Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: [APBR_analysis] Re: Ballhogs

Expand Messages
  • Michael K. Tamada
    ... Taking into account the differences by position is important, I think. [...] ... [...] ... Marbury and Stoudamire, and one might add Payton to this list,
    Message 1 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
    • Mike G
      ... 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 2 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
        his scoring help faded. (Following year, traded for Manning).

        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'.
      • Mike G
        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 3 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).
        • Michael K. Tamada
          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 4 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
            > his scoring help faded. (Following year, traded for Manning).
            >
            > 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
          • john wallace craven
            ... 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 5 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
              > > his scoring help faded. (Following year, traded for Manning).
              > >
              > > 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/
              >
              >
              >
            • harlanzo
              ... 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 6 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.
              • John Hollinger
                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 7 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.
                • Michael K. Tamada
                  ... 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 8 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.