I looked at the top 15 scorers in Blazer history and totaled their contribution points to see the ranking. Caveat - for Geoff Petrie and Sidney Wicks, turnovers were not tracked during their time with the Blazers so I assigned them an average of 1.5 turnovers per game (conservative compared to many but comparable to others). Contribution is calculated as Points + Rebounds + (Assists * 1.5) + (Blocks * 1.5) + (Steals * 2) - (Turnovers * 2) Total Contribution Rankings: 1. Clyde Drexler - 30,441.5 2. Damian Lillard - 22,364.5 3. Terry Porter - 20,634.5 4. LaMarcus Aldridge - 19,836.5 5. Jerome Kersey - 18,217.0 6. Mychal Thompson - 15,757.0 7. Cliff Robinson - 15,669.0 8. Sidney Wicks - 15,088.5 9. Rasheed Wallace - 14,650.5 10. Jim Paxson - 14,246.5 11 Geoff Petrie - 13,294.0 12. CJ McCollum - 12,663.5 13. Damon Stoudamire - 12,123.5 14. Kevin Duckworth - 10,060.5 15. Kiki Vandeweghe - 7,910.5 I also calculated their per-game average contribution, rankings are slightly different - again, take into account Wicks & Petrie's turnovers were not tracked and so their numbers may not be entirely accurate. Per-Game Average Contribution: 1. Sidney Wicks - 37.9 2. Damian Lillard - 35.2 3. Clyde Drexler - 35.1 4. LaMarcus Aldridge - 30.6 5. Geoff Petrie - 29.8 6. Mychal Thompson - 28.6 7. Kiki Vandeweghe - 27.8 8. Terry Porter - 27.2 9. Rasheed Wallace - 26.9 10. CJ McCollum - 25.6 11. Cliff Robinson - 24.4 12. Damon Stoudamire - 22.9 13. Jim Paxson - 22.7 14. Jerome Kersey - 21.9 15. Kevin Duckworth - 19.1
This is very cool. With how Dame has upped his ast, He could take Clyde in what... 4-5 Years? That's with an average of aprox. 30-40 per game? You know who surprises me? Duck. Tons of respect for him as a person and his effort, but when I watched the games back in the day, I really didn't see much in him and if anything thought he was our weak link preventing us from winning in an era dominated by big men(and Jordan). I so wanted to try to trade him for Mark Eaton back then. But as time passes, I continue to see his name on lists and somewhere I must have been wrong in my eye test, because the stats say h contributed far more than I thought. This is a very cool breakdown. You truly do God's work Gramps. This place wouldn't be the same without your work. There should be an annual S2 MVP. It would be hard to pick between you and @Darkwebs . His graphics might put him over the top, but you would be a close second if so! The mutt @SlyPokerDog would be a likely distant third...
Where did Walton land in the per game total? I see his total points were 18.9 per game? Rebounds are about 13 per game. Assists at 5.
Walton's per-game contribution average is 41.1. Thought I'd check Zach Randolph's per game as well and he comes in at 23.6.
Walton was in no way shape or form overrated when he was healthy. If I was starting a Blazer team from scratch and could start with any player the Blazers have ever had - and knew he would stay healthy. I'd start with Walton and it wouldn't even be close. Much as I like Dame, Drexler, etc. Walton in his prime was incredible. Gramps...
not sure why turnovers count a 2 points while assists count as 1.5, but that's a quibble I guess and, I understand that the 2nd list was generated off the first list, but it would be interesting to see where guys like Walton and Lucas ranked on a per-game basis as far as the per game list, I think FGA's should be an accompanying gauge as it would show how much of the player's ranking was simply based upon possessions used for own shots Per-Game Average Contribution: 1. Sidney Wicks - 37.9 - 19.1 2. Damian Lillard - 35.2 - 18.3 3. Clyde Drexler - 35.1 - 16.6 4. LaMarcus Aldridge - 30.6 - 16.3 5. Geoff Petrie - 29.8 - 19.5 6. Mychal Thompson - 28.6 - 13.6 7. Kiki Vandeweghe - 27.8 - 17.2 8. Terry Porter - 27.2 - 11.2 9. Rasheed Wallace - 26.9 - 13.3 10. CJ McCollum - 25.6 - 15.7 11. Cliff Robinson - 24.4 - 13.7 12. Damon Stoudamire - 22.9 - 11.8 13. Jim Paxson - 22.7 - 13.1 14. Jerome Kersey - 21.9 - 10.1 15. Kevin Duckworth - 19.1 - 12.1 now, I'm not sure about the best way to apply that gauge...? would it be as simple as FGA/contribution-points...? Lower is better? Would that then be a gauge of how much contribution points depended on shot opportunity? for instance, Wicks would be at 50.4% while Dame would be at 52%. That would imply that Wicks had a little broader contribution than just scoring. I saw Wicks play; he was a really good player but if he was doing today whet he did back then, he might get the label of 'hollow stats'. Clearly, in my view at least, Dame has a bigger impact on games than Wicks did, although I do believe Wicks is generally underrated meanwhile, Clyde has a 47.3% ratio another for instance, Porter vs CJ. Porter had a 41.3% mark while CJ has a 61.3% mark. I do think that reflects total game pretty well. Porter was underrated good across the floor while CJ is mainly a volume shooter Aldridge was at 53.3%
yep. Walton was Jokic with elite defense, rim protection, and rebounding Walton + Dame would have been really good (although Dame would have had to gear up for transition and Walton outlet passes). Add Kiki as a floor spacer
Maybe I'm becoming too old. But it seems to me to be a convoluted way to measure a players success. I am guessing that there is no real way to factor in the fact that, today's game is easier on scorers than it was in Drexler's day. Due to rule and game changes, NBA players today are literally playing an easier game. I am not certain that there is a way to factor that in.
Easier in two ways, defense is not what it used to be and if you go back far enough, there were no 3-pointers (Petrie and a few others would likely have had quite a few of those). Agreed, there is no way to measure the difference in play, but at the same time the style of play has changed as well. All that remains is the basics of the game. Gramps...
What was Scottie Pippen's per-game contribution out of curiosity (while he was with the Blazers, obviously)? I appreciate the effort you put into these stat reports.
On the other hand, illegal defense rules were removed, allowing for more sophisticated defensive schemes that mix man and zone principles. That's a big reason why '80s, '90s and early '00s style isolation-heavy offenses really aren't tenable these days, aside from a possession here and there.
No.... No you should not have. It was well worth it. Some of us know you are pretty much green all the time.
