Basketball on Paper

[tsherkin]

I should add this: the 04-05 season (the first with the rule changes) marked a rather remarkable shift in AI's ability to draw fouls... and since he was in his 30s and it was an UPWARD shift, it's a pretty decent bet to believe that there's a strong correlation there.

Prior to 04-05, AI had managed 0.400+ FTA/FGA twice in 8 years, one of those (what was his career-high) being the lockout season, and thus of dubious value as an inclusion because it was only 48 games long for him (of a possible 50). AI then proceeded to record 0.415 or better in every year until he left the league, setting his career-high in three consecutive seasons from the age of 30-32 at .455, .465 and .512.

So any talk about his career TS% must come with a particular caveat attached, that his play was dramatically affected by the new rules until the league settled down with how they were calling the handcheck. So, for example, in a comparison with Stackhouse, you can't really look at AI's career TS%, you have to look at his pre-'05 TS against Stackhouse's TS prior to 04-05.

And Iverson's pre-05 TS is .505, which is under league average by several percent. Stackhouse's is .525. That's 2% higher than Iverson's, and that's a significant difference in terms of TS. He was also noticeably better at drawing fouls than Iverson pre-05 and a somewhat better FT shooter as well, particularly from the lockout season through the 02-03 season. And remember that his pre-05 TS is somewhat affected by his 26-game injured season with the Wizards in 04, when he shot under 40% from the field as he chucked up a lot of 3s and couldn't finish around the rim (not that he was ever super-amazing at finishing around the rim, though).

That's a noticeable difference, and if you compare them in their big scoring seasons, Stackhouse's 00-01 season was at 52.1% TS, and Iverson's was at 51.8%. A small difference, sure, only about 0.3%. But the point is more that they were comparable, which further invalidates your claim that Stackhouse was way worse. In any case, it bears mention that AI posted a TS under 50% 3 times in his first 8 years (or more than a third of the time), and that's absolutely abysmal, terrible efficiency, even by the standards of the pre-05 league-average.

[azuresou1]

So your counter to my point that Iverson has never played with a legitimate scoring second option like a Pau Gasol or a Danny Granger-type player prior to Melo is to say that he had Coleman and Stackhouse, both of whom were just-as-if-not-more inefficient scorers who couldn't put up the volume that Iverson could?

Coleman had roughly league average efficiency? Coleman posted a .466 TS% the year before Iverson arrived, .518 TS% Iverson's rookie year, and a .500 TS% Iverson's sophomore year, all as a POWER FORWARD.

First options generally post better efficiency when they have a legitimate second option. This is because the more of a scoring load you have to take on, the worse your scoring efficiency. So yes, Iverson had pretty terrible TS% prior to 05-06, but he also never had a legitimate second option.
http://www.basketball-reference.com/blog/?p=7220

I seriously can't believe you're trying to argue that Jerry Stackhouse is even remotely comparable to Iverson when Iverson puts up significantly more volume on similar efficiency, while being a better passer and turning the ball over less.

[tsherkin]

So your counter to my point that Iverson has never played with a legitimate scoring second option like a Pau Gasol or a Danny Granger-type player prior to Melo is to say that he had Coleman and Stackhouse, both of whom were just-as-if-not-more inefficient scorers who couldn't put up the volume that Iverson could?

I JUST finished proving that Stackhouse was more efficient than Iverson, even at comparable volume. Stackhouse was traded because of Iverson.

Coleman had roughly league average efficiency? Coleman posted a .466 TS% the year before Iverson arrived, .518 TS% Iverson's rookie year, and a .500 TS% Iverson's sophomore year, all as a POWER FORWARD.

Yes, and he was consistently a better player in Charlotte and New Jersey, without Iverson. In his first full season post Iverson, his TS was 54.1%, though by that point, he was in his mid-30s and declining due to age. Nevermind that the 46.6% TS you're cherry-picking comes from an 11-game appearance in Philly, or that Coleman was known for perimeter shooting that spaced out the floor, which meant he tended to occupy lower-efficiency zones on the floor in order to open up the interior for others. Coleman wasn't the most opportune selection because he had his own issues, of course, but there weren't any problems of consequence with Stackhouse.

