Who are the best scorers in the NBA? What players score a lot of points and score them very efficiently? What players shoot well from both the field and the free throw line, commit a relatively small number of turnovers, and hand out some assists? Michael Jordan, Magic Johnson, and Larry Bird all do that, don't they? But who else scores well? Who else puts great fear in defenses because of a great ability to get his team a score? Who else not only shoots well, but won't make a stupid pass when in need of two crucial points?
Before trying to answer these questions, it will be worthwhile to examine what it really means to score efficiently and to see how well we, the fans and the more serious viewers, perceive efficient scoring. Read through the following questions and give an answer if you feel sure of yourself.
Chris Mullin and Alex English both scored 26.5 points per game last year, but who scored more efficiently?
Sleepy Floyd and Mark Jackson both averaged 8.6 assists per game, but who ran his offense better?
Chuck Person scored 21.6 ppg, shooting 48.9% from the field and 79.2% from the line, while Fat Lever scored 19.8 ppg, shooting 45.7% from the field and 78.5% from the line, but who was the better offensive player?
The answers: First, Chris Mullin versus Alex English. They both scored the same number of points per game, but Mullin shot better than English from both the field and from the free throw line. This is a good indication that Mullin scored his points more efficiently. In fact, this will turn out to be the case, though not all situations will be as simple as this one.
Floyd vs. Jackson is a very even matchup. Their assist averages were identical and their assist-to-turnover ratios were very close, with a slight edge for Floyd. Floyd shot better from the line, but not from the floor. Jackson scored more points per game, but the Mullin-English comparison shows that scoring averages give little indication of scoring efficiency. Traditional statistics do not clearly show which of these two players is better. It takes a bit of research to find out that Jackson actually performed better.
With Person vs. Lever, traditional stats are not only hazy in showing the better offensive player, but they also tend to indicate the wrong player being superior. Almost anyone who has seen both Person and Lever play will say that Lever is the better player. People have more confidence in the Denver Nuggets scoring when Lever has the ball than in the Indiana Pacers scoring when Person has the ball. Though Lever shot considerably worse than Person did last season, Lever helped his team to score efficiently because he was a good passer and because he didn't turn the ball over; Person, though, was a careless passer and was third in the league in turnovers. In fact, despite what I said above, the stats can indicate that Lever was better than Person if assists and turnovers are properly weighted with the other stats. Until now, however, it has been impossible to know how to weight field goal percentage, free throw percentage, assists, and turnovers to precisely determine an overall offensive efficiency. Through some careful research, this problem has finally been solved using something called floor percentage. By means of floor percentages, it can be shown that Lever was clearly the superior offensive player last season, actually indicating that Person was a rather poor offensive player.
A floor percentage (floor%) is just a measure of the ratio of scoring possessions to total possessions. The efficiency of a scorer is determined by how often he scores as compared to how often he fails. These are real observations, not just numbers combined in an arbitrary manner to give some ultimate rating, which is what Tendex and Schick's Pivotal Player Rating Systems are. When a player causes a score for his team, he is credited with some fraction (i.e., 0 to 1) of a scoring possession, depending on whether he scored the basket or assisted on it. When a player ends a possession, either by scoring or by failing to score and losing the ball to the opponents, he is credited with some fraction (i.e., 0 to 1) of a total possession.
Because the NBA does not officially count possessions, it has become necessary to approximate them using traditional stats. Scoring possessions are approximated by combining field goals made, free throws made, and assists. Total possessions are approximated by combining field goals attempted, free throws attempted, assists, turnovers, and team offensive rebound percentage. (For further explanation of method, see .)
Let's now look at some of the NBA's best scorers (minimum 500 scoring possessions).
Point Guards
1. John Stockton, Utah Jazz, floor% = 0.624: No, Stockton is not Magic Johnson, but he scores as well, if not better than, his more flashy rival. Stockton doesn't do everything that Magic does, like rebounding or clutch shooting, but he makes very few mistakes running the Jazz offense. If he had another scorer besides Karl Malone to pass to, he'd be even better. As much as the Bulls are a one-man team in Michael Jordan, the Jazz is a two-man team in Stockton and Malone.
2. Magic Johnson, Los Angeles Lakers, 0.607: It's not often that Magic finishes second in anything and there are good reasons to argue that he wasn't the second most efficient point guard last year. First of all, he had 1064 scoring possessions to Stockton's 996 in fewer minutes. Second and more convincingly, the Lakers' team offense was the most efficient in the league (and has been most every year Magic has been in the league), while the Jazz offense was in the bottom half of the league. Looking back on the history of the league, it's hard to find another player like Magic who consistently made his offense the best, the most efficient in the league.
