is that the term does come up when a player insists on
making _something_ happen any time they get the ball. They ignore
the possibility of making the next pass, being part of an offensive
flow. But, as Mike suggests, a lot of players are supposed to be the
end result of making the next pass.

If we can identify subjectively players that were considered
ballhogs, that might help. Antoine Walker? Iverson? Stackhouse?
Steve Francis? Glenn Robinson? Jason Williams? Ron Mercer?

I've got some ideas, but let's start naming some ballhogs and we'll
see if things fit.

>
>
> On Wed, 11 Sep 2002, McKibbin, Stuart wrote:
>
> > I'm curious if there could be some statistical definition of what
a ballhog
> > is. Some level of shots per assists, or shots per possesion. What
would be
> > the benchmarks? What would be the ratios of a "team player"? I'd
imagine the
> > ratios would vary by position.
> >
> > The reason I'm asking is that Paul Pierce is being called a
selfish ballhog
> > for his play in Indianapolis. But I look at his stats
and I see he
> > was two assists away from leading the team for the tourney and he
led the
> > team in assists in four games.
> >
> > Another way to ask the question would be: Are assists a reliable
measure of
> > "team player"?
>
> Maybe a better index would be some measure of "percent of offensive
> touches", possibly ameliorated somewhat by assists.
>
> That is, there's the stereotypical "gunning ballhog" who does
nothing but
> shoot. But for decades people have recognized that there is such
as thing
> as the "selfish assist man" (Kevin Porter being the first prominent
one
> that I know of). He was willing to pass; okay fine. But he
*insisted* on
> passing, more specifically on being the passer and thus the guy who
got
> the assist and the guy who led the league in assists.
>
> The bigger question though is what is the team's offensive
strategy. Dale
> Ellis with the Sonics took a lot of shots and had very few
assists. But
> that was his role. But if Jerome James started to do that, his
teammates
> would start calling him a ballhog.
>
> Payton I'm sure dominates the Sonics in terms of percent of touches,
> albeit with a good number of assists. Again that is his role.
Pierce
> may've had a lower percent of touches, and evidently had a good
number of
> assists, with the US team but if that wasn't his role, that would
explain
> the criticism.
>
>
> --MKT
• ... a ballhog ... I think a ballhog is someone who only wants to determine the outcome of the possession, for better or worse. In other words, he would rather
Message 4 of 15 , Sep 11, 2002
>
> On Wed, 11 Sep 2002, McKibbin, Stuart wrote:
>
> > I'm curious if there could be some statistical definition of what
a ballhog
> > is.

I think a ballhog is someone who only wants to determine the outcome
of the possession, for better or worse. In other words, he would
rather take a bad shot than pass to someone in a better position.

Quantitatively, we look at shooting percentages. Taking simple
points/attempts, the US team had these percentages:

Pierce --- .636
R Miller - .581
Brand ---- .579
Finley --- .557
Williams - .529
A Miller - .519
Marion --- .509
Wallace -- .500
O'Neal --- .496
B Davis -- .493
LaFrentz - .492
A Davis -- .482

So, it is hard to imagine any scenario in which Pierce should have
shot the ball any less. If he was squandering the shot clock, I
doubt he would end up with the scintillating shooting percent.

Scoring 20 points while playing 24 minutes is very good. Factoring
in the shooting percentages (as I am wont to do), I get
these 'effective scoring rates' from our guys:

Pierce - 40.1
Finley - 22.1
A Miller 18.7
Marion - 17.7
Brand -- 17.3
Williams 17.0
LaFrentz 14.9
R Miller 14.0
B Davis- 13.5
O'Neal - 13.3
A Davis- 11.0
Wallace - 9.7

To perhaps second-guess the coaching, here are the players' total
effective rates, and their minutes played:

Min player sco. reb ast stl (TO.) Blk - Total
25 Finley- 22.1 3.7 3.6 1.0 (1.9) 0.1 - 29.9
24 Pierce- 40.1 5.9 5.3 1.6 (2.7) 0.9 - 53.3
22 AMiller 18.7 4.1 5.9 1.8 (1.7) 0.2 - 31.0
22 Wallace `9.7 9.3 1.0 2.0 (1.2) 2.5 - 24.9
21 B Davis 13.5 2.5 6.0 2.4 (3.1) 0.5 - 24.1
21 Marion- 17.7 6.6 2.8 1.8 (0.8) 0.5 - 29.8
19 JO'Neal 13.3 6.7 2.0 1.2 (1.6) 2.9 - 26.6
18 A Davis 11.0 7.7 2.0 0.2 (0.8) 0.6 - 21.6
17 RMiller 14.0 2.2 1.4 0.3 (1.5) 0.0 - 16.9
16 Brand - 17.3 7.2 2.5 1.4 (1.2) 1.2 - 30.0
11 LFrentz 14.9 7.1 0.4 0.9 (2.2) 1.3 - 23.2
07 Will'ms 17.0 3.4 5.6 3.2 (3.2) 0.0 - 27.8

