RealGM

I just got this book today. Going to read through some of it over the next week and probably ask some questions...maybe others can use this thread to ask questions or point out important things they learned while reading it that are worth paying attention to.

Don't just read the book; go to the ancient, decrepit Journal of Basketball Studies website if it's still up so that you can read some more about how DeanO developed his thought process and stats, how he charted games in the 98 Finals, etc, etc, etc.

Great stuff. I've got to dig this up and read it again.

The logic behind Skill Curves were most insightful

Funny....we were JUST discussing the Skill Curves chapter w.r.t. Allen Iverson on the Raps forum.

Skill Curves makes A.I. look bad, but if you made the x-axis Team Ortg, it might be a bit more insightful/relevant. It is possible that guys like AI (and Melo today) increase the amount of easy shots their teammates get that they otherwise would not.

Everything makes AI look bad, Ripp. He was one of the most massively overrated players in NBA history. Incredible athlete, though.

tsherkin wrote:Everything makes AI look bad, Ripp. He was one of the most massively overrated players in NBA history. Incredible athlete, though.

Iverson has gone from massively overrated to massively underrated because we have this fascination with individual metrics as opposed to team metrics and success.

Iverson had a pretty bad TS%, but look at the rest of his roster and tell me there's a single other player who could carry the scoring load for a team. He wasn't a great man defender, but he was elite at playing the passing lanes, and the shotblockers behind him allowed him to gamble, which he did at a high success rate.

His slashing style also put the other team in the penalty very quickly, as well as allow for easy offensive boards since the opposing big man would need to step up to contest Iverson's shot.

azuresou1 wrote:

tsherkin wrote:Everything makes AI look bad, Ripp. He was one of the most massively overrated players in NBA history. Incredible athlete, though.

Iverson has gone from massively overrated to massively underrated because we have this fascination with individual metrics as opposed to team metrics and success.

Iverson had a pretty bad TS%, but look at the rest of his roster and tell me there's a single other player who could carry the scoring load for a team. He wasn't a great man defender, but he was elite at playing the passing lanes, and the shotblockers behind him allowed him to gamble, which he did at a high success rate.

His slashing style also put the other team in the penalty very quickly, as well as allow for easy offensive boards since the opposing big man would need to step up to contest Iverson's shot.

I always thought it was because all the offensive players they brought to help AI turned out to get worse next to him so they just stopped trying and surrounded him with nothing but quality defenders.

Also why is AI's efficiency disregarded as a casual result of his teammates, how come no other superstar had to rely on this excuse? Maybe we just have higher standards to what deems a player great.

You can be the best player in the game and still be overrated based on what youve heard over the years. And in my experience its my honest opinion that AI has been horrendously overrated. His MVP a bigger joke than Nashs. His defense, exposed without Snow and those dynamic shot blockers. A player who needed to have a team built a specific way just to get past his deficiencies to contend that it wasnt really worth building around him. I have always believed any team with AI on it could do better with just about any of his contemporary stars. From Paul Pierce to Tmac, all were superior defensively so to begin with they have an advantage AI could never match.

azuresou1 wrote:Iverson has gone from massively overrated to massively underrated because we have this fascination with individual metrics as opposed to team metrics and success.

I knew AI was overrated long before I even knew what TS% was. He was always a defensive gambler who shot WAY too much (mostly bad shots), didn't get along well with other scorers, couldn't do much off the ball, was streaky and inconsistent as hell, over-dribbled in isolations way too often and was also a horrible attitude issue.

