RealGM Top 100 List #51

[E-Balla]

How do you figure that Dantley had little impact on Utah's offense? Take a look at their performance in 1982, 1983 (when he missed 60 games) and 1984. He had a very big impact on Utah's offense.

I never saw the offense/defense split but I've seen the total. His team only saw a +1.7 SRS change in 83 when he played. Overall in the WOWY spreadsheet Dantley had a -1.1 effect on his team's SRS. Either his offense isn't nearly as good as his numbers indicate or his defense was terrible.

[colts18]

14 year RAPM ranking for a few players on the board:

6. Ginobili +6.9
16. Sheed +5.3
20. Carter +4.8
61. Bosh +3.1
66. Gasol +2.9
76. Billups +2.6
140. Iverson +1.5

Billups even had a higher offensive RAPM than AI. Billups also led his team to a title as an underdog vs the Lakers which AI was unable to do. When Billups/AI got traded, the Nuggets got slightly better while the Pistons collapsed

[trex_8063]

When KJ went down his teams seemed to get along nicely from 93-96.

Why did you cherrypick the 93-96 span? If you look at the other years of his prime (89-97) his team went 7-19 in the games he missed.

9-21.
Accuracy police.....

You can ask the same questions for Iverson. Why did the 76ers play better in the huge sample size (34) of games AI missed in 2004?

I agree we shouldn't cherry pick years. And besides, with the exception of '95 (more on that below), KJ did help Suns in '93-'96......they just happened to be pretty good even without him those years.

However, noting that the Sixers played "better" without AI in '04 is a touch stronger than the language Balla'd used ("got along nicely").
So just in the interest of fairness, I'd like it noted that in '95, the Suns played better without KJ (averaged +1.7 ppg, shot +1.0% TS%, were +3.3 ORtg, +0.07 SRS WITHOUT Johnson as apposed to with him. Were also 27-8 (.771) w/o him, 32-15 (.681) with him.

So there that is. The weird thing is: with the '04 Sixers (I mentioned this previously), Iverson was playing banged up and clearly performing at a sub-standard level (this is evident in PER, WS/48, ORtg/DRtg, or nearly any other measures you'd choose to go with). So the slump is somewhat easily explained: he's trying to fill his usual role, but isn't performing well enough to do so. And this year is an outlier no matter how you look at it.

KJ in '95, otoh, is odd because KJ appears to be performing more or less at his usual level (PER, WS/48, ORtg/DRtg, etc, all pretty much at their standard KJ-prime levels).....yet the Suns simply did better without him. He only avg 28.8 mpg that year, too; weird that he had that degree of effect. This is what you would call a "huge" (35 game) sample, too.

Why didn't the 76ers decline in 2007 when they traded Iverson?

This is a misleading question, because they did decline, if subtly:

They only won 35 games in '07.......with the exception of the aforementioned '04 season (where Iverson missed a 34 games, and was playing sub-standard in the 48 games he did play), the Sixers had never won fewer than 38 games (in fact only twice---that including '04---finished <.500) during Iverson's prime. And while they won only 33 games in '04, their SRS that year was -2.95; it was a slightly worse -3.26 in '07 (and was a -1.16 drop in SRS from the previous year). The ORtg -2.9 to league in '07 was worse than any year of Iverson's prime with the exception of '04 (and was a -2.7 drop from '06).

[penbeast0]

He doesn't get an MVP without the scoring, and everyone being considered for the top 100 is a multiple all-star. His one trip to the finals is not that impressive compared to the playoff runs of players like Worthy or even Billups. Again, all you have is scoring and accolades based on the scoring; change his scoring to the prime season you are talking about and you lose the recognition.

A 20+ppg season at better than 55 ts% has been done 525 times in NBA history (bbr.com for seasons of more than 60 games), it's not that unique a thing. With Iverson's other problems, he may still be an all-star because scoring always gets attention but it's the uniqueness of his scoring volume that is his calling card. To contrast, there are only 63 30ppg seasons in NBA history (at any efficiency), most by players on the list, and Iverson has 4 of them. The question is how valuable that feat is; Iverson's 4 seasons are all in the bottom 11 of that 63 in Win Shares for what that's worth.

[trex_8063]

He doesn't get an MVP without the scoring, and everyone being considered for the top 100 is a multiple all-star. His one trip to the finals is not that impressive compared to the playoff runs of players like Worthy or even Billups. Again, all you have is scoring and accolades based on the scoring; change his scoring to the prime season you are talking about and you lose the recognition.

A 20+ppg season at better than 55 ts% has been done 525 times in NBA history (bbr.com for seasons of more than 60 games), it's not that unique a thing.

However, >26 ppg on >56 ts% (selected for anything >40 games) has been done only 135 times in NBA history.
>30 ppg on >54 ts% has been done all of 46 times in NBA history.

EDIT: Add in additional requirement of 7+ apg, and these things have been done a grand total of 19 and 12 times, respectively, in NBA history.

Iverson has done all of these things.

EDIT2: With requirements of >26 ppg, >56 ts%, >7 apg, and <3 topg----->has been done a grand total of 3 times (and Iverson is one).

