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

Re: Ballhogs

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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.