ALLEN IVERSON-HAVING A BETTER SEASON THAN EXPECTED...

[ambiglight]

With Mcgrady ahead of AI in all-star votes and some of the player rankings fans have offered that have AI ranked in the 20s, I wonder whether the great season he's having has escaped the publics attention.

[Neel]

I still expected him to be an excellent player.

What has me pleasantly surprised is his FG%. He's scoring very efficiently from the field and still getting to the line essentially at will.

I'd like to see him get his assists up though.

[sp6r=underrated]

With Mcgrady ahead of AI in all-star votes and some of the player rankings fans have offered that have AI ranked in the 20s, I wonder whether the great season he's having has escaped the publics attention.

I am not an Iverson guy. But he has been highly impressive this year and has caused me to somewhat question my view of him. God for AI and his fans.

[CB4MiamiHeat]

I still expected him to be an excellent player.

What has me pleasantly surprised is his FG%. He's scoring very efficiently from the field and still getting to the line essentially at will.

I'd like to see him get his assists up though.

well hes top 10 in the league in assists.

[Neel]

-= original quote snipped =-



well hes top 10 in the league in assists.

Yeah, I didn't really mean assists; that was a bad call. I meant that he needs to move the ball a little better. There are so many possessions where he just dribbles entirely too much.

He's still playing at an unbelievable level this year though.

[pierced]

he's still AI.. Since he arrived in Denver and watched them play a few games with AI.. He's still shooting like he's still the #1 option which I think should be Melo.. Still the same erratic AI but still a great player..

[nate33]

Iverson is playing a little different than he has in years past, but I'm not sure he's playing all that much better.

Here are his pace-adjusted per-40 numbers for his career:

Code: Select all

iverson,a  PTS  REB  AST  STL  BLK   TO eFG%  TS%  PER
2007-08   23.6  2.7  6.4  2.1  0.1  3.3 .481 .563 21.4
2006-07   23.5  2.7  6.4  1.7  0.2  3.7 .466 .540 19.0
2005-06   31.0  3.0  6.9  1.8  0.1  3.2 .467 .543 26.0
2004-05   28.4  3.7  7.4  2.2  0.1  4.2 .453 .532 23.1
2003-04   26.3  3.7  6.7  2.4  0.1  4.3 .412 .478 19.3
2002-03   26.3  4.0  5.3  2.6  0.2  3.3 .436 .500 21.1
2001-02   29.9  4.3  5.3  2.7  0.2  3.8 .422 .489 21.7
2000-01   30.1  3.7  4.4  2.4  0.3  3.2 .447 .518 23.7
1999-00   27.8  3.7  4.6  2.0  0.1  3.2 .446 .496 19.9
1998-99   27.1  5.0  4.7  2.3  0.1  3.5 .439 .508 22.1
1997-98   22.9  3.9  6.4  2.3  0.3  3.2 .486 .535 20.4
1996-97   22.9  4.0  7.3  2.0  0.3  4.3 .467 .513 18.1

He's had 5 seasons with a PER higher than this season. The good news is that his TS% this year is the highest of his career. However, his field goal attempts are at a career low and his scoring average is the lowest since 1997. His assists are also the lowest in 5 years.

Basically, Iverson's overall usage rate is the lowest since 1997, and he is responding with better shooting efficiency and fewer turnovers. This is what one would expect since he is now playing on a team with another first-option scorer.

I've never been much of an Iverson fan because I always felt this his shot selection hurt his teams. I felt his numbers were inflated by his high usage rate and high minutes per game. I've gotten into many arguments on this board about him.

This year, I like his game a lot better. I'm glad to see him reduce his usage rate and increase his efficiency. I'm also continually impressed at his ability to log heavy minutes at his age. Interestingly, now that his role has changed a bit, it's a little easier to compare him to other players. There are a bunch of guys who act as primary ball handlers who shoot about 19 times a game and average about 22 points per 40 with roughly the same efficiency.

Here's a quick screen of the top 25 (by PER) players averaging at least 17 points and 4 assists per 40.