[trex_8063]

wrt to the Iverson/KJ comparison, I'll take a look....

bbref's Per 100 partial career windows still aren't working, and I'm not going to take the time to get super-accurate estimates; below are rough per 100 estimates:

Prime Iverson ('99-'08) (10 seasons, 673 rs games)
Per 100 possessions: ~35.5 pts, ~4.7 reb, ~7.5 ast, ~2.8 stl, 0.2 blk, ~4.5 tov @ .518 TS% (-0.7% to league avg)
PER 21.9, .139 WS/48, ORtg ~105/DRtg ~103.7 (+1.3) in monstrous 42.2 mpg
VORP 36.0
OBPM 4.3 + DBPM -1.1 = +3.2 BPM

Prime KJ ('89-'97) (9 seasons, 599 rs games)
Per 100 possessions: ~26.5 pts, ~4.5 reb, ~13.3 ast, ~2.1 stl, ~0.3 blk, ~4.5 tov @ .590 TS% (+5.4% to league avg)
PER 21.5, .187 WS/48, ORtg ~119/DRtg ~109.5 (+9.5) in 36.3 mpg
VORP 25.8
OBPM 3.9 + DBPM -1.2 = +2.7 BPM


The way I see it: Per 100 stats are pretty much a wash (maybe slimmest of edges to Iverson), though KJ being so significantly better in shooting efficiency pushes things in his favor. However, thrown into consideration is that Iverson averaged 33.4% usage during this 10-year span (whereas KJ never had >25%).

I've not really heard this answered to other than to adhere to the mantra that "Iverson wasn't efficient enough to have this high usage". To that I have answered: "what else were those Philly squads to do?" To this I've not really heard a response, other than some lame-ish criticisms of the Sixer management for ever assembly such a squad. In this regard it seems Iverson is criticized for the situation he is put in. I'll quote myself from a prior post:

But those Philly teams were already asking more than was ideal from several mediocre (or even poor) offensive players:
Eric Snow--->his SIX highest ppg averages, his SIX highest apg averages, and 4 of his 5 highest USG% all came during his six full seasons in Philly.
Theo Ratliff--->his 3-year stint in Philly accounts for all THREE of his highest ppg averages, and 3 of his 4 highest USG% (this in a 16-year career).
Aaron McKie--->his TWO highest ppg averages (and 5 of his top 6), his FIVE highest apg averages, as well as his TWO highest USG% (and 3 of his top 4, 6 of his top 8) all came during his 7 full seasons in Philly.
George Lynch--->3 of his top 4 ppg averages and 3 of his top 4 apg averages came during his 3-year stint in Philly.
Dikembe Mutombo--->his usage jumped by 2.8% (to a level he'd not been at in 3 years) and ppg jumped by 2.6 ppg (to level he'd not scored at for two years) IMMEDIATELY upon his arrival in Philly (at age 34).

I see the volume he was providing in Philly as largely defensible, based on who his teammates were and what was already being extracted from them. Seriously, are they going to see if they can milk 16 ppg out of Theo Ratliff and Aaron McKie? Maybe 15 ppg from Tyrone Hill? Those squads were out of offensive options.
And then there's his efficient year in a more 1B role in Denver (just to show he's capable of it), although he'd already had one in '06.

It's pretty well acknowledged that efficiency tends to fall with higher usage (at least once past a certain tipping point). And Iverson had demanded of him a degree of usage that has only been asked of a mere handful of players in NBA history (basically everyone who ever had it asked of him is already voted in). Probably all of the other guys (again: already voted in) who had it asked of them shouldered it a little better (that is: more efficiently) than Iverson. Although in the case of McGrady, I would say by only a very small margin; and Iverson's clearly got better longevity than him.

As was mentioned in defense of McGrady: shooting efficiency is not the only measure of efficiency. Iverson's USG%/TOV% thru his prime ('99-'08) was 2.88: better than Lebron, Wade, English, Gervin, Durant, Ray Allen, Drexler, Dantley, Reggie Miller, Paul Pierce, way better than Mullin and Harden. And this while shouldering more usage than has been asked of anyone not named Michael Jordan, Kobe Bryant, or Dwyane Wade.


Anyway, moving past per 100 and TS% in our comparison......
Iverson has the slight edge in PER, KJ has a moderate to largish edge in WS/48 and ORtg/DRtg gap (though again: usage concerns apply). Additionally, I'll note that ALL of these I've mentioned so far are per unit time/possession metrics, and Iverson was averaging +5.9 mpg in their respective primes. So even if, for instance, we were to conclude that Iverson was ~50% better than the average NBA Joe while on the court, but KJ was more like 56-58% better than the Average Joe while on the court, it's still a slight advantage to Iverson because you're reaping the benefit of his play for larger stretches.

VORP and BPM both favor Iverson by small-moderate margins.
I looked at how their respective teams performed with/without them offensively (and overall) during their primes. Excluded from consideration for Iverson are '03 and '08 (because he didn't miss any games with which to evaluate how the team did without him), as well as '07 (because the season was split between two franchises, and it was simply going to take me too long to make the comparisons when I can't simply use the teams' season totals). Still, that left seven seasons to evaluate for Iverson: '99-'02, '04-'06. Looked at nine seasons for KJ: '89-'97.
Wasn't sure which method of weighting the effects of their presences was most appropriate (or if I should at all); so I'll show it non-weighted, weighted for games played in each season, and weighted for games MISSED in each season.

