My co-workers and I got into a spirited debate over what constitutes a scorer. The debate revolved around Lebron James and Jamal Crawford.
One argument: LeBron James is a scorer, Jamal Crawford is not.
LeBron takes a lot of shots, and makes them at great percentages. He may not be the most versatile scorer but he is pretty much impossible to stop when he looks to put the ball in the basket.
Jamal Crawford takes a lot of shots, but doesn't finish them at very good percentages. He can score in plenty of different ways, and is considered a "tough-shot maker", but that implies he's also a "tough-shot taker" which is extremely unreliable. For this reason, I consider him someone that can score, but is not a scorer.
Other argument: LeBron James is not a scorer, Jamal Crawford is a scorer.
LeBron can't kill you from everywhere on the court. His offensive repertoire is not good enough to deem him a scorer. If most of your shots are dunks and layups, you cannot be considered a scorer. Also, his primary role is to make plays for teammates, he does not have the offensive mindset to score, which is why he's deferred to inferior players in crunch time.
Jamal Crawford can shoot from anywhere on the court, his only role is to score, and will always shoot when given the opportunity. His mindset is always "score score score" therefore he's a score.
What do you guys think? Both arguments seem pretty valid, and this debate went on for over an hour with neither side conceding yet.