RealGM 2023 Top 100 Project - #78 (Dennis Rodman)

[AEnigma]

I probably agree, just because even if we say Baron had a better 8-year prime, Parker is the much more valuable career — and I do not think Baron is as good as a lot of the RAPM markers suggest (and WOWY measures bear that out to an extent).

However, I was making predictions, not personal rankings.

[falcolombardi]

I know I'm a broken record at this point, but our last three(and four of our last six) inductees have been active players, and now Al Horford has taken the lead in nominations(he'd be the 18th active player if he were inducted).

I just really really really don't like this.

And I am a broken record on this point, but the reason that happened is because there was a long stretch without any active inductions.

For what it is worth, after Horford, I am done with active players apart from maybe considering Tatum (and Luka?) in the 90s.

I feel like luka is a superior enough playoff player to tatum to overcome tatum 3-ish (?) low end all star seasons longevity advantage

[OhayoKD]

He generated more value playmaking than scoring, paticularly in the playoffs....

Having watched Iverson, I've never seen him as a playmaking savant. Indeed, he always looked to me as someone who put his head down and drove ignoring teammates then kicked out if needed rather than someone who put his teammates in THEIR sweet spots. r. Do you have any evidence that he's better than mediocre as a playmaker who creates well for others?

He definitely had gravity but it was a scorer's gravity rather than being an outstanding playmake

Does it matter if it's scoring gravity or passing ablity? Creation is creation. By box his playmaking looks alot more effecient than his scoring does

Spoiler:

[img]
https://media.discordapp.net/attachments/807803459331555363/1213294667991490691/image.png?ex=65f4f3b6&is=65e27eb6&hm=da7bae1352397792459454f4fb8bbe075ad2340517b78a88e91d01e7cc4a45ab&=&format=webp&quality=lossless&width=1435&height=571[/img]

Now, as someone who has argued ad-nauesum there is no "the" box-score and box-scores are glorified eye-tests, I would be remiss not to look at context for those impressive ast:tov ratios...

Someone with great athleticism and great moves who hogs the ball

He had the ball in his hands so much that he got off 30 shots a game, that's a lot of usage so there should be some assists there.

verson was also probably the NBA's all time leader (outside of maybe Wilt/Shaq) in shooting into double or even triple coverage. He got severe tunnel vision at times and would take truly awful shots hoping the refs would bail him out.

Hmm.

So Iverson has a strong ast:tov ratio on high volume which gets even better in the playoffs and also

-> Is breaking down defenses pre-pass a bunch(ball-hog, has the hands in his ball so much)
-> Is taking a truckload of shots(also contributes to turnovers)
-> And is drawing doubles and triples


Iow, just going by your contextual additions, not only is he getting alot of assists on very few turnovers, but we can reasonably infer his assists are generally taking out more defenders on average, he's breaking down defenses without passing, he's drawing more defensive attention(which frees up teammates to do their thing), and he's doing all that while hardly turning the ball over?

If anything I'd think all that suggests his box-score underrates how much he's creating for his team. And fwiw, box derivatives which also don't really care about the bullet points, like "play-val" and passer-rating/box-creation already have Iverson as a historically excellent playmaker.

If we look to the tape:

Watch on YouTube

Assist 1: creates an open jumper by drawing a double and then makes a 3rd defender linger with a on-time and on point cross-court jump-pass. 2 defenders taken out completely, and a third hindered. I'd grade that as a good or borderline great creation.

Assist 2: Transition, draws and manipulates one defender to make a layup lane for his teammate. Really more captializing on a good oppurtinity then generating one, so i'll just say this is decent

Assist 3: Completely takes 2 defenders out of the play by dribbling around them(notable how frantically they double), sets up a semi-contested look, I'd say it's good creation. Maybe he could have made a wide-open look by passing it when he gets the ball instead of dribbling.

Assist 4: Takes out one defender by dribbling, another with his pass, and also freezes Shaq with his eyes allowing for his teammate to take a step for a higher quality look(though he was set-up for a open jumper). Great creation imo. Just excellent playmaking, with Iverson's combination of manipulation, ball-handling, and passing all combining to almost singlehandedly nuetralize the defense.

Assist 5: Iverson knifes through LA and takes out 3 defenders to set up hill with a semi-open jumper. I'd grade that as a great creation too though based on the shot I can see the argument for good(maybe he could have passed it a beat earlier?)

Assist 6: Iverson recovers from nearly losing the ball and takes out 1 defender with a pass while also getting Kobe out of position. Scorer still has to do alot of work after so I'm just calling it decent.

Overall, Per-assist Iverson is taking out nearly 2 defenders completely and his passes are generally accurate and well-timed with a combination of scoring gravity, handles, and manipulation turning good passing into great creation.

