RealGM 2023 Top 100 Project - #76 (Kyle Lowry)

[penbeast0]

Wow Kyle Lowry got in over Allen Iverson…

I’ve been silently watching for a while but my silence breaks for now, can’t promise a return back to full posting but my disbelief in the system has been put on the highest of alerts.

It’s time Iverson gets nominated, as he should of 15 spots ago

Why?

To sum it up, the lack of original train of thought[Which is what makes a project worthwhile] and in replacement analytical instruments[Analytics & it's extensions] used to defend/attack players. Sometimes when reading these posts, I feel as if we are just another extension of analytical tools ourselves. Defined by our own criteria and boundaries of formula[What we consider when evaluating] and then posting it here on the forum!

But, I cannot fathom a world where someone truly believes that Allen Iverson is a worse basketball player than Kyle lowry. If you want to advocate for "Winning Basketball" and "Correlative Success based on tendencies and indicators", OKAY.

But Iverson, is a better basketball player than Lowry. There's just more ways he effects/contributes to the game from a psychoanalytical perspective[Basically the treatment/attention you're going to give this player while playing against them] than Kyle lowry does.

Have you ever played (or coached) an Iverson type in school league or playground games. Someone with great athleticism and great moves who hogs the ball, ignores his teammates, and yet loses? They are the first that will tell you that they are the best ones out there and, one on one, they might even be right. But they aren't the ones who produce winning teams. That, to me, is Iverson. He's a great one man show, he's not a winning teammate.

And I'm consistent about that. I don't vote for high scoring volume, low efficiency, weak defense players whether they be named Allen Iverson, Dominique Wilkens, or Pete Maravich. I don't think they win. Now, if you can use analytics to show me that they are more valuable than a Chauncey Billups or Rudy Gobert type, sure, make your case. But because he looks flashier out there isn't making it.

[WintaSoldier1]

Why?

To sum it up, the lack of original train of thought[Which is what makes a project worthwhile] and in replacement analytical instruments[Analytics & it's extensions] used to defend/attack players. Sometimes when reading these posts, I feel as if we are just another extension of analytical tools ourselves. Defined by our own criteria and boundaries of formula[What we consider when evaluating] and then posting it here on the forum!

But, I cannot fathom a world where someone truly believes that Allen Iverson is a worse basketball player than Kyle lowry. If you want to advocate for "Winning Basketball" and "Correlative Success based on tendencies and indicators", OKAY.

But Iverson, is a better basketball player than Lowry. There's just more ways he effects/contributes to the game from a psychoanalytical perspective[Basically the treatment/attention you're going to give this player while playing against them] than Kyle lowry does.

Have you ever played (or coached) an Iverson type in school league or playground games. Someone with great athleticism and great moves who hogs the ball, ignores his teammates, and yet loses? They are the first that will tell you that they are the best ones out there and, one on one, they might even be right. But they aren't the ones who produce winning teams. That, to me, is Iverson. He's a great one man show, he's not a winning teammate.

And I'm consistent about that. I don't vote for high scoring volume, low efficiency, weak defense players whether they be named Allen Iverson, Dominique Wilkens, or Pete Maravich. I don't think they win. Now, if you can use analytics to show me that they are more valuable than a Chauncey Billups or Rudy Gobert type, sure, make your case. But because he looks flashier out there isn't making it.

This is a great point and I'm glad you brought it up. Yes, I actually despise the ball stoppers in pickup runs, and am critical about ball dominant/infinite dribble players who are abusing the fact if you dribble for long enough/have enough chances you're going to score.

Your point about him failing to recognize his teammates as parts of his team is also a fair point and can effect a team in a negative way. But at the same time for every negative value, there's an equally opposite positive value during interactions.

My first point would be about his high-volume, low efficiency shot chucking. Similar to kobe I think Iverson' shotchucking has value due to the way it orients everyone's rhythm & approach to the game out there, basically what I'm attempting to explain is the observation that Iverson's shot-chucking is amazing at Controlling the pace of the game(Kobe effect). Yes, his shot chucking can shoot you out of games/series, but this pace control paired with the Iverson assist is something I hold a dear amount of value too.

Secondly, I think that in a lot of cases having a teammate who's willing to carry the burden of responsibilities on the offensive end can mentally help a team out in their approach to the game... This is very prototypical and essentially is a reference to the "Star" effect where having a high-volume bucket getter can empower[but in the cases you refer to, discourage] a team just based on the pure confidence/reassurance they bring to one's team.
-
If your point is, these type of players aren't conducive to winning at the highest level because they trade in ceiling capacity for floor raising ability, then yes that is true/fair. But for me it fails to warrant this level of degeneracy in terms of quality when referring to a evaluation in terms of how good is someone at basketball.

Synopsis: Iverson did limit his teams ceiling by playing iverson-ball, but it also raised his teams floor. Shot-chucking created Pace(as in controlling rhythm of the game) + Iverson Assists[ Along with other invisible phenomena on the floor]... Deserved a spot long ago,

[HeartBreakKid]

Have you ever played (or coached) an Iverson type in school league or playground games. Someone with great athleticism and great moves who hogs the ball, ignores his teammates, and yet loses? They are the first that will tell you that they are the best ones out there and, one on one, they might even be right. But they aren't the ones who produce winning teams. That, to me, is Iverson. He's a great one man show, he's not a winning teammate.

And I'm consistent about that. I don't vote for high scoring volume, low efficiency, weak defense players whether they be named Allen Iverson, Dominique Wilkens, or Pete Maravich. I don't think they win. Now, if you can use analytics to show me that they are more valuable than a Chauncey Billups or Rudy Gobert type, sure, make your case. But because he looks flashier out there isn't making it.

Have you ever coached/played against a guy you described and yet they win? Your statement statement isn't saying much when based against reality. Allen Iverson has won plenty of basketball games, and certainly would beat a team that you were coaching.


The Raptors were a team with a lot of quality players and good depth, why wouldn't Kyle Lowry win more games? DeMar DeRozan, who is like a way crappier version of Iverson was on those teams and they were still winning 50+ games. They got over their playoff hump when they upgraded DeRozan to another ball hogging isolation player.

[MiamiBulls]

Why?

To sum it up, the lack of original train of thought[Which is what makes a project worthwhile] and in replacement analytical instruments[Analytics & it's extensions] used to defend/attack players. Sometimes when reading these posts, I feel as if we are just another extension of analytical tools ourselves. Defined by our own criteria and boundaries of formula[What we consider when evaluating] and then posting it here on the forum!

But, I cannot fathom a world where someone truly believes that Allen Iverson is a worse basketball player than Kyle lowry. If you want to advocate for "Winning Basketball" and "Correlative Success based on tendencies and indicators", OKAY.

But Iverson, is a better basketball player than Lowry. There's just more ways he effects/contributes to the game from a psychoanalytical perspective[Basically the treatment/attention you're going to give this player while playing against them] than Kyle lowry does.

Have you ever played (or coached) an Iverson type in school league or playground games. Someone with great athleticism and great moves who hogs the ball, ignores his teammates, and yet loses? They are the first that will tell you that they are the best ones out there and, one on one, they might even be right. But they aren't the ones who produce winning teams. That, to me, is Iverson. He's a great one man show, he's not a winning teammate.

And I'm consistent about that. I don't vote for high scoring volume, low efficiency, weak defense players whether they be named Allen Iverson, Dominique Wilkens, or Pete Maravich. I DON'T THINK THEY WIN Now, if you can use analytics to show me that they are more valuable than a Chauncey Billups or Rudy Gobert type, sure, make your case. But because he looks flashier out there isn't making it.

