RealGM

In a general sense, I'm talking about shooters. What do you guys think the "Mendoza Line" for FG% for shooters is in today's NBA?

[Mendoza line: Baseball term for someone batting of around 0.200 [20%], named after Mario Mendoza who had a career batting average of 0.215 [21.5%]]

T-Spot wrote:In a general sense, I'm talking about shooters. What do you guys think the "Mendoza Line" for FG% for shooters is in today's NBA?

[Mendoza line: Baseball term for someone batting of around 0.200 [20%], named after Mario Mendoza who had a career batting average of 0.215 [21.5%]]

Well for bigmen... it is .400

for FT shooting it is also .400

For guards it is .300

What's the point of it. I don't get it.

Farsi Man wrote:What's the point of it. I don't get it.

Pretty much to see where the line is between bad offensive production and "why the hell are you still in this league" offensive production.

What is the tipping point between that, is basically my question.

T-Spot wrote:-= original quote snipped =-



Pretty much to see where the line is between bad offensive production and "why the hell are you still in this league" offensive production.

What is the tipping point between that, is basically my question.

Oh ok then I agree with Blame Rasho.

Blame Rasho wrote:-= original quote snipped =-



Well for bigmen... it is .400

for FT shooting it is also .400

For guards it is .300

Seems about right. I was thinking .350 for perimeter players though.

btw, my definition of the Mendoza line would be "There is no excuse for this, you're hurting the team."

I'd say Kwame Brown is the human equivalent of the 'mendoza line'. Seriously though, all busts are compared to him, right?

If you want to be fancy, I'd say that a TS% under .500 would be a Mendoza Line that accuracy gauges awful shooting from all positions.

The bottom five (500 FGA minimum):

1. Quentin Richardson (.444)
2. Darko Milicic (.456)
3. Sebastian Telfair (.462)
4. Jannero Pargo (.468)
5. Larry Hughes (.468)

Lets be honest............anything under 40% is bad enough. I don't care what position you play, from guard to center, if you shoot 39% or below, you just flat out suck. Anytime your fg% starts with a 3, 2, 1 or 0, you don't deserve to be in the NBA.

Death Knight wrote:Lets be honest............anything under 40% is bad enough. I don't care what position you play, from guard to center, if you shoot 39% or below, you just flat out suck. Anytime your fg% starts with a 3, 2, 1 or 0, you don't deserve to be in the NBA.

That's a wee bit of hyperbole. Jason Kidd's career FG% is .401, and I'd say that he deserves to be in the NBA.

Schadenfreude wrote:If you want to be fancy, I'd say that a TS% under .500 would be a Mendoza Line that accuracy gauges awful shooting from all positions.

The bottom five (500 FGA minimum):

1. Quentin Richardson (.444)
2. Darko Milicic (.456)
3. Sebastian Telfair (.462)
4. Jannero Pargo (.468)
5. Larry Hughes (.468)

Trivia: What recent player flirted with the TS% Mendoza line on his way to be voted MVP?

Death Knight wrote:Lets be honest............anything under 40% is bad enough. I don't care what position you play, from guard to center, if you shoot 39% or below, you just flat out suck. Anytime your fg% starts with a 3, 2, 1 or 0, you don't deserve to be in the NBA.

While I'd agree shoting below 40% is horrible, the number being looked for needs to be lower than that, since players can shoot under 40% and still be very valuable to a team in other respects.

Take Jason Kidd, shooting a god-awful .385 right this year.

I'd say probably about 35% across the board. Some players who qualify right now:

Brian Cardinal - 34.1%
Donyell Marshall - 32.7%
Robert Horry - 31.9%
Smush Parker - 34.8%
Rasual Butler - 35%

Plus of course the usual assortment of rookies and 10-day-contracts. You'd be hard-pressed to find a player shooting under 35% who serves a valuable role on a team.

iverson?

some_rand wrote:iverson?

lol anyone who think Iverson is an MVP candidate is smoking lots of mary jane.

Doctor MJ wrote:-= original quote snipped =-



Trivia: What recent player flirted with the TS% Mendoza line on his way to be voted MVP?

Heh, also the second-worst pure FG% by any MVP in league history, and the worst by 4.5% in the modern era. How Shaq collected only 7 of 124 first place votes that year I'll never know.

Schadenfreude wrote:-= original quote snipped =-



Heh, also the second-worst pure FG% by any MVP in league history, and the worst by 4.5% in the modern era. How Shaq collected only 7 of 124 first place votes that year I'll never know.

Iverson carried that team because he was surrounded by talentless hacks.

I guess there's always the argument to be made that a shot-blocker with no other function can shoot whatever the hell he wants, seeing as he'd see about 10MPG and get maybe a shot attempt per game. (I'm thinking of a Trybanski type here, although maybe the fact that he's playing in Europe right now is indicating something.) Under 40% isn't so bad but under 35%... yeesh, that's worse than Jamaal Tinsley. Although...

82 games played
820 total minutes (10 minutes per game)
164 total shot attempts (2 per game)
56 made shots (approximately 0.68 per game)
.341FG%
100 blocked shots (approximately 1.1 per game)

And he's 7'2" and mobile. Does said fictitious player get a spot on your team?

Duiz wrote:lol anyone who think Iverson is an MVP candidate is smoking lots of mary jane.

Think you need to re-read my statement.

Schadenfreude wrote:-= original quote snipped =-



Heh, also the second-worst pure FG% by any MVP in league history, and the worst by 4.5% in the modern era. How Shaq collected only 7 of 124 first place votes that year I'll never know.

Lakers weren't seen as having that successful of a season for until the end, at which point Iverson hadn't had to play meaningful basketball for a while and so it was hard for him to drop. In retrospect, it looks crazy, but at the time it made sense. When the main story behind your team for most the season is "Why are the Lakers self-destructing? Shaq's a lazy bum whose hurting team chemistry", you expect to lose out in awards voting. Had the voters been confident the Lakers could turn it on when they needed it, Shaq would have won hands down.

Doctor MJ wrote:-= original quote snipped =-



Lakers weren't seen as having that successful of a season for until the end, at which point Iverson hadn't had to play meaningful basketball for a while and so it was hard for him to drop. In retrospect, it looks crazy, but at the time it made sense. When the main story behind your team for most the season is "Why are the Lakers self-destructing? Shaq's a lazy bum whose hurting team chemistry", you expect to lose out in awards voting. Had the voters been confident the Lakers could turn it on when they needed it, Shaq would have won hands down.

Yeah, I remember the arguments at the time...but it's one of those MVP campaigns that was silly as soon as the season ended. I wonder whether the award should be voted upon later, so that voters have more perspective; the '00/'01 vote was a classic example of the narrative overtaking the facts of the season.