Small sample, but it lines up with your own criticisms which...don't really support what you've been arguing imo. You also have the box-stuff where he has a high ast% with low tov% despite how many shots he takes, him drawing doubles and triples, and him "always having the ball". I don't see how that all adds up to a mediocre playmaker tbh.

[trex_8063]

If we look to the tape:

Watch on YouTube

Assist 1: creates an open jumper by drawing a double and then makes a 3rd defender linger with a on-time and on point cross-court jump-pass. 2 defenders taken out completely, and a third hindered. I'd grade that as a good or borderline great creation.

Assist 2: Transition, draws and manipulates one defender to make a layup lane for his teammate. Really more captializing on a good oppurtinity then generating one, so i'll just say this is decent

Assist 3: Completely takes 2 defenders out of the play by dribbling around them(notable how frantically they double), sets up a semi-contested look, I'd say it's good creation. Maybe he could have made a wide-open look by passing it when he gets the ball instead of dribbling.

Assist 4: Takes out one defender by dribbling, another with his pass, and also freezes Shaq with his eyes allowing for his teammate to take a step for a higher quality look(though he was set-up for a open jumper). Great creation imo. Just excellent playmaking, with Iverson's combination of manipulation, ball-handling, and passing all combining to almost singlehandedly nuetralize the defense.

Assist 5: Iverson knifes through LA and takes out 3 defenders to set up hill with a semi-open jumper. I'd grade that as a great creation too though based on the shot I can see the argument for good(maybe he could have passed it a beat earlier?)

Assist 6: Iverson recovers from nearly losing the ball and takes out 1 defender with a pass while also getting Kobe out of position. Scorer still has to do alot of work after so I'm just calling it decent.

Overall, Per-assist Iverson is taking out nearly 2 defenders completely and his passes are generally accurate and well-timed with a combination of scoring gravity, handles, and manipulation turning good passing into great creation.

Small sample, but it lines up with your own criticisms which...don't really support what you've been arguing imo. You also have the box-stuff where he has a high ast% with low tov% despite how many shots he takes, him drawing doubles and triples, and him "always having the ball". I don't see how that all adds up to a mediocre playmaker tbh.

Thank you for getting the ball rolling for Iverson in such a reasoned way. I've been meaning to do so as well.

In the video linked, I'd also like to point out an example of the "Iverson Assist" phenomenon, even though it didn't happen on this particular play, but.....

If you look at the play that starts at 3:09 in the video: Iverson breaks down his man off the dribble, gets into the lane, Shaq steps forward to contest though Iverson makes the shot anyway; but I want you to pay attention to the position of bodies at the time the shot is leaving Iverson's hand......because Shaq has stepped forward to help, who is that under the basket on the weak side with no one boxing him out? Why, it's Dikembe Mutombo.
If the shot HAD missed, Mutombo's going to be the one getting the [offensive] rebound a large proportion of the time (perhaps >60%). This phenomenon happens multiple times per game in basically any game Iverson was in during his prime.

[OhayoKD]

If we look to the tape:

Watch on YouTube

Assist 1: creates an open jumper by drawing a double and then makes a 3rd defender linger with a on-time and on point cross-court jump-pass. 2 defenders taken out completely, and a third hindered. I'd grade that as a good or borderline great creation.

Assist 2: Transition, draws and manipulates one defender to make a layup lane for his teammate. Really more captializing on a good oppurtinity then generating one, so i'll just say this is decent

Assist 3: Completely takes 2 defenders out of the play by dribbling around them(notable how frantically they double), sets up a semi-contested look, I'd say it's good creation. Maybe he could have made a wide-open look by passing it when he gets the ball instead of dribbling.

Assist 4: Takes out one defender by dribbling, another with his pass, and also freezes Shaq with his eyes allowing for his teammate to take a step for a higher quality look(though he was set-up for a open jumper). Great creation imo. Just excellent playmaking, with Iverson's combination of manipulation, ball-handling, and passing all combining to almost singlehandedly nuetralize the defense.

Assist 5: Iverson knifes through LA and takes out 3 defenders to set up hill with a semi-open jumper. I'd grade that as a great creation too though based on the shot I can see the argument for good(maybe he could have passed it a beat earlier?)

Assist 6: Iverson recovers from nearly losing the ball and takes out 1 defender with a pass while also getting Kobe out of position. Scorer still has to do alot of work after so I'm just calling it decent.

Overall, Per-assist Iverson is taking out nearly 2 defenders completely and his passes are generally accurate and well-timed with a combination of scoring gravity, handles, and manipulation turning good passing into great creation.

Small sample, but it lines up with your own criticisms which...don't really support what you've been arguing imo. You also have the box-stuff where he has a high ast% with low tov% despite how many shots he takes, him drawing doubles and triples, and him "always having the ball". I don't see how that all adds up to a mediocre playmaker tbh.

Thank you for getting the ball rolling for Iverson in such a reasoned way. I've been meaning to do so as well.