Code: Select all

Player        PTS  REB  AST  STL  BLK   TO eFG%  TS%  PER
james,lebron 29.7  7.4  7.9  1.9  1.2  3.4 .504 .555 29.5
paul,chris   23.8  4.4 11.3  3.3  0.0  3.0 .519 .577 28.8
garnett,kevi 21.8 12.2  4.2  1.9  1.8  2.6 .550 .595 25.4
ginobili,man 27.4  6.5  6.1  2.3  0.6  3.8 .516 .590 25.2
billups,chau 21.6  3.5  9.6  1.7  0.3  2.7 .508 .614 24.4
bryant,kobe  27.9  6.3  5.1  2.0  0.6  3.4 .485 .559 24.0
wade,dwyane  26.4  4.5  7.3  1.9  1.0  4.9 .475 .558 23.1
nash,steve   18.5  4.1 13.7  0.7  0.1  3.9 .585 .634 22.8
butler,caron 22.1  6.9  4.4  2.2  0.4  2.5 .532 .580 22.7
nowitzki,dir 24.3  9.7  4.4  0.7  1.0  2.6 .494 .566 22.6
parker,tony  24.3  4.0  8.0  0.8  0.2  3.3 .509 .554 21.8
davis,baron  21.6  4.8  7.9  2.4  0.5  2.9 .474 .523 21.6
redd,michael 25.7  5.4  4.1  1.2  0.1  2.9 .502 .577 21.6
iverson,alle 23.6  2.7  6.4  2.1  0.1  3.3 .481 .563 21.4
mcgrady,trac 26.2  5.4  5.9  1.4  0.5  2.8 .476 .515 21.2
pierce,paul  23.0  5.7  5.2  1.7  0.3  3.1 .501 .577 20.4
carter,vince 23.4  5.8  5.1  1.0  0.5  2.7 .511 .569 19.8
hamilton,ric 22.2  3.9  5.3  1.3  0.3  2.4 .528 .561 19.6
williams,der 20.4  3.2  9.2  1.2  0.3  3.8 .542 .588 19.6
roy,brandon  21.5  5.1  6.3  1.0  0.2  2.2 .481 .530 19.3
harris,devin 18.3  3.4  7.1  2.4  0.1  2.9 .494 .571 18.6
terry,jason  19.7  3.3  4.3  1.4  0.3  1.6 .564 .596 18.3
iguodala,and 19.6  5.9  5.0  2.1  0.7  3.4 .479 .539 18.0
hill,grant   17.7  4.9  4.1  1.1  0.9  1.6 .537 .590 17.7
miller,andre 18.3  4.7  7.2  1.1  0.1  2.9 .496 .531 17.6

Going by PER, Iverson ranks 14th on this list. And my gut says that the PER rankings are close to accurate. You can argue that Iverson is a hair better than some guys in front of him like Parker or Redd; but guys ranked just behind him like Pierce and Roy are arguably better than Iverson. There are obviously a handful of good big men who didn't get included in this screen whom many would consider better than Iverson - guys like Duncan, Howard, Boozer, Ming and Bosh. There's also Arenas, who has been hurt, and Kidd, who didn't make the screen because of his low points per game.

Iverson is having a fine season, but there is nothing to truly distinguish him from a bunch of other second-tier stars. He probably still ranks in the high teens or low 20's among NBA players.

[ambiglight]

I still expected him to be an excellent player.

What has me pleasantly surprised is his FG%. He's scoring very efficiently from the field and still getting to the line essentially at will.

I'd like to see him get his assists up though.

Yeah, I think with the exception of Baron Davis, AI is probably the only guard that could average 25 and 10. Especially with the personnel around him that he has. Denver is 9 and 3 with him running the point. So he can run the point pretty well when given the chance. The problem is karl doesn't like JR smith and that's the ideal wing man when AI is in that role. Frankly I expect AI's assists to go down now that they've shifted him to the off guard spot. But thats fine as long as he's shooting well, getting to the free throw line and handing out at least 6 assists a game.

[ambiglight]

-= original quote snipped =-



I am not an Iverson guy. But he has been highly impressive this year and has caused me to somewhat question my view of him. God for AI and his fans.

Well thats big of you. Most of his critics would have found some 'advanced stat' that he isn't leading in and use that to prove he's a mediocre player. I think that AI is becoming the model for how a slashing combo guard should age. I got to wonder if folks like wade or monta or davis are taking notes. Once you lose some of your speed or athleticism, you got to find other ways to do what you use to do.

[ambiglight]

he's still AI.. Since he arrived in Denver and watched them play a few games with AI.. He's still shooting like he's still the #1 option which I think should be Melo.. Still the same erratic AI but still a great player..

Seems pretty consistent to me. He's had about three bad games this season. Generally hovered around 24 to 27 points a game. Taking 16 to 22 shots a game. Shooting great from the line. About the only thing that has been inconsistent are his assists. And thats primarily because denver's had injuries in their backcourt that required AI to play whatever position was required on any given night. Sometimes he's the point. Sometimes he's the off-guard. Melo had a stretch of about 5 games where he wasn't shooting well, so AI got the greenlight to take over. Which was kind of the purpose of Denver acquiring AI in the first place. They need a legitimate second scoring threat that demands attention regardless of how Melo is playing on a given night. It'd be a huge mistake to acquire a player like AI and then expect him to play like the player you just got rid of. So denver's been real smart in the way they are fitting him into their scheme and AIs been better than expected with how he's been a good teammate and accepted his diminished role.

