Let's talk about the term "pure scorer" for a second

[HacksawJimThuggin]

What exactly does this term mean? Is there even a universal definition?


For example, many people would say that Melo is the best pure "scorer" in the league right now.


What does that mean?

Is it referring to a skill set? Melo can beat you both inside and outside and when he's on, he's impossible to guard. His vast offensive repertoire means he can score in a variety of ways.

However, he's also never led the league in scoring and is a career 46% FG shooter. So why does him being the best "scorer" not actually translate to his numbers being better? What good is this vast offensive repetoire if it doesn't help him score more or at least score more efficiently than his peers?


Similar situation with Kobe. Kobe is seen by many to be one of, if not the best "scorer" of all time. But he's 11th all time in terms of PPG and is a career 45% FG shooter. So why doesn't that translate into tangible individual success? One would think that being "arguably the best scorer ever" would allow him to actually score more points than everyone, or at least do so more efficiently than everyone.


Meanwhile, someone like Karl Malone actually has a better career PPG than Melo and shot it at a much higher FG%. Yet no one would ever call Karl Malone a "pure scorer".

Is it a term reserved for someone who may not be elite in other facets of the game so they're labeled as a "scorer" because that's what they do best? Is it a term that is used for streaky players who can get hot and drop buckets? If so, is the term given too much weight considering for every game they drop 40, there's obviously a regression to the mean that follows?


One could argue that Jamal Crawford is one of the best "scorers" in the league due to his numerous career 50 point games. But all that means is that for every 50 point game, he has a few 5 point games to cancel those out, considering his PPG numbers.

So is the term overrated? Also, what does it actually mean? And is that definition an accurate one?

 

[mastermind]

we've had this convo a few times.

Its mostly referring to skill set and variety of ways to score. Melo is a pure scorer because he can do it from behind the 3 point line into to the deep post. Same with Kobe. They can also create for themelves.

And the term isnt overrated. No one says "great pure scorer = best player in the NBA"

 

[beenz]

To me a pure scorer is someone who gets u points but not much of anything else or makes ur team better by themself. Like Jamal Crawford or Monta Ellis.

 

[muzikfrk75]

Is it a term reserved for someone who may not be elite in other facets of the game so they're labeled as a "scorer" because that's what they do best?

Yes

/thread

 

[HacksawJimThuggin]

So what's the benefit of being a "great pure scorer" if doing so doesn't actually lead to any tangible results? Also, why doesn't this apply to other facets of basketball? Like calling someone the "best passer" despite him averaging 5 assists a game or "best rebounder" even though he only grabs 8 boards a game. shyt sounds dumb when you think about it like that lol

and if, like you guys are saying, is reserved for those who tend to be one dimensional, why do we also throw it around in a complementary way? I've never really seen it used to insult someone.

 

[mastermind]

To me a pure scorer is someone who gets u points but not much of anything else or makes ur team better by themself. Like Jamal Crawford or Montana Ellis.

I disagree with this completely

Monta Ellis is a guy who can score a lot, but he is inefficient and a chucker.

To be a pure scorer, you have to be able to score many different ways.

Jordan Crawford or Nick Young can get you 25 a game if you gave them the shots. Those guys are just scorers.

A pure scorer is like a Dirk, Durant, Melo, Kobe, guys who can score many different ways. You can put those guys all over the court on an offensive set, and those guys can get there points.

 

[Loose]

Pure scorer is another way to praise inefficient scorers for having a "large arsenal "

 

[HacksawJimThuggin]

I disagree with this completely

Monta Ellis is a guy who can score a lot, but he is inefficient and a chucker.

To be a pure scorer, you have to be able to score many different ways.

Jordan Crawford or Nick Young can get you 25 a game if you gave them the shots. Those guys are just scorers.

A pure scorer is like a Dirk, Durant, Melo, Kobe, guys who can score many different ways.

Just playing devil's advocate, but if it's based more on a skill set (which I probably agree with to a certain extent), would the term be overrated considering Melo is the most pure or versatile scorer according to most, yet he never actually scores the most and certainly doesn't do so more efficiently.


I guess I'm just perplexed as to how someone with the repetoire of those guys can be sub 50% FG shooters even though they had a more advanced skill set than people who are scoring more and doing it at a higher percentage. Wouldn't that be a bad thing?

If someone had the best "rebounding skill set" but never actually led the league in rebounding, we'd probably consider him a disappointment and someone who never met their potential rather than being complimentary.

 

[red222]

its a backhanded compliment its a default well he cant do shyt else throw him in this category if you will.

 

[HacksawJimThuggin]

Pure scorer is another way to praise inefficient scorers for having a "large arsenal "

That's what I'm saying though. Is the word overrated or too complimentary, then? The fukk good does a "large arsenal of moves" do if you're a) not using it to score more than everyone like you should be OR b) not using it to score more efficiently?



" Player A is easily a better pure scorer than Player B."

*looks up stats and sees Player B scores more points per game and shoots a higher percentage*


So it's basically a meaningless term then, no?

 

[Street Knowledge]

You can be a "pure scorer" and be great at other things or a great all around player . It's not mutually Exclusive which your basically implying it is.

You have george Gervin's who were great at scoring but not much else Like melo

And you have Michael Jordan who was a great scorer but an excellent all around player, like Kobe.

 

[PortCityProphet]

Being a pure scorer doesn't automatically equal leading the lead in scoring.

 

[HacksawJimThuggin]

Being a pure scorer doesn't automatically equal leading the lead in scoring.

but then why doesn't that hold true for any other skill? We'd never label someone the best pure rebounder if he never actually led the league in rebounding or had the highest career RPG

 

[jfkennedy]

its a backhanded compliment its a default well he cant do shyt else throw him in this category if you will.

:kobewut:

Maybe if the person is simpleminded.

You can be a pure scorer and also competent on defense. The two don't cancel each other out.

 

[mastermind]

That's what I'm saying though. Is the word overrated or too complimentary, then? The fukk good does a "large arsenal of moves" do if you're a) not using it to score more than everyone like you should be OR b) not using it to score more efficiently?

I dont think the terms is overrated tho because all it says is that a player can score a variety of ways.

No one says x player is the best pure scorer so that means x player is the best player in the NBA. Its just a compliment of a player's skill level.