3. Maurice Cheeks, Philadelphia 76ers, 0.602: Cheeks provides a good example of why players shouldn't be ranked solely on their floor%. Though Cheeks had a tremendous floor%, his involvement in the Philadelphia offense was considerably more passive than normally would be expected of a point guard. With just over 550 scoring possessions, Cheeks hardly had the totals that the other top point guards listed here had; especially notable was his unimpressive 13th ranking in assists. On the other hand, the Philadelphia offense was quietly very good last season (fourth overall by individual floor%), indicating that Cheeks was doing his job as well as he needed to - just as he has been for years.
4. Kevin Johnson, Phoenix Suns, 0.599: K-J was the biggest reason the Suns improved so much last year, not Tom Chambers or Eddie Johnson. K-J was such a tremendous threat with the ball that Chambers and Johnson were able to take more open shots than in the past. Both Chambers and Johnson had as fine years as they've ever had and that was due to the presence of this third scorer who could pass with the best...Though K-J sometimes becomes overzealous in his shooting, as Isiah Thomas does, he hits his shots consistently enough, as Thomas doesn't, that the Suns' offense never loses its flow. K-J still needs some experience, but when he gets it, the Suns will be very difficult to stop.
5. Mark Price, Cleveland Cavaliers, 0.586: Even though Cleveland traded away Kevin Johnson, the statistically better point guard, it's hard to imagine the Cavs being a better team with Johnson, rather than Price, at the helm. Price's outside shooting adds much more to the style of Cleveland's offense than Johnson's penetrate-and-dish style of play would. Defenses have to extend a great deal with Price leading the Cavs; Johnson wouldn't have the same effect and would likely clog the middle a little more for the quality front line that Cleveland has. Price got support for MVP last year and may get more support in the future as his best seasons - as well as the Cavs' best seasons - lie ahead.
Shooting Guards
1. Michael Jordan, Chicago Bulls, 0.603: Jordan is almost too good. In '86-87, when he scored over 3000 points, there were some people claiming that he scored too much and that he was actually costing the Bulls some victories. In a way, those critics may have been right. In the short run, Jordan is a tremendous asset to his team because he is the most unstoppable force in any one game of basketball; if Jordan had the stamina, he should take the ball and try to score every time. But, if the Bulls have longer range goals, then they should try to curtail Jordan's scoring a bit because the Bulls' front line suffers from Jordan's lofty scoring. Note that when Charles Oakley was traded from the Bulls to New York for Bill Carwright, he went on to have what could be called his best season, while Cartwright had his worst. Also, the two young forwards Chicago has in Scottie Pippen and Horace Grant have not developed as expected (floor%'s = 0.499 and 0.532, respectively), especially Grant, who had numbers in college almost identical to, if not better than, fellow 6'10" Clemson alumnus Larry Nance, a top NBA big forward. Is it possible that Jordan's style seriously hinders the play of the Chicago front line? Is he so Outstanding that he's not very Valuable??
2. Jeff Hornacek, Phoenix Suns, 0.583: Hornacek has been consistently and silently quite good for a couple years now, moving the ball well and hitting the open shots. He doesn't have a lot of individual scoring moves, but when he tries to score he usually does it. This type of player doesn't usually help a bad team and Hornacek did not help the Suns when they were bad. Now that the Suns are legitimate contenders, though, he helps them win games because he shoots well enough that defenses cannot lay off him to help on the Suns' main offensive threats - K-J, Tom Chambers, and Eddie Johnson. Hornacek is a very good team player, but he needs a good team around him to make him look so good. Other players like Hornacek include the Celtics' Ed Pinckney, the Warriors' Rod Higgins, the Lakers' A.C. Green, and the Kings' Rodney McCray. With agressive offensive players surrounding these players, they score well, but an offense cannot be built around them.
3. Joe Dumars, Detroit Pistons, 0.572: His performance in the Finals wasn't all that unexpected. Dumars had an outstanding season, easily over-shadowing his more famous backcourt mates, Isiah Thomas and the Microwave Vinnie Johnson. An injury midway through the season cost him some great end-of-season numbers, but he still looked good. His jump shot finally became solid last season and his game began to look a lot like Sidney Moncrief's or, perhaps, Rolando Blackman's when they were in their primes. It will be interesting to see if Dumars can maintain this quality of play; Byron Scott had a similarly good season in '87-88, but fell off considerably last year.