[syxx87]

This has definently(sorry if I butchered that word) been a damn good season for A.I. so far. Many fans and analysts assumed that he would decline and play mediocre ball at the beginning of the season, but for the 6th or 7th year in a row, he has proved them wrong(they've been sayin this since he was 26). Its' unfortunate that Mcgrady(although he is a great player) is ahead of A.I. in A-S votes when he is unfortuantely having an injury riddled season so far. My only beef with A.I. this season has been his turnovers but when you have the ball in your hands as much as A.I. or other main options in the league do, it is somewhat expected.

[ambiglight]

@nate
Interesting perspective. Every great player has something intangible about their style of play that just isn't reflected in the stats. In fact most stats especially the "advanced" ones are formulated with the average player in mind. So a lot of the time those stats are a function of how conventional a player you are. Hence you can have a bruce bowen whose productivity is without question showing up in few statistical categories as even a "good" player. This isnt to take away from players that put up numbers that sports statisticians like to analyze, its just to contextualize what I'm about to say about AI and unconventional players like him.

AI's the type of player that makes you rewrite the game just trying to understand what he does and how he does it. By all accounts and what we know about the game from the profiles we've had of other players that have played throughout the history of the game, AI should be over 6'5 and 210 with a pure jumpshot or at least a post presence. Players just don't score the sheer volume of points he has, shooting as poorly as he has for as long as he has. If you shoot 42% any other player would NOT get the green light to continue shooting from every coach that they have ever played for UNLESS the coaches recognized some value from having a volume shooter/scorer operate in that fashion. Because conventional players can't impact the game the way he does if they shoot poorly. Conventional play doesn't draw enough fouls, play enough minutes or psychologically intimidate defenses the way bizarro AI does with his unique style.

You see AI is a completely different player than this game has seen before. He's obviously undersized and not a particularly good jumper nor is his strength to weight ratio all that impressive like other undersized players typically are that make it the nba. But what separates AI from his peers is his aggressiveness, overall speed, body control while on his feet and stamina.

That combination of attributes allows AI to draw fouls and get a significant amount of his points from the free throw line. I looked at Kobe and Lebron's numbers, both prolific scorers and I found that AI has scored nearly 28% of his points from the free throw line due to his aggressiveness which was higher than both their free throw points to total points ratio. AI clearly gets his points in a uniquely different way than other players; the conventional method of being a prolific scorer is to shoot extremely well from the field and take high percentage shots either through dunking or developing a go to move that defenders cant cover. (i.e. Kobe's turn around jumper, barron davis' crossover jumpshot). AI on the other hand has only begun to rely on high percentage shots and while he is known for his cross-over, AI basically does whatever it takes to get to the basket and score whether it be a short jumper or bank shot or hook or floater, etc.

To get to the free throw line like AI and score, the drawback is that many of your shots will be high risk shots and you are completely dependent on the refs to make the call.In the early part of his career he had not mastered the art of drawing the foul first and then taking the shot and if the foul isnt called kick the ball out to the open man. AI has gotten consistently better at getting to the line on lower risk shots and his shooting percentage has improved as a result of that while maintaining his scoring productivity.

The intangible benefit of this style of play is that it puts the opposing team in foul trouble earlier in the quarter. Forcing the team to soften their defense or risk sending AI and his teams to the line in non-shooting situations. This indirectly makes the game easier for his team-mates and creates more scoring opportunities for the team as his free throws don't use the clock and their opponents are forced to give the entire more shooting space. It also allows AI to shutdown a hot scorer on the opposing team by getting them in foul trouble, see his play against Kobe or duncan and other offense minded players that dont shy away from guarding him.

Unfortunately this substantial contribution just isnt something statisticians measure but it is one of the most important parts of AIs game and is the reason why coaches let AI play as high risk and aggressive as he does. This in itself has more impact than his career shooting percentage and turnovers that negatively impact his ratings on the more conventional efficiency formulas that are popular in certain fan circles.

The second intangible or rather attribute of AI you must consider when looking at PER or efficiency stats is the fact that AI has a LOT more stamina than other players in this league. AI is on par with tennis and soccer players with regard to stamina in gameplay that occurs across a range of speeds in a single game with opponents. As a result he can play more minutes across more games than any other player and STILL maintain a high level of play better than 90% of the league. Not to mention he is capable kicking it into another gear when necessary regardless of how many minutes he has already played or will play in a game.