AVERAGE effect of having Iverson vs. not having him over aforementioned years:
NOT weighted for games played/missed
+7.3 ppg
+1.1% TS%
+2.3 ORtg
+4.61 SRS
Weighted for games played
+7.4 ppg
+1.2% TS%
+2.5 ORtg
+4.21 SRS
Weighted for games missed
+7.1 ppg
+0.8% TS%
+1.4 ORtg
+2.90 SRS
39-59 record (.398) without, 251-193 record (.565) with (avg of +13.7 wins per 82-game season).

AVERAGE effect of having Kevin Johnson vs. not having him.
NOT weighted for # of games played/missed
+7.1 ppg.
+3.0% TS%.
+4.7 ORtg.
+4.01 SRS.
Weighted for # of games played
+7.8 ppg
+3.3% TS%
+5.2 ORtg
+4.02 SRS
Weighted for # of games MISSED
+4.1 ppg
+1.9% TS%
+2.7 ORtg
+3.98 SRS
79-60 (.568) record w/o, 396-203 (.661) record with: +7.6 wins per 82-game season.

So based on this, KJ appears to have had the larger offensive impact, but in overall impact on team outcome, it's either a wash or slight advantage to Iverson. Based on SRS change, it's pretty much a wash; but based on win%/wins per season improvement, Iverson trumps him by 6+ wins/season. Part of that, though, I'm sure is that it gets harder to add additional wins the nearer to the top that you are.

So overall, I think it's awfully close between these two in their primes. As I stated before, given the closeness, I'd still give the edge to Iverson based on the fact that he had 1 additional season (+74 games) of prime-level play compared to KJ, plus about a season and a half MORE role player years compared to KJ as well.

Vote for #51: Allen Iverson.
(could be convinced of Elvin Hayes, though)

[Moonbeam]

How do you figure that Dantley had little impact on Utah's offense? Take a look at their performance in 1982, 1983 (when he missed 60 games) and 1984. He had a very big impact on Utah's offense.

I never saw the offense/defense split but I've seen the total. His team only saw a +1.7 SRS change in 83 when he played. Overall in the WOWY spreadsheet Dantley had a -1.1 effect on his team's SRS. Either his offense isn't nearly as good as his numbers indicate or his defense was terrible.

Dantley's WOWY scores are worth investigating - that much is true. There are a few things to know regarding his score, however. The WOWY score you report is missing his early seasons in Buffalo and the Lakers, where he posted positive scores. It is missing a few games across 1981, 1982, 1984, and 1986, where Dantley's teams went 5-11 without him.

I've addressed his 1983 season here. A few things that could have an impact on his WOWY that season - John Drew's play while addicted to cocaine to start the season, a curious bout of truly atrocious rebounding, and the emerging role of Mark Eaton. I think Elgee has controlled for some of this in his sample for that season, but not all of it.

The 1987-88 season shows a negative WOWY score for Dantley. It's true: Detroit played like a 5.02 SRS with Dantley in the RS, and like a 7.83 SRS team without him for 13 games. So what happened? Detroit's season ORating that year was 110.5, and their season DRating was 105.3. In the 13 games without Dantley, Detroit's ORating averaged 108.8 (-1.7) and their DRating averaged 101.5 (-3.8). So on the surface, it looks like Detroit missed his offense a bit but more than made up for it with defense.

So who was getting Dantley's minutes? The main beneficiaries were Dennis Rodman (+10.3 MPG) and John Salley (+6.3 MPG), with Vinnie Johnson (+2.5 MPG) and Rick Mahorn (+1.7 MPG) having the next highest increases. It's no surprise that Dantley would come out behind Rodman and Salley for defensive impact. Rodman was a wunderkind on defense, and Salley was quite good on that end as well.

But what happened on offense? Dantley's field goal and free throw attempts didn't just go to Rodman and Salley. While Rodman and Salley saw the biggest increase in FGA (+2.8 and +1.9), many others saw boosts (Thomas +1.5, Dumars +1.3, Johnson +1, Mahorn +0.9). Daly was a wise coach - he reconfigured the offense to suit the strengths of the available players in such a way that the loss of Dantley wouldn't be felt as strongly by increasing the role of the higher usage guys as well.

Most importantly, however, is to look at the playoffs. Detroit was painfully close to a title, and they played like an 8.16 SRS team across 23 playoff games with Dantley earning national praise for both his offense AND his defense. How were the postseason minutes distributed relative to the regular season?

Dantley +3.9
Thomas +3.5
Salley +2.7
Dumars +1.6
Edwards +1.4
Laimbeer -1.5
Johnson -2.9
Rodman -5.6
Mahorn -11.5

So the biggest minute beneficiary of Dantley's missed games in the regular season saw a significant reduction in minutes, while Dantley saw the biggest boost, and Detroit played at a higher level as judged by SRS.

Of course in 1988-89, Dantley was traded mid-season for Mark Aguirre and Detroit took off and won a championship. Dallas, meanwhile, fell out of playoff contention with Dantley. That was not a good season for him overall - he was playing pretty well in Detroit (though not quite up to his 1987-88 standards), putting up 18.4 PPG on 61.3% TS but with fewer assists and more turnovers than in the previous season. He went to Dallas where they ramped up his usage, and he was clearly no longer able to put up elite efficiency (20.3 PPG on 54.6% TS). Dantley broke his leg in the middle of the following season, essentially ending his career. However, acquiring Dantley was not the only change the Mavericks made. Dallas also shipped out a serviceable bench player in Detlef Schrempf (who would immediately emerge in Indiana as a very good player) for Herb Williams, who brought defense but also brought a disastrously low (even for his standards) 43.8% TS in over 30 MPG. Roy Tarpley came back from his own drug problems late in the season, so that Dallas squad was a bit of a mess.