4. Ricky Pierce, Milwaukee Bucks, 0.571: If Pierce doesn't have Thurl Bailey Syndrome, the fear to start games, is there any reason why Pierce doesn't start? He's as good a shooter as they come and he rarely makes mistakes. He doesn't get many rebounds or assists, which may lower his value, but the Bucks have other rebounders and passers to pick up the slack while Pierce scores. If Pierce would have worked a little harder when he was younger, he might have developed the all-around game of...
5. Clyde Drexler, Portland Trail Blazers, 0.569: Though his floor% is slightly lower than Hornacek's, Dumars', and Pierce's, Drexler is without a doubt the best individual talent of the four. Clyde the Glide was one of only seven players to score on over one thousand possessions las year and he worked so hard that he finished seventh in the league in total offensive rebounds, an amazing accomplishment for a guard. Drexler is a franchise-type of player and if his franchise had been a bit more organized, Drexler would probably have brought it a title. He's nearly the offensive force that Jordan is sometimes, but nearly just isn't enough when the competition can put on such a great show.
Small Forwards
1. James Worthy, Los Angeles Lakers, .576: Worthy's critics have always said that he doesn't rebound well enough to be considered a top forward. Their argument is not especially appropriate, though, because it is not Worthy's job to rebound. The Lakers have always rebounded well as a team, especially with Magic contributing six or seven rebounds a game out of the backcourt. If Magic were a normal point guard who rebounded only three or four times a game, then Worthy would certainly average seven or eight rebounds per game. Worthy's job, which has made the Lakers so successful in this decade, has been to fill the lanes on the fast break and to be an efficient scorer. He has done his job very well; it's not his fault (and not even a problem) that his job doesn't include lots of rebounding.
2. Adrian Dantley, Dallas Mavericks, .568: The Smallest Post Player in the NBA. Dantley normally has a floor% up around 0.600 and he was at an even 0.600 before he arrived in Dallas, where he had to play under John MacLeod's stagnant system. Dantley has traditionally been one of the most reliable scorers in the league with his incredible ability to draw fouls. A dream night for Dantley probably consists of 0 for 0 shooting from the field and 28 for 28 shooting from the free throw line, fouling out the entire opposition in the process. Defenders know what he's going to do, they just can't stop him.
3. Chris Mullin, Golden State Warriors, .560: It took him a few years, but Mullin has finally started showing his full potential. His first couple years in the league, Mullin was almost too careful in his shooting and passing. Last year, he finally learned all the tricks to make him more than just an efficient scorer, but a prolific one as well... Mullin's numbers look remarkably like Clyde Drexler's. Mullin made 830 of 1630 field goal attempts; Drexler made 829 of 1672. Mullin made 23 of 100 three point attempts; Drexler made 27 of 104. Mullin shot 553 free throws; Drexler shot 548. Mullin had 415 assists; Drexler had 450. Mullin had 176 steals and 39 blocks; Drexler had 213 and 54. If anything, Mullin is a year or two behind Drexler in development, but that's because Mullin is a year behind in age and two years behind in experience. Otherwise, they look like very similar players.
4. Derrick McKey, Seattle SuperSonics, .556: Like so many of the great players in the NBA - Magic, Jordan, Drexler, Worthy, Dantley, Charles Barkley, Karl Malone, Moses Malone, et. al - McKey entered the NBA before finishing college. Some undergrads flop in the NBA, but the ones who keep learning and working hard after their first season are the ones who get starting jobs. McKey's improvement to such a high level in just his second year in the league probably means he's not going to be satisfied with being a starter. On the contrary, McKey should make himself into an NBA great as well.
5. Reggie Lewis, Boston Celtics, .551: Surprise! Lewis could easily have been the Most Improved Player last year if Kevin Johnson hadn't been such a force. Lewis' floor% his rookie year was only 0.487, while Johnson's was a good 0.556, making Lewis' improvement a little more of a surprise and essentially as large.
Power Forwards
1. Charles Barkley, Philadelphia 76ers, 0.613: Over the past two seasons, Barkley has had the best floor% of all non-point guards, .612. Barkley can be just about the same offensive force as Michael Jordan, but he's not as impressive because he's not as graceful and because he doesn't have to score as much as Jordan. All of Barkley's offensive talent hasn't helped Philadelphia's defense, though. The Sixers' defense has been among the worst in the league for two years now and Barkley is part of the problem. Barkley's height, 6'3" to 6'6", depending upon who you ask, makes him a defensive liability guarding taller forwards. Though he's never taken a rap for being a bad defensive player, Barkley hurts the Sixers when he has to guard good scorers who are taller than he.
