duncan228
11-10-2009, 02:38 PM
The Awful Stigma Of The Scoring Title (http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/news?slug=tsn-theawfulstigmaofthes&prov=tsn&type=lgns)
SportingNews
As of right now, Kobe Bryant leads the league in points per game. Carmelo Anthony is second. Then, in descending order, Kevin Martin, Chris Bosh, and Dwyane Wade.
All five are in the run for the scoring title. And really, none of them need or should want this distinction. Kobe has fought a career-long battle against the "selfish" label; his career high for scoring came in 2005-06, with a 34.9 average that made his exploits the talk of the league. However, he finished a distant second in the MVP race, and would only capture that award two seasons later, when his offense decreased—or, in the moralistic language of sports, he sublimated himself for the good of the team.
Melo's been discussed for years as a potential scoring champ, but only as a backhanded compliment. Given the player Anthony's become, though, and the Nuggets' increased relevance out West, a scoring title almost seems like a diversion from Melo or Denver gaining the legitimacy they crave.
Kevin Martin's largely unknown, but the last thing he needs is to be saddled with the "great scorer on lousy team" tag; Chris Bosh is in a contract year, which never looks good. Dwyane Wade is unimpeachable, to be sure, and yet you don't see LeBron having to make an appearance on this list.
Time and time again, though, the same point comes out: If the scoring title brings many negative connotations, and may even work against the momentum for other awards like MVP, why even bother awarding it?
Certainly, that's not true for all statistical accomplishments. Leading the league in blocks and rebounds does a lot to land a player atop the Defensive Player of the Year favorites. Assists are pure gold, even if they're handed out way too liberally. And at the same time, the statistical revolution is supposed to make it easier than ever to distinguish between "good" and "bad" statistics, such that a mercenary scorer could be separated from a valiant warrior of offense. Still, the scoring title remains that most double-edged of swords, a high-profile honor that, nevertheless, will be read by many as a slap against that player's reputation.
Good scorers are expected to be, completely subjectively, more tasteful and well-rounded than to drop 30 a game, even if the eventual MVP ends up with 27ppg. "Scoring champ" is a stigma that could affect a player's reputation for seasons to come. Kobe, who won two scoring titles and then seemingly moved past that kind of achievement before getting his first MVP, is one strong piece of evidence for this theory. Another comes in the form of LeBron, who only won the MVP this past season, when he ceded the scoring crown to Dwyane Wade—despite having arguably had the better all-around season in 2007-08.
Allen Iverson did get an MVP trophy for his miraculous 2000-01 run, and yet the four total titles to his name (which in no way correlate with team success) are more badge of shame, proof of inadequacy, than the kind of resume held by fellow Hall of Famers who also have championship rings. Tracy McGrady, another brilliant scorer from the post-Jordan era, won two scoring titles, only to see a precipitous decline in his stock the following season.
Granted, scoring is the most empty of numbers, as someone has to get the points. It's also, historically, been the stat most pursued by egotistical players. Yet is a scoring title such an embarrassment that it represents a negative career move, or a detour away from the conversation about "league's best"? Certainly, non-scoring players have won MVPs, and there have been high-scoring players throughout history (George Gervin, for instance) who didn't warrant MVP consideration. Yet we've gotten so puritanical in our debasement of scoring, so intent on diminishing the league's top scorer unless he's also putting up huge numbers elsewhere, that anyone short of LeBron would be advised to avoid the scoring title.
Someone heard somewhere that stats could be misleading, and thus, a certain kind of player could be marked for scorn by what, on numbers alone, should be an honor. You'd like to think that cooler heads could prevail, that scoring could once again be restored to its rightful place as a highly meaningful part of basketball.
But as long as we linger in the dark ages of "scoring = selfish and bad," at least when its done at a high volume, players would do well to do the opposite of padding their stats if they ever want to be taken seriously as franchise guys.
SportingNews
As of right now, Kobe Bryant leads the league in points per game. Carmelo Anthony is second. Then, in descending order, Kevin Martin, Chris Bosh, and Dwyane Wade.
All five are in the run for the scoring title. And really, none of them need or should want this distinction. Kobe has fought a career-long battle against the "selfish" label; his career high for scoring came in 2005-06, with a 34.9 average that made his exploits the talk of the league. However, he finished a distant second in the MVP race, and would only capture that award two seasons later, when his offense decreased—or, in the moralistic language of sports, he sublimated himself for the good of the team.
Melo's been discussed for years as a potential scoring champ, but only as a backhanded compliment. Given the player Anthony's become, though, and the Nuggets' increased relevance out West, a scoring title almost seems like a diversion from Melo or Denver gaining the legitimacy they crave.
Kevin Martin's largely unknown, but the last thing he needs is to be saddled with the "great scorer on lousy team" tag; Chris Bosh is in a contract year, which never looks good. Dwyane Wade is unimpeachable, to be sure, and yet you don't see LeBron having to make an appearance on this list.
Time and time again, though, the same point comes out: If the scoring title brings many negative connotations, and may even work against the momentum for other awards like MVP, why even bother awarding it?
Certainly, that's not true for all statistical accomplishments. Leading the league in blocks and rebounds does a lot to land a player atop the Defensive Player of the Year favorites. Assists are pure gold, even if they're handed out way too liberally. And at the same time, the statistical revolution is supposed to make it easier than ever to distinguish between "good" and "bad" statistics, such that a mercenary scorer could be separated from a valiant warrior of offense. Still, the scoring title remains that most double-edged of swords, a high-profile honor that, nevertheless, will be read by many as a slap against that player's reputation.
Good scorers are expected to be, completely subjectively, more tasteful and well-rounded than to drop 30 a game, even if the eventual MVP ends up with 27ppg. "Scoring champ" is a stigma that could affect a player's reputation for seasons to come. Kobe, who won two scoring titles and then seemingly moved past that kind of achievement before getting his first MVP, is one strong piece of evidence for this theory. Another comes in the form of LeBron, who only won the MVP this past season, when he ceded the scoring crown to Dwyane Wade—despite having arguably had the better all-around season in 2007-08.
Allen Iverson did get an MVP trophy for his miraculous 2000-01 run, and yet the four total titles to his name (which in no way correlate with team success) are more badge of shame, proof of inadequacy, than the kind of resume held by fellow Hall of Famers who also have championship rings. Tracy McGrady, another brilliant scorer from the post-Jordan era, won two scoring titles, only to see a precipitous decline in his stock the following season.
Granted, scoring is the most empty of numbers, as someone has to get the points. It's also, historically, been the stat most pursued by egotistical players. Yet is a scoring title such an embarrassment that it represents a negative career move, or a detour away from the conversation about "league's best"? Certainly, non-scoring players have won MVPs, and there have been high-scoring players throughout history (George Gervin, for instance) who didn't warrant MVP consideration. Yet we've gotten so puritanical in our debasement of scoring, so intent on diminishing the league's top scorer unless he's also putting up huge numbers elsewhere, that anyone short of LeBron would be advised to avoid the scoring title.
Someone heard somewhere that stats could be misleading, and thus, a certain kind of player could be marked for scorn by what, on numbers alone, should be an honor. You'd like to think that cooler heads could prevail, that scoring could once again be restored to its rightful place as a highly meaningful part of basketball.
But as long as we linger in the dark ages of "scoring = selfish and bad," at least when its done at a high volume, players would do well to do the opposite of padding their stats if they ever want to be taken seriously as franchise guys.