"I Could Score 100."

[The15thunter]

Re: "I Could Score 100."

jordan had the skill to do it, but the circumstances around which an opportunity as ridiculous as this one would need to be in place are one in a trillion.

he would have to be in the greatest zone of his career, the defense would have to essentially not care about stopping him, yet the game would have to be close enough to warrant him continuing to take such a ridiculously high volume of shots. meanwhile, they have to be fouling him, his teammates have to force-feed him the ball, and he has to maintain a scoring clip of 25 per quarter while likely playing the entire game.

possible, but would never happen.

[Dice]

Re: "I Could Score 100."

Shooting percentages aren't down much at all (less than 1%), and with 3pointers involved I wouldn't be surprised if some of the overall shooting stats like true shooting aren't higher now.

Not going to comment on the Stackhouse/Redd thing because you took that all out of content.

As far as the scoring, the average FG% in 1990 was .476. Last year the average was .461. And your right, TS% is up from 1990. In 1990 TS% was .537, last year it was .542. BUT just like you said, taking fewer shots inflates the TS% stat. So my only stat that I could rely on comparing across era's is the FG%. And as far as the 3pt shot, there is more emphasis on the shot now as it was 20 years ago. Back then, 3-pointers were taken specifically to keep a defense honest. NOW, they are written into the playbook. Jordan back in 1990 was actually a sound 3-pt shooter. He shot at a .376. but he only took about 3 a game. Kobe on the other hand averages about 4-5 attempts a game. And Kobe is regarded as a 'scorer' instead of a 'shooter'. but that's in today's game.

It's absolutely nothing like throwing a no-hitter.

It's really the equivalent of throwing some 5 perfect games in a row. It was done once under conditions that I still am not convinced were fair and since then nobody has come remotely close.

And once again, your missing my point. NOT comparing no-hitters to 100-point games. I stated that Jordan has a god-like complex on the playing field. And I compared that COMPLEX to a great pitcher who thinks he can pitch a no-hitter at every start. It doesn't work that way. Even a prime Jordan couldn't just lace on a pair of sneakers and get on the court and score 100. The situation has to be right. That's all I'm saying.

[Cebby]

Re: "I Could Score 100."

Not going to comment on the Stackhouse/Redd thing because you took that all out of content.

How did I take it out of context?

You clearly either remember MJ as a far better scorer than he was or don't remember that Stackhouse was scoring all over the place that season or that Redd is a deadly 3 point shooter.

Any great 3 point shooter and good player overall is capable of dropping 50 in the right circumstance if they get hot from 3.

Back then, 3-pointers were taken specifically to keep a defense honest. NOW, they are written into the playbook.

They're written into the playbook because people can actually make them now.

And once again, your missing my point. NOT comparing no-hitters to 100-point games. I stated that Jordan has a god-like complex on the playing field. And I compared that COMPLEX to a great pitcher who thinks he can pitch a no-hitter at every start. It doesn't work that way. Even a prime Jordan couldn't just lace on a pair of sneakers and get on the court and score 100.

...

Yes, you were comparing a pitcher thinking that he could pitch a no hitter to Jordan thinking he could score 100. However, as I said a pitcher is entirely rational in thinking he can throw a no hitter. Thinking you can score 100 is just absurd.

[dragonyeuw]

Re: "I Could Score 100."

Using Jordan's career average, Stackhouse at his peak was 99% of Jordan and Redd was 88.7. More importantly they both blow Jordan away in real 3 point shooting which helped them reach the 50s.

Are you saying that Stackhouse's one time year of scoring 29 points per game, is supposed to in any way compare to a guy who averaged 30 points per game over 15 seasons? Stackhouse had one year, where he was playing for a team with practically no-one else on the team to take shots from him, not to mention a team going nowhere that year, and had carte blache to shoot at will, with a 40% shooting percentage. How....Iverson-esque.