Again, your argument that Stackhouse "wasn't as good as Iverson" is irrelevant, even if it were true it would have no bearing on this discussion. We're talking about Iverson playing with a guy who once came within a hair's-breadth of scoring 30 ppg on better efficiency than Iverson managed at similar volume in the same era. Given that Stackhouse was a better FT shooter who drew fouls more effectively, they should have been able to work something out, but they didn't manage it. AI has always been an excessively ball-dominant player who wasn't very good at sharing the ball until it was made abundantly clear that he was #2 when he made his way to Denver... and promptly played some of the worst playoff basketball I've ever seen. And then played just as bad in slightly different ways the season after.

First options generally post better efficiency when they have a legitimate second option. This is because the more of a scoring load you have to take on, the worse your scoring efficiency. So yes, Iverson had pretty terrible TS% prior to 05-06, but he also never had a legitimate second option.

The massive leap in DrawF has more to do with it than anything else, and that wasn't at all related to the strength of his team.

I seriously can't believe you're trying to argue that Jerry Stackhouse is even remotely comparable to Iverson when Iverson puts up significantly more volume on similar efficiency, while being a better passer and turning the ball over less.

This is primarily because you subjectively value Iverson as a greater player for some unfathomable reason. Stackhouse was a more efficient scorer, even when putting up similar volume. It's very hard to evaluate Iverson's career as a whole because of the radical shift in what the refs gave him before and after the rule flip. Iverson was a mediocre perimeter shooter and a mediocre finisher who has always relied upon volume FGAs and FTAs in order to score... which made him inefficient any time he started taking a lot more than 18 FGA/g.

It doesn't have anything to do with counterparts on the court; yeah, shooters would certainly open things up for him... but they didn't have great court spacing in Denver, it was mostly just that it was almost impossible to guard him under the new rules with the way the refs were calling things in the first two or three seasons after the switch-over, and the MASSIVE increase in FTA/FGA that really helped him out. The defensive coverage on Melo didn't actually help AI out all that much and he was still essentially the same player he always was, pounding the ball at the top of the circle or on the wing, looking for a seam to drive into, flail into someone and draw a foul.

Over-dribbling, inability to play off the ball effectively, weak defense predicated upon gambling, awful shot selection, reliance upon FTAs, high-volume FGA/g, low efficiency... this isn't an impressive resume for a player. He has a lot more in common with Stackhouse than he does with Wade, Kobe or Lebron.

Yes, he has never played on a team as good as the current Lakers, that's true. He would also be a terrible triangle player, but that's another story entirely. He didn't play with Shaq the way Wade did. No one's holding absent titles against him, they're holding his pugnacious and difficult personality and his extremely one-dimensional style of play against him. Lots of people like Iverson; lots of people are impressed by his illegal crossover, and how he forced the refs to stop calling palming and carrying as often as they used to because of his raw popularity. Lots of people love the big, pretty PPG averages he's posted.

But it remains true that he was an inefficient volume shooter who didn't play well with other scorers and achieved only one season of any particular note team-wise and he did it mainly on the basis of his teammates, not his own work. That team played at a snail's pace, controlled the boards and D'd up hard... and of those things, he only contributed to the pace, because he bogged the game down with isolation sets, since he couldn't shoot all that well on a consistent basis and didn't move off-ball with any degree of efficacy. That doesn't project to superior performance on teams with better scorers, and he didn't play well with Stackhouse even when they were on the same team.

None of this is impressive, especially in comparison with truly effective players.

[azuresou1]

Coleman also posted a .525 TS% the year before in NJ, and a .534 TS% before that. After he left Philly for Charlotte, he posted TS%s of .496, .541, and .469. Those are still garbage bad efficiency numbers.

Why didn't Iverson work out with Stackhouse? Because Stackhouse is almost as ball dominant, and yet is a significantly worse passer. Nor was Stackhouse a great shooter. You are saying Stackhouse is equivalent to Iverson based on a single solitary year in his career. Using your rationale, Adrian Dantley is the best damn scorer of all time.

Efficiency is great, but overrated. Would I rather have Wade over Iverson? Obviously. Is he still a Hall of Famer who made his team better? Yes. Could you win a title with Iverson as your best player? Yes. Can you say the same is true of Stackhouse? No.

[tsherkin]

Coleman also posted a .525 TS% the year before in NJ, and a .534 TS% before that. After he left Philly for Charlotte, he posted TS%s of .496, .541, and .469. Those are still garbage bad efficiency numbers.

First year in Charlotte, 37 games played. Third year in Charlotte, 34 games played. 03-04, 36 years old, 34 games played. Cherry-picking injured seasons is not a way to build credibility for an argument.