2. Kevin McHale, Boston Celtics, 0.584: Without Bird around, McHale had his worst season in some time, but his 0.584 floor% still ranks him among the best scorers in the NBA. In '87-88, McHale had a floor% of 0.618 and Bird had a floor% of 0.574, likely making them the best forward tandem in history. No two forwards have complemented each other as well as McHale and Bird have. Both have rebounded well, neither being a 'dominant rebounder', like Michael Cage or Charles Oakley, but that has been because neither has had to be 'dominant'. Bird's outside-inside-shooting-passing game has made McHale's post work so much easier because McHale couldn't be double-teamed. McHale's low post game has let Bird roam free in the offense to find his shot or any easy passing lane. Tinkers, Evers, and Chance never worked as well together as Bird and McHale do.
3. Larry Nance, Cleveland Cavaliers, 0.580: Probably the most underrated player of the decade, Nance has been doing just about everything well since '83, but he has hardly been recognized. Seemingly forgotten since his one All-Star Game appearance in '85, Nance has been left off innumerable lists of the NBA's top forwards, while perennial flake Ralph Sampson continues to make these same lists based on his enormous untapped 'potential'. Nance has always shot over 50% from the field and has shot over 75% from the line since '87, while Sampson has shot under 50% from the field for four years and under 45% from the field for two years and is a career 67% foul shooter. Nance is a very intelligent player who rarely commits foolish turnovers, while Sampson is well-known as a scatter-brain player who throws passes directly to opponents and who takes very difficult shots. Finally, Nance is a tremendous defensive player because of his great ability to block shots, while Sampson is nothing special defensively, despite his 7'4" frame. It's about time Nance and his career 0.571 floor% get recognized.
4. Karl Malone, Utah Jazz, 0.564: Malone's enthusiasm and style on the court has made him appear somewhat better than he actually is. His 0.564 floor% last season was by far a career best, easily surpassing the mediocre mark of 0.529 he had in '87-88 when he was named Second Team All-NBA. Malone's improvement last season was obvious in two parts of his game. First, he started nailing his free throw attempts, hitting 76.6% of them, a great improvement over his rookie mark of 48.1%. Second, Malone's infamous drives to the basket without regard to positioned defenders were less frequent last season, reducing his offensive fouls and contributing to his large decrease in turnovers. Malone is only a good player now, but he's not too far from being great.
5. Otis Thorpe, Houston Rockets, 0.553: Like Nance, Thorpe is one of the strong and silent types, doing a great job and not getting the ink for it. Thorpe held the Sacramento Kings together as long as he could, then he was shipped to Houston to help repair what was once a top front line. Along with Akeem Olajuwon and Walter Berry, Thorpe helps make up a potentially great set of big men for the Rockets. Unfortunately, it is still just 'potentially great'. When Sampson and Rodney McCray were in Houston, they both had difficult times playing along side Olajuwon, leaving question as to whether Thorpe and Berry can play next to Olajuwon. Also, Berry has traditionally had his problems with coaches, fans, and management, all which leaves the greatness of the Rockets' current front three in considerable doubt.
Centers
1. Robert Parish, Boston Celtics, 0.575: It wasn't so much the front line that suffered from Larry Bird's absence, but the guards. The three main guards in Boston's lineup, Dennis Johnson, Brian Shaw, and Danny Ainge (when he was still there), had a very poor 0.526 floor% last season without Bird. On the other hand, Parish, McHale, and Lewis still scored on 57% of their possessions, the top figure in the league and a number very comparable to those typically put up by the normal trio of Parish, McHale, and Bird. Parish was mainly responsible for the continued success of the Celtics' front line, having perhaps his greatest personal season. Third in the league in both rebounding and field goal percentage, Parish showed that it's been more than Bird and McHale carrying the team for so long.
2. Patrick Ewing, New York Knicks, 0.570: Not too long ago, it was Akeem Olajuwon and all the other centers. Now there are three centers who are sometimes labeled the Best - Olajuwon, Ewing, and Daugherty. Despite Olajuwon's reputation, he has never been much of an offensive threat, scoring on 54% or less of his possessions throughout his career. In '87-88, Ewing made great strides towards catching Olajuwon, shooting 55.5% from the field. Last year, he shot even better, increased his assists, reduced his turnovers, and improved his free throw percentage, which made him a far better offensive player than Olajuwon has ever been. Olajuwon is the better defensive player and rebounder, but Ewing is not bad. If a team were looking for a center and both of these players were available, Ewing would probably be the one to take because he's both younger and a significantly better offensive player. Only if a team were in dire need of defense would Olajuwon be the more appropriate player.
