As Rookies... Iverson/Ray Allen

[penbeast0]

He took over 30 shots a game and shot under .400. That means he hurt his team (which average .050 better) every time he shot, less the extra percentages from defenses focusing on him (an interesting review of that http://www.countthebasket.com/blog/2008 ... fficiency/)

. . . and Smush Effin Parker could average 30 points a game if his coach let him jack up 30+ shots a game (okay, I might be exaggerating a hair here) and Ray Ray would probably average more (though certainly forcing that many shots would also drag his efficiency way down).

[NO-KG-AI]

The effort to diminish Allen Iverson on this board has gone beyond ridiculous, and at this point, I don't even try to come to his defense, because I honestly think most of it is personal dislike for the man, and not the player.

[penbeast0]

nope, it's dislike of the player. Actually like watching him play and like him a lot more nowadays as a player than I did before but he's exactly the kind of player that I think gets grossly overrated.
(a)poor defense
(b)low efficiency
(c)high volume scorer

You will see that this 3 way combination I have always said was overrated, from AI to Dominique Wilkens to Pete Maravich. Hate da game, not da playa.

[big123]

The effort to diminish Allen Iverson on this board has gone beyond ridiculous

I agree, it's pathetic. The nit picking is stupid. He's one of the most exciting and consistent players of this past decade. He's in the top 10 in 4-5 categories every year. If you want to knock him for not winning a title, then you have to knock alot of players, some that haven't even been to the finals and have been on much better squads. And digging down into the effiency crap is not really being a true fan of basketball IMO. There are a ton of things that go into effeciency that people are blind to.

[penbeast0]

Oh BS. NOT looking at efficiency is not being a basketball fan. Basketball is about winning and shooting efficiency correlates to winning more strongly than just about any other single factor.

That and iyou've played as much pickup ball as most of us have, you know there is nothing as annoying as a teammate who dominates the ball, bringing it upcourt then jacking bad shots while the rest of the team is expected to stand around and watch him jerk himself off . . . even if you win it's annoying.

[Goubot]

I dunno, efficiency seems like something worth getting nitpicky about, since you hurt your team if you miss a lot of shots, and he's missed plenty. You can bash shooting efficiency all you want, but you'd be hard pressed to find any reasonable arguments about how Iverson's low 40% shooting was really benefiting the team as a whole. The 76ers team that went to the Finals was average offensively, but they were successful primarily because they had rock-solid defenders all around.

I've always enjoyed watching Iverson on an individual level, but my appreciation of him has grown in recent years, since he's traded quantity for quality, which is more conducive to winning basketball.

[etopn23]

Come on, I mean really? With Iverson it's more than the stats. We're talking about an MVP who lead his team to the finals in his younger years vs... Ray Allen?

What exactly has Ray Allen accomplished? Unlike Iverson he was never considered near the level of prime Kobe/T-Mac/VC in his own respective prime.

[big123]

Oh BS. NOT looking at efficiency is not being a basketball fan. Basketball is about winning and shooting efficiency correlates to winning more strongly than just about any other single factor.

Efficiency has alot of factors involved. Just looking at the stats is useless.

Players like Ginobili and Billups would be a crying shame if they weren't efficient on the teams they play for and the roles they have.

Players like Shaq, Yao, Howard and the rest of the talented big men that dominate by physical presence would also be a shame if they weren't.

Iverson actually has a decent team around him this year and he was 23rd overall and 5th in effeciency among shooting guards behind Giniboli (look above), Kobe, Wade and Kev Martin (both who haven't played more then 60 games this year due to injury.)

Players behind Iverson in efficiency this year that their teams are more successful regardless. D. Williams, Hamilton, T. Parker, D. West, Pierce, R. Allen, Ilgauskas, McGrady, R. Brewer, J. Johnson, R. Wallace, L. Odom, Turkoglu, R. Lewis among others. Efficiency don't mean as much as you would like to think.

[big123]

I dunno, efficiency seems like something worth getting nitpicky about, since you hurt your team if you miss a lot of shots, and he's missed plenty. You can bash shooting efficiency all you want, but you'd be hard pressed to find any reasonable arguments about how Iverson's low 40% shooting was really benefiting the team as a whole. The 76ers team that went to the Finals was average offensively, but they were successful primarily because they had rock-solid defenders all around.

I've always enjoyed watching Iverson on an individual level, but my appreciation of him has grown in recent years, since he's traded quantity for quality, which is more conducive to winning basketball.

If you think an under 6 foot guard who is the only offensive threat and opponents sole player to stop and no one to spread the floor or take attention off of them would be efficient, then your crazy. He could of been a little more effiecient, but not much given the situation.

[The Notic]

Allen is the clear choice for me.

Profound.

[big123]

That and iyou've played as much pickup ball as most of us have, you know there is nothing as annoying as a teammate who dominates the ball, bringing it upcourt then jacking bad shots while the rest of the team is expected to stand around and watch him jerk himself off . . . even if you win it's annoying.

Lebron James does it and he's the most efficient player in the league. What are we talking about here? Player efficiency or team efficiency? The NBA, pick up games or the Indiana Hoosiers?