Why didn't Iverson work out with Stackhouse? Because Stackhouse is almost as ball dominant, and yet is a significantly worse passer. Nor was Stackhouse a great shooter. You are saying Stackhouse is equivalent to Iverson based on a single solitary year in his career. Using your rationale, Adrian Dantley is the best damn scorer of all time.

No, that doesn't follow logically. I'm saying that Stackhouse had equivalent scoring ability. Iverson was MORE ball-dominant, actually, the only year they used a comparable proportion of his team's possessions were 01 and 02. In 01, of course, he matched Iverson as a scorer and slightly bettered him in efficiency. They're certainly different players, but not so different that it was Stackhouse's fault that the Sixers booted him to make room for their new draft pick.

Efficiency is great, but overrated. Would I rather have Wade over Iverson? Obviously. Is he still a Hall of Famer who made his team better? Yes. Could you win a title with Iverson as your best player? Yes. Can you say the same is true of Stackhouse? No.

There is no proof that you could win a title with Iverson as your best player. There is nothing suggesting that Iverson could captain a title squad. HoF? Well, that's not really relevant. KC Jones is a HoFer, for example. The HoF measures coaches, people in the WNBA, FIBA ball... it's a meaningless piece of tripe, mostly. Iverson's HoF case is primarily based on scoring titles, and there are many scorers I'd take over him because they're more versatile AND more efficient without compromising volume too much, and his MVP... which he very much didn't deserve at all.

You're no better off trying to win with AI than you are with Stackhouse. Iverson dominated the ball and played 40+ mpg, his counting stats and averages (which are obviously what you using to evaluate his passing) don't paint an accurate picture of his ability, particularly since he was the guy dominating every aspect of the game for those Philly teams and playing so many minutes at a slow pace.

[azuresou1]

Coleman also posted a .525 TS% the year before in NJ, and a .534 TS% before that. After he left Philly for Charlotte, he posted TS%s of .496, .541, and .469. Those are still garbage bad efficiency numbers.

First year in Charlotte, 37 games played. Third year in Charlotte, 34 games played. 03-04, 36 years old, 34 games played. Cherry-picking injured seasons is not a way to build credibility for an argument.

Why didn't Iverson work out with Stackhouse? Because Stackhouse is almost as ball dominant, and yet is a significantly worse passer. Nor was Stackhouse a great shooter. You are saying Stackhouse is equivalent to Iverson based on a single solitary year in his career. Using your rationale, Adrian Dantley is the best damn scorer of all time.

No, that doesn't follow logically. I'm saying that Stackhouse had equivalent scoring ability. Iverson was MORE ball-dominant, actually, the only year they used a comparable proportion of his team's possessions were 01 and 02. In 01, of course, he matched Iverson as a scorer and slightly bettered him in efficiency. They're certainly different players, but not so different that it was Stackhouse's fault that the Sixers booted him to make room for their new draft pick.

Efficiency is great, but overrated. Would I rather have Wade over Iverson? Obviously. Is he still a Hall of Famer who made his team better? Yes. Could you win a title with Iverson as your best player? Yes. Can you say the same is true of Stackhouse? No.

There is no proof that you could win a title with Iverson as your best player. There is nothing suggesting that Iverson could captain a title squad. HoF? Well, that's not really relevant. KC Jones is a HoFer, for example. The HoF measures coaches, people in the WNBA, FIBA ball... it's a meaningless piece of tripe, mostly. Iverson's HoF case is primarily based on scoring titles, and there are many scorers I'd take over him because they're more versatile AND more efficient without compromising volume too much, and his MVP... which he very much didn't deserve at all.

You're no better off trying to win with AI than you are with Stackhouse. Iverson dominated the ball and played 40+ mpg, his counting stats and averages (which are obviously what you using to evaluate his passing) don't paint an accurate picture of his ability, particularly since he was the guy dominating every aspect of the game for those Philly teams and playing so many minutes at a slow pace.

How am I cherry picking stats? I am taking EVERY SEASON DERRICK COLEMAN PLAYED WITHIN 3 YEARS OF WHEN HE PLAYED WITH IVERSON. If anything, YOU'RE the one cherry picking Stackhouse's season in which he matched Iverson's output for a single season.