Iverson's greatest claim to fame is "winning" an MVP award that he didn't deserve and "leading" a team with the COY, DPOY and 6MOY on it through the worst Eastern Conference I've ever seen at any point in my life. 00-01 through 02-03 was absolutely ABOMINABLE. Those Sixers were an average offensive team (Iverson's biggest claim to fame) and a top-5 defense, founded upon the shot-blocking and rebounding of (alternately) Ratliff and Mutombo, as well as the perimeter defense of George Lynch, Aaron McKie and Eric Snow. That team's MO was literally to let AI shoot like an idiot, rebound the ball as necessary and re-set the offense (getting a quick and easy bucket if they could or starting over). It was ugly, it was crude, it wasn't terribly effective... except that they played under 91 possessions per game (19th in the league at the time, would be 26th today), a snail's pace, meaning that rebounding was INSANELY important to them, given that AI was MISSING about 15 shots a game and the next-most prolific person on the team was TAKING 9.4.

AI's importance to that team is of dubious measure. You could have replaced him with any chucker in league history and they'd have done very well. It was literally nothing but pound-hardwood isolations bolstered by rebounding and perimeter defense. He wasn't even drawing fouls at a particularly elite level, just under 0.4 FTA/FGA. YOu can't tell me that the team succeeded on the merits of AI's "brilliant" play when all that is factored in. He gunned like hell and he had the support to do it at the right time in a terrible conference. That's not impressive, he's hugely overrated even now. People who defend him love to avoid the contxt of the situation.

Let's break this down point by point.

- The MVP was undeserved, but so were Nash's. Why don't people hold that against him? At most it's a moot point when discussing Iverson as a player.
- That Finals team had the COY, DPoY, and 6MoY, true. How do Coaches get COY? When the team (and league) MVP performs spectacularly and makes them a contender.
- Those 76ers teams were also second in steals, and that team's MO based on rebounding was significantly based on Iverson's ability to easily penetrate and then force the help defense to respond. You will notice that the 76ers finished 2nd in ORB%, but only 9th in DRB%. It is much, much easier to grab an offensive board off a missed layup/floater when your defender went to help out with the shooter than it is in just about any other circumstance.
- Sure, Iverson missed more shots than any other teammate took. Aaron McKie, the 'next-most prolific person on the team,' has an even lower career TS% than Iverson. Theo Ratliff in third has a TS of .547, which is pathetic for a C, and who has never had an offensive game. Eric Snow in fourth has a career TS% of .492, which is laughable. Finally you have Mutombo, who was pretty efficient that year and throughout his career, but has never had an offensive game outside of putbacks and wide open looks.

You are also completely ignoring Iverson's many strengths, statistically and otherwise. Excellent anticipation. A very low rate of TOs. Being the only one on that entire roster who could create for himself or for others, as well as being the only player on that entire roster who has EVER had an offensive game, outside of a 32 year old Toni Kukoc.

azuresou1 wrote:Let's break this down point by point.

- The MVP was undeserved, but so were Nash's. Why don't people hold that against him? At most it's a moot point when discussing Iverson as a player.

People constantly raise the topic of Nash's MVPs against him, actually.

But looking at Iverson, I'd frame it more this way: In the history of the MVP, 9 players have won the award playing fewer than 75 games. Four of those instances happened in the 50s (Pettit twice, Russell and Cousy), one of them was a rookie Wilt Chamberlain in 59-60, one was Bill Walton on the Blazers the year after they won the title, one was Connie Hawkins in the late 60s and one was Karl Malone in the lockout season, when only 50 games were played. The other is Iverson, who played 71 games.

Iverson managed about 31/4/4.5 and took his team to the Finals. Shaq, who played 74 games, posted about 29/13/4 and took his team to the Finals, and was also an All-Defensive 2nd Team player that year, and yet Iverson had a .904 share of that particular MVP award, which is entirely at odds with how the players who played that season impacted their respective teams. That MVP is as tainted as it gets. He's the only guy to win it playing under 75 games since the 60s apart from the lockout season, and his share is way different than it should have been given his impact compared to that of others in the league (like 2nd-place Duncan).

- That Finals team had the COY, DPoY, and 6MoY, true. How do Coaches get COY? When the team (and league) MVP performs spectacularly and makes them a contender.

