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

[ambiglight]

@nate
Excuse my verbose response, I respected your post and the energy you put into supporting your position enough that I tried to reciprocate the effort by also supporting my argument with logic and statistical evidence.

That said, I think in your rush to respond you didn't really consider what I was saying as thoroughly as you should have. When I was talking about the intangible impact drawing fouls has on the flow of the game, I really was talking about the intangible impact. One's ability to draw fouls isn't just reflected in free-throw attempts per game because there are also non-shooting fouls as well. Hence my point wasn't JUST that he scores through shooting free throws but also that he opens the game up for his teammates by putting the other team over the limit much earlier in the period than is the norm. We also see that this comes in handy in tight games like the game yesterday with San Antonio. San Antonio was over the limit but needed a stop basically guaranteeing that an aggressive Iverson would end up on the line several times that night at the WRONG time for san antonio.

As for his shooting efficiency this again does not capture anything that I just described all it tells you is how well he shoots. Not whether he put a team in foul trouble at a pivotal moment in the game. Nor does it tell you that a non-shooting foul that AI drew against a player with a hot hand forced the other team to send that player to the bench earlier than originally planned. The point being that the difference between a player averaging 7.5 free throws and 8.5 isnt just the points that they get off the line. The intangible impact on game flow through a well timed drawing of a foul against the right player can be the difference between a win and a loss. That's huge. Which is why to this day AI is still considered one of the most difficult players to strategize against from a coaching perspective. AI is extremely crafty with the timing of his aggressiveness and who he initiates contact with.

To me shooting efficiency is kind of over-rated. The object of the game is to score more points than the other team. If I shoot 90% from the line but only get there twice a night, my shooting ability is kind of inconsequential. The same thing with field goals. If Im a 60% shooter but I'm at the bottom of the league as far as starters go in field goal attempts, my ability to shoot and score is inconsequential. Because Im passing up shots and allowing teams to put weaker defenders on me and failing to draw fouls. Now I can compensate for this weaknesses by getting the ball into scorers hands but my impact is heavily dependent on the ability of my teammates to catch the ball and finish. In that context I dont think measures of shooting efficiency/ability should put one great player over a number unless they are extremely bad or extremely good.

As for per thing, I love statistics. I have a PhD in ecological community psychology. Biostatistics is pretty much all i do everyday at work. So i understand the desire by some to quantify everything. But unfortunately not every construct can be measured nor does every construct have a worthwhile statistical indicator that finely distinguishes between performances. I mean if we both bake a cake and you use a half a cup of sugar and I use a cup and a half, not to mention have some secret ingredient and baking process thats immeasurable, would it make sense to judge our cakes based on flavor to ingredients ratio?

Per stats are a perfect example of this problem. Its a comparison of two players on a set of measures that completely neglect any number of factors that have yet to be quantified but are equally and in some cases more important than the ones included in the efficiency and per formulas.

Worse using PER to compare players rests on the assumption that players don't pace themselves, and do play at peak performance at whatever minutes they do play in games. Which is simply false. Anybody that has watched a game let alone played basketball knows that there are players who's entire job is to be that energy player off the bench. And pretty much despite players claiming to give 100%, rarely do starters even give a quarter of their energy on any given play. Thats why you have energy players that throw their all into every play for the couple minutes that they do play, but its also known that they can only do this for short periods of time before their performance dramatically drops off. This isnt a matter of a single game but the matter of many games across an entire season. Its easy for an athlete to play a full game back to back.

Its impossible for them to do that for a month let alone an entire season. So coaches have entire sport medicine and physical therapy staffs that are dedicated to measuring player performance over time. These experts can determine what the risks are for playing a certain player with whatever physical attributes for a certain amount of time over the course of a season. When AI came into the league they measured his fitness and found out that this guy was on a completely different level in terms of fitness compared to other guys in the NBA. They also found out and other coaches have observed this as well that AI's performance doesn't have the typical curve that most players have. Most players that play more than 35 minutes a game do not play as hard or as aggressively as he plays EVERY MINUTE of the time they are out there. Typically players take plays off and coast. Their performance looks like a sine wave with peaks and valleys with a generally downward trend. AI has a huge parabola with an elongated middle and very few downticks in energy level. AI is in the league of a reggie miller or rip hamilton in the way he is aggressive with his movement. So when you say that there's no difference between what he's giving you and what you would get off the bench if he wasn't in the game, this just doesnt reflect reality. Few players can jump off a bench and be in rhythm enough to match the performance of a starter thats been hot the entire game. There are few guards (wade and maybe parker) that are as aggressive as AI is and they certainly aren't bench players, playing behind him. AI is that ENERGY player except he's a starter and can be that energy guy for considerably longer than even the best energy guys coming off the bench.