So did Dantley actually hurt Detroit? I think that's a stretch - he had to compromise a lot coming to Detroit from Utah.

Source: http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1988 ... tley-guy/2

"I don't think the players appreciated as much as they should have how much he's adjusted for us," McCloskey said.

"I know I can do more, but I didn't want to let my ego get involved,"

Dantley said. "I've just kept my mouth shut and done my job."

He has continued to do his job in the playoffs, averaging 20 points, shooting 60 percent from the field and playing rugged, late-game defense that has helped the Pistons almost invariably win when they lead entering the last quarter.

"No one should ever underestimate this man's desire for a (championship) ring," Versace said. "You want a horse to ride in this league, and he`s ours."

Dantley was particularly valuable to those Piston teams in the playoffs, when possessions slowed and defenses could focus more on stopping Detroit's offense. Dantley, as usual, was very potent despite the best efforts of the defense.

I'm working on a playoff Score+ metric which compares volume and efficiency to opponents. So just how much did Dantley's efficiency and volume mean to Detroit in the postseason? Well, in 1987, he added more than twice as many additional points above expectations than any other Piston player:

Code: Select all

Player          Score+  TotScore+
Adrian Dantley   4.457   44.415
Joe Dumars       2.266   21.348
Rick Mahorn      1.791   17.217
Dennis Rodman    1.377    6.719
John Salley      0.922    5.711
Bill Laimbeer    0.407    4.403
Sidney Green     4.556    3.859
Tony Campbell    7.028    1.868
Isiah Thomas     0.148    1.660
Chuck Nevitt   -10.431   -2.124
Kurt Nimphius   -5.223   -3.210
Vinnie Johnson  -1.242   -9.606


In 1988, Dantley's offense was even more important to keep Detroit afloat:

Code: Select all

Player          Score+  TotScore+
Adrian Dantley   3.593   54.472
John Salley      1.612   18.938
James Edwards    0.599    3.476
Chuck Nevitt    -1.306   -0.099
Walker Russell  -0.905   -0.172
Ralph Lewis     -7.200   -2.318
Dennis Rodman   -0.518   -4.629
Joe Dumars      -0.435   -6.588
Isiah Thomas    -0.549   -9.433
Bill Laimbeer   -0.822  -12.080
Rick Mahorn     -3.758  -28.950
Vinnie Johnson  -4.414  -39.732


When Dantley was knocked out in 1987 due to a concussion in Game 7 of the ECF, Laimbeer added this:

Laimbeer, on the loss of Adrian Dantley: "When he went off, they didn't have to double team us anymore. We couldn't get the open jump shots like we normally would."

But Dantley's contributions were not just on offense - he put in significant effort on defense in both 1987 and 1988.

Source: http://archives.chicagotribune.com/1988 ... he-celtics

Larry Bird, meanwhile, who has shot just 37 percent in five games, continues to say his rhythm is off, but he did offer this assessment: "The officiating has been different in the playoffs and I don't think it's fair to anybody. You prepare during an 82-game season and then it's completely different. It's a tough adjustment."

But also giving Bird trouble, and for the second consecutive year and equally unnoticed by most, is noted scorer Adrian Dantley.

"I've never seen him player harder on defense in my life," said Laimbeer. "He's working so hard. He just wants it so bad."

Source: http://mitchalbom.com/d/journalism/535/ ... ge-updated

Whatever the change, he was in for most of the crucial minutes Sunday, spinning, driving, bumping, and playing a defense that went unnoticed by many. Except Larry Bird, the guy he was covering. "Dantley did as good a job on Bird as Michael Cooper or Paul Pressey does," Celtics coach K.C. Jones said. "He was very tough."

And at times, even obstinate. Once in the first half when the Celtics brought in Darren Daye, Pistons coach Chuck Daly screamed to Dantley: "YOU GOT DAYE! LET SALLEY TAKE BIRD!"

And Dantley turned, scowl intact, and mouthed back, "I got Bird." And five seconds later, Daly signaled, never mind, you got Bird.

Source: http://articles.latimes.com/1988-06-08/ ... it-pistons

Dantley, a two-time NBA scoring champion, has always been known for his offense, but the Pistons say that he has concentrated on defense this season.

And Dantley's work ethic on defense was a key as the Pistons held the Lakers to 39.8% shooting from the floor.

"I've always played defense, but when people talk about me, they talk about my offense," Dantley said. "The last time I played this hard on defense was in the 1976 Olympics. Defense is how we've been winning all our games this year. We don't even think about offense."

Opponent Michael Cooper during the 1988 Finals: http://articles.philly.com/1988-06-12/s ... rs-defense

"His defense shocked me," said Cooper, who was an L.A. teammate of Dantley's for the 1978-79 season.

"He was never one to get his sneakers dirty on defense. Before, A.D. was about A.D. He was out to score his points. Now he's a team player. He's willing to sacrifice. He sees that the more you put into a team, the more you get out of it."

Dantley by and large bought into Detroit's team ethos. He didn't mesh well with Isiah, and he had that moment where he refused to sub out in Boston, and that led to him being shipped out. But he got along great with most of his teammates (Joe Dumars called him his favorite teammate ever and John Salley was very upset at his trade as well) and managed to change the narrative about him as a selfish loner.

