Instigator / Pro

The current format for the NBA scoring title is valid


The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
Better sources
Better legibility
Better conduct

After 1 vote and with 3 points ahead, the winner is...

Publication date
Last updated date
Number of rounds
Time for argument
Three days
Max argument characters
Voting period
One week
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Contender / Con

Pro will argue that, as a whole, the current system is a great way to decide the NBA scoring title. Con will argue it is a poor or mediocre way of deciding the NBA scoring title.

The current format ranks the players based on the amount of points scored across the season divided by the amount of games played, provided that the player has played at least 58 games that season. If a player has played less than 58 games, their score will be their points across the season, divided by 58.

The system ensures players who play less than 58 games are penalized.

Round 1
Sup peoples... this is debate is mostly about defending the system from criticism, so I wont have too much to offer in Round 1.

1. Averages are better than totals
The obvious truth is from time to time, players get injured. In a league where the best scorers are averaging 30 or more points per game, every game is crucial. Sure, one game may not screw you over, but a couple missed games can cost you the title in a league like the NBA, where the scoring competition is quite stiff.

2. 58 games is enough

58 games is just over 70% of the schedule. I think that's fair because the NBA plays 82 games for each team, condensed in 6 months. A one-month long injury would cause a play to lose 12-15 games, depending on the schedule. 

Keep in mind that players who have been injured in such a way will still likely be dealing with some soreness, even after being cleared to play. If someone wins the title after 58 games, they've definitely would've scored more ppg without it.

3. The results

All winners since 2013-14 were pretty dynamics scorers. I would argue they were all deserving.

Sup peoples… I’m here to counter my opponent Mharmans position to say the current system for the scoring title is flawed and worthy of criticism.

1. Our current assessment of averages are misleading.                                                        

The obvious truth is points per game and points per game played is not the   same thing. Our current system emphasizes points per game played (except for players that play less than 58 games) and calls it points per game begging the assumption that all competitors are playing the same amount of games which is far from the actual truth. A correct evaluation of averages is by taking a players totals and dividing that number by the number of total games in the regular season (which in most cases is 82 games). 

2. Durability is an asset and injuries are a liability.

Not all players are injury prone, some are durable. Under our current system every game isn’t crucial, with the rise of “load management” our current system enables uncompetitive behavior (socialism) because of how easy it is to “game the system” with a loophole of only playing 58 games and using the games against top defenses as rest days. Now I know not everybody that sits out games are “load managing” and are seriously injured but you’re not contributing any statistical value by licking your wounds on the bench so why should you be rewarded over a durable iron man that shows his toughness by playing through his injuries?

3. 58 games is an arbitrary delineation and a low one at that.

My opponent previously argued that a couple missed games can cost a player the title if it were assessed by totals but that can remain true for the players that play less than 58 games, so that position is extremely contradictory, what’s so special about 58 games? Why not 57? I can go on but I’m sure the readers of this debate catches my drift. The purpose of the scoring title isn’t to reward the best scorer because if that were the case then other factors such as true shooting percentage would be taken into account, we already have awards for who we vote for is the best, a scoring title isn’t that. Let this sink in, under our current system a player that plays in all 82 games with a point total of 2459 would lose the scoring title to a player that plays in just 58 games with a point total of 1740 for you per game played advocates that’s a difference of less than 1 point, if the 82 game player made one extra layup they would’ve won the title but it shouldn’t have to come down to that when they scored way more over the course of the full season.

4. The results 

Most of the winners of the scoring title also happened to lead the league in totals except for a few times, and arguably the greatest scorer ever Michael Jordan would’ve had 11 scoring titles instead of 10 if it were determined by totals for all of those that believe totals rewards lesser scorers.

Round 2
I'm low on time and have things to do so I'll waive...

can we make this a 2 round debate?
You could’ve just forfeited the round by letting the clock run out, I can’t exactly say no considering you’re not giving me anything extra to argue against.

Round 3
Some people consider it poor conduct to forfeit the round by letting the let the timer run out.

1. Averages are NOT misleading

In my opponent's first point, they argued using PPG (points per game) is misleading because the true average points scored per game is points/total games. This argument is misleading in itself because it attempts to redefine the definition of PPG that has been known and accepted for years. Furthermore, it doesn't do much to rebut PPG as a measurement- it purely semantics.

1a. The true definition of PPG
The true definition of PPG is points per game played- and everyone knows this. The whole reason the statistic was created was so that we could compare players who didn't play the same amount of games in season, or career. No one is confused by PPG.

2. Durability is an asset and injuries are a liability... but that's irrelevant

The whole point of the scoring title is to reward the most dynamic scorers in the league. It not to be confused with an MVP award, where every part of a player is measured to determine who brings the most value to their team. One can have some injuries and be the most dynamic scorer, but not the MVP. That is fair, but that doesn't mean the scoring title should be evaluated in the same way as an MVP and knock players for being injured.

As for load management, the NBA is taking steps to solve that

Furthermore, no players are "load managing" to pursue a scoring title. They're doing it to rest for the most important games, not the easiest one. My opponent implies players are resting on bigger games to play on less important ones, and that just isn't the case.

3. "58 games is an arbitrary delineation and a low one at that."

For statistics purposes, 58 is a significant sample size to determine who was the most dynamic scorer that year.

4. The results 

That just means Michael Jordan wasn't the most dynamic socrer THAT year. This is a yearly award

Some people consider it poor conduct to forfeit the round by letting the let the timer run out.
Be that as it may you already mentioned this in the comment section so the redundancy isn’t necessary here. It’s even poorer conduct to ignore arguments and not answer arguments/questions which you seemed to have
done in the final round. My main points still stand, you still haven’t given me anything significant and worth arguing against.