Reggie obviously didn't need this. Jay Williams looks like a
baller. No one did enough rebounding. Pierce's numbers look like
Mr. Jordan's at his best. Not many assists from any one person,
might make someone call someone a ballhog.

Who called Pierce a selfish ballhog?

Some level of shots per assists, or shots per possesion. What would be
> > the benchmarks? What would be the ratios of a "team player"? I'd
imagine the
> > ratios would vary by position.
> >
> > The reason I'm asking is that Paul Pierce is being called a
selfish ballhog
> > for his play in Indianapolis. But I look at his stats
and I see he
> > was two assists away from leading the team for the tourney and he
led the
> > team in assists in four games.
> >
> > Another way to ask the question would be: Are assists a reliable
measure of
> > "team player"?
>
> Maybe a better index would be some measure of "percent of offensive
> touches", possibly ameliorated somewhat by assists.
>
> That is, there's the stereotypical "gunning ballhog" who does
nothing but
> shoot. But for decades people have recognized that there is such
as thing
> as the "selfish assist man" (Kevin Porter being the first prominent
one
> that I know of). He was willing to pass; okay fine. But he
*insisted* on
> passing, more specifically on being the passer and thus the guy who
got
> the assist and the guy who led the league in assists.
>
> The bigger question though is what is the team's offensive
strategy. Dale
> Ellis with the Sonics took a lot of shots and had very few
assists. But
> that was his role. But if Jerome James started to do that, his
teammates
> would start calling him a ballhog.
>
> Payton I'm sure dominates the Sonics in terms of percent of touches,
> albeit with a good number of assists. Again that is his role.
Pierce
> may've had a lower percent of touches, and evidently had a good
number of
> assists, with the US team but if that wasn't his role, that would
explain
> the criticism.
>
>
> --MKT
• ... Dominique, of COURSE. Allen Iverson always gets called one, though I don t know how fair that is. Jerry Stackouse up until last year, JR Rider... ... Well,
Message 5 of 15 , Sep 11, 2002
On Wed, 11 Sep 2002, Dean Oliver wrote:

>
> Shammond Williams has been called a ballhog. Kevin McHale. Others?

Dominique, of COURSE. Allen Iverson always gets called one, though I don't
know how fair that is. Jerry Stackouse up until last year, JR Rider...

>
> My sense is that the term does come up when a player insists on
> making _something_ happen any time they get the ball.

Well, Shammond is called a ballhog because it seems like every other time
he dribbles the ball upcourt he shoots a 3 or a 20-footer with 20 seconds
left on the shot clock.

> They ignore
> the possibility of making the next pass, being part of an offensive
> flow. But, as Mike suggests, a lot of players are supposed to be the
> end result of making the next pass.
>
> If we can identify subjectively players that were considered
> ballhogs, that might help. Antoine Walker? Iverson? Stackhouse?
> Steve Francis? Glenn Robinson? Jason Williams? Ron Mercer?

All those guys would fit my definition of the term. I'm not so sure J-Will
is quite a ballhog anymore, but he certainly was earlier in his career.

>
> I've got some ideas, but let's start naming some ballhogs and we'll
> see if things fit.

Mahmoud Abdul-Rauf
Dominique has to be THE ballhog... I mean, wasn't the guy nicknamed "The
Black Hole"?
Dale Ellis
There should be a special place set aside for people like Charles Oakley,
who can't shoot anymore but who think they still can... is that a ballhog
or not?