In the video linked, I'd also like to point out an example of the "Iverson Assist" phenomenon, even though it didn't happen on this particular play, but.....

If you look at the play that starts at 3:09 in the video: Iverson breaks down his man off the dribble, gets into the lane, Shaq steps forward to contest though Iverson makes the shot anyway; but I want you to pay attention to the position of bodies at the time the shot is leaving Iverson's hand......because Shaq has stepped forward to help, who is that under the basket on the weak side with no one boxing him out? Why, it's Dikembe Mutombo.
If the shot HAD missed, Mutombo's going to be the one getting the [offensive] rebound a large proportion of the time (perhaps >60%). This phenomenon happens multiple times per game in basically any game Iverson was in during his prime.

Good catch!

I think this also happened pretty frequently with Westbrook though I never bothered to count

[eminence]

Vote #1: Dennis Rodman
-Great rebounder/defender
-Solid impact profile
-Plenty proven in the playoffs
-Decent longevity

Vote #2: Bob Cousy
-Narrow decision over Rudy, so a note on that comp
-Pretty similar prime lengths ('51-'59 with a down '58 vs '15-'22 and a down '23)
-I prefer Rudy's peak ('21), but see other prime seasons on a similar level, and give Cousy the edge for the extra longevity at the end, I expect Rudy to pass him in the next season or two, though maybe not if there's no playoff success
-Good impact profile, very good if you curve it for mostly being what we would think of as late/post prime seasons
-High volume offense creator
-A few ups and downs in the playoffs, but enough appearances to rack up plenty of positive accomplishment

Nomination #1: Bob Davies
-Greatest guard of the 1st era of the league
-For starting late (age 26 season) has some decent longevity. I would consider him an Allstar+ level of guard for 8 seasons '46-'53, strong argument for #2 player in the world broadly over the period
-2x champ in a starring role
-Not directly part of his case, but he gets a moral bonus point from me for being an early advocate for league integration

Nomination #2: Shawn Marion
-Horford/Nance were the main two guys I've seen voted for that were competition here
-Don't love Marions later years, but tend to like his pre-Nash Suns years more than most
-Peak obviously came playing off Nash, where he was quite strong and held together the squad on the defensive end

[OldSchoolNoBull]

If we look to the tape:

Watch on YouTube

Assist 1: creates an open jumper by drawing a double and then makes a 3rd defender linger with a on-time and on point cross-court jump-pass. 2 defenders taken out completely, and a third hindered. I'd grade that as a good or borderline great creation.

Assist 2: Transition, draws and manipulates one defender to make a layup lane for his teammate. Really more captializing on a good oppurtinity then generating one, so i'll just say this is decent

Assist 3: Completely takes 2 defenders out of the play by dribbling around them(notable how frantically they double), sets up a semi-contested look, I'd say it's good creation. Maybe he could have made a wide-open look by passing it when he gets the ball instead of dribbling.

Assist 4: Takes out one defender by dribbling, another with his pass, and also freezes Shaq with his eyes allowing for his teammate to take a step for a higher quality look(though he was set-up for a open jumper). Great creation imo. Just excellent playmaking, with Iverson's combination of manipulation, ball-handling, and passing all combining to almost singlehandedly nuetralize the defense.

Assist 5: Iverson knifes through LA and takes out 3 defenders to set up hill with a semi-open jumper. I'd grade that as a great creation too though based on the shot I can see the argument for good(maybe he could have passed it a beat earlier?)

Assist 6: Iverson recovers from nearly losing the ball and takes out 1 defender with a pass while also getting Kobe out of position. Scorer still has to do alot of work after so I'm just calling it decent.

Overall, Per-assist Iverson is taking out nearly 2 defenders completely and his passes are generally accurate and well-timed with a combination of scoring gravity, handles, and manipulation turning good passing into great creation.

Small sample, but it lines up with your own criticisms which...don't really support what you've been arguing imo. You also have the box-stuff where he has a high ast% with low tov% despite how many shots he takes, him drawing doubles and triples, and him "always having the ball". I don't see how that all adds up to a mediocre playmaker tbh.

Thank you for getting the ball rolling for Iverson in such a reasoned way. I've been meaning to do so as well.

In the video linked, I'd also like to point out an example of the "Iverson Assist" phenomenon, even though it didn't happen on this particular play, but.....

If you look at the play that starts at 3:09 in the video: Iverson breaks down his man off the dribble, gets into the lane, Shaq steps forward to contest though Iverson makes the shot anyway; but I want you to pay attention to the position of bodies at the time the shot is leaving Iverson's hand......because Shaq has stepped forward to help, who is that under the basket on the weak side with no one boxing him out? Why, it's Dikembe Mutombo.
If the shot HAD missed, Mutombo's going to be the one getting the [offensive] rebound a large proportion of the time (perhaps >60%). This phenomenon happens multiple times per game in basically any game Iverson was in during his prime.