I think this article from after Game 5 of the 1988 Finals sums it up quite well.

Edit: And this one, too.

[Owly]

He doesn't get an MVP without the scoring, and everyone being considered for the top 100 is a multiple all-star. His one trip to the finals is not that impressive compared to the playoff runs of players like Worthy or even Billups. Again, all you have is scoring and accolades based on the scoring; change his scoring to the prime season you are talking about and you lose the recognition.

A 20+ppg season at better than 55 ts% has been done 525 times in NBA history (bbr.com for seasons of more than 60 games), it's not that unique a thing.

However, >26 ppg on >56 ts% (selected for anything >40 games) has been done only 135 times in NBA history.
>30 ppg on >54 ts% has been done all of 46 times in NBA history.

EDIT: Add in additional requirement of 7+ apg, and these things have been done a grand total of 19 and 12 times, respectively, in NBA history.

Iverson has done all of these things.

EDIT2: With requirements of >26 ppg, >56 ts%, >7 apg, and <3 topg----->has been done a grand total of 3 times (and Iverson is one).

On the bolded, for each of the above should the qualification "once" be put in place?

Looked into it, and the answer is yes.

>26 ppg on >56 ts%
http://www.basketball-reference.com/pla ... rder_by=ws

>30 ppg on >54 ts%
http://www.basketball-reference.com/pla ... rder_by=ws

Dantley, McAdoo, Archibald, Bellamy and King showing on both lists.

Archibald makes the assist lists too (we can't know about turnovers) and led a good offense.


I guess it depends on what the point is here. Is it meant to be that the minimum bar is arbitrary (they are, but more so when you cherry pick the requirements to include a single specific season), or is this a genuine Iverson has unique seasons point. I'm suspecting the former, if not, you can do that with many people. For instance Sam Lacey
http://www.basketball-reference.com/pla ... rder_by=ws

[penbeast0]

The reason I posted those numbers is in response to the comment that we would be considering Iverson a lot higher if he was a 22 point, 56 ts% player across his prime rather than the higher volume, lower efficiency player he actually was. My point is not that those players aren't valuable, of course they are, very much so. It's that they aren't that rare and then you look at Iverson's poor defense and poor attitude and he doesn't look like a top 50 player with those numbers. If you talk about him as a 27 point player, that's more special.

Oh, and it's not like Iverson was a .560 ts% player often, he did it once; he was a below .500 ts% player 3 times (the same frequency that he was over .540) including 02 where he averaged over 30 ppg. Since 1962, Iverson and Pete Maravich are the only ones to accomplish that dubious feat.

[Joao Saraiva]

I'll just repost the same thing I had in the last thread for #50.

My vote goes to Allen Iverson.

Accodales:
- 2001 MVP;
- 3 times top 5 in MVP voting;
- 11 all-star games;
- 2 times all-star MVP;
- 3 times 1st NBA team, 2 times 2nd NBA and 2 times 3rd NBA;
- 4 times scoring champion;
- 3 times steal leader;
- 97 rookie of the year.


His list of accodales can compete and will probably overcome anyone left on the list. That's an amazing career by Allen Iverson.

Scoring ability

Iverson's raw scoring is surely not a problem. 4 seasons above 30 PPG, and 11 above 25 PPG. That is tremendous production. But people usually talk about his efficiency, and there is sure a case to say he wasn't one of the best there: Iverson's average ts% in his career is only 51.8, so it doesn't look good for him. But stats need context...


When Iverson was with Philadelhpia his casts were really bad on offense. In 2001 Iverson had one of the most iconic post season runs ever, and took a cast with Dikembe Mutombo, Lynch, Mckie, Tyrone Hill, Ratliff and Snow to the NBA finals. That cast wasn't efficient, two of them actually had a ts% under 50%, and only one player is above 55% (Ratliff). Iverson took a lot of difficult shots with those rosters, but he HAD to. Iverson's ts% wasn't high for most times, but he had to do a lot and play a lot of minutes for them. Eventually with so many minutes (he lead the league in minutes played twice) he's gonna get tired during games, and it's natural that his efficiency drops.

Did Iverson rise his ts% in better situations? Yes. Iverson was past his prime when he went do Denver, but he was still a great player. He had 25.6 PPG on 55.9ts%. That is great production in volume, and great efficiency. If you look at the best SGs in NBA history stats, they won't get much better than this (some are better for sure, but after 3 or 4 SGs Iverson comes right next).

Overall I think Allen Iverson was a great scorer, and while his volume numbers increased due to his situation, his ts% also went down for it. They should meet somewhere in the middle, but bottom line Allen Iverson was a very good scorer.

Playmaking ability
Iverson is known by some guys as a ballhog. He did take too many shots, that's true. But he also was a great playmaker: he had 5 seasons above 7 APG, and while he had a better cast in Denver, he averaged 7.1 APG. Great numbers right?

I know his ast/to ratio isn't that great, but Iverson took a lot of volume in minutes and scoring in his career. Taking that into consideration I also think his TO numbers aren't elite, but aren't also that high.

Defense
I've seen some people saying Iverson's D was nothing special, and that he was just a gambler. Yes he gambled, but he had to. When you're much smaller than many guys you defend you have to gamble a bit more. And nobody can question Allen Iverson's heart: he was probably one of the guys that fought more while on the court.