Adrian Dantley 82-83: .661 TS, 30.7 PPG
Michael Jordan 88-89: .614 TS, 32.5 PPG

Iverson brought a Finals team with NO other scorers to the Finals, beating out Reggie's Pacers and the 2nd seeded Bucks, and took a game from the otherwise undefeated postseason Lakers. He had good defenders and rebounders around him, but you want to know what a good defensive rebounding team without scorers gets you? It gets you last year's Bobcats. Here's a Finals team with Iverson as the best player:

Iverson
Old Man Grant Hill
Peja
Rodman
Mourning

[tsherkin]

Iverson
Old Man Grant Hill
Peja
Rodman
Mourning

Yeah, or McKie, Snow, Lynch, Mutombo, etc. It depends on what era. They'd have two giant defensive holes, another position that was only average, and any team that had a really strong perimeter-based offense would likely tear them apart. They'd also experience a lot of trouble in the modern era. Would they be better than, say, the Magic? Maybe; not as balanced offensively, not as compelling in terms of what they can do. Particularly now, compared to 01, Iverson wouldn't get away with quite as much illegal dribbling, and Zo's shot-blocking would be at least somewhat limited by the fouls he'd pick up and the occasional 3-in-the-key he'd get called for.

Peja was never all that good, he had one season with a great shooting streak and he played on some truly spectacular teams in Sacramento that did the heavy lifting for him, and is otherwise unimpressive.

Old Man Grant Hill is good for like 20-30 mpg, decent defense and limited offensive output. Rodman totally throws off your court spacing and offense. They'd have a fantastic defensive frontcourt, no doubt, and they'd dominate the boards, but they'd struggle like Hell to score, moreso than would their opponents.

Would they be a very good team? Very likely. You've got two head-case players on that squad, though, and Peja, so you've got some serious problems, particularly in the playoffs. You force Iverson into inefficient chucking against a decent team like the Lebron-led Cavs, Dwight's Magic or certainly against Boston and L.A., and that team fades FAST. Single-star teams like that aren't incredible, and Zo's offense wasn't all that impressive.

Meantime, we were talking title teams, not teams that could lose in the Finals. Also, era-dependant, but that'd take a HELL of a lot of doing in the modern era, salary-wise. You'd have to get uber-lucky and Miami those three onto the team, or maybe Boston it up after they got old... and you've got to wonder which Rodman you get. The DPOY SF Rodman, or the rebounding-chasing Rodman who routinely left his man wide open outside in order to position for the board more effectively? That significant impacts the nature of the team, as does the fact that Rodman was constantly missing games due to injuries and suspensions, and that Zo has his own set of health issues, that Iverson was never a guy you looked to for 80+ games, nor Peja.

Chemistry, health, offensive balance... that squad isn't a great one.

Instead of just bitching, though, I'll throw out another one.

Chauncey Billups
Allen Iverson
Ron Artest
Robert Horry
Dikembe Mutombo

It's tough; you've got to find a second scorer that AI would play nice with, and it's really difficult, because he just didn't, really. Iverson commanded a huge proportion of the offensive possessions and couldn't really play well with others. It worked in Denver because their offensive system was a lame set of predictable isolations, and because AI knew he was the second guy at that point in his career... and then it collapsed in the playoffs.

[azuresou1]

It really isn't that hard to build around Iverson. You need a defensive big man who can finish strong inside, one other solid defensive wing player who doesn't need many touches to be efficient, and a true shooter. The last slot can be a wild card, although obviously the better the player the better the result. Here's some other lineups:

Iverson
Thabo Sefalosha
Mike Miller
Kevin Love
Tyson Chandler


Iverson
Anthony Morrow
Batum
Josh Smith
Okur


Iverson
Artest (Pacers)
Gallinari
David Lee
Brook Lopez

Three lineups which don't have another superstar which IMO are Finals-caliber teams.

[Dr Positivity]

I don't have a problem with Iverson's ORTGs considering he played with zero outside shooters or pnr guys. Understandably he wouldn't fit with another ball creator, but give him a David West/Carlos Boozer and then 3pt shooters like Peja, Butler, etc. at SG/SF and it'd open up the offense a lot more. The Sixers focused on defense so this wasn't so, but they still put up top 15 ORTGs in 01, 03, and 06 and Iverson was injured in 02 and 04 so it's hard to include them.