Great points, both of you. Since we're talking about Iverson, I'd like to make a point of my own.

There's one aspect of Iverson's game we haven't talked about much yet, and that is his steals. This is because we don't generally talk about anyone's steals much - because steals are supposed to be a defensive metric, but around here, the consensus is that they're not a good or accurate defensive metric, so we just kind of ignore them.

But Iverson is an ATG at stealing the ball. He is #8 all-time in SPG, and one of only eleven players ever to top 2+ SPG. Here is the Top 25(this list omits ABA players/seasons, though there weren't many of them anyway):

1. Alvin Robertson 2.71
2. Micheal Ray Richardson 2.63
3. Michael Jordan* 2.35
4. Mookie Blaylock 2.33
5. Fat Lever 2.22
6. Slick Watts 2.20
7. John Stockton* 2.17
8. Allen Iverson* 2.17
9. Maurice Cheeks* 2.10
10. Chris Paul 2.07
11. Clyde Drexler* 2.03
12. Rick Barry* 1.99
13. Gus Williams 1.99
14. Scottie Pippen* 1.96
15. Johnny Moore 1.96
16. Ron Lee 1.94
17. Nate McMillan 1.94
18. Jason Kidd* 1.93
19. Magic Johnson* 1.90
20. Isiah Thomas* 1.90
21. Doug Christie 1.88
22. Quinn Buckner 1.86
23. Mike Gale 1.85
24. Baron Davis 1.83
25. Gary Payton* 1.83

Now, I am NOT going to draw any conclusions about how effective of a defender he was from this - there are other metrics that disabuse of the notion that he was anything special as a defender.

But I WILL suggest that, even if stealing the ball at an exceptionally high rate consistently over many years isn't an argument in favor of him being a strong defender, it was still a skill that he was great at, and that had value to the team insofar as it generated extra possessions(particularly important for the subpar offensive teams he played on in Philly) and therefore extra opportunities to score.

You don't need to think of SPG as good defensive metric, but it is a positive facet of his game that probably shouldn't be ignored.

[OhayoKD]

If we look to the tape:

Watch on YouTube

Assist 1: creates an open jumper by drawing a double and then makes a 3rd defender linger with a on-time and on point cross-court jump-pass. 2 defenders taken out completely, and a third hindered. I'd grade that as a good or borderline great creation.

Assist 2: Transition, draws and manipulates one defender to make a layup lane for his teammate. Really more captializing on a good oppurtinity then generating one, so i'll just say this is decent

Assist 3: Completely takes 2 defenders out of the play by dribbling around them(notable how frantically they double), sets up a semi-contested look, I'd say it's good creation. Maybe he could have made a wide-open look by passing it when he gets the ball instead of dribbling.

Assist 4: Takes out one defender by dribbling, another with his pass, and also freezes Shaq with his eyes allowing for his teammate to take a step for a higher quality look(though he was set-up for a open jumper). Great creation imo. Just excellent playmaking, with Iverson's combination of manipulation, ball-handling, and passing all combining to almost singlehandedly nuetralize the defense.

Assist 5: Iverson knifes through LA and takes out 3 defenders to set up hill with a semi-open jumper. I'd grade that as a great creation too though based on the shot I can see the argument for good(maybe he could have passed it a beat earlier?)

Assist 6: Iverson recovers from nearly losing the ball and takes out 1 defender with a pass while also getting Kobe out of position. Scorer still has to do alot of work after so I'm just calling it decent.

Overall, Per-assist Iverson is taking out nearly 2 defenders completely and his passes are generally accurate and well-timed with a combination of scoring gravity, handles, and manipulation turning good passing into great creation.

Small sample, but it lines up with your own criticisms which...don't really support what you've been arguing imo. You also have the box-stuff where he has a high ast% with low tov% despite how many shots he takes, him drawing doubles and triples, and him "always having the ball". I don't see how that all adds up to a mediocre playmaker tbh.

Thank you for getting the ball rolling for Iverson in such a reasoned way. I've been meaning to do so as well.

In the video linked, I'd also like to point out an example of the "Iverson Assist" phenomenon, even though it didn't happen on this particular play, but.....

If you look at the play that starts at 3:09 in the video: Iverson breaks down his man off the dribble, gets into the lane, Shaq steps forward to contest though Iverson makes the shot anyway; but I want you to pay attention to the position of bodies at the time the shot is leaving Iverson's hand......because Shaq has stepped forward to help, who is that under the basket on the weak side with no one boxing him out? Why, it's Dikembe Mutombo.
If the shot HAD missed, Mutombo's going to be the one getting the [offensive] rebound a large proportion of the time (perhaps >60%). This phenomenon happens multiple times per game in basically any game Iverson was in during his prime.

Great points, both of you. Since we're talking about Iverson, I'd like to make a point of my own.

