A.I. - Hall of Famer?
Posted: Fri Aug 21, 2009 6:24 am
Now that it seems like A.I.'s career is coming to a close, I've been talking to some people about whether or not A.I. is a hall of famer. I assume he's going to get in, but as Nuggets fans, who watched him for a couple years, I'm curious what you think. I wrote this here:
http://www.josemesaisdead.com/post/167959269/aihall
And I kinda thought only Pistons fans would agree, but maybe you guys will too?
The Question: Iverson in the Hall of Fame? The Answer...
I was provoked today by frequent provocateur Adlew Druz into a conversation about whether or not Allen Iverson should be in the basketball hall of fame.
Now, I openly admit that this is a silly debate for several reasons. The first is because there’s no such thing as a NBA Hall of Fame, only a general basketball hall in Springfield, Massachusetts, which is inexplicable to me.
The second is that I have no idea what criteria is used by whoever votes for the hall and, frankly, I don’t really care. Getting into the Hall of Fame is pretty cool if you’re a player - I’m sure I’d want to get in - but like most awards and plaques of recognition in basketball e.g. the MVP, the Rookie of the Year, the Comeback Player of the Year, the Sixth Man of the Year, etc. it’s really only a slightly more complicated version of a popularity contest.
Third, A.I. is not a member of the Cavs, nor will he ever be, and I like to stick to Cleveland sports here as much as possible. I will use this article at Cavalier Attitude - “Why Aren’t the Cavs Showing Even the Mildest Interest in Allen Iverson?” - as an excuse, even though I didn’t bother reading it because in my opinion the title of that post is either a rhetorical question or a joke.
Finally, A.I. will probably get into the hall on the first ballot, so this sort of debate won’t ever legitimately happen.
That said…
The conversation about the merits of Allen Iverson as a basketball player has steadily evolved over the years, I think, as the perception of the game itself has changed, especially because of the NBA’s statistical revolution.
Growing up, I myself was a big A.I. fan. If you were coming of age, at least as a teenager, in the mid-90’s you kinda had to be, particularly if you listened to hip-hop. A.I. was outwardly the antithesis of all the players who came before him. He was street. He was unapologetic. He had tattoos. He eventually wore his hair in cornrows. And he came onto the scene at about the same time rap music began to explode as a cultural phenomenon in the suburbs.
A.I. was a different kind of NBA player. He was so different, in fact, that he was even the antithesis of Michael Jordan. When he broke Jordan’s ankles, metaphorically, with this crossover, he didn’t just crossover the greatest player of the previous generation - he crossed over the entire culture of the previous generation.
On a personal note, I remember rocking A.I.’s Carolina Blue signature Reeboks the first year I lived in NYC and pedestrians would actually stop in the street and compliment me. To A.I. and the good folks at Reebok, I thank you for that, and to A.I. I regret that I have to say what I’m about to say about your game…
As much as A.I. is the answer to the era that came after Jordan, he’s also the symbol of everything the NBA player came to be perceived as in the post-Jordan era. Ironically, this perception was rooted in cultural discrepancy - white fans watching black players they felt looked like “thugs” - and is consistently categorized in that way, and rightfully so.
However, I would also argue that the problem was just as much with the way Iverson decided to play the game. Isolation. Before guys like Chris Paul and LeBron James made passing “cool” again, there was Iverson, dribbling in isolation, fighting to get off high degree of difficulty shots with his listed-at-6’0” frame. When it went in, it was spectacular. When it didn’t, well, sometimes that was spectacular, too.
But was it good basketball?
Unequivocally, it was not.
In certain sectors, Iverson has become a kind of poster child for basketball stats geeks to spit on conventional wisdom. Malcolm Gladwell and the economists from Wages of Wins do so in this New Yorker article.
I won’t get into Win Score or WP48 or PER here because we haven’t had our aggregate stat post yet, but I will say this - the measure of a player’s productivity and value is not solely based on points per game (PPG). I think most people who really watch and understand the game would agree with this statement.
Let’s accept that first before deciding on A.I.’s greatness.
Iverson has, by all measures, scored a ton of points. 27.1 PPG for his career - that’s #5 overall in the history of the NBA. He’s #16 all-time in total points and #23 in number of field goals made.