No doubt, but my point is this: he had a great coach and a team designed to combat all of his large, glaring weaknesses and to allow him to play terrible basketball and still succeed in the weakest period in EC history. That's not impressive at all, and more importantly, his teammates were not a weakness of that team, but it's strength. People routinely call out the '01 Sixers as an example to defend AI because he didn't have any other scorers on the team, but he was a terribly ball-dominant player who didn't play nice with other scorers, so Philly built a team of rebounders and defenders so AI could chuck without consequence, which is exactly what he did... and as the conference improved, Philly faded hard.

- Those 76ers teams were also second in steals, and that team's MO based on rebounding was significantly based on Iverson's ability to easily penetrate and then force the help defense to respond. You will notice that the 76ers finished 2nd in ORB%, but only 9th in DRB%. It is much, much easier to grab an offensive board off a missed layup/floater when your defender went to help out with the shooter than it is in just about any other circumstance.

The team won based on defense and rebounding... AI was neither a good rebounder nor an especially good defender. His steals were useful at times, harmful at others and at worst balanced out to be a neutral-impact event. He got burned on a regular basis by guys going back door on him while he gambled in the lane, and your argument about rebounding is moot... Mutombo didn't need AI making life easier for him on the glass, he was just a great rebounder, just like Ratliff before him. Meanwhile, the best you can do is say that they were "only" 9th in the league on the defensive glass? That's impressive, given that they had mediocre backcourt rebounding and Mutombo only played 26 games all season while improving over Ratliff's per game output on the glass by 50%. That's a context-irrelevant argument, the team was particularly good on the glass, especially after the trade.

- Sure, Iverson missed more shots than any other teammate took. Aaron McKie, the 'next-most prolific person on the team,' has an even lower career TS% than Iverson. Theo Ratliff in third has a TS of .547, which is pathetic for a C, and who has never had an offensive game. Eric Snow in fourth has a career TS% of .492, which is laughable. Finally you have Mutombo, who was pretty efficient that year and throughout his career, but has never had an offensive game outside of putbacks and wide open looks.

[/quote]

What this really underscores is more the value of their defense and rebounding than anything else. AI proved that, until Denver, he was essentially incapable of playing next to another scorer of any consequence. That team would have been better with improved perimeter shooting, for example, no doubt, but it still fed off of a very specific style of play that was catered to the only way AI knew how to play. There weren't scorers on that team, I agree, mostly by design.

You are also completely ignoring Iverson's many strengths, statistically and otherwise. Excellent anticipation. A very low rate of TOs. Being the only one on that entire roster who could create for himself or for others, as well as being the only player on that entire roster who has EVER had an offensive game, outside of a 32 year old Toni Kukoc.

Being the only player who could create is not a strength of his, it's a consequence of his mediocre team play. And while low turnover rate is true, it's also true that most of his possessions ended in a shot, negating the opportunity for a recorded turnover.

Mutombo career: 11.9 ORB%
Mutombo pre-trade in ATL: 12.1 ORB%
Mutombo post-trade in PHI: 15.7 ORB% (career high)

Yes, Mutombo was a great rebounder. He still got more offensive boards simply because instead of having to fight for position to get the board, he could pretty much just waltz into the space that was no longer occupied by his man because his man went to go contest Iverson.

What other scorer of consequence did AI play with in Philly? And by that I mean a player who could be a true second option. To think that you could replace him with 'any chucker in league history' and that they'd do even remotely as well is laughable. Replace AI with a guy like Jamal Crawford or Al Harrington and you have a team headed to 15 wins.