There's one aspect of Iverson's game we haven't talked about much yet, and that is his steals. This is because we don't generally talk about anyone's steals much - because steals are supposed to be a defensive metric, but around here, the consensus is that they're not a good or accurate defensive metric, so we just kind of ignore them.

But Iverson is an ATG at stealing the ball.

That would partially depend on how often he misses(and how that potentially hurts his team).

I don't have a strong opinion on that, but there is a negative facet to his game that the positive facet has to be weighed against there. In theory the greatest steal-rackers would be those who can rack up alot of steals without giving much up the other way(Kawhi feels like a plausible goat on that front)

[Clyde Frazier]

Vote 1 - Adrian Dantley
Vote 2 - Allen Iverson
Nomination 1 - Sidney Moncrief
Nomination 2 - Larry Nance

Looking at the controversy with dantley leaving DET and them winning the championship following his departure, and it seems overblown. Dantley’s averages in the '88 finals (loss) are as follows:

21.3 PPG, 5 RPG, 2.3 APG, .6 SPG, 57.3% FG, 85.6% FT, 67.6% TS, 127 ORTG

Games 6 and 7 of the 88 finals were decided by a total of 4 points, and this was with a substandard game 7 by the injured isiah thomas. If he’s healthy, they very well could’ve won the title that year. I don’t hold the turn of events against dantley all that much relative to general perception.

Some great research here by Moonbeam on Dantley and other star SFs of the 80s:

I love looking at these guys because most of my favorite players are small forwards, and it was such an exciting time to watch, as these guys were each capable of amazing offensive outbursts.

One thing I've taken a hard look at is how to weigh up offensive statistics in the context of team offense. There has been a fair bit of discussion in the Top 100 poll about how to gauge individual performance based on team performance (e.g. Garnett's Minny teams did not generally excel on defense, how to compare Kidd's team offenses to Payton's given teammate quality), so I tried to come up with a rough model of expectations for team offense.

I used offensive win shares as the basis for this analysis. I know many aren't happy with OWS, but on a team-level, it is very strongly correlated with offensive rating, which is a good measure of overall team offensive performance. I looked at all regular season data from 1977-2014 to come up with a set of aging curves to encompass different types of peak shapes. I've used five different levels of peak sharpness and five different peak ages (21, 24, 27, 30, and 33), which makes it possible to model a player's career based on OWS/48, like this:



This is a very simple approach, but I wanted something specific enough to broadly capture the relationship between offensive production and aging, but not too specific as to produce perfect models - I'm interested in the deviations from expectations, after all, so I'm happy with a bit of noise.

Based on these curves of expected OWS/48, I then looked at team offense relative to expectations as judged by total OWS. I'm still looking to road-test this analysis, so if you know of any instances where you felt a team overachieved or underachieved its talent level, I'd be eager to check it against my model!

I parsed out performance relative to expectations for each of these players plus Larry Bird (in >28 MPG seasons) and their respective teammates as a whole. Why 28 MPG? I wanted to include enough seasons to get a big picture view, plus I wanted to avoid discontinuities where I could (e.g. Bernard King's 1988 season). Here are the resulting plots of player OWS, player expected OWS, teammate ("help") OWS and expected teammate OWS:

















Over this span, here are the MP-weighted averages for player OWS, % of team OWS, both rate and raw difference of help OWS to expectations:

Code: Select all

Player   WtOWS   %Off  Help Rate  Help Diff
Aguirre  5.112  0.166    1.018      +0.428
Bird     7.429  0.220    1.048      +1.056
Dantley  8.803  0.394    0.844      -2.155
English  6.536  0.246    1.016      +0.307
Johnson  5.954  0.253    1.040      +0.636
King     4.466  0.269    0.887      -1.413
Wilkins  6.084  0.255    1.015      +0.260
Worthy   5.065  0.155    1.116      +2.809


On the surface, it looks like Dantley (and to a lesser extent, King) may be getting their Win Shares somewhat at the expense of teammates, while Bird and Worthy are associated with boosts for their teammates. How much praise (or blame) should be apportioned for performance of teammates is up for debate, but I think it at least provides a framework for comparison.

Taking a look at the 5-year intervals in the OP:

Code: Select all

Player  Years   WtOWS   %Off  Help Rate  Help Diff
Aguirre 84-88   5.920  0.187    1.041      +1.005
Bird    84-88   9.933  0.302    0.989      -0.257
Dantley 80-84  11.213  0.553    1.083      +0.606
English 82-86   7.849  0.268    1.026      +0.548
Johnson 79-83   7.192  0.275    1.057      +0.984
King    81-85   6.675  0.323    0.919      -1.268
Wilkins 86-90   7.835  0.270    1.158      +2.891
Worthy  86-90   6.465  0.180    1.181      +4.496


Dantley is clearly the leader in both OWS and percentage of team offense (some of those supporting casts in Utah look dreadful), but perhaps he didn't provide the "lift" as others (or worse, perhaps his presence deflated his teammates offense). If we split his career into phases, it seems his early career is where his teammates fared the worst (0.731 rate, fit issues with Lakers?), while in Utah they performed nearly to (awful) expectations (0.968 rate), while in Detroit during 87-88, the rate fell to 0.801 (problems of fit with Isiah?), and across 89-90, it was 0.935.