Sounds great, right? Well, you can’t talk about his amount of points and number of field goals without also talking about what he had to do to get those numbers.
Where does A.I. rank in number of field goals attempted? Twelfth. Big difference between #12 and #23.
Why is this?
Because A.I. can’t shoot. He’s a career 42.5% shooter from the floor, 31.3% from 3P. Neither number is in the top 250 all-time.
Granted, this doesn’t account for position - the top of the list is dominated by guys like Artis Gilmore and Shaq - but Vinnie Del Negro is on the chart (47.47% #241). So is Luol Deng (47.54% #236).
How well a player shoots is, obviously, tremendously important to winning basketball games. It can be covered up with fantastic offensive rebounding, really low turnovers, and excellent defense…but if a team shot 100% from the floor, they’d have a really difficult time losing. If they shot 100% from 3P, they’d be even harder to beat.
Which, in a roundabout way, makes this a good time to emphasize the fact that even though Iverson shot only 31.3% from 3P he still ranks 30th overall in 3P attempts.
Now, I wouldn’t normally be a huge proponent of measuring totals over the course of a career because they depend on a lot of other things, like games played, minutes played, and your team’s pace factor, which is why the percentages are so important, but I bring them up here because others will (my boy Druz already has). Further, they’re certainly suggestive of the overall make-up of a player’s game and are meaningful when compared and contrasted to one another.
Yet, probably the most relevant and telling number to consider when it comes to talking about A.I.’s offensive game is his Usage Rate.
I talked a little about Usage Rate when I wrote about Charlie Villanueva. But, to recap, it basically measures how often a guy finishes his team’s possessions, either by taking a shot, getting to the line, committing a turnover or creating an assist.
Iverson is second in NBA history in Usage Rate.
He also happens to rank one behind Michael Jordan and one in front of LeBron James.
In other words, a high Usage Rate isn’t by itself a damning statistic, but it can be if you don’t finish plays properly.
We’ve already established that A.I. is not a good shooter. He’s great at getting to the line (he’s only missed the 10, per season, twice and has often finished at 1 or 2) and is good at making free throws (78%). How is he with turnovers and assists?
Turnovers: #12 overall in NBA history (in the top 10, 7 out of 13 seasons)
Assists: #36 overall in NBA history (3 top 10 finishes)
Surprisingly, maybe, A.I. is average to good with assists at least for a shooting guard (when he played the point, not so much). This can happen when you have the ball in your hands constantly and are getting double and tripled teamed.
He’s also poor with turnovers.
So, how did Iverson most often finish plays? Here are the totals for his career:
FGA: 19590
3PA: 3358
FTA: 8037
AST: 5511
TOV: 3198
By a huge majority, he finished plays by taking shots - which he isn’t very good at making.
But maybe, as I mentioned earlier, Iverson made up for his deficiencies shooting the ball with defense, rebounding, and steals (he did not, we know, keep turnovers low).
No one would argue that Iverson is a hall of fame rebounder (3315 TRB, not listed on any of the Basketball-Reference leaderboards), but they might argue that he is when it comes to steals.
Yes, Iverson is excellent at getting steals. In fact, he ranks #12 overall. He led the league twice and was in the top 10, 10 out of 13 seasons.
But, really, when you look a little bit closer, his total number of steals (1964) doesn’t measure up at all with his total number of turnovers. A.I. still turned the ball over 1.63 times more than he stole it.
Ultimately, to characterize Iverson’s game, I would say this:
Takes a ton of shots at a low percentage, turns the ball over frequently, is an adequate passer, and he won’t kill you on the boards. His two above average qualities are getting to the line and steals.
I would say that I don’t think that sounds like a Hall of Fame player.
If I read you that, and you didn’t know I was talking about A.I., you wouldn’t even think about second guessing me.
If there’s a case to made for Allen Iverson as one of the all time greats, it has to be made around other qualities besides what he was able to produce on the basketball court. He played a ton of minutes (41.4 MPG). He played hard. He had a huge cultural impact on the League. He was flashy and was able to score a lot of points as an undersized guard.