You can't look at Stackhouse scoring 29.8 that year, and look at Jordan scoring 29.7 in 1997, and say that the two scenarios, asides from the raw numbers, in any way indicate some form of parity or comparable ability as scorers. For that matter, Monta Eills scored 26 points per game this year, Kobe scored 27. Does that mean Monta is in the same stratosphere as Kobe in terms of scoring ability? Of course not.

[Cebby]

Re: "I Could Score 100."

Are you saying that Stackhouse's one time year of scoring 29 points per game, is supposed to in any way compare to a guy who averaged 30 points per game over 15 seasons? Stackhouse had one year, where he was playing for a team with practically no-one else on the team to take shots from him, not to mention a team going nowhere that year, and had carte blache to shoot at will, with a 40% shooting percentage. How....Iverson-esque.

Shooting percentages and longevity are absolutely irrelevant in this argument.

Dice said that Jordan was twice the scorer that Stackhouse was and since Stackhouse scored 57 that Jordan could double that.

Longevity is irrelevant since the 57 points occurred in his one good season and percentage is irrelevant since Dice is taking the one 57 point game in a vacuum. To say that he was twice the scorer that Stackhouse was, Jordan would have needed to score just under 60 for a season.

Of course Jordan was a much better player, but at his peak Stackhouse was putting the ball in the basket very frequently.

And again, the entire argument that one person doing something means that another could do something else is stupid. Scoring 50 is insanely easier than scoring 100, especially with hot 3 point shooting. As I said, Kobe is clearly multiple times better than Adam Morrison, but that doesn't mean that since AMMO had some 26 point games in 2007 that Kobe could go for 150-200. Any player can get hot and have a good game. Leon Powe dropped 21 on 6/7 shooting in 15 minutes in the NBA Finals but that doesn't mean Paul Pierce could have dropped 70, it just means Powe played out of his mind.

You can't look at Stackhouse scoring 29.8 that year, and look at Jordan scoring 29.7 in 1997, and say that the two scenarios, asides from the raw numbers, in any way indicate some form of parity or comparable ability as scorers. For that matter, Monta Eills scored 26 points per game this year, Kobe scored 27. Does that mean Monta is in the same stratosphere as Kobe in terms of scoring ability? Of course not.

In terms of quality game to game absolutely not.

In terms of peak ability to score Monta and Kobe are pretty comparable given the systems that they play in. In fact, Monta had a better peak scoring year putting up 46 and 45 to Kobe's high of 44.

Kobe certainly would be more capable than Monta of having a very high game and certainly will do it with more frequency, but at this point Kobe wouldn't be capable of scoring 20+ more points than Monta would be capable of doing.

That's essentially my argument with Jordan. Could Jordan score more than prime Stackhouse? Absolutely. 43 points more than prime Stackhouse? No.

[Dice]

Re: "I Could Score 100."

...

Yes, you were comparing a pitcher thinking that he could pitch a no hitter to Jordan thinking he could score 100. However, as I said a pitcher is entirely rational in thinking he can throw a no hitter. Thinking you can score 100 is just absurd.

The irrationality comes in when a pitcher thinks he can do it every start. That's the comparison I was making from the pitchers mentality. And as I stated before, it's like Jordan thinks he can just walk on a court and just drop 100. It doesn't work that way.

I guess we can argue about era's and stats all night. Whether you believe it can be done or not is not the question. It can be done because it's been done before. The question is, is it impossible? And all I'm saying is no. NOW if you were to tell me that Jordan could score 200 points then will I say that's impossible because for one no NBA team has scored 200 in a game, let alone a player.

You can argue about stats and defense and how teams are better 3 point shooters. BUT the one argument you cannot make is against history. And according to history, the record has been achieved. Now whether you want to believe it or not, that's up to you. BUT the only way something can start by being IMPOSSIBLE if it was NEVER done. That argument you cannot make.

[BigDofBA]

Re: "I Could Score 100."

nahhhhh. I don't think so....

