Ppg with a game count requirement imo

It should be PPG over best X (let’s say 70) games. This means that people that are competing for the scoring record can afford to play more games and have bad games without ruining their averages.

If someone scores 30.1 PPG and plays 80 games (2408 points), they should win the scoring title over someone who had 30.2 PPG over 75 games (2265 points).

What I’m trying to say is that total points should matter more, these are direct contributions to your team. It solves the minimum game problem naturally as well. Reward the scoring title to someone who actually scored more points in the season.

We can still have PPG, APG, RPG, etc. considerations for things like MVP and such.

Totals for me, I just think its less arbitrary. I’m taking a guy avg 29.5 for 82 games over one who averages 29.7 in 67 games.

I see the case for both , but I always felt that totals don’t lie. You can’t make an arbitrary cutoff with totals, its always who gets the most.

Total points

Every other league in the world counts total stats for goals, touchdown and home runs. It should be who scored the most points.

Average is better than total because you’re not a better scorer because you average 27 points and play all 82 games and I average 31 but only played 65 due to injury

Does it really matter?

They’re both recognized statistical categories. Everybody can choose which one they value more.

Scoring champ should be who score most points duh

If a player who scores the most points that season is traded midseason and he manages to play more than 82 games because of it, does he win the scoring title?

I‘m also on the total amount of points side, but it also would look weird, if

player A plays 65 games averages 35 ppg (2275 points) but then tores his ACL and is out -

vs. Player B, plays 82 games, averages 27.8 PPG (2276 points).

Neither player A nor Player B did something wrong for their cases, but every choice could be wrong. You always could argue both ways, the NBA knows this, and it’s totally understandable

Create a new scoring title stat (because there aren’t enough already). It’ll only be applied to two players and determine which one wins the scoring title. Take the player (A) who has the most points and divide those points by the PPG of the player (B) with the highest PPG. Then for player B, take their total points and divide it by the PPG of player A.

That way if someone has an absurd PPG, but misses the total by a few points due to injury, they can win, but having a slightly better PPG and an injury or load management won’t win out over someone who got higher counting stats by playing all season.

Using this method, to beat a hypothetical player scoring 30 ppg and playing every game (2460 pts), a scoring champ with 31 ppg would need to play 77 games to win (2387 pts), 32 ppg would need 73 games (2336 pts), and 33 ppg would require only 68 games (2244 pts).

Looking at the finer margins, I think this method favors high PPG, so maybe tipping the scales a bit by squaring the point totals or dividing by both ppg and points totals for the other player (or both methods) to make total points a bit more valued. For example squaring both player’s point totals and dividing by their opponent’s point total as ppg makes that hypothetical 33 ppg player play 73 games and score 2409 points (with 73 games, 32.75 ppg and 2390 points would beat our 30ppg ironman).

As in all time leading scorers we look at most points global, not most ppg. Thats the top scorer.

We do still look at ppg historically, which is why we know MJ was a better scorer than lebron even though lebron has the most points all time

PPG with a minimum total shot attempts

I think total points should be the deciding factor. I’m not for awarding guys for sitting out to keep their average