What did Adrian Dantley win? Dantley won less than Allen Iverson in both the Regular Season and the Playoffs. Dantley was a more problematic defensive player than Iverson given their respective position they played. Iverson was an All-Time level Volume Playmaker while Dantley was a limited playmaker & an egregious ball stopper. Dantley is the only high volume/high efficiency scorer to consistently yield bad Team Offenses. What makes him a better basketball player than Iverson? Because of TS ADD?

Speaking of high volume, low efficiency scorers with weak defenses, why is Kyle Lowry not ahead of Russell Westbrook if those are of the criterias you operate under?

[WintaSoldier1]

We shouldn’t attack the guy just because his sentiment in this post can be used to fuel to point out inconsistencies in his other posts based on the individual player we’re speaking about.

It is good although to critically examine our posts as a collective community

[penbeast0]

To sum it up, the lack of original train of thought[Which is what makes a project worthwhile] and in replacement analytical instruments[Analytics & it's extensions] used to defend/attack players. Sometimes when reading these posts, I feel as if we are just another extension of analytical tools ourselves. Defined by our own criteria and boundaries of formula[What we consider when evaluating] and then posting it here on the forum!

But, I cannot fathom a world where someone truly believes that Allen Iverson is a worse basketball player than Kyle lowry. If you want to advocate for "Winning Basketball" and "Correlative Success based on tendencies and indicators", OKAY.

But Iverson, is a better basketball player than Lowry. There's just more ways he effects/contributes to the game from a psychoanalytical perspective[Basically the treatment/attention you're going to give this player while playing against them] than Kyle lowry does.

Have you ever played (or coached) an Iverson type in school league or playground games. Someone with great athleticism and great moves who hogs the ball, ignores his teammates, and yet loses? They are the first that will tell you that they are the best ones out there and, one on one, they might even be right. But they aren't the ones who produce winning teams. That, to me, is Iverson. He's a great one man show, he's not a winning teammate.

And I'm consistent about that. I don't vote for high scoring volume, low efficiency, weak defense players whether they be named Allen Iverson, Dominique Wilkens, or Pete Maravich. I don't think they win. Now, if you can use analytics to show me that they are more valuable than a Chauncey Billups or Rudy Gobert type, sure, make your case. But because he looks flashier out there isn't making it.

This is a great point and I'm glad you brought it up. Yes, I actually despise the ball stoppers in pickup runs, and am critical about ball dominant/infinite dribble players who are abusing the fact if you dribble for long enough/have enough chances you're going to score.

Your point about him failing to recognize his teammates as parts of his team is also a fair point and can effect a team in a negative way. But at the same time for every negative value, there's an equally opposite positive value during interactions.

My first point would be about his high-volume, low efficiency shot chucking. Similar to kobe I think Iverson' shotchucking has value due to the way it orients everyone's rhythm & approach to the game out there, basically what I'm attempting to explain is the observation that Iverson's shot-chucking is amazing at Controlling the pace of the game(Kobe effect). Yes, his shot chucking can shoot you out of games/series, but this pace control paired with the Iverson assist is something I hold a dear amount of value too.

Secondly, I think that in a lot of cases having a teammate who's willing to carry the burden of responsibilities on the offensive end can mentally help a team out in their approach to the game... This is very prototypical and essentially is a reference to the "Star" effect where having a high-volume bucket getter can empower[but in the cases you refer to, discourage] a team just based on the pure confidence/reassurance they bring to one's team.
-
If your point is, these type of players aren't conducive to winning at the highest level because they trade in ceiling capacity for floor raising ability, then yes that is true/fair. But for me it fails to warrant this level of degeneracy in terms of quality when referring to a evaluation in terms of how good is someone at basketball.

Synopsis: Iverson did limit his teams ceiling by playing iverson-ball, but it also raised his teams floor. Shot-chucking created Pace(as in controlling rhythm of the game) + Iverson Assists[ Along with other invisible phenomena on the floor]... Deserved a spot long ago,

I will agree that with a certain type of teammate, like the team built around him by Larry Brown in Philly, he's a floor raiser type no question. I think it's unfair to compare him with Kobe who was more efficient, spread the floor with his outside shooting, and played significantly better defense. I would also say that Adrian Dantley could do everything Iverson could do and considerably better and he's not in yet either. Set up an offense around Dantley and four guys who can play strong defense and hit an open shot and it's going to be a better one than the same team around Iverson. Put him in Philly in 01, start McKie instead of Lynch or Hill, they are a better team. Can they beat LA? Probably not, LA was a great team. Are they stronger in the previous rounds and are the other 4 games against LA more competitive? Yeah, probably.

What did Adrian Dantley win? Dantley won less than Allen Iverson in both the Regular Season and the Playoffs. Dantley was a more problematic defensive player than Iverson given their respective position they played. Iverson was an All-Time level Volume Playmaker while Dantley was a limited playmaker & an egregious ball stopper. Dantley is the only high volume/high efficiency scorer to consistently yield bad Team Offenses. What makes him a better basketball player than Iverson? Because of TS ADD?

Speaking of high volume, low efficiency scorers with weak defenses, why is Kyle Lowry not ahead of Russell Westbrook if those are of the criterias you operate under?

As for Westbrook v. Iverson, I also think playmaking and rebounding matter and Iverson isn't competitive with Iverson in those respects. I've watched Dantley games with a stopwatch, particularly in Utah during his prime, and he doesn't take as long as, say Charles Barkley to get a shot off during the stretches I've watched. Chuck Daly complemented Dantley's defense and work ethic in Detroit. I would say his defense was below average when I've watched it but he played in the team scheme for Daly; Iverson freelanced a lot more looking for steals and could be shot over and posted up more easily by 2's than Dantley could by 3's.

It's certainly possible that every other high volume, high efficiency scorer is a great offensive engine and Dantley isn't; I just don't see anything in his game to explain why. I see weak teammates and possibly a coaching scheme that didn't take advantage. I downgrade Dantley this far because of this possibility. However, it's my opinion, and that's all it is, that a Larry Brown type coach and a team built around defense and letting Dantley carry the offense will do better than the same team built around defense and Iverson. You are welcome to disagree.

[OldSchoolNoBull]

- Alex English
- Dominique Wilkins
- Tony Parker
- Kevin Johnson

The other four to me seem likely to have made their last appearance — although I would hold back on kicking them out of the top 100 entirely.

Just some thoughts about those four remaining in the Top 100.

Kevin Johnson
I didn't really think of him as a Top 100 guy coming into the project, but after looking at the numbers, I became higher on him, then after identifying what I thought was a huge impact signal, became very high on him, then after realizing the signal wasn't what it seemed, tempered my enthusiasm a little, while still thinking highly of him.

So the aforementioned impact signal was the Suns going from 28-54/-4.80 SRS and a DNQ in 87-88(where KJ played only 28 games after being acquired midseason for Larry Nance) to 55-27/6.84 SRS and WCF appearance in 88-89, KJ's first full season there. That is a ten point SRS swing. Now, what I realized after looking closer was that 87-88 was also Tom Chambers' first season in Phoenix, as well as Mark West's first full season there(having been acquired in the same deal as KJ), as well as Thunder Dan's rookie year. Now, KJ and Chambers are the biggest factors, and it being Chambers' first season there(where he put up 25.7ppg on +1.0 rTS along with 8.4rpg) takes some shine off the impact signal.