[dragonyeuw]

Re: "I Could Score 100."

Shooting percentages and longevity are absolutely irrelevant in this argument.

Actually, shooting percentages are very relevant. If a decently talented player plays on a team with no other offensive options and he's got license to shoot, he's going to score alot of points. That Stackhouse scored 29 on 40% shooting, tells you that he was a chucker that year. Jordan scored 30 in his prime, on 50% shooting, with defenses far more keyed on to him with nightly double and triple teaming than anything Jerry Stackhouse saw. So picking what was by far Stackhouse's career scoring year, and comparing it to an average year for Jordan without a bit of perspective behind the numbers is well...... We're talking two classes of scorers here, an elite scorer who scores with efficiency at the championship level with the defense geared to stop him, and a chucker on a lottery team with license to shoot due to the lack of scoring options on his team. The fact that this point even needs to be made amazes me.

Dice said that Jordan was twice the scorer that Stackhouse was and since Stackhouse scored 57 that Jordan could double that.

It's hard to quantify in terms of being twice or thrice the scorer he is. Suffice to say, Jordan's offensive package is light years ahead of Stackhouse's in just about every imaginable way. Since David Robinson scored 71 points, I suppose he's 2 points better a scorer than Jordan too, yeah? Again, a bit of perspective behind the numbers is needed here.

Longevity is irrelevant since the 57 points occurred in his one good season and percentage is irrelevant since Dice is taking the one 57 point game in a vacuum. To say that he was twice the scorer that Stackhouse was, Jordan would have needed to score just under 60 for a season.

A sun shines on a dog's *** every so often. Tony Delk scored 50 off the bench one time. Are we saying that puts him in the same category as a scorer as Jordan, since Jordan 'only' scored 19 more points for his career high?

Of course Jordan was a much better player, but at his peak Stackhouse was putting the ball in the basket very frequently.

Again, with no other decent scoring options, he had license to shoot. Not hard to put up big numbers in those cases. And at 40% shooting, you can't argue that he was anything but a chucker. If you give any decent player license to shot 20 times a night, chances are they'll put up numbers.

And again, the entire argument that one person doing something means that another could do something else is stupid. Scoring 50 is insanely easier than scoring 100, especially with hot 3 point shooting. As I said, Kobe is clearly multiple times better than Adam Morrison, but that doesn't mean that since AMMO had some 26 point games in 2007 that Kobe could go for 150-200. Any player can get hot and have a good game. Leon Powe dropped 21 on 6/7 shooting in 15 minutes in the NBA Finals but that doesn't mean Paul Pierce could have dropped 70, it just means Powe played out of his mind.

Boy you really do take the numbers literally, don't you?


In terms of quality game to game absolutely not.

In terms of peak ability to score Monta and Kobe are pretty comparable given the systems that they play in. In fact, Monta had a better peak scoring year putting up 46 and 45 to Kobe's high of 44.

You're kidding? So, you're saying that Monta scoring 2 more points than Kobe last year as a game high, means that he deserves to be in the same conversation? You're scaring me, man.



Kobe certainly would be more capable than Monta of having a very high game and certainly will do it with more frequency, but at this point Kobe wouldn't be capable of scoring 20+ more points than Monta would be capable of doing.

Didn't Kobe score 61 at MSG last year?

That's essentially my argument with Jordan. Could Jordan score more than prime Stackhouse? Absolutely. 43 points more than prime Stackhouse?

No.

So using your logic, Kobe scored 24 more points than prime Stackhouse. Figure out how many more times a scorer that makes Kobe compared to Stack , because your logic with the numbers is giving me a good chuckle. I actually can't believe I'm having to argue a comparison between Jordan and Jerry Stackhouse.

Reply in bold

[Cebby]

Re: "I Could Score 100."