By the way, the East being particularly weak then? Possibly, but Iverson dropped the Reggie/Jalen Rose/JO Pacers, prime VC's Raptors, and the Ray Allen/Glenn Robinson/Cassell Bucks, who had a combined 140-106 record. On the other hand, LeBron gets only credit for taking the Cavs to the Finals despite facing the Wizards, Nets, and Pistons sans Ben Wallace who had a combined 135-111 record and also having a great defensive and rebounding team, all while LeBron played terrible defense.

azuresou1 wrote:Mutombo career: 11.9 ORB%
Mutombo pre-trade in ATL: 12.1 ORB%
Mutombo post-trade in PHI: 15.7 ORB% (career high)

Mutombo, 26 games played... small sample size and without anyone else of really dominant ability on the offensive glass next to him... just as significant as Iverson's shooting locations...

What other scorer of consequence did AI play with in Philly? And by that I mean a player who could be a true second option. To think that you could replace him with 'any chucker in league history' and that they'd do even remotely as well is laughable. Replace AI with a guy like Jamal Crawford or Al Harrington and you have a team headed to 15 wins.

I PASSIONATELY disagree with that. 15 wins is a laughable estimate, particularly since Crawford is a better shooter than Iverson and his FG% is suppressed mainly because he takes about 38% of his overall FGAs as 3PAs. Iverson is at 17% or so. That's a huge difference; AI's career FG% is crap because he's terrible at hitting shots and relied on volume FGAs and FTAs to bail him out, as well as occasionally getting really hot. Crawford's FG% is low because he takes a lot of 3s and tends to hit them at an acceptable rate. AI's career FTA/FGA is 0.410, Crawford's .256, that's the big difference in how they approach the game.

And while it's true that it's hyperbole to say ANY chucker could do it, the list of guys that could have replicated AI's feat in 2001 on that team is fairly long.

Let's include all the guys that could have replicated AI's feat, then sort them out. In the past 10 years:

Wade, Stackhouse, Pierce, Gary Payton (before he got old), McGrady, Lebron, a healthy Grant Hill, Vince Carter, Kobe Bryant, maybe Kevin Durant the way he played this season, Gilbert Arenas, Ray Allen, Carmelo Anthony.

Remember, AI's wonderful contribution in the playoffs was to shoot under 39% FG in the 2001 postseason, it's not like he was lighting it up, he was just shooting a lot, at a TS some 4% worse than his regular-season value. In 46 mpg, he jacked up just over 30 shots a game. Eventually, you're bound to start hitting them even if you're a mediocre mid-range shooter like Iverson. That is textbook chucking, man, there's no ifs ands or buts about it. And it wasn't an atypical Iverson playoff performance, either. He's averaged almost 27 FGA/g in the playoffs even with a couple of seasons in Denver, and he's shot 40.1% FG in that time (bolstered by the 04-05 postseason, where he shot very well and was helped by the new rules a lot).

But yeah, in general, Iverson is a merciless chucker and his pre-04/05 play reflects that. Stunningly overrated by many people.

By the way, the East being particularly weak then? Possibly, but Iverson dropped the Reggie/Jalen Rose/JO Pacers, prime VC's Raptors, and the Ray Allen/Glenn Robinson/Cassell Bucks, who had a combined 140-106 record. On the other hand, LeBron gets only credit for taking the Cavs to the Finals despite facing the Wizards, Nets, and Pistons sans Ben Wallace who had a combined 135-111 record and also having a great defensive and rebounding team, all while LeBron played terrible defense.

Vince's Raptors weren't that good. We were a team built upon defense, rebounding and one scorer, a classic non-contender build, I don't know what you're driving at there.

In Lebron's case, he was a phenomenally versatile player who played better D than you're crediting him for while carrying the offense and doing so efficiently. There's no question Lebron was a better player; there's also no question that he caught a very lucky break in who he saw that season in the playoffs, and he was promptly squashed worse than AI's Sixers. losing in a 4-game sweep, so I don't know why you think this is a major point of contention. Lebron's achievement is ripped on just as much as AI's Finals appearance.

You seriously think that replacing Allen Iverson in his prime with Jamal Crawford is even remotely close? Wow.