Still, KJ's box composites and efficiency were higher than Chambers' that season(and the next) in both RS and PO:

88-89
Johnson: .184 WS/48, 4.2 BPM, 59.7% TS RS, .193 WS/48, 5.4 BPM, 61.8% TS PO
Chambers: .146 WS/48, 1.4 BPM, 54.7% TS RS, .131 WS/48, 2.5 BPM, 53.5% TS PO

89-90
Johnson: .200 WS/48, 5.0 BPM, 58.5% TS RS, .148 WS/48, 6.1 BPM, 55.5% TS PO
Chambers: .176 WS/48, 2.3 BPM, 57.9% TS RS, .082 WS/48, -0.5 BPM, 53.3% TS PO

And is it a coincidence that what looks like Chambers' two-season peak came when he started playing with KJ(but before he declined)? There has to be a reason we're talking about KJ in this project and not Chambers, right?

So while KJ probably can't fairly be given ALL the credit for that ten point SRS swing, I still think he probably deserves more credit than anyone else.

Impact data(aside from that signal) is limited, but we have on/off for his later seasons via Pollack(94-96) and bbref(97-98):

93-94: +7.5
94-95: -0.6(he only played 47 games that season)
95-96: +7.9
96-97: +5.9 / +6.4
97-98: +1.6 / -10.3
(I am disregarding his six-game comeback attempt in in the Spring of 2000.)

RAPM is pretty limited for KJ. Via Squared, we have:

2.03 RAPM over a 21 game sample in 1990-91
0.99 RAPM over a 9 game sample in 1992-93(only played 49 games)
2.63 RAPM over a 16 game sample in 1995-96

and JE's full-season RAPM for KJ in 96-97, 97-98, and 99-00 are all <1(but >0). Disregarding 2000 again, but it's worth noting that in 97 and 98, KJ had strong O-RAPMs(3.02 and 3.47) but equally weak D-RAPMs which reduced the overall RAPM to nearly 0.

Anyway, I think there is enough in his box numbers, the limited impact data, and his team success(A Finals appearance, two other WCF appearances) to warrant a spot.

Alex English
I'm not super high on English, but I'd probably take him over Nique. Comparable regular season box composites(English at .127 WS/48 and 2.0 BPM vs Nique at .148 WS/48 and 3.3 BPM), but English tops Nique in playoff box composites(.129 WS/48 and 2.7 BPM vs Nique's .079 WS/48 and 2.6 BPM) and is more efficient(+1.4 rTS for his career vs Nique's -0.1 rTS). English didn't have much playoff success, but he did have that 1985 WCF run, which is more than Nique ever had.

Also worth pointing out that when English missed the last game of the 1985 WCF vs the Lakers, the Nuggets lost by a whopping 44 points where their previous losses in the series had been by 17, 18, and 4.

Dominique Wilkins
A guy I grew up watching, still makes a hell of a highlight video(it was his nickname after all), but we're talking about a <0 rTS volume scorer who never made it past the second round. Worth discussing because, despite his statistical flaws, he was still the #1 option on a team that had a pretty strong four-year run from 85-86 to 88-89:

85-86: 50 wins, 2.59 SRS
86-87: 57 wins, 7.18 SRS
87-88: 50 wins, 4.02 SRS
88-89: 52 wins, 5.26 SRS

I can't quite figure out why the team became good in this four year stretch. For the first three years of Nique's career before that, they had negative SRS. For the four years after that, the team had <1 SRS(one of those seasons was the year of his achilles injury, yes, but that's one season).

Dominique had been there three years before the team got good. Doc Rivers and Randy Wittman had been there for two years before they got good. Fratello had been coaching for two years before they got good. Tree Rollins had been around since 1977. Kevin Willis had been there for one year.

What suddenly made them good in 85-86? The only "new" things I can see is that Willis had a bigger role and increased efficiency compared to his rookie year, and it was also Spud Webb's rookie year(who came off the bench in a 15mpg role for those four competitive years).

I'm trying to find a convicing impact signal from somewhere else to explain the jump in team performance - because to do so would be a potential argument against Dominique - but I can't find one.

So for that reason, and because I am supporting Iverson(another high volume low efficiency guy), I am, for the moment, resisting the urge to boot Dominique from the Top 100, even though I am not very high on him.

Tony Parker
I'm increasingly skeptical. I'll just quote myself from an earlier thread:

I have been questioning Parker a lot lately.

His career playoff box composites: .084 WS/48, 0.3 BPM. In the Spurs' championship runs, Manu is pretty much always putting up considerably better numbers.

He is -0.8 on/off in the playoffs for his career.

His Finals MVP is probably one of the more dubious ones in league history.

I don't love long-term RAPM as a stat, but Parker is at #719 in J.E.'s new dataset, with a 0.7(frankly, looking at his year-by-year RAPM, I though it'd be a bit better than that).

[OldSchoolNoBull]

My input into the Iverson debate:

Like I said before, it is difficult to make a statistical argument for Iverson.

For his career, has has a -0.9 rTS.

In all his years with the Sixers, the team had a positive relative ORtg only twice.

His RAPM is not all that impressive.

He has a career -7.6 on/off in the playoffs.

You can rebut this by saying those two positive relative ORtgs came during what is perceived as his peak, in 2001 and 2003; that he has some pretty decent WOWY W/L records; that he won an MVP and finished in the Top 10 of voting six other times(two of those in the top five).

But the reality is the 2001 Finals run is carrying a lot of weight for Iverson - without it, he'd be a much harder sell.

And what I will say about that is this: I am not sure people appreciate how offensively poor that Sixers team was. Of the main rotation guys, only two had a positive rTS on the season - Mutombo and Aaron McKie. This is how the rotation guys(besides Iverson) scored in the playoffs:

Mutombo: 13.9 on 58.4% TS
McKie: 14.6 on 50.3% TS
Tyrone Hill: 7.2 on 45.5% TS
Jumaine Jones: 5.5 on 47.3% TS
Eric Snow: 9.3 on 45.7% TS
George Lynch: 5.7 on 50.7% TS

And Lynch missed over half the playoffs hurt.

Eric Snow, who had averaged 7.4 assists in the regular season, averaged only 4.5 in the playoffs.

Allen Iverson averaged 32.9ppg on 48% TS while also leading the team with 6.1apg in the playoffs(with 2.9 turnovers per, so over a 2:1 ratio).

I get that the efficiency isn't good and that Iverson had a -5.2 on/off in those playoffs. I think this is one of those times where the on/off doesn't tell the whole story. This was an extremely limited offense and I don't for one second believe that team gets out of the first round without Iverson. If you can be the difference between a first-round elimination and getting to the Finals(and taking a game off an ATG team), that suggests to me the kind of value we look for on a list like this.

I understand all the arguments against him. As a general rule, high-volume low-efficiency scorers don't do well around here. But Dominique has never missed this board's Top 100, Melo has been discussed, and I think you can certainly argue that Iverson was better than either. In fact, particularly given that he was barely six feet tall - I know some of you don't like bonus points for being short but it's hard to ignore here - I think Iverson may just be the best high-volume low-efficiency scorer of all time. A dubious honor, to be sure.

He's really one of the most difficult players to evaluate, and I completely understand those who don't think he belongs here, but...I'm not there yet. I think he was a unicorn, insofar as there's never been another player quite like him.