>
> >
> >
> > On Wed, 11 Sep 2002, McKibbin, Stuart wrote:
> >
> > > I'm curious if there could be some statistical definition of what
> a ballhog
> > > is. Some level of shots per assists, or shots per possesion. What
> would be
> > > the benchmarks? What would be the ratios of a "team player"? I'd
> imagine the
> > > ratios would vary by position.
> > >
> > > The reason I'm asking is that Paul Pierce is being called a
> selfish ballhog
> > > for his play in Indianapolis. But I look at his stats
> and I see he
> > > was two assists away from leading the team for the tourney and he
> led the
> > > team in assists in four games.
> > >
> > > Another way to ask the question would be: Are assists a reliable
> measure of
> > > "team player"?
> >
> > Maybe a better index would be some measure of "percent of offensive
> > touches", possibly ameliorated somewhat by assists.
> >
> > That is, there's the stereotypical "gunning ballhog" who does
> nothing but
> > shoot. But for decades people have recognized that there is such
> as thing
> > as the "selfish assist man" (Kevin Porter being the first prominent
> one
> > that I know of). He was willing to pass; okay fine. But he
> *insisted* on
> > passing, more specifically on being the passer and thus the guy who
> got
> > the assist and the guy who led the league in assists.
> >
> > The bigger question though is what is the team's offensive
> strategy. Dale
> > Ellis with the Sonics took a lot of shots and had very few
> assists. But
> > that was his role. But if Jerome James started to do that, his
> teammates
> > would start calling him a ballhog.
> >
> > Payton I'm sure dominates the Sonics in terms of percent of touches,
> > albeit with a good number of assists. Again that is his role.
> Pierce
> > may've had a lower percent of touches, and evidently had a good
> number of
> > assists, with the US team but if that wasn't his role, that would
> explain
> > the criticism.
> >
> >
> > --MKT
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> APBR_analysis-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>
• ... other time ... seconds ... His teammates didn t really like playing with him, I hear. ... offensive ... the ... J-Will ... career. Interesting because I
Message 6 of 15 , Sep 11, 2002
--- In APBR_analysis@y..., john wallace craven <john1974@u...> wrote:
> Well, Shammond is called a ballhog because it seems like every
other time
> he dribbles the ball upcourt he shoots a 3 or a 20-footer with 20
seconds
> left on the shot clock.
>

His teammates didn't really like playing with him, I hear.

> > They ignore
> > the possibility of making the next pass, being part of an
offensive
> > flow. But, as Mike suggests, a lot of players are supposed to be
the
> > end result of making the next pass.
> >
> > If we can identify subjectively players that were considered
> > ballhogs, that might help. Antoine Walker? Iverson? Stackhouse?
> > Steve Francis? Glenn Robinson? Jason Williams? Ron Mercer?
>
> All those guys would fit my definition of the term. I'm not so sure
J-Will
> is quite a ballhog anymore, but he certainly was earlier in his
career.

Interesting because I chose these guys based on a statistical
procedure. Francis and Robinson only barely make the quals. Rider
definitely makes it, too.

And let's get something straight about Stackhouse -- despite all the
praise for being less selfish last year, he still took more shots per
48 minutes last year than he took in any other year of his career
except 2001. So by being an incredible ballhog in 2001, he made
himself look like Mother Teresa in 2002. Sheesh.

Note that D. Wilkins doesn't make my statistical cut, at least not at
his prime. The guy was just too good (producing about 115 points per
100 possessions). Like Jordan, he didn't turn the ball over much,
though he shot a lot. He didn't even use as many possessions as
Jordan (only 33% at his peak, which was pretty average for MJ).
Maybe the thought was that Jordan didn't have as much talent around
him as Wilkins.

>
> >
> > I've got some ideas, but let's start naming some ballhogs and
we'll
> > see if things fit.
>
> Mahmoud Abdul-Rauf

He qualified in several years under my stat procedure.

> Dominique has to be THE ballhog... I mean, wasn't the guy
nicknamed "The
> Black Hole"?

I heard that about Kevin McHale and one other frontcourt player who
I'm forgetting.

Anyone else?

DeanO
• The best definition of ballhog seems like it should be the guy who wants to determine the outcome of the possession. This of course varies by position. A
Message 7 of 15 , Sep 11, 2002
The best definition of ballhog seems like it should be the guy who
wants to determine the outcome of the possession. This of course
varies by position. A center is expected to be a ballhog if he can
score whereas a guard really should not shoot everytime he touches
the ball and seems open. I wonder if ratio of shot attempts to
assists would reveal a "hogness." Probably not because I think most
ball dominating hogs tend to get a decent amount of assists. Here is
a radom sampling of some hogs and players with "team first" reps and
how they compare in shots to assits ratio:

Hogs
PPG FGM/FGA ASSTS shots/assists ratio
Damon Stoudamire 95-96 19.0 481/1129 653 1.72/1
Reggie Theus 82-83 23.8 749/1567 484 3.24/1
Antoine Walker 01-02 22.1 661/1689 407 4.15/1
Dominique Wilkins 90-91 25.9 770/1640 265 6.19/1
Allen Iverson 00-01 31.1 762/1813 325 5.58/1
Patrick Ewing 90-91 26.6 845/1645 244 6.74/1
Stephon Marbury 00-01 23.9 563/1277 506 2.52/1
George Gervin 80-81 27.1 850/1729 260 6.65/1
Rex Chapman 89-90 17.5 377/924 132 7.00/1
Armen Gilliam 91-92 16.9 512/1001 118 8.48/1
Chuck Person 89-90 19.7 605/1242 230 5.40/1
Rick Barry 72-73 25.1 737/1630 399 4.09/1
Wilt Chamberlain 61-62 50.4 1597/3159 192 16.45/1

Team Guys

Maurice Cheeks 84-85 13.1 422/741 497 1.49/1
Jason Kidd 01-02 14.7 445/1138 808 1.41/1
Magic Johnson 89-90 22.3 546/1138 907 1.25/1
John Stockton 96-97 14.4 416/759 860 0.88/1
Jeff Hornacek 93-94 15.9 472/1004 419 2.13/1
Joe Dumars 91-92 19.9 587/1311 375 3.50/1
Scottie Pippen 95-96 19.4 563/1216 452 2.69/1
Michael Jordan 95-96 30.4 916/1850 352 5.26/1
Arvydas Sabonis 96-97 13.4 328/658 146 4.51/1
Bill Walton 76-77 18.6 491/930 245 3.80/1
Wilt Chamberlain 66-67 24.1 785/1150 630 1.83/1
Bill Bradley 69-70 14.5 413/897 268 3.35/1
• ... Taking into account the differences by position is important, I think. [...] ... [...] ... Marbury and Stoudamire, and one might add Payton to this list,
Message 8 of 15 , Sep 11, 2002
On Thu, 12 Sep 2002, harlanzo wrote:

> wants to determine the outcome of the possession. This of course
> varies by position. A center is expected to be a ballhog if he can

Taking into account the differences by position is important, I think.

[...]

> Hogs
> PPG FGM/FGA ASSTS shots/assists ratio
> Damon Stoudamire 95-96 19.0 481/1129 653 1.72/1
> Reggie Theus 82-83 23.8 749/1567 484 3.24/1
[...]
> Stephon Marbury 00-01 23.9 563/1277 506 2.52/1

Marbury and Stoudamire, and one might add Payton to this list, are
good examples of guys who get plenty of assists but could also
be called ballhogs. We can see however that their shots:assists
ratios are not up there with the other ballhogs. PG ballhogs are
going to look different from the other ballhogs.

I'd forgotten about Theus, that's a good call. Sort of an early Kobe:
highly talented, all-around offensive ability, but aggravated his coaches
no end with his decision-making.

--MKT
• ... per ... This might be key to the definition. Was Dominique taking the most shots, despite having one of the lower shooting pcts on his team? Maybe :
Message 9 of 15 , Sep 12, 2002
--- In APBR_analysis@y..., "Dean Oliver" <deano@r...> wrote:
>D. Wilkins doesn't make my statistical cut, at least not at
> his prime. The guy was just too good (producing about 115 points
per
> 100 possessions). Like Jordan, he didn't turn the ball over much,
> though he shot a lot. He didn't even use as many possessions as
> Jordan (only 33% at his peak, which was pretty average for MJ).
> Maybe the thought was that Jordan didn't have as much talent around
> him as Wilkins.
>

This might be key to the definition. Was Dominique taking the most
shots, despite having one of the lower shooting pcts on his team?
Maybe :

Listing Hawks' top 5 minutes guys, overall shooting pct, scoring rate:

1985
Nique --- .506 24.4
E Johnson .536 17.1
Rivers -- .547 15.7
Wittman - .545 11.6
Levingston.548 12.0

Here is a year when Nique had assumed leadership of the team, and
could certainly have been thinking of setting up his teammates more.

1989
Nique --- .520 24.4
Moses --- .564 21.2
Rivers -- .538 14.6
Theus --- .525 17.2
Levingston.553 11.5

While the intervening years weren't so one-sided, the pattern
continued.