Stackhouse couldn't have done it - his team was pretty good defensively as well and was decent rebounding. They finished 32-50.
Pierce couldn't have done it - his team was was pretty mediocre defensively, but had great defensive rebounding, and he had a prime Antoine Walker, and they finished 36-46.
Gary Payton before he got old? Why not just bring in Michael Jordan while you're mentioning players from a different era?
Ray Allen had a monstrous offensive supporting cast and still lost to the 76ers. He has never been the undisputed alpha dog for a team - slot him in and no one knows how he'd do. Do I forsee him keeping that roster afloat with such bad offensive players? No.

That leaves Kobe, Wade, LeBron, T-Mac, VC, Durant, Melo, and Grant Hill, with Arenas as a maybe, who could suitably replace Iverson, all of whom at one point or another were heralded as an undisputed top scorer in the league.

AI's playoff contributions? How about being the only team to win a game against the '00-01 Lakers in the postseason? The team that won all its previous games by an AVERAGE of 15 PPG? I guess that just doesn't matter, right?

Vince's Raptors are a ton better than the Wizards LeBron faced or his stint in NJ.

LeBron gets praised all the time for making the Finals with a "bunch of scrubs" as his fanboys so succinctly put it, and for that matter, his 'efficient offense' finished 18th in the league, while Iverson's 76ers finished 13th.

azuresou1 wrote:You seriously think that replacing Allen Iverson in his prime with Jamal Crawford is even remotely close? Wow.

30 shots at under 40% with weak, inconsistent 3pt shooting isn't any better than 30 shots on under 40% shooting with good 3pt shooting. Iverson didn't really do much to warrant the kind of adulation you're heaping on him.

Stackhouse couldn't have done it - his team was pretty good defensively as well and was decent rebounding. They finished 32-50.

The one year where he was chucking like AI (and drawing fouls at a similar rate, he was always good at that), they had a bunch of significant injuries to their key contributors, they didn't have the COY but George Irvine, they didn't have the 6MOY (Iverson did, it was 00-01, and it was Aaron McKie), it wasn't the same situation at all.

It isn't just the rebounding. Ben Wallace was good and everything even then, though not quite the same level of shot-blocker as Mutombo at the time (he made a quantum leap the year after). I said in the same situation, not in a cherry-picked situation with a useless coach and a bunch of things limiting the ability of the team to succeed.

Pierce couldn't have done it - his team was was pretty mediocre defensively, but had great defensive rebounding, and he had a prime Antoine Walker, and they finished 36-46.

AI's team was top 5 in the league in defense; "pretty mediocre defensively" totally invalidates your point.

Gary Payton before he got old? Why not just bring in Michael Jordan while you're mentioning players from a different era?

OR... I could mention the Gary Payton who was a 20-24 ppg scorer for the first four years of the decade in question and, in that span, a four-time All-Star, three-time All-Defensive 1st Teamer and made All-NBA 1st, 2nd and 3rd teams...

I said 10 years, man, it's a long time. Payton was great basically until he went to L.A. Of course, he wouldn't have chucked the way AI did and he was a way better defensive player, so it's a bit disingenuous to use him as an example. Much better player.

Ray Allen had a monstrous offensive supporting cast and still lost to the 76ers. He has never been the undisputed alpha dog for a team - slot him in and no one knows how he'd do.

Actually, he was, it was just in Seattle and their management was (Please Use More Appropriate Word) and useless. Meantime, Milwaukee had the problem of sharing the ball and they were a TERRIBLE defensive team (20th of 29 in 2001), so they are another awful example. Additionally, they were below average on the glass at both ends of the floor, so they definitely don't qualify.

AI's playoff contributions? How about being the only team to win a game against the '00-01 Lakers in the postseason? The team that won all its previous games by an AVERAGE of 15 PPG? I guess that just doesn't matter, right?