[eminence]

Vote #1: Dennis Rodman
-Great defender/rebounder, I think folks are missing the forest for the trees when arguing he didn't peak in each area at the same time. It's true, but he was still really really good in both areas through his entire prime.
-Various impact measures point towards him fitting comfortably into this area of the list if not a tad higher.
-29 career playoff series won (tied for 12th with Cooper/Scott/Manu) and quite confident in him transferring high level play to the playoffs.

Vote #2: Kyle Lowry
-About as balanced of a PG as they come. Lack of any one standout skill/impact area underrates his overall impact.
-Led some good teams and fit in well on a very good team.
-Mentioning again that he was actually pretty good in Houston.

Nomination #1: Bob Cousy
-Turned the Celtics around with Red/Macauley.
-Spent nearly a decade as one of the top guards in the league.
-Pioneer in offensive volume/heliocentric play.
-Efficiency not that bad for how much folks are caught up on it, career TS+ of 98 (same as Iverson).

Sitting out nomination #2 this round I think. Davies would be my #2, but no traction there, and I don't have a strong enough preference between others after some thought. RealGM take the wheel.

[Doctor MJ]

Wow Kyle Lowry got in over Allen Iverson…

I’ve been silently watching for a while but my silence breaks for now, can’t promise a return back to full posting but my disbelief in the system has been put on the highest of alerts.

It’s time Iverson gets nominated, as he should of 15 spots ago

Why?

To sum it up, the lack of original train of thought[Which is what makes a project worthwhile] and in replacement analytical instruments[Analytics & it's extensions] used to defend/attack players. Sometimes when reading these posts, I feel as if we are just another extension of analytical tools ourselves. Defined by our own criteria and boundaries of formula[What we consider when evaluating] and then posting it here on the forum!

But, I cannot fathom a world where someone truly believes that Allen Iverson is a worse basketball player than Kyle lowry. If you want to advocate for "Winning Basketball" and "Correlative Success based on tendencies and indicators", OKAY.

But Iverson, is a better basketball player than Lowry. There's just more ways he effects/contributes to the game from a psychoanalytical perspective[Basically the treatment/attention you're going to give this player while playing against them] than Kyle lowry does.

So I'm going to chime in here and urge a caution pertaining to civility.

Coming into a project that's been going on for months, and which you were invited to be a part of chose largely not to, and knocking the approach of others who have been putting in the work as unoriginal and unworthwhile is both rude and absurd. Back off with this sort of condemnation of others if you want to keep being involved.

I do want to engage on this topic, but will leave that for another post.

~Doc

[Doctor MJ]

This is a great point and I'm glad you brought it up. Yes, I actually despise the ball stoppers in pickup runs, and am critical about ball dominant/infinite dribble players who are abusing the fact if you dribble for long enough/have enough chances you're going to score.

Your point about him failing to recognize his teammates as parts of his team is also a fair point and can effect a team in a negative way. But at the same time for every negative value, there's an equally opposite positive value during interactions.

My first point would be about his high-volume, low efficiency shot chucking. Similar to kobe I think Iverson' shotchucking has value due to the way it orients everyone's rhythm & approach to the game out there, basically what I'm attempting to explain is the observation that Iverson's shot-chucking is amazing at Controlling the pace of the game(Kobe effect). Yes, his shot chucking can shoot you out of games/series, but this pace control paired with the Iverson assist is something I hold a dear amount of value too.

Secondly, I think that in a lot of cases having a teammate who's willing to carry the burden of responsibilities on the offensive end can mentally help a team out in their approach to the game... This is very prototypical and essentially is a reference to the "Star" effect where having a high-volume bucket getter can empower[but in the cases you refer to, discourage] a team just based on the pure confidence/reassurance they bring to one's team.
-
If your point is, these type of players aren't conducive to winning at the highest level because they trade in ceiling capacity for floor raising ability, then yes that is true/fair. But for me it fails to warrant this level of degeneracy in terms of quality when referring to a evaluation in terms of how good is someone at basketball.

Synopsis: Iverson did limit his teams ceiling by playing iverson-ball, but it also raised his teams floor. Shot-chucking created Pace(as in controlling rhythm of the game) + Iverson Assists[ Along with other invisible phenomena on the floor]... Deserved a spot long ago,

I'm going to jump in here poster to poster, first noting that I applaud your attempt to find common ground with someone you disagree with here.

I'm going to mostly look to ask you questions in this post:

1. If we can agree that an approach raises floor and lowers ceiling relative to another approach, how do we determine when one approach is better than another from a perspective of ranking Player A vs Player B? I'll say up front that I think the answer to this is subjective and we should seek to understand how we as individuals differ, but I am interested in your perspective specifically.

2. What specific basketball actions/skills/etc do you believe Iverson was better at than Lowry?
3. What specific basketball actions/skills/etc do you believe Lowry was better at than Iverson?

4. If the holistic comparison can be boiled down to something as simple as: Iverson's scoring advantage overwhelms Lowry's superiority in other parts of the game, how do determine that? What threshold do you look at decide? (And of course, if you don't believe Iverson's scoring-based impact alone is what does accomplishes this, Why not? and What else is making the difference?)

5. Do you agree that for a given player, because you get more defensive attention the more you shoot in general, there exists a "sweet spot" that will achieve maximal impact, and thus there are players who shoot too much? If so, what do you look to in order to identify these players?

One last thing to keep in mind:

This is not a rhetorical situation where you're debating with Person A but you're really looking to convince everyone but Person A - and thus discrediting them or their methods might be the optimal approach. You're jumping into a group of people who have a common vocabulary and expectation of logical rigor, and so you have to expect to rebut rather than dismiss if you want to have an effect on the list itself.

Rebuttal means first grounding your arguments first using the same argumentative space as the person you're responding to and then making specific points to steer toward a different conclusion.

If you can't or won't do that, don't expect to get anywhere.

What about if you're sure these other people are wrong but you don't understand their methods? Well, you can simply present what is compelling to you and thus at least make sure your viewpoint is represented for posterity. You can also ask sincere questions to help better understand their viewpoints.

I don't recall if you and I have had this conversation before, but when it comes to Iverson, there's a history to this debate that involves some of us going from a viewpoint you would concur with to the one you now take issue with. There was a time when Iverson was my favorite player and I thought he deserved his MVP. Gaining access to better data changed my assessment of the situation, but I still understand quite clearly how one might think Iverson was the MVP.

Hence, I believe it's unlikely you're going to point anything out I haven't thought about. I could be wrong of course because I'm fallible, but the objectively true thing here is that this is well-trodden ground and if you're coming in thinking that we're missing something obvious, you're probably overestimating how original your thought process is.

[Doctor MJ]

Springing out of hibernation with a short but sharp vote.

There's little to say about Cous that hasn't been said over decades of recognition.

- 10 years of comparatively elite production accompanied by team success he played no small part in.

- pioneered the point guard position whilst being the consensus best player at that position during the time period.

- individual accolades speak for themselves regardless of whether we nit pick it season-season.

- Bill Russell's halo seems to be used to negate Bob's individual game, which I think is largely unfair given what we know about his immediate impact on the pre-Russell teams and selection to all NBA team from his 2nd year onwards.


The historical drop across Top 100 project boards is notable for Cous, I'm not sure why given there isn't an emergence of any notable new information/data that would suggest such a significant drop, it appears sentiment based, whilst fellow players from the era remain either in similar places or notably in Schayes case rise significantly (70s into 40s).