Peak play
Iverson had some great seasons. His peak is probably 01:
RS
31.1 PPG 4.6 APG 3.8 RPG 2.5 SPG 24 PER 51.8 ts% 19WS/48
PS
32.9 PPG 6.1 APG 4.7 RPG 2.4 SPG 22.5 PER 48ts% 13 WS/48

Iverson's advanced numbers don't look good in the playoffs, but that's because he alternated great games with very inefficient ones. Overall he more positives than negatives that off season, including two 50 point games against Toronto, a ton of assists in game 7 against them, a spectacular series ending vs Bucks and the epic game 1 vs Lakers. His 1st round was pretty solid too.



Iverson had also solid post season numbers in 2003, the only other season where Iverson got out of the 1st round.

He had some really impressive seasons in his career, and 06 Iverson was his best regular season. Shame they didn't go to the playoffs, but I'm still amazed by that level of play.
Iverson 06
33 PPG 7.4 APG 3.2 RPG 1.9 SPG 25.9 PER 54.3ts% 16.5 WS/48

That's a truly amazing statline for anyone in the NBA.



Sorry for the long post but I just don't think Iverson gets respected in RealGM. When his shot was falling he was one of the most entertaining guys to watch.
If you didn't follow Iverson back then, this is a good way to know him a little better:
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2TCjK4jRDfw[/youtube]

Great documentary that will show all of Iverson's heart!

Hope he doesn't lose another run off.

[E-Balla]

He doesn't get an MVP without the scoring, and everyone being considered for the top 100 is a multiple all-star. His one trip to the finals is not that impressive compared to the playoff runs of players like Worthy or even Billups. Again, all you have is scoring and accolades based on the scoring; change his scoring to the prime season you are talking about and you lose the recognition.

A 20+ppg season at better than 55 ts% has been done 525 times in NBA history (bbr.com for seasons of more than 60 games), it's not that unique a thing. With Iverson's other problems, he may still be an all-star because scoring always gets attention but it's the uniqueness of his scoring volume that is his calling card. To contrast, there are only 63 30ppg seasons in NBA history (at any efficiency), most by players on the list, and Iverson has 4 of them. The question is how valuable that feat is; Iverson's 4 seasons are all in the bottom 11 of that 63 in Win Shares for what that's worth.

I said those numbers for career averages. Players with career averages of at least 22 ppg, 6 apg, and 56 TS are Wade, Bird, West, Oscar, and Lebron. Its not common at all for someone to hover around that production for 900+ games.

[E-Balla]

The reason I posted those numbers is in response to the comment that we would be considering Iverson a lot higher if he was a 22 point, 56 ts% player across his prime rather than the higher volume, lower efficiency player he actually was. My point is not that those players aren't valuable, of course they are, very much so. It's that they aren't that rare and then you look at Iverson's poor defense and poor attitude and he doesn't look like a top 50 player with those numbers. If you talk about him as a 27 point player, that's more special.

Oh, and it's not like Iverson was a .560 ts% player often, he did it once; he was a below .500 ts% player 3 times (the same frequency that he was over .540) including 02 where he averaged over 30 ppg. Since 1962, Iverson and Pete Maravich are the only ones to accomplish that dubious feat.

Well I'm just assuming that if you lower his shots that much (from 27 a game to 22) his efficiency would rise. The reason I chose 22 and 56 TS (arbitrary numbers) is that post prime Iverson scored 23 pp 36 on 57 TS while playing next to Melo. I think if he could do that past his prime he could easily do it during his prime.

[E-Balla]

Spoiler:

How do you figure that Dantley had little impact on Utah's offense? Take a look at their performance in 1982, 1983 (when he missed 60 games) and 1984. He had a very big impact on Utah's offense.

I never saw the offense/defense split but I've seen the total. His team only saw a +1.7 SRS change in 83 when he played. Overall in the WOWY spreadsheet Dantley had a -1.1 effect on his team's SRS. Either his offense isn't nearly as good as his numbers indicate or his defense was terrible.

Dantley's WOWY scores are worth investigating - that much is true. There are a few things to know regarding his score, however. The WOWY score you report is missing his early seasons in Buffalo and the Lakers, where he posted positive scores. It is missing a few games across 1981, 1982, 1984, and 1986, where Dantley's teams went 5-11 without him.

I've addressed his 1983 season here. A few things that could have an impact on his WOWY that season - John Drew's play while addicted to cocaine to start the season, a curious bout of truly atrocious rebounding, and the emerging role of Mark Eaton. I think Elgee has controlled for some of this in his sample for that season, but not all of it.

The 1987-88 season shows a negative WOWY score for Dantley. It's true: Detroit played like a 5.02 SRS with Dantley in the RS, and like a 7.83 SRS team without him for 13 games. So what happened? Detroit's season ORating that year was 110.5, and their season DRating was 105.3. In the 13 games without Dantley, Detroit's ORating averaged 108.8 (-1.7) and their DRating averaged 101.5 (-3.8). So on the surface, it looks like Detroit missed his offense a bit but more than made up for it with defense.

So who was getting Dantley's minutes? The main beneficiaries were Dennis Rodman (+10.3 MPG) and John Salley (+6.3 MPG), with Vinnie Johnson (+2.5 MPG) and Rick Mahorn (+1.7 MPG) having the next highest increases. It's no surprise that Dantley would come out behind Rodman and Salley for defensive impact. Rodman was a wunderkind on defense, and Salley was quite good on that end as well.