Ooh, I'm quaking. He managed not to get swept because Kobe shot 7/22 from the floor and had 15 points and 6 turnovers, getting outperformed by Rick Fox. Let's not get revisionist on history, here. AI had a good game (great scoring output, average scoring efficiency (41 shots to score 48 points...) but it was the defense (which mostly didn't include AI) that won that game. Shaq obliterated them but they harshly limited Kobe's efficacy (a common factor in NBA Finals matchups) and the Sixers snuck away with a win. That's not really an achievement I'd be parading around.

Vince's Raptors are a ton better than the Wizards LeBron faced or his stint in NJ.

You think so? I watched both, I'd side with those Wizards any day. Vince's Raptors were a 47-win team in a weak conference that relied upon one guy who was already starting to shoot too many perimeter jumpers and hated contact. The Wizards won 41 games despite Arenas and Jamison playing 74 and 70 games, Butler playing 63, being coached by Eddie Jordan (who is AWFUL as a defensive coach) and otherwise being limited by lack of useful depth and health. I'd be a lot more afraid of a healthy Wizards squad from 07. Naturally, Arenas wasn't IN the playoffs that year, so yes, they were a much less dangerous team. I've already agreed that Lebron's Finals appearance isn't that interesting because he had an easy run to get there. Of course, Cleveland swept them... in the first round, so it's not all that big a deal, title teams and contenders sweep or otherwise crush useless 8th seeds all the time. The Nets weren't much different. The Pistons, on the other hand, were a better team than any that AI faced before L.A. in 2001.

LeBron gets praised all the time for making the Finals with a "bunch of scrubs" as his fanboys so succinctly put it, and for that matter, his 'efficient offense' finished 18th in the league, while Iverson's 76ers finished 13th.

Lebron's fanbois are as bad as Kobe's. Anyone objectively evaluating that playoff run knows it was a weak run because Arenas wasn't in the series against Washington, but the Pistons were still a legit team and then they got SMOKED by the Spurs. It was impressive that he carried the offense (a role he played FAR more effectively than AI) and it bears mention that Lebron pinned down a Cavs squad that made the Conference Semis in five consecutive seasons, whereas AI's team fell off dramatically the year after. AI was injured, of course, but they were even better on defense. He played only 60 games, though, so their offense (which pivoted around his chuckery) wasn't quite as good because he does have good ability. AI was always better when he was taking fewer than 20 shots a game and looking to pass more, but he didn't like doing that.

Also, I was talking about Lebron individually, not his team's offense, when I spoke about offensive efficiency.

We're clearly not going to agree on anything if you seriously think replacing Allen Iverson, a career 27 PPG scorer on .518 TS% (including his wretched last two seasons) with Jamal Crawford, a career 16 PPG scorer on .524 TS% (including his past season with Atlanta which was by far his best season), is even REMOTELY plausible.

You will note that Iverson, in his only other full season with a legitimate scoring option, posted a .567 TS%. You're bringing down Iverson because he wasn't an efficient scorer, completely disregarding the fact that prior to Denver he never played with another quality scorer.

azuresou1 wrote:You will note that Iverson, in his only other full season with a legitimate scoring option, posted a .567 TS%. You're bringing down Iverson because he wasn't an efficient scorer, completely disregarding the fact that prior to Denver he never played with another quality scorer.

Iverson's TS went up in Denver (and his last year in Philly) because the new rules made it impossible to legally guard him and by dramatically raising his DrawF rate, extending his career. In Philly, he tried to work with Derrick Colemand and Jerry Stackhouse, both fine scoring threats, but Iverson is useless without the ball in his hands. And when he does try to go to the skills you mentioned, the volume scoring, he's horrifically inefficient, and consequently not that valuable. He's monstrously overrated.

He's still an All-Star level player, of course, it would be blind and foolish to ignore at least that, but he's a walking chemistry-exploded who doesn't fit well into most team concepts and constructions. He's been a poor performer overrated because of counting stats and an inflated scoring average.