You might want A.I. in the NBA for those reasons - but I don’t think you’d want him on your team. Maybe if he was a role player getting limited minutes…
And that, my friends, is how I choose to end this debate.
http://www.josemesaisdead.com/post/167959269/aihall
And I kinda thought only Pistons fans would agree, but maybe you guys will too?
The Question: Iverson in the Hall of Fame? The Answer...
I was provoked today by frequent provocateur Adlew Druz into a conversation about whether or not Allen Iverson should be in the basketball hall of fame.
Now, I openly admit that this is a silly debate for several reasons. The first is because there’s no such thing as a NBA Hall of Fame, only a general basketball hall in Springfield, Massachusetts, which is inexplicable to me.
The second is that I have no idea what criteria is used by whoever votes for the hall and, frankly, I don’t really care. Getting into the Hall of Fame is pretty cool if you’re a player - I’m sure I’d want to get in - but like most awards and plaques of recognition in basketball e.g. the MVP, the Rookie of the Year, the Comeback Player of the Year, the Sixth Man of the Year, etc. it’s really only a slightly more complicated version of a popularity contest.
Third, A.I. is not a member of the Cavs, nor will he ever be, and I like to stick to Cleveland sports here as much as possible. I will use this article at Cavalier Attitude - “Why Aren’t the Cavs Showing Even the Mildest Interest in Allen Iverson?” - as an excuse, even though I didn’t bother reading it because in my opinion the title of that post is either a rhetorical question or a joke.
Finally, A.I. will probably get into the hall on the first ballot, so this sort of debate won’t ever legitimately happen.
That said…
The conversation about the merits of Allen Iverson as a basketball player has steadily evolved over the years, I think, as the perception of the game itself has changed, especially because of the NBA’s statistical revolution.
Growing up, I myself was a big A.I. fan. If you were coming of age, at least as a teenager, in the mid-90’s you kinda had to be, particularly if you listened to hip-hop. A.I. was outwardly the antithesis of all the players who came before him. He was street. He was unapologetic. He had tattoos. He eventually wore his hair in cornrows. And he came onto the scene at about the same time rap music began to explode as a cultural phenomenon in the suburbs.
A.I. was a different kind of NBA player. He was so different, in fact, that he was even the antithesis of Michael Jordan. When he broke Jordan’s ankles, metaphorically, with this crossover, he didn’t just crossover the greatest player of the previous generation - he crossed over the entire culture of the previous generation.
On a personal note, I remember rocking A.I.’s Carolina Blue signature Reeboks the first year I lived in NYC and pedestrians would actually stop in the street and compliment me. To A.I. and the good folks at Reebok, I thank you for that, and to A.I. I regret that I have to say what I’m about to say about your game…
As much as A.I. is the answer to the era that came after Jordan, he’s also the symbol of everything the NBA player came to be perceived as in the post-Jordan era. Ironically, this perception was rooted in cultural discrepancy - white fans watching black players they felt looked like “thugs” - and is consistently categorized in that way, and rightfully so.
However, I would also argue that the problem was just as much with the way Iverson decided to play the game. Isolation. Before guys like Chris Paul and LeBron James made passing “cool” again, there was Iverson, dribbling in isolation, fighting to get off high degree of difficulty shots with his listed-at-6’0” frame. When it went in, it was spectacular. When it didn’t, well, sometimes that was spectacular, too.
But was it good basketball?
Unequivocally, it was not.
In certain sectors, Iverson has become a kind of poster child for basketball stats geeks to spit on conventional wisdom. Malcolm Gladwell and the economists from Wages of Wins do so in this New Yorker article.
I won’t get into Win Score or WP48 or PER here because we haven’t had our aggregate stat post yet, but I will say this - the measure of a player’s productivity and value is not solely based on points per game (PPG). I think most people who really watch and understand the game would agree with this statement.
Let’s accept that first before deciding on A.I.’s greatness.
Iverson has, by all measures, scored a ton of points. 27.1 PPG for his career - that’s #5 overall in the history of the NBA. He’s #16 all-time in total points and #23 in number of field goals made.
Sounds great, right? Well, you can’t talk about his amount of points and number of field goals without also talking about what he had to do to get those numbers.