I don't think Worthy's help numbers are attributable to him so much as they are to Magic, but he clearly fit into Showtime quite well. Wilkins looks like he could have provided decent lift across 86-90, and Aguirre's apparent issues with teammates did not seem to affect his teams' offenses.

I've got H2H stats I can post later, but I thought I'd put this out there as it's a fascinating comparison for me.

Entire discussion here:

http://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?p=41264223#p41264223

[HeartBreakKid]

If we look to the tape:

Watch on YouTube

Assist 1: creates an open jumper by drawing a double and then makes a 3rd defender linger with a on-time and on point cross-court jump-pass. 2 defenders taken out completely, and a third hindered. I'd grade that as a good or borderline great creation.

Assist 2: Transition, draws and manipulates one defender to make a layup lane for his teammate. Really more captializing on a good oppurtinity then generating one, so i'll just say this is decent

Assist 3: Completely takes 2 defenders out of the play by dribbling around them(notable how frantically they double), sets up a semi-contested look, I'd say it's good creation. Maybe he could have made a wide-open look by passing it when he gets the ball instead of dribbling.

Assist 4: Takes out one defender by dribbling, another with his pass, and also freezes Shaq with his eyes allowing for his teammate to take a step for a higher quality look(though he was set-up for a open jumper). Great creation imo. Just excellent playmaking, with Iverson's combination of manipulation, ball-handling, and passing all combining to almost singlehandedly nuetralize the defense.

Assist 5: Iverson knifes through LA and takes out 3 defenders to set up hill with a semi-open jumper. I'd grade that as a great creation too though based on the shot I can see the argument for good(maybe he could have passed it a beat earlier?)

Assist 6: Iverson recovers from nearly losing the ball and takes out 1 defender with a pass while also getting Kobe out of position. Scorer still has to do alot of work after so I'm just calling it decent.

Overall, Per-assist Iverson is taking out nearly 2 defenders completely and his passes are generally accurate and well-timed with a combination of scoring gravity, handles, and manipulation turning good passing into great creation.

Small sample, but it lines up with your own criticisms which...don't really support what you've been arguing imo. You also have the box-stuff where he has a high ast% with low tov% despite how many shots he takes, him drawing doubles and triples, and him "always having the ball". I don't see how that all adds up to a mediocre playmaker tbh.

Thank you for getting the ball rolling for Iverson in such a reasoned way. I've been meaning to do so as well.

In the video linked, I'd also like to point out an example of the "Iverson Assist" phenomenon, even though it didn't happen on this particular play, but.....

If you look at the play that starts at 3:09 in the video: Iverson breaks down his man off the dribble, gets into the lane, Shaq steps forward to contest though Iverson makes the shot anyway; but I want you to pay attention to the position of bodies at the time the shot is leaving Iverson's hand......because Shaq has stepped forward to help, who is that under the basket on the weak side with no one boxing him out? Why, it's Dikembe Mutombo.
If the shot HAD missed, Mutombo's going to be the one getting the [offensive] rebound a large proportion of the time (perhaps >60%). This phenomenon happens multiple times per game in basically any game Iverson was in during his prime.

Great points, both of you. Since we're talking about Iverson, I'd like to make a point of my own.

There's one aspect of Iverson's game we haven't talked about much yet, and that is his steals. This is because we don't generally talk about anyone's steals much - because steals are supposed to be a defensive metric, but around here, the consensus is that they're not a good or accurate defensive metric, so we just kind of ignore them.

But Iverson is an ATG at stealing the ball. He is #8 all-time in SPG, and one of only eleven players ever to top 2+ SPG. Here is the Top 25(this list omits ABA players/seasons, though there weren't many of them anyway):

1. Alvin Robertson 2.71
2. Micheal Ray Richardson 2.63
3. Michael Jordan* 2.35
4. Mookie Blaylock 2.33
5. Fat Lever 2.22
6. Slick Watts 2.20
7. John Stockton* 2.17
8. Allen Iverson* 2.17
9. Maurice Cheeks* 2.10
10. Chris Paul 2.07
11. Clyde Drexler* 2.03
12. Rick Barry* 1.99
13. Gus Williams 1.99
14. Scottie Pippen* 1.96
15. Johnny Moore 1.96
16. Ron Lee 1.94
17. Nate McMillan 1.94
18. Jason Kidd* 1.93
19. Magic Johnson* 1.90
20. Isiah Thomas* 1.90
21. Doug Christie 1.88
22. Quinn Buckner 1.86
23. Mike Gale 1.85
24. Baron Davis 1.83
25. Gary Payton* 1.83

Now, I am NOT going to draw any conclusions about how effective of a defender he was from this - there are other metrics that disabuse of the notion that he was anything special as a defender.