Miami the last two years ranked 19th and 20th in ORTG with what I consider similar offensive talent as those Sixers teams - and I'm not blaming Wade's offensive production too much for it. It's just really hard to have an effective offense with no outside shooting or pick and roll threat. If the Sixers in 01 and 03 can rank 13th and 11th respectively offensively with no shooters or secondary scorer and with Larry Brown's overwhelmingly defense first philosophy, it's hard to imagine Iverson couldn't have top 10 ORTGs with more offensive lineups or ANY 3pt shooters. I mean he almost got there with the Sixers offensive poo sandwich

There's no question to me a lot of offensive success comes down to how much pressure you put on the defense and how much they have to react and help. Iverson for all his chuckery put as much pressure on the d as anyone... which has value

No question Iverson is a flawed player, he's a lower level MVP candidate at best. With that said he managed to have a succesful career as the man without an abundance of talent. As succesful as KG, Barkley, Oscar, Gervin. There's a decent list of guys who've had a bunch of 45 W+ years and maybe one really big year, but never broken through. Partly cause they're not good enough to be title as the man guys, partly cause of lack of help. Iverson's on it. He's not Duncan, Shaq, Lebron, etc. but he's still a top 50 guy

[Dr Positivity]

By the way on the skill curves - those measure how much a player's efficiency drops with extra shots, no? Thought I saw on another forum Iverson's had one of the least steep slopes. Meaning he's probably going to be near his .50 TS% if he takes 10 or 30 shots. KG had one of the steepest. Super high efficiency at a lower volume, but it dropped hard when he took a lot of shots.

[tsherkin]

First, I agree with what Mufasa just said. I'd agree that Iverson, flaws and all, should still count in the top 50. There aren't THAT many guys who've played who have done better. He's still an All-Star player, as I said, he's just hugely overrated.

Iverson
Thabo Sefalosha
Mike Miller
Kevin Love
Tyson Chandler

That team wouldn't get anywhere near the Finals, they wouldn't be NEAR good enough defensively to pull it off, even if Chandler were to be healthy. They'd be good, but I don't even think they'd make the conference finals, let alone the title series.

Iverson
Anthony Morrow
Batum
Josh Smith
Okur

This team would blow chunks defensively and wouldn't be terribly good on the glass, and Batum isn't even worth bringing into this discussion, his inclusion isn't fair to AI. This team would suck, like 35-ish wins.

Iverson
Artest (Pacers)
Gallinari
David Lee
Brook Lopez

Artest isn't a SG, and that team would be roughed up bad by offensive 4s, and wouldn't be amazing on the glass. This team would get smoked by at least three different teams in the East right now and at least two in the West.

[azuresou1]

I think those three teams would all make the Finals despite not having a single other superstar, and in some cases not even an All-Star, or a borderline one. You want a clearcut Finals team that would be competitive in talent to other Finals teams where Iverson can still make a (weak but plausible) claim to being the best player?

Iverson
Shooter
Shooter
Shooter
Dwight Howard

Bam, Finals championship.

[azuresou1]

Also, the beauty of having Iverson is that you don't need your SG to be able to create, just that he can hit shots off-the-ball. Artest could absolutely play SG next to Iverson.

[tsherkin]

Artest could absolutely play SG next to Iverson.

I disagree... he's not performed nearly as well at the 2 compared to the 3. The quicker guys can nullify his strength by playing outside more and using a ton of screens. It'd be a problem for the team.

I think those three teams would all make the Finals despite not having a single other superstar, and in some cases not even an All-Star, or a borderline one.

No way, man. the Thabo/Miller/Love/Chandler version would get smoked by any team with a decent offensive frontcourt. LA would CARVE them apart, so would Orlando, etc, etc.

And that putrid middle team you tossed out? Morrow/Batum/Smoove/Okur? They'd get KILLED!

Okur isn't a good defender, Batum is a non-factor offensively, Morrow isn't good enough to be the secondary scorer on a team with weak offense and Iverson isn't going to be dominant enough. As I said, that team struggles defensively and doesn't dominate the boards, it doesn't sniff the CFs, let alone the Finals.

The third team, Artest/Gallo/Lee/Lopez, has a clear problem on the glass, a gigantic defensive hole at the 4, non-elite D at the 3 and Artest playing out of position, it's not a Finals squad.

You want a clearcut Finals team that would be competitive in talent to other Finals teams where Iverson can still make a (weak but plausible) claim to being the best player?

Iverson
Shooter
Shooter
Shooter
Dwight Howard

Bam, Finals championship.