3. Brad Daugherty, Cleveland Cavaliers, 0.561: Daugherty is the third of the contemporary centers occasionally mentioned as the Best in the NBA. Daugherty can definitely score. He has a soft shot and a great ability to pass. He keeps the ball high so that it's difficult to take it away from him and has good balance and mobility in the low post. Watching Daugherty play the post is a great pleasure of the game. Daugherty's defense, though, is nothing special. He doesn't block many shots or steal many passes and has a difficult time guarding some of the better offensive centers. Most of the time, Cleveland's good power forwards, Larry Nance and John Williams, help Daugherty, but when they can't, Cleveland is vulnerable. Which keeps Daugherty from being the Best Center in the NBA.
4. Moses Malone, Atlanta Hawks, 0.550: Grandpa Moses still paints the glass about as well as anyone, finishing fourth in the league last season... As opposed to Daugherty, Malone is about the ugliest low post player in the league. He often misses simple shots, hustles after the rebound, then (shot)puts up another shot. The backboard rattles, bodies fly, and there is usually a foul, but Malone gets his points. And from all indications, he gets them efficiently, too.
5. Bill Laimbeer, Detroit Pistons, 0.542: Every big man secretly dreams to be a guard and of launching bombs from three point land. Laimbeer does more than dream about it; he does it. It's certainly not the best thing for an offense, but it has worked for the Pistons. Laimbeer's solid though unconventional offense has allowed Detroit to keep him in games for his good defensive work
Floor percentage is very much like a field goal or free throw percentage. It measures the percentage of possessions (possessions = the number of times up the floor, which is where floor% gets its name) on which there is a score, just as a field goal percentage is the percentage of shots on which there is a score. For example, if Michael Jordan rebounds an opponent's shot, dribbles all the way up the court, then goes in for a crashing slam dunk, he has a field goal percentage and a floor percentage of 100%. If Jordan misses the dunk, but gets fouled and goes to the line, making one or two free throws, then it is also a floor percentage of 100%. He may have only scored one point and shot only 50% from the line, but he still scored on his possession. (For the most part, players will score two points on a scoring possession; other times, the one point possessions will usually just balance the three point possessions for an overall average on scoring possessions of just over two points.)
Another example of how floor percentage works is as follows. If Hersey Hawkins shoots a jump shot that misses, but Charles Barkley is there to rebound and score the basket, then Hawkins has no scoring possession and no possession overall because Barkley was there to save him. Barkley, on the other hand, ends up with one scoring possession and a total possession. This way, the Philadelphia 76ers have one total scoring possession and one total possession.
A third example involves the trickiest part of the floor percentage concept - assists. If Magic Johnson brings the ball up the court and finds James Worthy under the basket for an easy layup, then the Laker team obviously has one scoring possession and one total possession, but how should that possession be split between the player who made the basket (Worthy) and the assistant (Magic)? Both players obviously deserve some credit, but how is it split to be sure that the sum of the individual scoring possessions and the sum of the total possessions both equal one? For this case, both players were crucial in the scoring of the basket - Magic for getting the ball to a player in good scoring position and Worthy for making the easy shot. It's tempting to say that both players deserve half-credit for the scoring possession. Because the shot was virtually assured (an easy layup is made close to 100% of the time), it is justified to say that both Magic and Worthy should have half a scoring possession and half a total possession for this one time down the court. On the other hand, if Magic passes to Byron Scott for a jump shot from twenty feet, the shot is not made with 100% accuracy and Magic doesn't deserve the same credit for making that pass. His job is to find the most sure way of scoring and Scott shooting 50-60% of his open jumpers is only occasionally the most sure way of scoring. For this Magic-to-Scott scenario, assuming Scott makes 50% of his potentially assisted shots, Magic would get 0.25 scoring possessions and total possessions, while Scott would get 0.75 scoring possessions and total possessions. Therefore, a player should get credit for his assists by multiplying by the field goal percentage of his teammates when they get a pass from him (usually ranging between 0.500 and 1.000, averaging about 0.700 [editor's note: the average is now taken to be 0.500]), then dividing by two. It's somewhat complicated and the league doesn't take such stats, so the method presented herein makes rough estimates of the number of assisted shots a player makes and of the average field goal percentage off potential assists. These estimates are certain sources of error, but they don't appear to be large errors.
The average floor% in the league last year was about 0.526, meaning that teams scored on about 52.6% of their possessions. Because this figure includes many reserves dragging the average down, the standards set for starters are somewhat higher. For example, a good mark for starting point guards is about 0.560, with the excellent ones being up above 0.585. For the other positions, a good floor% is about 0.545, with 0.570 being another step up. These standards certainly are not set in stone, just as 50% shooting from the field isn't some grand reference point for good shooting; they are just convenient, easy-to-remember numbers.
Return to read about the best scorers in the league.