But I WILL suggest that, even if stealing the ball at an exceptionally high rate consistently over many years isn't an argument in favor of him being a strong defender, it was still a skill that he was great at, and that had value to the team insofar as it generated extra possessions(particularly important for the subpar offensive teams he played on in Philly) and therefore extra opportunities to score.

You don't need to think of SPG as good defensive metric, but it is a positive facet of his game that probably shouldn't be ignored.

What's the utility of mentioning his SPG if he was overall a bad defender? It doesn't make up for his deficiencies so why even bother harping on it? You said it shouldn't be ignored - then what should we do with this information?

[ShaqAttac]

VOTE


IVERSON

won mvp and led team to final. Went ham on Kobe and Shaq

Rodman

Won 5 rings, goat rebounder, and plays great d


I'm gonna nom

WALTON Won a chip n mvp n swept kareem

Hoford
eni made a good arg i guess. Also took bron to 7 and carried flat earther next year. Prob not the best but none of the players i like are getting votes rn

[HeartBreakKid]

Vote: Cliff Hagan - Him taking over a couple post seasons seems more valuable than what these other candidates bring. Seems like he was the best "2nd option" during these players best years. Maybe Cousy was better, but I haven't read the current thread or recent ones to have an updated opinion of him.

Alternate Vote: Dennis Rodman - Might be a top ten defender of all time, if not top 15. GOAT rebounder not factoring in the impact of his rebounds (I think Russell had more effective ones). Seems like the relatively inefficient scoring of Iverson or the hyper one dimensional Dantley does not make up for that.


Nomination: Bill Walton

[penbeast0]

He generated more value playmaking than scoring, paticularly in the playoffs....

Having watched Iverson, I've never seen him as a playmaking savant. Indeed, he always looked to me as someone who put his head down and drove ignoring teammates then kicked out if needed rather than someone who put his teammates in THEIR sweet spots. r. Do you have any evidence that he's better than mediocre as a playmaker who creates well for others?

He definitely had gravity but it was a scorer's gravity rather than being an outstanding playmake

Does it matter if it's scoring gravity or passing ablity? Creation is creation. By box his playmaking looks alot more effecient than his scoring does

Spoiler:

[img]
https://media.discordapp.net/attachments/807803459331555363/1213294667991490691/image.png?ex=65f4f3b6&is=65e27eb6&hm=da7bae1352397792459454f4fb8bbe075ad2340517b78a88e91d01e7cc4a45ab&=&format=webp&quality=lossless&width=1435&height=571[/img]

Now, as someone who has argued ad-nauesum there is no "the" box-score and box-scores are glorified eye-tests, I would be remiss not to look at context for those impressive ast:tov ratios...

Someone with great athleticism and great moves who hogs the ball

He had the ball in his hands so much that he got off 30 shots a game, that's a lot of usage so there should be some assists there.

verson was also probably the NBA's all time leader (outside of maybe Wilt/Shaq) in shooting into double or even triple coverage. He got severe tunnel vision at times and would take truly awful shots hoping the refs would bail him out.

Hmm.

So Iverson has a strong ast:tov ratio on high volume which gets even better in the playoffs and also

-> Is breaking down defenses pre-pass a bunch(ball-hog, has the hands in his ball so much)
-> Is taking a truckload of shots(also contributes to turnovers)
-> And is drawing doubles and triples


Iow, just going by your contextual additions, not only is he getting alot of assists on very few turnovers, but we can reasonably infer his assists are generally taking out more defenders on average, he's breaking down defenses without passing, he's drawing more defensive attention(which frees up teammates to do their thing), and he's doing all that while hardly turning the ball over?

If anything I'd think all that suggests his box-score underrates how much he's creating for his team. And fwiw, box derivatives which also don't really care about the bullet points, like "play-val" and passer-rating/box-creation already have Iverson as a historically excellent playmaker.

If we look to the tape:

Watch on YouTube

Assist 1: creates an open jumper by drawing a double and then makes a 3rd defender linger with a on-time and on point cross-court jump-pass. 2 defenders taken out completely, and a third hindered. I'd grade that as a good or borderline great creation.

Assist 2: Transition, draws and manipulates one defender to make a layup lane for his teammate. Really more captializing on a good oppurtinity then generating one, so i'll just say this is decent

Assist 3: Completely takes 2 defenders out of the play by dribbling around them(notable how frantically they double), sets up a semi-contested look, I'd say it's good creation. Maybe he could have made a wide-open look by passing it when he gets the ball instead of dribbling.

