To the best of my knowledge, no one's been cheated yet but soon that will happen.
2006-12-26 14:08:24 · 7 answers · asked by vabostrom 1 in Sports ➔ Basketball
That's a good question, and I think you're right... I don't think anyone's been 'cheated' out of a scoring title by scoring the most total points but having a slightly lower average due to playing a few more games, but it could certainly happen.
In 1962, the top 3 scorers per game (which is what the NBA recognizes) were:
Wilt Chamberlain / 50.4
Walt Bellamy/ 31.6
Bob Pettit / 31.1
If we leave Chamberlain out of it for a moment, then it could have happened that year. Elgin Baylor averaged 34.5 points per game, but only played 48 games, partly because of injury, but mostly because he'd been drafted into the military while still an active NBA player, and missed many games due playing only on weekends due to his military service.
Wilt Chamberlain led the NBA in assists in 1968 with 702. Oscar Robertson was third that year with 633 assists. However, Oscar had a higher per game average (9.7) that Wilt (8.6) because Oscar only played in 65 games, while Wilt played in all 82 games for the 76ers. Nevertheless, Wilt is recognized by the NBA as leading the league in assists that season.
If it can happen with assists, it can certainly happen with scoring as well (although it hasn't yet).
Still, everyone knows what the rules are going in, so a player can't complain if he scores the most points, but doesn't finish with the highest average. The NBA says that whoever has the highest average will be recognized as the "scoring champion" (based on a minimum of games played of course... I think it's 70, I know it was at one time but I'm not sure if that's still the case).
2006-12-26 14:48:19 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
No its not BS.....average points gives a better sense of consistency of a player, and that's ooo very important. Who would most people think is better: a player getting 15-20 most nights, or a player getting 0-5 most of the time and random 30+ point games to bring his total up. Sure those are good games, maybe even just luck, but INCONSISTENCY is not good.
2006-12-27 04:09:06 · answer #2 · answered by iamtired 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I don't think so, because that would be unfair for the players that got injured, for let's say, 10 games.
What if lebron James, Kobe, and AI all played around 70 games this season because of injury, and someone else who averages about 25 points a game got the title just because he it's healthy?
I think that would be unfair.
I think you should play at least 60 or 50 games to be considered for it, so that some players that only played some games won't count.
That way is fair.
2006-12-26 22:35:03 · answer #3 · answered by Ling T 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Probably, but I think you have to have a certain # of games to be considered for it. But you're right, total points would be more accurate.
2006-12-26 22:13:56 · answer #4 · answered by smeiou78 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
no. it would be way to confusing, and if someone missed a few games, it would not affect them too much in the average, but it would in total
2006-12-26 22:19:29 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT A RED HERRING (LOOK IT UP). IT IS NOT BS. TO QUALIFY YOU MUST PLAY A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF GAMES. IT IS JUST LIKE BASEBALL, YOU MUST HAVE X AMOUNT OF PLATE APPEARANCES TO QUALITY FOR THE BATTING AVG.
2006-12-30 18:33:50 · answer #6 · answered by smitty 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No.
2006-12-26 22:10:44 · answer #7 · answered by Tar Heel 4 Life 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