Derrick Coleman was a PF who had a career 16.5 PPG on .526 TS%, which is almost identical to Jamal Crawford's 16.5 PPG on .524 TS%, while Crawford is a SG. LOL at Coleman being a 'fine scoring threat.'

Jerry Stackhouse was a career 18 PPG scorer on .524 TS%, again almost identical to Jamal Crawford, although slightly better.

Would you feel comfortable with Jamal Crawford as your second option? I certainly hope not.

azuresou1 wrote:Derrick Coleman was a PF who had a career 16.5 PPG on .526 TS%, which is almost identical to Jamal Crawford's 16.5 PPG on .524 TS%, while Crawford is a SG. LOL at Coleman being a 'fine scoring threat.'

Coleman wasn't a volume scorer, I agree, but we're not discussing volume scorers and Coleman was a 3-time 20+ ppg scorer, so you're misrepresenting his value here. This is a guy who scored 17+ ppg in 7/15 seasons (7/14, if you don't count the 5-game season that ended his career), and otherwise scored 15+ an additional 2 times. He was not an inconsiderable scoring threat.

Jerry Stackhouse was a career 18 PPG scorer on .524 TS%, again almost identical to Jamal Crawford, although slightly better.

Another misrepresentation. 5-time 20+ ppg scorer, peaked just under 30, scoring average dipped hard because he was injured in his second season in Washington, then moved to Dallas as a tertiary player/bench spark. If we DON'T cherry-pick his scoring average, he's a career 21.5 ppg scorer as a starter who drew a ton of fouls (.447 FTA/FGA)and was a solid passer. Not great as a high-20s scorer, but then, he was identical to Iverson in his chuckery that year, with comparable results in efficiency and so forth.

Would you feel comfortable with Jamal Crawford as your second option? I certainly hope not.

Depends on the construction of my team; if I had a team that dominated the boards and was outstanding defensively, yes, I would. He's a fine dribble-penetrator/isolation baller who has bette range than Iverson, so he'd be quite useful.

So let me get this straight. It's okay to ignore efficiency when it comes to Coleman and Stackhouse, but somehow it means everything when it comes to Iverson? For their careers, Coleman and Stackhouse are about 9 PPG worse than Iverson, while having such a negligible increase in efficiency that to say that they're even remotely close to Iverson is laughable.

I think you've probably never watched Jamal Crawford for any extended period of time if you're calling him a 'dribble penetrator.'

azuresou1 wrote:So let me get this straight. It's okay to ignore efficiency when it comes to Coleman and Stackhouse, but somehow it means everything when it comes to Iverson? For their careers, Coleman and Stackhouse are about 9 PPG worse than Iverson, while having such a negligible increase in efficiency that to say that they're even remotely close to Iverson is laughable.

I'm not ignoring their efficiency, I'm looking at their roughly league-average efficiency during the years where they were scoring, and I'm looking at Iverson being under league-average until the rules were changed, apart from his second season, when he was still not yet a true volume scorer. AI's second season was what he should have been... a 22/4/6 player who produced at a good level of efficiency and played more of a scoring-point sort of role. He was great that year.

Meantime, arguing that Iverson is better than Stackhouse or Coleman is moot... I'm not saying Coleman was better than AI, I was saying that he could have been a good second option.

And in Stackhouse's case, I'm also not saying that he's better than AI, merely pointing out that he could gun his way to 29, 30 ppg too. Which he did. That's not better, just comparable.

I think you've probably never watched Jamal Crawford for any extended period of time if you're calling him a 'dribble penetrator.'

I don't mean that he's a dangerous slasher who draws a ton of fouls, and I agree that he mostly "penetrates" to the elbow and takes a pull-up jumper... and I've already noted that he takes like 3/7s of his shots from behind the arc. It remains true, however, that he can handle the ball very effectively in order to get a decent look at the bucket instead of being forced to rely on screens and cuts and the like. He can initiate his own offense.