We have access to an equal set of narrow information on this era, sporadic footage, then bolstered by if you like personal accounts from those within the era - where Cous was regarded far more highly relative to his peers. Which is why I find his notable fall more curious than anything.

If Kyle frickin Lowry gets picked over Bob Cousy at #76 whilst Dolph Schayes sits at #43 and Arizin #56 I'd feel like I've failed.

Glad to have you back in the fray Jimmy.

To speak a little bit to what's gone on with Cousy going from being more highly regarded than his peers to less:

I very much believe this is something that began changing significantly after Cousy retired. Prior to that point, there was a contingent that insisted that Cousy was actually the best player on the Celtics and that the team would not continue to dominate without him. Instead, the team improved.

I believe this began sending shockwaves immediately, but those shockwaves become more disruptive to the 1950s narrative the more data we get.

We now know definitively that the Celtic dynasty was built on amazing defense with not-good offense, as well as having a clear window to how inefficient Cousy became as a volume shooter with time. The inefficiency issues were not fully seen at the time, and to the extent they were seen, they were likely dismissed based on the overall team success and the fast pace the Celtics played at which made observers think the offense wasn't as problematic as it was.

As a result of this, I see Cousy as someone with considerably flawed quarterbacking judgment rather than the savant that great point guards are often portrayed with. This wasn't necessarily even an issue early in Cousy's career, but with time Cousy should have been seeing himself as a guy who should be choosing to shoot in a considerably more limited set of situations, and he didn't seem to be able to adapt.

This sort of issue is par for the course with guys classified as "volume scorers" - and when things go from efficient choices to inefficient, it does typically mean a major drop off in impact - but because of Cousy's reputation as not just A point guard but THE point guard, people understandably don't think it could have happened to him.

But I believe it did, and I believe that had he not played on a team with a defensive cheat code, this would have been recognized much more easily.

With all of this, I don't say it lightly. I always believe that when you look at historical player comparisons you should start by trying to reconstruct how people came to the conclusions they did and only look to push a counter-conclusion if you can point to specific things that people at the time would have struggled to see.

But yeah, in comparison to players from the time, I do see Arizin & Schayes as well as Bob Davies - who was the true "first point guard" before Cousy in the era, and who adjusted his volume shooting downward with age gracefully - ahead of Cousy. I don't intend to advocate for Davies here so I'm really fine putting Cousy in next from the '50s era and I do have Cousy in my top 100, but there are definitely reasons why I'm lower on Cousy.

In terms of a debate with Lowry, well let's first acknowledge it's just really hard to make such comparisons and it's easy for us to talk past each other if we have slightly different criteria. Cousy was a bigger deal in his time than Lowry was in his own, and if your evaluation of Cousy's achievement lines up with that, I'd expect you to vote for Cousy first.

This project forces us to have such conversations, and I like that, but I also think it's generally most objectively productive to focus first within era, and then compare the top guys left between eras, and for those swayed by RAPM, Lowry looks like not just the next guy on the list, but possibly someone who should have been voted in a while ago.

I'm always more iffy on Lowry because I think he was someone who failed early in his career for reasons that were not flukes. I think the achievement he had in Toronto is something he was very fortunate to have, and so while I don't want to dismiss his achievement there, I also keep his struggles in mind when doing comparisons.

Now, it's entirely possible I'll be voting to Induct Lowry in this threat, so those concerns are not necessarily something that's going to hurt his candidacy for me this far down the list, but I want to acknowledge that they do matter to me.

And getting back to Cousy, while Cooz has the leg up in being a guy who thrived immediately in the pros in a spectacular way that I believe would have been repeatable across the league, I don't think he was nearly as smart in the maturation of his game as what we hope to see from point guards, and I think Lowry is one of those point guards who matured quite adroitly.

[Doctor MJ]

To sum it up, the lack of original train of thought[Which is what makes a project worthwhile] and in replacement analytical instruments[Analytics & it's extensions] used to defend/attack players. Sometimes when reading these posts, I feel as if we are just another extension of analytical tools ourselves. Defined by our own criteria and boundaries of formula[What we consider when evaluating] and then posting it here on the forum!

But, I cannot fathom a world where someone truly believes that Allen Iverson is a worse basketball player than Kyle lowry. If you want to advocate for "Winning Basketball" and "Correlative Success based on tendencies and indicators", OKAY.

But Iverson, is a better basketball player than Lowry. There's just more ways he effects/contributes to the game from a psychoanalytical perspective[Basically the treatment/attention you're going to give this player while playing against them] than Kyle lowry does.

Have you ever played (or coached) an Iverson type in school league or playground games. Someone with great athleticism and great moves who hogs the ball, ignores his teammates, and yet loses? They are the first that will tell you that they are the best ones out there and, one on one, they might even be right. But they aren't the ones who produce winning teams. That, to me, is Iverson. He's a great one man show, he's not a winning teammate.

And I'm consistent about that. I don't vote for high scoring volume, low efficiency, weak defense players whether they be named Allen Iverson, Dominique Wilkens, or Pete Maravich. I DON'T THINK THEY WIN Now, if you can use analytics to show me that they are more valuable than a Chauncey Billups or Rudy Gobert type, sure, make your case. But because he looks flashier out there isn't making it.

What did Adrian Dantley win? Dantley won less than Allen Iverson in both the Regular Season and the Playoffs. Dantley was a more problematic defensive player than Iverson given their respective position they played. Iverson was an All-Time level Volume Playmaker while Dantley was a limited playmaker & an egregious ball stopper. Dantley is the only high volume/high efficiency scorer to consistently yield bad Team Offenses. What makes him a better basketball player than Iverson? Because of TS ADD?

Speaking of high volume, low efficiency scorers with weak defenses, why is Kyle Lowry not ahead of Russell Westbrook if those are of the criterias you operate under?

So I'll say that you have a great point just attacking the core point as if it's the only thing penbeast considers...but of course that's not the only thing he considers. He's focused here on helping someone understand how a player like Iverson can be problematic. Doesn't mean it doesn't apply to Dantley as well and I think bringing that up makes a lot of sense, though I'd expect that he sees those issues and has greater concern for them for Iverson than for Dantley.

[eminence]

A point I see as in favor of Cousy’s later career judgment - the Celtics did not seem to have very many other players capable of scoring with a decent volume/efficiency combo. Could he have done better, almost certainly, but I don’t think he did overly poorly.

[Doctor MJ]

Anybody planning on making any surprise nominations? At first glance that portion of the ballot looks like a pretty easy Cousy/Iverson for me.

I dunno about "surprise", but to just talk through things a bit, here are the guys who stand out to me in the +/- years having just done the Cheema bins

Jayson Tatum - so with the Cheema data, he doesn't look THAT good as I've presented it, but keep in mind that that data ends with '20-21, and that Tatum is making it for every range he possibly could. As in, he makes it in the Top 30 in the 5-year-range which only includes his rookie season, and he does so by grabbing a #11 spot, so he's almost Top 10 there. Add in the certainty that '21-22 & '22-23 would not just qualify but give him stronger cases, it likely that an updated version of this list he'd be the highest place guy not yet nominated.

None of this speaks to how much playoff success his teams have had either. He already has double digit playoff series victories, and that's pretty rare air.

Clearly the perception is that the Celtics have been more of an ensemble success rather than a traditional superstar led team, and there's some truth to that, but the gap between Tatum and the guy seen as his co-star (Jaylen Brown) is absolutely massive by any kind of impact metrics. I think Tatum's earned the right to be seen as the clear cut star of this group over the years in question.