Pace and per 40s just dont account for that type of confounding variable. Pace and per 40 stats project a players production across 40 minutes or a fixed number of possessions based on the production they manage in the 25 to 35 minutes that they actually play a game. Its kind of ingenuous to compare a projection of one players productivity to the ACTUAL productivity of another player. Which is what people are doing when they compare AI who actually plays 40 minutes a game to somebody that plays significantly fewer minutes and obviously will have a higher ratio of output in their fewer minutes just because they have the luxury of not pacing themselves across an entire game.

The question becomes whether you are losing something or gaining something by playing AI that many minutes. Coaches have learned that AI gives them MORE pacing himself across 42 minutes than they can get from a bench player playing balls out for the 15 minutes they could conceivably play if AI sat for more minutes. This is a team benefit of having AI,you don't have to worry about a guard spot in your rotation because you have a workhorse in Iverson who is a top ten player at either of the guard positions. Thus injuries in a backcourt with Iverson are not as significant as they would be on another team without AI.

The drawback is to AIs stats in that he has to pace himself across those minutes and people assume that if he played fewer minutes he couldn't increase his energy expenditure and thus match his gross output at 42 minutes in 37 to 38 minutes. Which is a baseless assumption. AI has shown that in any game where he doesn't have to or expects not to play his per minute productivity INCREASES just like any other players does in that situation. In other words the per 40 stats are biased against players that can play substantially more minutes across multiple games due to their stamina. It is also biased against players that are used by their teams to cover up holes in their rotation due to injuries or a significant drop off in talent between a starter and the bench at that position.

AI is the best combo guard in the league and between his scoring, assists, shooting percentage and the two intangibles that I explained he is easily a top 5 player across the span of the past decade. And in this season he has re-emerged as a top ten player by any measure that accurately reflects the talent and productivity of a combo guard with his unique style of play and attributes. Its a mistake to use conventional measures of play on a unconventional player.

[hermes]

he's still AI.. Since he arrived in Denver and watched them play a few games with AI.. He's still shooting like he's still the #1 option which I think should be Melo.. Still the same erratic AI but still a great player..

[nate33]

@nate
Interesting perspective. Every great player has something intangible about their style of play that just isn't reflected in the stats. In fact most stats especially the "advanced" ones are formulated with the average player in mind...

Ambiglight, your extremely long post can be boiled down to two points:

1. Iverson draws a lot of fouls and some of these benefits may not be captured by the statistics.
2. Iverson can play a lot of minutes which isn't reflected in the per 40 stats.

With respect to your first point, I'll cede that one of Iverson's greatest strengths is his ability to draw fouls. I just don't think he is that much better at it than everybody else. Iverson shoots 8.5 free throws per 40. The average free throw attempts for the top 20 players on that list is 7.0, so it's not like Iverson is on another plane from the rest of those guys.

And your argument that his foul drawing ability results in better and more consistant scoring efficiency is already factored in the numbers. It's why his TS% is comparable to most of those other guys despite the fact that his eFG% is substantially less. Nevertheless, his TS% still isn't that great. His .563 TS% ranks him 15th out of the 25 names on that list. 9 of the 13 guys ahead of him also have a higher TS%. At least he is now in the same echelon as other star players with respect to scoring efficiency, but he is by no means extraordinary.

Your other argument about minutes played is notable but still not that significant. Most of the guys on that list average 36-38 minutes. Iverson averages 41.5 minutes. It's not all that big of a difference, particularly since most of the other guys can play more minutes when necessary in a tight game and they'll play more minutes in the playoffs when the games really count.

And even when those other player sit, they're still replaced by somebody. When Vince Carter sits, Antoine Wright comes in. The difference between Iverson over Antonie Wright in 3 minutes per game isn't particularly significant.

Now that I have address your points, I'll add that the one player quality that truly isn't captured that well by statistics is defense - particularly position defense. Iverson's position defense is below average. Many of the guys on this list are substantially better defenders than Iverson. If you take some time to contemplate that, you might see why I argue that many of the guys on my list are every bit as good as Iverson, even if Iverson gets extra credit because of his endurance and foul-drawing ability.

Whenever I post numbers, guys always come in and argue about Iverson's "intangibles". It's as if Iverson's production is somehow magically more important than another star's production. For years, it's been hard to debate the matter factually because Iverson has always had a unique role with dramatically more points and more field goal attempts (and lower percentages) while playing for teams without much talent.