Assist 4: Takes out one defender by dribbling, another with his pass, and also freezes Shaq with his eyes allowing for his teammate to take a step for a higher quality look(though he was set-up for a open jumper). Great creation imo. Just excellent playmaking, with Iverson's combination of manipulation, ball-handling, and passing all combining to almost singlehandedly nuetralize the defense.

Assist 5: Iverson knifes through LA and takes out 3 defenders to set up hill with a semi-open jumper. I'd grade that as a great creation too though based on the shot I can see the argument for good(maybe he could have passed it a beat earlier?)

Assist 6: Iverson recovers from nearly losing the ball and takes out 1 defender with a pass while also getting Kobe out of position. Scorer still has to do alot of work after so I'm just calling it decent.

Overall, Per-assist Iverson is taking out nearly 2 defenders completely and his passes are generally accurate and well-timed with a combination of scoring gravity, handles, and manipulation turning good passing into great creation.

Small sample, but it lines up with your own criticisms which...don't really support what you've been arguing imo. You also have the box-stuff where he has a high ast% with low tov% despite how many shots he takes, him drawing doubles and triples, and him "always having the ball". I don't see how that all adds up to a mediocre playmaker tbh.

I have credited Iverson with both scorer's gravity and his ability to avoid turnovers. It's a real thing; he doesn't try to pass the ball unless his teammates are pretty wide open and he has excellent handles in traffic. I don't see him getting the ball to his teammates in THEIR sweet spots, only if he draws attention and they are left open. Or do his teammates just go stand around on the perimeter knowing that even if they make great cuts or get to their sweet spots, Iverson will go 1 on 3 down the middle and only kick it to them if they are standing still and open (obviously an exaggeration but a real effect). You are calling him a great playmaker, I'm not seeing it. While I agree that it doesn't matter how you create offensive efficiency as long as you do so, does Iverson create offensive efficiency for his team the way a great playmaker like a Steve Nash does?

It could be that his playmaking is more valuable than his scoring; his scoring is inefficient enough that it may be a negative without adding in the gravity effect. His scoring in that series against LA where he had one good game and then an epic fail for the rest of the series as they successful game planned him does not make me want to vote for him.

[OldSchoolNoBull]

Since Doc hasn't tallied the votes yet, I've swapped my nominations - they had been Sharman/Moncrief and now they're Moncrief/Sharman.

I still would take Sharman #1, but he doesn't have the support. Horford/Walton are tied with 3 votes apiece, and Moncrief had two, with two secondary votes including mine. By swapping, Moncrief has 3 now and the other secondary vote will be unlocked. Horford also has a secondary vote, so its' 4-4 between Horford and Moncrief now.

I believe Moncrief had a higher peak than Horford and more longevity than Walton.

[Doctor MJ]

Apologies for the delay. I'm here now and will get things sorted quickly.

[Doctor MJ]

Personal vote:

Induction 1: Dennis Rodman
Induction 2: Cliff Hagan

I can jump on board with Rodman. Utterly unique player who played a critical and spectacular role on outlier teams.

I'll side with Hagan over other scorers like Dantley & Iverson. The Cousy question is trickier and I'm still chewing on.

Nomination 1: Jayson Tatum
Nomination 2: Bill Walton

Continuing to champion Tatum who I think has accomplished more than folks realized already in his career.

I'll jump on board with Walton who did things that just left indelible impact on his teams.

[Doctor MJ]

Tallies:

Induction 1:

Rodman - 8 (AEnigma, LA Bird, iggy, f4p, hcl, Ohayo, eminence, Doc)
Dantley - 4 (beast, Samurai, OSNB, Clyde)
Iverson - 2 (trelos, ShaqA)
Cousy - 2 (trex, Jimmy)
Hagan - 1 (HBK)

No majority, going to Vote 2 between Rodman & Dantley:

Rodman - 2 (ShaqA, HBK)
Dantley - 1 (trex)
neither - 2 (trelos, Jimmy)

Dennis Rodman 10, Adrian Dantley 5
Dennis Rodman is Inducted at #78.


Nomination 1:
Horford - 3 (AEnigma, hcl, Ohayo)
Sharman - 1 (beast)
Walton - 3 (LA Bird, ShaqA, HBK)
Nance - 1 (trelos)
KJ - 1 (trex)
Sam - 1 (Samurai)
Moncrief - 3 (iggy, OSNB, Clyde)
Davies - 1 (eminence)
Tatum - 1 (Doc)
none - 2 (Jimmy, f4p)

No majority, going to Vote 2 between Horford, Walton, Moncrief:

Horford - 0 (none)
Walton - 1 (Doc)
Moncrief - 1 (Samurai)
none - 6 (beast, trelos, trex, Jimmy, f4p, eminence)

Eliminating Horford:

Walton - 1 (Ohayo)
Moncrief - 0 (none)
neither - 2(AEnigma, hcl)

Bill Walton 5, Sidney Moncrief 4
Bill Walton is added to Nominee list.