First off, Howard >> Iverson, but that's another story entirely. This is a team that would necessarily be built around Howard, not Iverson, because he's a far more valuable centerpiece to a franchise. Second, we don't know if AI would be very good next to Howard because Howard likes to get involved in a lot of PnRs and Iverson is far more comfortable running clear-outs than PnRs and that might cause problems.

[Chicago76]

By the way on the skill curves - those measure how much a player's efficiency drops with extra shots, no? Thought I saw on another forum Iverson's had one of the least steep slopes. Meaning he's probably going to be near his .50 TS% if he takes 10 or 30 shots. KG had one of the steepest. Super high efficiency at a lower volume, but it dropped hard when he took a lot of shots.

That piece of information appears to be supportive of Iverson's value, but it's something of a double edged sword. AI was really good at taking the tough shot. Due to his lack of range and size, just about every shot he took was a tough shot, however, so his efficiency rates weren't driven by volume.

Rather than trying to guess how well the Sixers would perform if they could have replaced him with a quality scorer, why not look at how well they performed when other guys just consumed his minutes when he was hurt?

2003/04 was the one season where AI missed a big chunk of time in his 20s.

With Iverson that year: 19-29
Without Iverson that year: 14-20

To be fair, Iverson wasn't healthy a lot of the year and his shooting % (but not usage was down). Plugging in his percentages from the prior year, the expected W-L with Iverson would be 22-26.

On the other side, the Sixers were eliminated from the playoffs with three games left in the season, and looking to improve their draft position while going through the motions. Remove these games from the without Iverson column, and the record improves to 14-17. Statistically there is no significant difference in their play with/without Iverson that year, even though their record was marginally better with him. This also required his teammates to get used to the idea of him not being there, which was bound to hurt the team more significantly--at least in the interim, so call it even.

The heavy minute guys on this roster and their ages: Snow (30), Thomas (26), Dalembert (22), McKie (31), Salmons (24), and Robinson (31). Glenn Robinson was shelved for a big stretch of Iverson's absence as well, so there weren't any players who could carry the offensive load. None of these guys are high usage players.

So the question is, what did they do with Iverson's possessions (roughly 27 possessions in 42 minutes a night) to perform as well without him as they would if a normal shooting Iverson from the prior year was there? They did four things:
1-Slowed the pace by about 8 poss/game, so now there are only 19 to account for.
2-Got rid of about one of Iverson's bad (turnover) possessions a game...down to 18.
3-Naturally, they replace him with someone. Just doing this would consume 13 possessions at low usage % (17.5 or so)...down to 5.
4-Asked everyone to increase their possession rate marginally.

The last one is significant and cuts directly to the criticism of Iverson: his lack of efficiency. Iverson would have been on the floor 42 minutes a night with 4 other teammates for a total of 210 floor minutes. If all 5 guys simply consume on more possession every 42 minutes than their normal rate during the time when Iverson would have been on the court, that would have made up for the remaining usage after step 3 above.

Players have different skill curves with usage, but asking an NBA player to shoot an extra shot or maybe two over an entire game will not alter efficiency dramatically now matter how steep the curve may be. It would be different if you were asking a group of players to duplicate several possessions of Michael Jordan or Reggie Miller levels of offensive efficiency, but the Sixers didn't need to do that. They only needed to replace 50% TS% efficiency.

[Sophie Hart]

It really sounds like Iverson would still prefer to stay and wait until NBA team calls him. It really depends on him as he takes the easy money and pursues his game on their terms.

[Nivek]

If you read Basketball On Paper, you'd see that one of the reasons Iverson's skills curve was flatter is that he so seldom used fewer possessions. Basically, he was always using possessions.

I'm pretty much where tsherkin is, except that I'm not sure he even belongs in the top 50 all-time. I'd need to look closer at him in comparison with others to form a firm opinion on that subject. I think he's overrated because he played hard and because he's little. No question that he's among the best little guys to play the game. I dunno about top 50.

And, I say that as someone who loves watching Iverson play, especially when he gets it going. I went to a Philly-Boston playoff game a few years ago (my team is the Wizards) and had a blast watching Iverson battle and make huge plays down the stretch to help his team win. In the year they went to the Finals, he had a great supporting cast. A more efficient volume scorer might have made that Finals series more interesting.