But what happened on offense? Dantley's field goal and free throw attempts didn't just go to Rodman and Salley. While Rodman and Salley saw the biggest increase in FGA (+2.8 and +1.9), many others saw boosts (Thomas +1.5, Dumars +1.3, Johnson +1, Mahorn +0.9). Daly was a wise coach - he reconfigured the offense to suit the strengths of the available players in such a way that the loss of Dantley wouldn't be felt as strongly by increasing the role of the higher usage guys as well.

Most importantly, however, is to look at the playoffs. Detroit was painfully close to a title, and they played like an 8.16 SRS team across 23 playoff games with Dantley earning national praise for both his offense AND his defense. How were the postseason minutes distributed relative to the regular season?

Dantley +3.9
Thomas +3.5
Salley +2.7
Dumars +1.6
Edwards +1.4
Laimbeer -1.5
Johnson -2.9
Rodman -5.6
Mahorn -11.5

So the biggest minute beneficiary of Dantley's missed games in the regular season saw a significant reduction in minutes, while Dantley saw the biggest boost, and Detroit played at a higher level as judged by SRS.

Of course in 1988-89, Dantley was traded mid-season for Mark Aguirre and Detroit took off and won a championship. Dallas, meanwhile, fell out of playoff contention with Dantley. That was not a good season for him overall - he was playing pretty well in Detroit (though not quite up to his 1987-88 standards), putting up 18.4 PPG on 61.3% TS but with fewer assists and more turnovers than in the previous season. He went to Dallas where they ramped up his usage, and he was clearly no longer able to put up elite efficiency (20.3 PPG on 54.6% TS). Dantley broke his leg in the middle of the following season, essentially ending his career. However, acquiring Dantley was not the only change the Mavericks made. Dallas also shipped out a serviceable bench player in Detlef Schrempf (who would immediately emerge in Indiana as a very good player) for Herb Williams, who brought defense but also brought a disastrously low (even for his standards) 43.8% TS in over 30 MPG. Roy Tarpley came back from his own drug problems late in the season, so that Dallas squad was a bit of a mess.

So did Dantley actually hurt Detroit? I think that's a stretch - he had to compromise a lot coming to Detroit from Utah.

Source: http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1988 ... tley-guy/2

"I don't think the players appreciated as much as they should have how much he's adjusted for us," McCloskey said.

"I know I can do more, but I didn't want to let my ego get involved,"

Dantley said. "I've just kept my mouth shut and done my job."

He has continued to do his job in the playoffs, averaging 20 points, shooting 60 percent from the field and playing rugged, late-game defense that has helped the Pistons almost invariably win when they lead entering the last quarter.

"No one should ever underestimate this man's desire for a (championship) ring," Versace said. "You want a horse to ride in this league, and he`s ours."

Dantley was particularly valuable to those Piston teams in the playoffs, when possessions slowed and defenses could focus more on stopping Detroit's offense. Dantley, as usual, was very potent despite the best efforts of the defense.

I'm working on a playoff Score+ metric which compares volume and efficiency to opponents. So just how much did Dantley's efficiency and volume mean to Detroit in the postseason? Well, in 1987, he added more than twice as many additional points above expectations than any other Piston player:

Code: Select all

Player          Score+  TotScore+
Adrian Dantley   4.457   44.415
Joe Dumars       2.266   21.348
Rick Mahorn      1.791   17.217
Dennis Rodman    1.377    6.719
John Salley      0.922    5.711
Bill Laimbeer    0.407    4.403
Sidney Green     4.556    3.859
Tony Campbell    7.028    1.868
Isiah Thomas     0.148    1.660
Chuck Nevitt   -10.431   -2.124
Kurt Nimphius   -5.223   -3.210
Vinnie Johnson  -1.242   -9.606


In 1988, Dantley's offense was even more important to keep Detroit afloat:

Code: Select all

Player          Score+  TotScore+
Adrian Dantley   3.593   54.472
John Salley      1.612   18.938
James Edwards    0.599    3.476
Chuck Nevitt    -1.306   -0.099
Walker Russell  -0.905   -0.172
Ralph Lewis     -7.200   -2.318
Dennis Rodman   -0.518   -4.629
Joe Dumars      -0.435   -6.588
Isiah Thomas    -0.549   -9.433
Bill Laimbeer   -0.822  -12.080
Rick Mahorn     -3.758  -28.950
Vinnie Johnson  -4.414  -39.732


When Dantley was knocked out in 1987 due to a concussion in Game 7 of the ECF, Laimbeer added this:

Laimbeer, on the loss of Adrian Dantley: "When he went off, they didn't have to double team us anymore. We couldn't get the open jump shots like we normally would."

But Dantley's contributions were not just on offense - he put in significant effort on defense in both 1987 and 1988.

Source: http://archives.chicagotribune.com/1988 ... he-celtics

Larry Bird, meanwhile, who has shot just 37 percent in five games, continues to say his rhythm is off, but he did offer this assessment: "The officiating has been different in the playoffs and I don't think it's fair to anybody. You prepare during an 82-game season and then it's completely different. It's a tough adjustment."

But also giving Bird trouble, and for the second consecutive year and equally unnoticed by most, is noted scorer Adrian Dantley.