But now that he is playing a more conventional role as his peers, I say it's pretty darn easy to compare him to similar players. His is being asked to do exactly what guys like Tony Parker, Baron Davis, Caron Butler, Chauncey Billups, Brandon Roy, etc. are being asked to do. He is the primary perimeter scorer and primary ball-handler on a team with at least one other top tier scorer. I don't see a lot of evidence to suggest that he's doing his job any better than the rest of those guys.

Don't get me wrong. He's a fine player. There's nothing shameful about being a top 16-22 player in this league. I've just never understood the reason why people rank him as a top 10 or better player. He's a second-tier star. Nothing more.

[XTC]

@nate
Interesting perspective. Every great player has something intangible about their style of play that just isn't reflected in the stats. In fact most stats especially the "advanced" ones are formulated with the average player in mind...

Ambiglight, your extremely long post can be boiled down to two points:

1. Iverson draws a lot of fouls and some of these benefits may not be captured by the statistics.
2. Iverson can play a lot of minutes which isn't reflected in the per 40 stats.

With respect to your first point, I'll cede that one of Iverson's greatest strengths is his ability to draw fouls. I just don't think he is that much better at it than everybody else. Iverson shoots 8.5 free throws per 40. The average free throw attempts for the top 20 players on that list is 7.0, so it's not like Iverson is on another plane from the rest of those guys.

And your argument that his foul drawing ability results in better and more consistant scoring efficiency is already factored in the numbers. It's why his TS% is comparable to most of those other guys despite the fact that his eFG% is substantially less. Nevertheless, his TS% still isn't that great. His .563 TS% ranks him 15th out of the 25 names on that list. 9 of the 13 guys ahead of him also have a higher TS%. At least he is now in the same echelon as other star players with respect to scoring efficiency, but he is by no means extraordinary.

Your other argument about minutes played is notable but still not that significant. Most of the guys on that list average 36-38 minutes. Iverson averages 41.5 minutes. It's not all that big of a difference, particularly since most of the other guys can play more minutes when necessary in a tight game and they'll play more minutes in the playoffs when the games really count.

And even when those other player sit, they're still replaced by somebody. When Vince Carter sits, Antoine Wright comes in. The difference between Iverson over Antonie Wright in 3 minutes per game isn't particularly significant.

Now that I have address your points, I'll add that the one player quality that truly isn't captured that well by statistics is defense - particularly position defense. Iverson's position defense is below average. Many of the guys on this list are substantially better defenders than Iverson. If you take some time to contemplate that, you might see why I argue that many of the guys on my list are every bit as good as Iverson, even if Iverson gets extra credit because of his endurance and foul-drawing ability.

Whenever I post numbers, guys always come in and argue about Iverson's "intangibles". It's as if Iverson's production is somehow magically more important than another star's production. For years, it's been hard to debate the matter factually because Iverson has always had a unique role with dramatically more points and more field goal attempts (and lower percentages) while playing for teams without much talent.

But now that he is playing a more conventional role as his peers, I say it's pretty darn easy to compare him to similar players. His is being asked to do exactly what guys like Tony Parker, Baron Davis, Caron Butler, Chauncey Billups, Brandon Roy, etc. are being asked to do. He is the primary perimeter scorer and primary ball-handler on a team with at least one other top tier scorer. I don't see a lot of evidence to suggest that he's doing his job any better than the rest of those guys.

Don't get me wrong. He's a fine player. There's nothing shameful about being a top 16-22 player in this league. I've just never understood the reason why people rank him as a top 10 or better player. He's a second-tier star. Nothing more.

I disagree I think you can build a team around AI. One of the best scorers ever, and that year he willed Philly to the finals was BEASTLY. You probably can't build a team around him right now, but no doubt in his younger days he was a franchise player, and at his peak was one of the deadliest scorers ever.

[Bucs80]

Didn't read much of this

But when he isn't chucking 30 shots a game, his FG percentage is going to be better.

[IggyTheBEaST]

Iverson will ALWAYS be one of the most underrated players on this board. ALWAYS

[TMACFORMVP]

Yeah he's been spectacular this season. You knew the points, assists and steals would all be in the top 10 but the fact that he's shooting a very efficient 46% from the field and getting to the line nearly 10 times a game is pretty impressive.

[Philly Fresh]

Its Iverson man, he plays every game like it's his last. I don't think he'll ever decline.

[superLuigi21]

Its Iverson man, he plays every game like it's his last. I don't think he'll ever decline.

the fact that he does play so hard every night means that he will soon decline... just not yet apparently and im happy for that cuz im a big iverson fan