Baron Davis - Top guy on the Cheema bin list and not a surprise any more to those who have been paying attention to this data...but I think a surprise to all of us the first time we see such data. I think we got used to thinking that a point guard who shot inefficiently for middling teams must not be that impactful, but the regular season data says otherwise, and of course he's always been a playoff wonder.

Baron's someone I've thought about championing in the past but he never really got traction. Seems like he might be getting it now, and I'll be seriously considering him.

I like to look at things in terms of draft years (or sometimes birth or debut years) to give me a sense of cohorts. In the 1999 draft we have lots of guys who were very good but they all tend to have knocks on them that keep them from higher consideration. Other than Ginobili who I championed earlier in the project, I think Baron's got a serious case over all the other guys.

I think a healthy Kirilenko or a sane Artest might have done more than Baron, those players didn't actually exist.
I think if Marion just stays his best self in Phoenix his whole career he does have the edge over Baron because of his potential scalability within that role.
I think you can argue that what Odom did on those great Laker teams is very underrated and it leads to a more significant career than Baron's, but Odom really did have a fragile psyche that cause problems at various points in his career.
I think that at peak guys like Francis or Brand have a debate with Baron, but they didn't have the same ability to impact the game as a matter of course.

Vlade Divac - when you recognize that the +/- data doesn't include Divac's first 7 years in the NBA, I think you see that if all the data were included, he probably tops all other guys fully represented by the list who are not yet nominated (or listed above). I welcome more conversation on this. This then to say:

Other than Tatum & Baron, I don't think there's a case to be made that Divac should be the next guy from this era nominated.

Arvydas Sabonis - Here I feel like there's not enough to make a Top 100 case based on his NBA career, but he showed enough to make clear that he would deserve to easily make Top 100 if we were focused on global career. What a beast!

Zooming out to earlier times, other guys on my mind :

Sam Jones - I think Sam, Cousy & Sharman are all worthy candidates, but I'm inclined to side with Sam over the two older guys. Sam was the 2nd most important player in that dynasty after all.

James Worthy - I always struggle to make the case for Big Game James, but I think he's an impressive example of a guy who can be both a B-list alpha and a beautiful beta.

Tony Parker & Chris Bosh - More sidekicks on great teams. Hard to place.

Sidney Moncrief - Fundamentally legit 2-way guy with limited longevity.

Bill Walton - finding myself tempted to jump on this bandwagon in particular right now. Longevity is the huge issue of course, but there's a consistency to his ability to impact when he is able to play that is no small thing. One legit knock on my guy Connie Hawkins is that he really seemed to fall off a cliff once he was no longer used as a star, and you can't really say that about Big Red.

Zelmo Beaty - In the past I'd champion Hawk, Mel Daniels & Billy Cunningham over Zelmo, but I'm finding myself very impressed by his ability impact in the NBA consistently but also work true magic in the ABA.

Chris Mullin - Just seems like a guy who could have been great in any era, and all the more potent with his 3-point shooting. I'd note that Mullin is the last non-Laettner player on the Dream Team not voted in, but on that team he outscored all perimeter players other than Jordan and nearly matched Jordan despite only taking about half the shots. The Olympics have no specific meaning in this project, but we still learn information about the players from them. Mullin could scale his thing to basically any level of competition.

Larry Nance - I'm in. Not sure what point I'll vote for him, but I'm a believer in what he did for his teams.

Dennis Johnson - He had some profound team success with eye-popping defense that seems to correlate quite well within as he moves from Seattle to Phoenix to Boston. Not a perfect player, but not to be taken lightly either.

[Doctor MJ]

A point I see as in favor of Cousy’s later career judgment - the Celtics did not seem to have very many other players capable of scoring with a decent volume/efficiency combo. Could he have done better, almost certainly, but I don’t think he did overly poorly.

Well, I think what we saw is that moving from Cousy to KC was a drop in offense, but a bigger gain in defense. So yes, you can argue that given their roster, Cousy as he was was still adding offensive value, it just wasn't enough offensive value to justify the defense.

If I were impressed enough with KC's overall game to consider him a serious threat for this list I'd see things a bit differently, but as is, I see KC as someone who really shouldn't have been able to be more valuable than a top tier offensive point guard, and the fact that he was probably more valuable than Cousy while Cousy still played speaks to how much Cousy's offensive impact isn't what we'd expect it to be based on the raw box score.

[WintaSoldier1]

This is a great point and I'm glad you brought it up. Yes, I actually despise the ball stoppers in pickup runs, and am critical about ball dominant/infinite dribble players who are abusing the fact if you dribble for long enough/have enough chances you're going to score.

Your point about him failing to recognize his teammates as parts of his team is also a fair point and can effect a team in a negative way. But at the same time for every negative value, there's an equally opposite positive value during interactions.

My first point would be about his high-volume, low efficiency shot chucking. Similar to kobe I think Iverson' shotchucking has value due to the way it orients everyone's rhythm & approach to the game out there, basically what I'm attempting to explain is the observation that Iverson's shot-chucking is amazing at Controlling the pace of the game(Kobe effect). Yes, his shot chucking can shoot you out of games/series, but this pace control paired with the Iverson assist is something I hold a dear amount of value too.

Secondly, I think that in a lot of cases having a teammate who's willing to carry the burden of responsibilities on the offensive end can mentally help a team out in their approach to the game... This is very prototypical and essentially is a reference to the "Star" effect where having a high-volume bucket getter can empower[but in the cases you refer to, discourage] a team just based on the pure confidence/reassurance they bring to one's team.
-
If your point is, these type of players aren't conducive to winning at the highest level because they trade in ceiling capacity for floor raising ability, then yes that is true/fair. But for me it fails to warrant this level of degeneracy in terms of quality when referring to a evaluation in terms of how good is someone at basketball.

Synopsis: Iverson did limit his teams ceiling by playing iverson-ball, but it also raised his teams floor. Shot-chucking created Pace(as in controlling rhythm of the game) + Iverson Assists[ Along with other invisible phenomena on the floor]... Deserved a spot long ago,

I'm going to jump in here poster to poster, first noting that I applaud your attempt to find common ground with someone you disagree with here.

I'm going to mostly look to ask you questions in this post:

1. If we can agree that an approach raises floor and lowers ceiling relative to another approach, how do we determine when one approach is better than another from a perspective of ranking Player A vs Player B? I'll say up front that I think the answer to this is subjective and we should seek to understand how we as individuals differ, but I am interested in your perspective specifically.

2. What specific basketball actions/skills/etc do you believe Iverson was better at than Lowry?
3. What specific basketball actions/skills/etc do you believe Lowry was better at than Iverson?

4. If the holistic comparison can be boiled down to something as simple as: Iverson's scoring advantage overwhelms Lowry's superiority in other parts of the game, how do determine that? What threshold do you look at decide? (And of course, if you don't believe Iverson's scoring-based impact alone is what does accomplishes this, Why not? and What else is making the difference?)

5. Do you agree that for a given player, because you get more defensive attention the more you shoot in general, there exists a "sweet spot" that will achieve maximal impact, and thus there are players who shoot too much? If so, what do you look to in order to identify these players?

One last thing to keep in mind:

This is not a rhetorical situation where you're debating with Person A but you're really looking to convince everyone but Person A - and thus discrediting them or their methods might be the optimal approach. You're jumping into a group of people who have a common vocabulary and expectation of logical rigor, and so you have to expect to rebut rather than dismiss if you want to have an effect on the list itself.

