Scoring average?

Obviously, a scoring average is computed by taking a player's total points divided by the number of game said player appears in.

Someone, a while ago, came up with all stats (including points) in a 36 minute time frame so that guys who play fewer minutes could
better be compared with starters and guys who play lots of minutes off the bench. Not sure who initiated this concept to look at stats,
but it does have its place.

My concern about scoring averages over time is the consistency of what goes into a good player's scoring average. Score three in one
game and fifteen in the next game yields a 9 point scoring average just as scoring 10 in one game and then eight in the next game.

Of course, no one looks at a player's scoring average after only two games, but over the course of a season there seem to be many
guys who average none per game by taking the yo-yo approach. Olynyk comes to mind on the Cs (and this is why his better games
(like last night do stand out so much), but other teams have similar guys, too.

This interests me because when I was coaching and playing it always seemed to be much more valuable to a team when a player
does not have an average (even though it is still an average) built around the yo-you approach. It always seemed so much easier
for the coach and other players to "do their job" and not have to so much 'cover' for the yo-yo scorer in trying to win the game.

To me the guy who gets the close to his average of nine per game is a much more valuable team player if all other things are
pretty equal. Just looking for your thoughts.

For players who don't play much, extrapolating to 36 minutes is dangerous if for no other reason than the sampling size (minutes in this context) is not large enough to reflect the true value. Also, things like getting in the flow of the game, earning trust of teammates, etc, etc, can affect this value.

The two types of players you describe have the same average scoring, but have wildly different standard deviations. Whether one or the other is overall better for the team is an interesing question. Over the course of the season, the two players will contribute approximately the same number of points given the same number of minutes. I would guess that over the course of the season, the erratic players "good" games might swing as many wins as his "bad" games would losses. However, it may be that when the streaky player gets hot, his teammates are less involved, resulting in a poorer team performance. On the other hand, maybe he also elevates other aspects of his game, resulting in an overall better team performance. In summary, I guess I don't know. You said that from your coaching experience that you suspect the streaky player helps less over the course of a season. Why do you think this is true?

Shamrock,

Great question.

I believe that a team gets "comfortable" and "counts on" regular scoring (as well as other contributions) by its players-especially the starters and the reserves who play a good deal every night. Deep on-the-bench guys are not effected as much since they don't get many minutes when Joey has a flopper night.  

Such consistent scoring helps the players who play the most to not have to try to play above their norms which usually results in forced shots due to coverage and also by taking shots that a player does not normally take (or make since they are rarely taken).  An example might be a kid who rarely takes shots that are outside of the lane begins to take jumpers beyond his shooting range.

So, if Joey usually scores 21 and comes up really soft or cold in a game and only has about 5 late in the game I believe that other guys begin to force things if the game is still on the line.  They do not necessarily get upset with Joey, but they certainly feel the pressure to do for their team what Joey usually does.  It might be nice to think that Joey can bounce back and score 15 at the end of a game, but not too many Joeys are able to play in the fourth quarter like IT4 has done this year for the Cs.

This situation is different than if Joey is going to be out of the game in advance due to injury or whatever because in these situations the entire team knows that he is not playing and they all gear up right from the start to cover for him. They can just play harder with more focus, and still not over extend themselves trying to do what they normally do not do when Joey plays his normal game.  An example would be what the Kings did last week to the Cs when Cousins did not play.  This situation happens quite often, in my opinion, at all levels at least for the first game of a certain player's absence.

On the Cs, wouldn't it be nice for Olynyk and Johnson (our two biggest yo-yo type scorers I think without dredging through stats from every game this year) to give us 12 or 14 per game rather than 5 one game then maybe 20 or 21 the next night.  On some occasions these guys sometimes score less than 4 points, and when they both give us a 4 point game those games are very difficult to win.

If Johnson could be less of a yo-yo scorer he would have a guaranteed spot on next year's team even if he is unable to score 14 per night.  A consistent, solid 10 points and 10 boards from him would make us a much better team this year (and next, too). Same idea with Olynyk. If he ever gets to score consistently like he can on some nights, he will get far better offers this summer to the degree where he could make an additional $6 M per year each season of a four year deal.

I am sure that in your playing days you may remember this type of situation many times unless you were your team's Joey.  As a coach, nights where Joey falters makes you turn gray and bald fast.

Thanks for the thoughtful reply. What you say makes sense. I never coached, but the gray/baldness is still coming faster than I would like....

Shamrock,

Here is thought by Stevens (today from ESPN-Boston) that kind of brings forth the coaches thoughts on a consistent scorer. Of course, not every player can score 20 in each game, but the thought of consistency is the message that pops out to me.

""When you know you’re getting 20-plus points from a guy on a given night, it’s a pretty special trait," Stevens said. "It’s pretty special to know that. He’s been amazing with his consistency, regardless of how he feels, regardless of little nicks and bruises and everything else. He just kind of keeps going. And he’s a tough guy, he’s a tough-minded guy, and his consistency’s been impressive. And I think consistency and being able to do it every night is what separates guys [like] Havlicek [and] the great ones."