You can argue about stats and defense and how teams are better 3 point shooters. BUT the one argument you cannot make is against history. And according to history, the record has been achieved. Now whether you want to believe it or not, that's up to you. BUT the only way something can start by being IMPOSSIBLE if it was NEVER done. That argument you cannot make.

Sure I can

It happened once in 1962. None of the things that happened there can be taken seriously. Nobody has come within 19 points of that game, no footage exists, and well, again, it occurred during the 1962 season.

Wilt's 100 points are the equivalent of the old folks who claim to see Mickey Mantle bunting inside the park homeruns.

[Bornindamecca]

Re: "I Could Score 100."

This is such a silly topic, HAHA! There is no criteria for right or wrong here. Jordan was a great player, and accomplished most of what he put his mind to, but obviously 100 points is an extreme number for many reasons--game pace, etc. But he's retired, so.....


This discussion is built to run around in circles, and in some ways is a very thinly veiled Kobe vs. Mike topic. Ah well, continue.



Can't wait until the season starts and this board goes back to normal

[Cebby]

Re: "I Could Score 100."

Actually, shooting percentages are very relevant. If a decently talented player plays on a team with no other offensive options and he's got license to shoot, he's going to score alot of points. That Stackhouse scored 29 on 40% shooting, tells you that he was a chucker that year. Jordan scored 30 in his prime, on 50% shooting, with defenses far more keyed on to him with nightly double and triple teaming than anything Jerry Stackhouse saw. So picking what was by far Stackhouse's career scoring year, and comparing it to Jordan's without a bit of perspective behind the numbers is well......

1. Jordan wasn't triple teamed. That's absurd.

2. Of course Stackhouse was a chucker and inefficient, but he still was capable of scoring a lot of points. However, he was still good enough to have one very efficient shooting game which culminated in 57 points, much like AI was inefficient but could still have good individual games.

It's hard to quantify in terms of being twice or thrice the scorer he is. Suffice to say, Jordan's offensive package is light years ahead of Stackhouse's in just about every imaginable way

He was never 43 points better than Stackhouse when Stackhouse was at his best.

Since David Robinson scored 71 points, I suppose he's 2 points better a scorer than Jordan too, yeah?

1. Neither team was playing defense in that game in the literal sense.

2. No, 2 points is well within the margin of "if he tried" or other such claims. 31 points in fewer minutes is not within that.

A sun shines on a dog's *** every so often. Tony Delk scored 50 off the bench one time. Are we saying that puts him in the same category as a scorer as Jordan, since Jordan 'only' scored 19 more points for his career high?

I never said either Tony Delk or Stackhouse were as good of scorers as Jordan, just that Jordan wasn't twice the scorer that Stackhouse was.

Boy you really do take the numbers literally, don't you?

This is a thread about numbers.

You're kidding? So, you're saying that Monta scoring 2 more points than Kobe last year as a game high, means that he deserves to be in the same conversation? You're scaring me, man.

In terms of ability to fill up a box score (which is what the crazy point games are), yes Monta is in the same category as Kobe. He proved it last year by filling up box scores better than Kobe. Obviously some of that is the systems, but Monta can definitely score at a high rate now. At this point between the injuries and mentality Kobe isn't in a good position to put up 50-60.

Didn't Kobe score 61 at MSG last year?

That was 2 years ago when he averaged 8 PPG more than Monta.

So using your logic, Kobe scored 24 more points than prime Stackhouse. Figure out how many more times a scorer that makes Kobe compared to Stack , because your logic with the numbers is giving me a good chuckle.

I've never agreed with the "times the scorer" belief.

I don't doubt that Jordan could do 81 if he really wanted to, though I'd argue that the best time for him to do it would have been 96 or 97 because he could shoot the three.

[st0rmb11]

Re: "I Could Score 100."

This is such a silly topic, HAHA! There is no criteria for right or wrong here. Jordan was a great player, and accomplished most of what he put his mind to, but obviously 100 points is an extreme number for many reasons--game pace, etc. But he's retired, so.....