Since the league began collecting the stats needed to calculate ortg, there have been 127 player seasons in which an individual had a usage rate of 30+ and played at least 2000 minutes. Iverson had the lowest ortg among this group (in 03-04). Here's the list of players had a usage rate of 30+, played at least 2000 minutes, and had an ortg below 100:

Iverson -- 96 (03-04)
Shawn Kemp -- 96 (30 years old in Cleveland -- fat Kemp)
Pete Maravich -- 96 (30 years old)
Vince Carter -- 99 (27 years old -- the start of "mail-it-in" Vince -- he got traded the next season)
Michael Jordan -- 99 (38 years old in Washington)

Among those 127 player seasons, Iverson had 4 of the 20 least efficient; 6 of the 30 least efficient; 7 of the 65 least efficient. Nothing better than that.

There are 9 players with a CAREER usage rate of 30+, and at least 10,000 career minutes. Here they are with their career ortg:

1. Jordan -- 118
2. Lebron -- 114
3. Dominique -- 112
4. Kobe -- 112
5. Wade -- 111
6. McGrady -- 108
7. John Drew -- 107
8. Carmelo -- 107
9. Iverson -- 105

Reduce the usage cutoff to 27+ (still very high usage) and Iverson's career is 25th out of 30. The people behind him: Webber (104), Stackhouse (103), Glenn Robinson (102), Quintin Dailey (101), and George McGinnis (100).

Gilbert Arenas's name came up earlier in the thread -- he currently ranks 11th on this list (111) (although he's likely to going to come down as he plays more post-injury).

There is something to be said for Iverson's ability to use possessions. His teams would have been better if he'd been able to use them more efficiently.

[eitanr]

Extremely interesting book. Almost done with it and have used it to impresses stat guys and assistant coaches around the league with various powerpoints I have created etc.

Key things I took home was the defensive impact of a center...obviously known but perhaps not to the extent some may see. Also, I loved the coaches analysis and was surprised to see Paul Westpaul on the top there.

[Chicago76]

I've got to agree with Nivek re: Iverson and top 50 status.

Positives:
ability to use possessions with a flat skill curve
ability to bring the ball up and assist on playmaking

Negatives:
lack of efficiency
gambling D and size, which made it difficult for his team to match up defensively in the backcourt
injuries

I'm going to introduce a mystery forward. His positives are high usage and excellent versatility. If you looked at assist and rebound rates for the last 5 years among high minute forwards (2000+) in the their 20s (before they get old and fat and specialize in rebounding or perimeter shooting + passing, his rates in both categories from 23 to 28 would be in the top 20%. To do both at these rates with regularity is very unusual. The only other players who can say that since these rates have been statistically available are Tim Duncan, Kevin Garnett, and Charles Barkley. He also maintained a usage of abt. 30% over this period. That is some seriously good company. So what are his negatives?

Turnovers, which weren't a problem for Iverson. Still, relative to his usage, his actual turnover rates were maybe 1-2% above league average. He didn't get hurt like Iverson, but he did have a lack of longevity. His lack of efficiency is often cited, but his TS% is at the league average when he played, which makes him better than Iverson, even when factoring in position differences, but not great. If you add in his extra turnovers to adjust TS%, then his efficiency is as bad for a forward (maybe not quite as bad) in his day and Iverson's is for a guard in his.

Basically, he gives you a better defensive presence than Iverson on the court (ability to defend 2 or maybe three positions adequately or better), with similar relative scoring efficiency (factoring in TOVs), versatility, and usage in a durable but compressed career vs. Iverson's similar efficiency, defensive inflexibility, dual PG/SG ability and injury-riddled longer career. Both were mentioned as being among a handful of the world's best players for a few years.

The mystery forward's name is George McGinnis, who is a top 100 player, but one who shouldn't even be mentioned in top 50 company. If Iverson is a top 50 guy, then McGinnis needs to at least be in the conversaton, and there is no way that he should be in that conversation.

[eitanr]

There are certain players that need an exact group of guys around them for themselves on their teams to be successful.

Iverson was definitley one of those guys. If you are playing AI at the PG for example, you need a bigger defensive minded 2-guard who can handle the ball and at least bring the ball down the floor and hit open shots. Aaron McKie fit that role well with AI. Snow did a solid job defensivley, but his lack of an outside shot hurt.

He also needed to play with some dirty big men who can protect the rim and snuff out opponents...overall the Sixers were built best around Iverson earlier in the decade. This is also why he can't just join any team now...even as a vet for the minimum coming off the bench.