This my friend is what makes measuring a player like him with conventional statistics an exercise in futility. He does a lot of the things well that make a conventional player great, but he also does a lot of things that conventional players are incapable of doing. This is what separates AI from the "second tier" players out there and qualifies him as the best combo guard in the league and a solid top ten player despite being in his thirties. As for his defense, AI is actually a good defender. The criticism of AI is really a criticism of the size disadvantage he has against most off guards. He can and does guard anyone under 6'3 as well as anybody else. Its when you get into that 6'5 range that AI is a liability. The remedy for that is coaching and AI denying such players the ball. Either through steals, or drawing charges. Both of which AI will do when vulnerable to a mismatch. Otherwise his job is to usher such players to the help side defense, outscore them on offense and get such players in foul trouble. That more than makes up for his size disadvantage that some people think of as bad defense.

[ana_suns]

I don't think Stockton declined much, and he played really hard every night till he was 41. I think AI will retire at 40 with all his abilities still there like Stockton did. Stockton's minutes went down to 27 in the end but he hadn't changed much as a player. And even if AI slows down he will still be quick enough to score a lot.

[ambiglight]

I don't think Stockton declined much, and he played really hard every night till he was 41. I think AI will retire at 40 with all his abilities still there like Stockton did. Stockton's minutes went down to 27 in the end but he hadn't changed much as a player. And even if AI slows down he will still be quick enough to score a lot.

Which is pretty good company to keep. Especially considering they have completely different styles. I think stocktons longevity had a lot to do with how he wasted very little motion and respected his body. AI's longevity is probably due to his body type. Light, sturdy frame, great lung capacity. I wouldnt be surprised if biologically there was something different about his physiology with regards to how his body metabolizes oxygen or something. he reminds me of soccer players...

[technologic]

I AM CAPS LOCK MAN!

[kellex]

i'm need into either of those options. i dont think that iverson makes the nuggets a better team by any means. the guy has been consistent his entire career, and that is consistently a loser. the stats looks good but have never amounted to anything. one trip to the finals in the worst year in history of the eastern conference and a romping by the lakers in the finals doesnt do much for me.

and when is this fool going to get rid of the corn-rows? its been too long...didnt those lose style points like 3 years ago? i mean hell, even rip got rid of em.

[ana_suns]

I think when Iverson carried the 76ers to the Finals it was the weakest team a guard has ever carried to the Finals. And he won game1 @ Lakers.

[ambiglight]

I think when Iverson carried the 76ers to the Finals it was the weakest team a guard has ever carried to the Finals. And he won game1 @ Lakers.

Yeah and weak or not it was competitive run in the east, making for an entertaining run of basketball. Indiana, the bucks and toronto all played philly tough. They earned that trip to the finals. In the west everybody just kind of folded for the lakers. Philly was the only team to actually beat them. Something to be said about that even if it was only one time. Thats the good thing about AI, he'll play hard even if the odds are against him and his team.

[ana_suns]

Yep 76ers weak roster but strong team thanks to AI

[AIfan3]

Yep 76ers weak roster but strong team thanks to AI

That Philly team wasn't weak, that was of one the better defensive teams of the decade..

As for the thread, i expected it.. AI's a warrior and he wants to win..

[ana_suns]

I said STRONG team, not weak hehe

[kingofthecourt67]

That 2001 team was the best one AI played on in Philly because it covered up his weakness: defense. He was the main scoring option and he put the team on his back and led them to the finals. Unfortunately, our GMs abandoned that style of play and tried to get has-beens like Robinson and Webber instead of keeping/getting defensive players that complimented him well.

Anyway, I am happy for AI and hope the Nuggets do well.