This discussion is built to run around in circles, and in some ways is a very thinly veiled Kobe vs. Mike topic. Ah well, continue.



Can't wait until the season starts and this board goes back to normal

Yeah, I initially started this thread just to see if people agreed, but it's turned into almost a Kobe vs Jordan/Era vs Era cocktail, of sorts. (with a lot of "1962" and "only 69" thrown in).


The question is COULD he.
Yes, if he and his team tried to get him to do it, he COULD. same with Kobe. same with LeBron. same with Wade. same with any great player. they COULD do it. WOULD they? you never know. it's not inconceivable.

[dragonyeuw]

Re: "I Could Score 100."

1. Jordan wasn't triple teamed. That's absurd.

As someone who watched Michael Jordan religiously from about 1989, I can tell you there were many occasions when 3 opposing players rushed him on the perimeter in an attempt to disrupt him.

2. Of course Stackhouse was a chucker and inefficient, but he still was capable of scoring a lot of points. However, he was still good enough to have one very efficient shooting game which culminated in 57 points, much like AI was inefficient but could still have good individual games.

So if Jordan was that much better a scorer and far more efficient, theoretically his scoring potential is much higher, even higher than the 12 point difference between their career highs. In Jordan's 69 point game, he wasn't exactly shooting just to get numbers, unlike Kobe's 81 point game, where the game was in hand well before he hit 80. Jordan's 69 points came as part of a 4 point OT win, assuming Jordan was shooting just to push his total as high as possible, and playing the right team, he'd have scored more than 69. Maybe not 100, but alot more than 69.


He was never 43 points better than Stackhouse when Stackhouse was at his best.



1. Neither team was playing defense in that game in the literal sense.

2. No, 2 points is well within the margin of "if he tried" or other such claims. 31 points in fewer minutes is not within that.



I never said either Tony Delk or Stackhouse were as good of scorers as Jordan, just that Jordan wasn't twice the scorer that Stackhouse was.

You're arguing the numbers too literally. Basically your mindset is, well if Stackhouse scored 57, then for Jordan to be 'twice the scorer' he have to score 114. NOOOOO. When we say twice the scorer, it's not in the raw numbers they put up which are circumstantial, but simply in their abilities as scorers. Jordan is on another planet from Stackhouse as a scorer in terms of talent, skills, and efficiency. It's not something you can quantity with simple numbers, which is what you're doing.



This is a thread about numbers.


In terms of ability to fill up a box score (which is what the crazy point games are), yes Monta is in the same category as Kobe. He proved it last year by filling up box scores better than Kobe. Obviously some of that is the systems, but Monta can definitely score at a high rate now. At this point between the injuries and mentality Kobe isn't in a good position to put up 50-60.

Just because Kobe only scored 44 last year, doesn't mean that if he pushed it he couldn't score much more. What, you think 27 ppg is the most he can average at this time? Kobe could average 30 in his sleep under the right circumstance. The situation he is in now dictates that his scoring burden is lesser than 2 years ago, which is reflected in his numbers.


That was 2 years ago when he averaged 8 PPG more than Monta.


I've never agreed with the "times the scorer" belief.

I don't doubt that Jordan could do 81 if he really wanted to, though I'd argue that the best time for him to do it would have been 96 or 97 because he could shoot the three.

Yay we agree on something, I too believe his second threepeat he had the game to score 80-90, because the closer 3pt line gave him another weapon in his arsenal.

Reply in bold

[PrettyT11]

Re: "I Could Score 100."

I think some of you guys just aren't realizing how big of a number 100 is. I don't see Jordan or anybody putting up a 100. I do however though see a prime Jordan having a 80 point game or two in todays game and could average 40 a night.

[ehh]

Re: "I Could Score 100."

LOL, this turned into a nearly 200 post thread? Impressive.

I doubt MJ could - unless he was facing that sorry excuse for a defense that the Raps put on the floor the night Kobe got 81.