Where does A.I. rank in number of field goals attempted? Twelfth. Big difference between #12 and #23.
Why is this?
Because A.I. can’t shoot. He’s a career 42.5% shooter from the floor, 31.3% from 3P. Neither number is in the top 250 all-time.
Granted, this doesn’t account for position - the top of the list is dominated by guys like Artis Gilmore and Shaq - but Vinnie Del Negro is on the chart (47.47% #241). So is Luol Deng (47.54% #236).
How well a player shoots is, obviously, tremendously important to winning basketball games. It can be covered up with fantastic offensive rebounding, really low turnovers, and excellent defense…but if a team shot 100% from the floor, they’d have a really difficult time losing. If they shot 100% from 3P, they’d be even harder to beat.
Which, in a roundabout way, makes this a good time to emphasize the fact that even though Iverson shot only 31.3% from 3P he still ranks 30th overall in 3P attempts.
Now, I wouldn’t normally be a huge proponent of measuring totals over the course of a career because they depend on a lot of other things, like games played, minutes played, and your team’s pace factor, which is why the percentages are so important, but I bring them up here because others will (my boy Druz already has). Further, they’re certainly suggestive of the overall make-up of a player’s game and are meaningful when compared and contrasted to one another.
Yet, probably the most relevant and telling number to consider when it comes to talking about A.I.’s offensive game is his Usage Rate.
I talked a little about Usage Rate when I wrote about Charlie Villanueva. But, to recap, it basically measures how often a guy finishes his team’s possessions, either by taking a shot, getting to the line, committing a turnover or creating an assist.
Iverson is second in NBA history in Usage Rate.
He also happens to rank one behind Michael Jordan and one in front of LeBron James.
In other words, a high Usage Rate isn’t by itself a damning statistic, but it can be if you don’t finish plays properly.
We’ve already established that A.I. is not a good shooter. He’s great at getting to the line (he’s only missed the 10, per season, twice and has often finished at 1 or 2) and is good at making free throws (78%). How is he with turnovers and assists?
Turnovers: #12 overall in NBA history (in the top 10, 7 out of 13 seasons)
Assists: #36 overall in NBA history (3 top 10 finishes)
Surprisingly, maybe, A.I. is average to good with assists at least for a shooting guard (when he played the point, not so much). This can happen when you have the ball in your hands constantly and are getting double and tripled teamed.
He’s also poor with turnovers.
So, how did Iverson most often finish plays? Here are the totals for his career:
FGA: 19590
3PA: 3358
FTA: 8037
AST: 5511
TOV: 3198
By a huge majority, he finished plays by taking shots - which he isn’t very good at making.
But maybe, as I mentioned earlier, Iverson made up for his deficiencies shooting the ball with defense, rebounding, and steals (he did not, we know, keep turnovers low).
No one would argue that Iverson is a hall of fame rebounder (3315 TRB, not listed on any of the Basketball-Reference leaderboards), but they might argue that he is when it comes to steals.
Yes, Iverson is excellent at getting steals. In fact, he ranks #12 overall. He led the league twice and was in the top 10, 10 out of 13 seasons.
But, really, when you look a little bit closer, his total number of steals (1964) doesn’t measure up at all with his total number of turnovers. A.I. still turned the ball over 1.63 times more than he stole it.
Ultimately, to characterize Iverson’s game, I would say this:
Takes a ton of shots at a low percentage, turns the ball over frequently, is an adequate passer, and he won’t kill you on the boards. His two above average qualities are getting to the line and steals.
I would say that I don’t think that sounds like a Hall of Fame player.
If I read you that, and you didn’t know I was talking about A.I., you wouldn’t even think about second guessing me.
If there’s a case to made for Allen Iverson as one of the all time greats, it has to be made around other qualities besides what he was able to produce on the basketball court. He played a ton of minutes (41.4 MPG). He played hard. He had a huge cultural impact on the League. He was flashy and was able to score a lot of points as an undersized guard.
You might want A.I. in the NBA for those reasons - but I don’t think you’d want him on your team. Maybe if he was a role player getting limited minutes…
And that, my friends, is how I choose to end this debate.