1993
Nique --- .559 29.3
Willis -- .524 17.0
Blaylock- .510 12.5
Augmon -- .540 16.0
Koncak -- .471 `3.9

In this 4-year interval, Nique's shooting pct rose steadily, while

By one definition, the player with the best scoring efficiency should
really shoot more (not less), and thus cannot be considered a ballhog.

So Dominique Wilkins evolved from being truly a hog, to somewhat of a
hog, to being just a great offensive player.

Another possible consideration is Wilkins' very-bad playoff rating.
If reputations are earned in the postseason, perhaps I should be
looking there.

> > the guy
> nicknamed "The
> > Black Hole"?
>
> I heard that about Kevin McHale and one other frontcourt player who
> I'm forgetting.

Black Hole was Elvin Hayes, I think.

McHale would be another 'too good to be a ballhog'.
• Here are Dominique Wilkins and teammates numbers in years they got out of the first round. Adding assist rate to this list. 1986 (9 games) player -- pct.
Message 10 of 15 , Sep 12, 2002
Here are Dominique Wilkins' and teammates' numbers in years they got
out of the first round. Adding assist rate to this list.

1986 (9 games)
player -- pct. sco. ast.
Wilkins - .501 22.7 2.4
Wittman - .541 15.6 2.9
Willis -- .571 15.2 0.6
Rivers -- .504 12.9 9.3
Rollins - .562 `7.7 0.4

1987 (8 G)
Wilkins - .488 23.7 2.6
Willis -- .540 15.5 0.6
Wittman - .571 19.6 3.6
Rivers -- .425 `7.3 13.1
Rollins - .571 `6.6 0.5

At least Rivers knows to pass, when he isn't hitting.

1988 (12 G)
Wilkins -- .525 29.1 2.7
Rivers --- .515 15.2 10.1
Wittman -- .495 10.8 4.2
Willis --- .538 14.2 0.4
Levingston .596 14.2 1.1

Gee, I guess that's it. Then 3 years of 1st-round exits, and 2 with
no playoffs. So Nique's best years weren't great years for the Hawks.

It does look like Nique rather shot his team out of the playoffs some
years. Their EC Finals appearance in 1988 was their peak, and I
don't think it was anything but a great performance by D. Wilkins.
(Culminating in classic shootout with Larry Bird).
• On Thu, 12 Sep 2002, Mike G wrote: [...] ... [...] ... Two seasons where Wilkins had the LOWEST shooting percentage, and HIGHEST points scored (and ipso facto
Message 11 of 15 , Sep 12, 2002
On Thu, 12 Sep 2002, Mike G wrote:

[...]

> 1985
> Nique --- .506 24.4

[...]

> 1989
> Nique --- .520 24.4

Two seasons where Wilkins had the LOWEST shooting percentage, and HIGHEST
points scored (and ipso facto highest shot attempts) of the top 5
teammates. That might be getting close to the definition of a ballhog
right there.

> 1993
> Nique --- .559 29.3

> In this 4-year interval, Nique's shooting pct rose steadily, while
>
> By one definition, the player with the best scoring efficiency should
> really shoot more (not less), and thus cannot be considered a ballhog.
>
> So Dominique Wilkins evolved from being truly a hog, to somewhat of a
> hog, to being just a great offensive player.

Yes. I hadn't realized that there'd been that improvement in Wilkins'
numbers, thanks. Although those earlier career numbers make him appear
even worse of a gunner than I'd been thinking.

> Another possible consideration is Wilkins' very-bad playoff rating.
> If reputations are earned in the postseason, perhaps I should be
> looking there.

Those were also interesting and confirmatory of our ballhog memories of
'Nique.

--MKT
• ... One small point in defense of Nique: Theoretically, a low-percentage shooter can take the most shots on his team and still be helpful to them. Think of
Message 12 of 15 , Sep 12, 2002
On Thu, 12 Sep 2002, Michael K. Tamada wrote:

>
>
> On Thu, 12 Sep 2002, Mike G wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > 1985
> > Nique --- .506 24.4
>
> [...]
>
> > 1989
> > Nique --- .520 24.4
>
> Two seasons where Wilkins had the LOWEST shooting percentage, and HIGHEST
> points scored (and ipso facto highest shot attempts) of the top 5
> teammates. That might be getting close to the definition of a ballhog
> right there.