Rebuttal means first grounding your arguments first using the same argumentative space as the person you're responding to and then making specific points to steer toward a different conclusion.

If you can't or won't do that, don't expect to get anywhere.

What about if you're sure these other people are wrong but you don't understand their methods? Well, you can simply present what is compelling to you and thus at least make sure your viewpoint is represented for posterity. You can also ask sincere questions to help better understand their viewpoints.

I don't recall if you and I have had this conversation before, but when it comes to Iverson, there's a history to this debate that involves some of us going from a viewpoint you would concur with to the one you now take issue with. There was a time when Iverson was my favorite player and I thought he deserved his MVP. Gaining access to better data changed my assessment of the situation, but I still understand quite clearly how one might think Iverson was the MVP.

Hence, I believe it's unlikely you're going to point anything out I haven't thought about. I could be wrong of course because I'm fallible, but the objectively true thing here is that this is well-trodden ground and if you're coming in thinking that we're missing something obvious, you're probably overestimating how original your thought process is.

1.Consistency/Diversity & The way it effects the players around you(Psychological ramifications of these actions)… I think that the pure phenomena of having this player as a teammate vs having this player as a teammate[ in reference to ability, and thus excludes external factors] is the best way to measure floor raising v ceiling raising in a given scenario.

What do I mean by this? Essentially, the way this players presence purely based on their abilities empowers or discourages teammates to do certain actions they wouldn’t normally do.

This paired with the absolute range of the team with the additional or subtraction of a player [ Realistically how many wins are we guaranteed with with Iverson over Lowry(Or Vice Versa), Vs What is our maximum wins possibility we can have with Lowry over Iverson( Or Vice Versa)]


I think these are fundamentally solid+ basis of understanding when taking one player over another.
-

2. Offensive Gravity, Scoring Volume & Ability, Pressuring Opposing teams Psychologically, Offensive Load Capacity, Shot Creation( kinda repetitive), Finishing
3. Facilitation, Shooting, On-Ball Defense, Help Defense, Rebounding[ Lowry Boxout> Iverson Jump], Understanding of the Game[ BBALL IQ]

4. I’d my response to one is of similar value here, But at some level I’d say this is a battle between creation vs consistency for the most part… Quantity v Quality in some sense…

I just think when looking at the Free[Iverson] vs the discipline[Lowry]

5. Yeah, there’s definitely a sweet spot of volume to effectiveness if this is the theory you’re projecting… I think a good identification for a sweet spot is how many shots does it take for the defense to direct attention to you, that under normal circumstances is not warranted and also prohibits you from scoring effectively but also allows for your teammates to roam more freely on the offensive side and thus set up more opportunities for teammates to score.
-

[eminence]

A point I see as in favor of Cousy’s later career judgment - the Celtics did not seem to have very many other players capable of scoring with a decent volume/efficiency combo. Could he have done better, almost certainly, but I don’t think he did overly poorly.

Well, I think what we saw is that moving from Cousy to KC was a drop in offense, but a bigger gain in defense. So yes, you can argue that given their roster, Cousy as he was was still adding offensive value, it just wasn't enough offensive value to justify the defense.

If I were impressed enough with KC's overall game to consider him a serious threat for this list I'd see things a bit differently, but as is, I see KC as someone who really shouldn't have been able to be more valuable than a top tier offensive point guard, and the fact that he was probably more valuable than Cousy while Cousy still played speaks to how much Cousy's offensive impact isn't what we'd expect it to be based on the raw box score.

The overall team change with the removal of any non-Russell player is very much in the meh range for me, the Boston dynasty was pretty consistent season to season, a few games up or down on a team winning the title every season doesn't really register.

One generation successfully replaces the next, but I find it hard to pick out individual players from each one.

What's your reasoning for KC>Cousy prior to retirement? Given the PO minutes each received I think it's a very tough sell. I like you Doc, but I tend to think Red/Bill probably had a better grasp on the situation

Even if one thought '64 KC > '63 Cousy was a trivial matter to prove (I disagree), arguing '04 Rip > '03 MJ doesn't actually say much about their career values.

[Doctor MJ]

A point I see as in favor of Cousy’s later career judgment - the Celtics did not seem to have very many other players capable of scoring with a decent volume/efficiency combo. Could he have done better, almost certainly, but I don’t think he did overly poorly.

Well, I think what we saw is that moving from Cousy to KC was a drop in offense, but a bigger gain in defense. So yes, you can argue that given their roster, Cousy as he was was still adding offensive value, it just wasn't enough offensive value to justify the defense.

If I were impressed enough with KC's overall game to consider him a serious threat for this list I'd see things a bit differently, but as is, I see KC as someone who really shouldn't have been able to be more valuable than a top tier offensive point guard, and the fact that he was probably more valuable than Cousy while Cousy still played speaks to how much Cousy's offensive impact isn't what we'd expect it to be based on the raw box score.

The overall team change with the removal of any non-Russell player is very much in the meh range for me, the Boston dynasty was pretty consistent season to season, a few games up or down on a team winning the title every season doesn't really register.

One generation successfully replaces the next, but I find it hard to pick out individual players from each one.

What's your reasoning for KC>Cousy prior to retirement? Given the PO minutes each received I think it's a very tough sell. I like you Doc, but I tend to think Red/Bill probably had a better grasp on the situation

Even if one thought '64 KC > '63 Cousy was a trivial matter to prove (I disagree), arguing '04 Rip > '03 MJ doesn't actually say much about their career values.

If I recall correctly, Bill in "Second Wind" talked about everyone on the team knowing that KC & Sam would come off the bench until Cousy & Sharman retired regardless of how good KC & Sam were, and everyone just accepting this. So no, I don't see this as a case where the contemporary people were looking at this based on an unbiased view of how valuable each guy could be. Cousy & Sharman were there first, it was their job before they became a dynasty and continued winning wasn't going to make them lose their job unless something drastic happened. Certainly there was the locker room to consider - demoting long-time starters has consequences and risks - and beyond that there was a racial dynamic to consider.

At the time when KC & Sam were on the bench and even afterward, there was a belief amongst the Black basketball community that teams at both the NCAA and NBA levels didn't want to have too many Black players starting, or even on the team, out of fear of losing fans. I would not allege that Red would knowingly sabotage his team in the name of not pissing off racists, but there's no doubt that some things were easier for him if he didn't bench Cousy or Sharman.

None of this means that KC>Cousy, but we do see the team get better after Cousy's retirement when many expected the team to get worse, and if you simply take the names out of it I think it makes it seem not so strange:

Inefficient chucker who is not good on defense leaves.
Low primacy defensive specialist enters.
Defense improves more than the offenses falls off.
Likely that the low primacy defensive specialist was a better fit for his role than the inefficient chucker was in his.

Re: Doesn't say much about career values. Sure, but Cousy was a much more capable scorer than KC even then so this isn't a situation where the relative strengths are utterly out of whack compared to career. If KC was more capable of value for the Celtics in Cousy's last season in part due to the fact that he was still shooting the volume of a great scoring threat even though he wasn't any more, then the same may well be true for any other season in which Cousy was inefficient relative to league norms. And Cousy dropped to that point at an age younger than Jones was in '62-63 (Cousy's last season).