One small point in defense of 'Nique: Theoretically, a low-percentage
shooter can take the most shots on his team and still be helpful to them.
Think of Iverson on the 76ers a couple years ago. They had nobody on the
team who could be counted on to create their own shot with 4 seconds left
on the shot clock other than Allen; the fact that he took all those shots
does not necessarily make him a ballhog (of course, they don't make him
_not_ a ballhog either). Reggie Miller is another guy who might make a
list like this unfairly because he as well is counted on to put something
up when the clock is running down for his team.

That being said, 'Nique had guys like Kevin Willis with him in his prime
who could find ways to get shots off, and he _still_ refused to give the
ball up more often than not.

>
> > 1993
> > Nique --- .559 29.3
>
> > In this 4-year interval, Nique's shooting pct rose steadily, while
> >
> > By one definition, the player with the best scoring efficiency should
> > really shoot more (not less), and thus cannot be considered a ballhog.
> >
> > So Dominique Wilkins evolved from being truly a hog, to somewhat of a
> > hog, to being just a great offensive player.
>
> Yes. I hadn't realized that there'd been that improvement in Wilkins'
> numbers, thanks. Although those earlier career numbers make him appear
> even worse of a gunner than I'd been thinking.
>
> > Another possible consideration is Wilkins' very-bad playoff rating.
> > If reputations are earned in the postseason, perhaps I should be
> > looking there.
>
> Those were also interesting and confirmatory of our ballhog memories of
> 'Nique.
>
>
>
> --MKT
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> APBR_analysis-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>
• ... percentage ... them. ... True, does anyone have any sort of stastical data breaking donw a player s shooting % based on distance? (ie from the inside the
Message 13 of 15 , Sep 12, 2002
--- In APBR_analysis@y..., john wallace craven <john1974@u...> wrote:
>
>
>>
> One small point in defense of 'Nique: Theoretically, a low-
percentage
> shooter can take the most shots on his team and still be helpful to
them.
> Think of Iverson on the 76ers a couple years ago.

True, does anyone have any sort of stastical data breaking donw a
player's shooting % based on distance? (ie from the inside the paint
from 15-20 ft, and then 3 point shots). This might give insight into
whether the % nique or Stackhouse shot is acceptable or truly
chucking. With Iverson I'd venture that his 40% from 18-25 feet on
his 25 shots a game would come up better than giving half his shots
to the likes of george lynch and ty hill from 12-18 feet.
• A few more hogs, or guys with hog reps, to look at: --World B. Free --Chuck Person --Tom Chambers --Lamond Murray --Trevor Ruffin - an obscure player, but I
Message 14 of 15 , Sep 12, 2002
A few more hogs, or guys with hog reps, to look at:

--World B. Free
--Chuck Person
--Tom Chambers
--Lamond Murray
--Trevor Ruffin - an obscure player, but I suspect he will blow
nearly everybody else off the charts

Somebody mentioned Reggie Miller before, but he's the anti-hog. He
get as many points from as few shots as anyone who has played the
game.
• ... Has anyone mentioned Freeman Williams yet? My guess is he d make World B Free look shy. ... I think he was mentioned in the Alan Iverson context, as the
Message 15 of 15 , Sep 12, 2002
On Fri, 13 Sep 2002, John Hollinger wrote:

> A few more hogs, or guys with hog reps, to look at:
>
> --World B. Free
> --Chuck Person
> --Tom Chambers
> --Lamond Murray
> --Trevor Ruffin - an obscure player, but I suspect he will blow
> nearly everybody else off the charts

Has anyone mentioned Freeman Williams yet? My guess is he'd make World B
Free look shy.

> Somebody mentioned Reggie Miller before, but he's the anti-hog. He
> get as many points from as few shots as anyone who has played the
> game.

I think he was mentioned in the Alan Iverson context, as the "necessary
ball-dominator" as opposed to "ball hog" -- i.e. he had to be the guy who
shot a lot, including bad shots, because no one else on his team could be
relied upon to make the offense go.

Two differences between Miller and Iverson though: Miller must surely
have vastly better shooting percentage and efficiency stats than Iverson
(which is what you allude to above); and Miller often had better-scoring
teammates (Smits, Person, etc.) than Iverson.

And of course Iverson shoots and scores more than Miller does. But as
John Craven pointed out, Iverson can be considered to be a "necessary ball
dominator" -- the 76ers go nowhere unless they put the ball in his hands
and have him shoot.

Miller on the other hand never dominated the Pacers' offense the way
Iverson does the 76ers'. He didn't have Iverson's ball-hoggedly low FG%,
but he also didn't have to be the guy shooting 30 times a game.

--MKT
Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.