Add to this that I don't think there's really any reason to see KC as a "late bloomer" as a basketball player. Russell was pretty clear about KC having a more sophisticated understanding of the game than himself when they first began their collaboration at USF, and the chemistry they had in those championship NCAA runs was legendary.

All this to say that while Cousy had offensive strengths KC never had, KC was probably always a better 2-man fit with Russell in terms of knowing what to do to support each other, to say nothing about their defensive coordination, and so Cousy needed those offensive strengths to paying off to maintain more capacity for value than KC.

I'm skeptical Cousy was able to do that with high volume and low efficiency.

[Doctor MJ]

This is a great point and I'm glad you brought it up. Yes, I actually despise the ball stoppers in pickup runs, and am critical about ball dominant/infinite dribble players who are abusing the fact if you dribble for long enough/have enough chances you're going to score.

Your point about him failing to recognize his teammates as parts of his team is also a fair point and can effect a team in a negative way. But at the same time for every negative value, there's an equally opposite positive value during interactions.

My first point would be about his high-volume, low efficiency shot chucking. Similar to kobe I think Iverson' shotchucking has value due to the way it orients everyone's rhythm & approach to the game out there, basically what I'm attempting to explain is the observation that Iverson's shot-chucking is amazing at Controlling the pace of the game(Kobe effect). Yes, his shot chucking can shoot you out of games/series, but this pace control paired with the Iverson assist is something I hold a dear amount of value too.

Secondly, I think that in a lot of cases having a teammate who's willing to carry the burden of responsibilities on the offensive end can mentally help a team out in their approach to the game... This is very prototypical and essentially is a reference to the "Star" effect where having a high-volume bucket getter can empower[but in the cases you refer to, discourage] a team just based on the pure confidence/reassurance they bring to one's team.
-
If your point is, these type of players aren't conducive to winning at the highest level because they trade in ceiling capacity for floor raising ability, then yes that is true/fair. But for me it fails to warrant this level of degeneracy in terms of quality when referring to a evaluation in terms of how good is someone at basketball.

Synopsis: Iverson did limit his teams ceiling by playing iverson-ball, but it also raised his teams floor. Shot-chucking created Pace(as in controlling rhythm of the game) + Iverson Assists[ Along with other invisible phenomena on the floor]... Deserved a spot long ago,

I'm going to jump in here poster to poster, first noting that I applaud your attempt to find common ground with someone you disagree with here.

I'm going to mostly look to ask you questions in this post:

1. If we can agree that an approach raises floor and lowers ceiling relative to another approach, how do we determine when one approach is better than another from a perspective of ranking Player A vs Player B? I'll say up front that I think the answer to this is subjective and we should seek to understand how we as individuals differ, but I am interested in your perspective specifically.

2. What specific basketball actions/skills/etc do you believe Iverson was better at than Lowry?
3. What specific basketball actions/skills/etc do you believe Lowry was better at than Iverson?

4. If the holistic comparison can be boiled down to something as simple as: Iverson's scoring advantage overwhelms Lowry's superiority in other parts of the game, how do determine that? What threshold do you look at decide? (And of course, if you don't believe Iverson's scoring-based impact alone is what does accomplishes this, Why not? and What else is making the difference?)

5. Do you agree that for a given player, because you get more defensive attention the more you shoot in general, there exists a "sweet spot" that will achieve maximal impact, and thus there are players who shoot too much? If so, what do you look to in order to identify these players?

One last thing to keep in mind:

This is not a rhetorical situation where you're debating with Person A but you're really looking to convince everyone but Person A - and thus discrediting them or their methods might be the optimal approach. You're jumping into a group of people who have a common vocabulary and expectation of logical rigor, and so you have to expect to rebut rather than dismiss if you want to have an effect on the list itself.

Rebuttal means first grounding your arguments first using the same argumentative space as the person you're responding to and then making specific points to steer toward a different conclusion.

If you can't or won't do that, don't expect to get anywhere.

What about if you're sure these other people are wrong but you don't understand their methods? Well, you can simply present what is compelling to you and thus at least make sure your viewpoint is represented for posterity. You can also ask sincere questions to help better understand their viewpoints.

I don't recall if you and I have had this conversation before, but when it comes to Iverson, there's a history to this debate that involves some of us going from a viewpoint you would concur with to the one you now take issue with. There was a time when Iverson was my favorite player and I thought he deserved his MVP. Gaining access to better data changed my assessment of the situation, but I still understand quite clearly how one might think Iverson was the MVP.

Hence, I believe it's unlikely you're going to point anything out I haven't thought about. I could be wrong of course because I'm fallible, but the objectively true thing here is that this is well-trodden ground and if you're coming in thinking that we're missing something obvious, you're probably overestimating how original your thought process is.

1.Consistency/Diversity & The way it effects the players around you(Psychological ramifications of these actions)… I think that the pure phenomena of having this player as a teammate vs having this player as a teammate[ in reference to ability, and thus excludes external factors] is the best way to measure floor raising v ceiling raising in a given scenario.

What do I mean by this? Essentially, the way this players presence purely based on their abilities empowers or discourages teammates to do certain actions they wouldn’t normally do.

This paired with the absolute range of the team with the additional or subtraction of a player [ Realistically how many wins are we guaranteed with with Iverson over Lowry(Or Vice Versa), Vs What is our maximum wins possibility we can have with Lowry over Iverson( Or Vice Versa)]


I think these are fundamentally solid+ basis of understanding when taking one player over another.

Makes sense. So then, why does this help Iverson in your eyes?

2. Offensive Gravity, Scoring Volume & Ability, Pressuring Opposing teams Psychologically, Offensive Load Capacity, Shot Creation( kinda repetitive), Finishing
3. Facilitation, Shooting, On-Ball Defense, Help Defense, Rebounding[ Lowry Boxout> Iverson Jump], Understanding of the Game[ BBALL IQ]

4. I’d my response to one is of similar value here, But at some level I’d say this is a battle between creation vs consistency for the most part… Quantity v Quality in some sense…

I just think when looking at the Free[Iverson] vs the discipline[Lowry]

So I'll note to your answer on #2, you're talking about effect rather than cause. Everything you describe here can be put under the category of "scoring volume & ability", and so you're basically agreeing that Lowry has the advantage in every other part of the game, and is also a better shooter.

I'd thus also be tempted to think that the way you separated out all of those things rather than just saying "scoring" indicates how focused you are in evaluating players first and foremost based on scoring.

Do you object to this assessment?
Do you understand why someone who completely agrees with you that Iverson was better at scoring but Lowry was better at literally everything else in the game, might end up concluding Lowry was overall the more effective player?

5. Yeah, there’s definitely a sweet spot of volume to effectiveness if this is the theory you’re projecting… I think a good identification for a sweet spot is how many shots does it take for the defense to direct attention to you, that under normal circumstances is not warranted and also prohibits you from scoring effectively but also allows for your teammates to roam more freely on the offensive side and thus set up more opportunities for teammates to score.
-

Yup we're mostly on the same page here.

The other factor though has to do with a sense of how good you are at shooting a particular shot, and this is something that at the very least Iverson was hampered for reasons pertaining to the 3-point shot. Simply put, if you were on a shot diet that included a lot of long 2's, you were doing that wrong. And while that was true of everyone back in the day, the questions of Iverson's efficiency original relative to his contemporaries.

But it's also just the case that there were other guys better at shooting in general. Iverson needed to take some of those shots to keep the defense honest against him to be sure, but what Iverson really excelled in was using his GOAT-level quickness off the dribble to get close to the rim and get fouled.