"I've never seen him player harder on defense in my life," said Laimbeer. "He's working so hard. He just wants it so bad."

Source: http://mitchalbom.com/d/journalism/535/ ... ge-updated

Whatever the change, he was in for most of the crucial minutes Sunday, spinning, driving, bumping, and playing a defense that went unnoticed by many. Except Larry Bird, the guy he was covering. "Dantley did as good a job on Bird as Michael Cooper or Paul Pressey does," Celtics coach K.C. Jones said. "He was very tough."

And at times, even obstinate. Once in the first half when the Celtics brought in Darren Daye, Pistons coach Chuck Daly screamed to Dantley: "YOU GOT DAYE! LET SALLEY TAKE BIRD!"

And Dantley turned, scowl intact, and mouthed back, "I got Bird." And five seconds later, Daly signaled, never mind, you got Bird.

Source: http://articles.latimes.com/1988-06-08/ ... it-pistons

Dantley, a two-time NBA scoring champion, has always been known for his offense, but the Pistons say that he has concentrated on defense this season.

And Dantley's work ethic on defense was a key as the Pistons held the Lakers to 39.8% shooting from the floor.

"I've always played defense, but when people talk about me, they talk about my offense," Dantley said. "The last time I played this hard on defense was in the 1976 Olympics. Defense is how we've been winning all our games this year. We don't even think about offense."

Opponent Michael Cooper during the 1988 Finals: http://articles.philly.com/1988-06-12/s ... rs-defense

"His defense shocked me," said Cooper, who was an L.A. teammate of Dantley's for the 1978-79 season.

"He was never one to get his sneakers dirty on defense. Before, A.D. was about A.D. He was out to score his points. Now he's a team player. He's willing to sacrifice. He sees that the more you put into a team, the more you get out of it."

Dantley by and large bought into Detroit's team ethos. He didn't mesh well with Isiah, and he had that moment where he refused to sub out in Boston, and that led to him being shipped out. But he got along great with most of his teammates (Joe Dumars called him his favorite teammate ever and John Salley was very upset at his trade as well) and managed to change the narrative about him as a selfish loner.

I think this article from after Game 5 of the 1988 Finals sums it up quite well.

Edit: And this one, too.

Great post. I'm still not feeling him over Iverson but I think he might get my next vote instead of English or Vince.

[Joao Saraiva]

He was that good without even going to practice! How many guys did that in NBA history?

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eGDBR2L5kzI[/youtube]

Vote for AI guys

[Basketballefan]

Well the Iverson hate is just getting absurd and insincere at this point, so i'ma just keep voting for him until he gets in. It's like people want to pretend that Iverson wasn't viewed as a top 10 player almost every year of his prime.

Vote: Iverson

He led the Sixers to 5 consecutive playoff appearances and 6 appearances overall. He carried that franchise for many years without a lot of offensive help, he's constantly criticized for his low efficiency, high volume shots which is fair, but somewhat unwarranted, he didn't have anyone to take defensive attention away from him.

He won MVP, Scoring title, and led his team to the finals all in one season. Overall his resume is pretty impressive:

11 time all star
MVP
4 scoring titles
3 time All NBA first team
3 time All NBA second team
Rookie of the year
etc

He is 46th in career PER for NBA and 48th for ABA/NBA combined.
22nd all time in career points in NBA and 27th for ABA/NBA combined.

Several years as a top 10 player and arguably even top 5 in 2001.

7th all time in career ppg average.
2nd all time in career playoff ppg average.

His peak is impressive as well : 33 3 7 54 ts% 26 PER..his scoring efficiency is nothing special here but there's nothing wrong with high volume on average efficiency.

So aside from maybe his later years, Iverson had a positive impact on his teams, even though some will deem him as a cancer.

I also disagree that he isn't capable of leading his team to a title, he was 3 games away from doing so and he happened to be up against a dynasty that had 2 top 10 players ever.

Honorable mentions go to Dantley, English, and Elvin Hayes.

[Owly]

vote: Dantley

Considered voting Lanier, but haven't had time to look into his D, and wouldn't make a difference so will vote for a guy I saw as neck and neck with him anyway. Some reasoning/context/thinking on Dantley

Huge boxscore peak: PER 24.64 (league leader '84); WS/48 .235 (ditto)

Longevity / Career added value: 2nd best available on faux-EWA/WS rankings (behind Lanier). 33rd in NBA/ABA combined Win Shares, only Issel of those left on the board is above him and Issel highly dependent on ABA years, 35th in career PER (behind Neil Johnston, Yao Ming, Amare, Lanier, Wilkins and Lovellette).

Intangiables: Mixed but undersold. Highly praised by HoF coaches Wooten and Lefty Driesel and generally praised for strong work ethic. Layden conflict sometimes oversold as covered by Moonbeam, Layden highly complimentary earlier in Utah span. Considered elite in terms of professionalism with regard to conditioning and was considered a mentor (hence "teacher") to Salley and Dumars, for instance helped Dumars with his diet. Negatives would be holding on to the ball too much, defense (though not generally through a lack of effort there), perhaps how things came to a head in Detroit.

Random praise, for what it's worth: Whilst he was active, Wilt called him the 3rd best post scorer of all time, (the best after himself and Kareem).

WoWY Stuff: Slightly disconerting, but contextual factors including but not limited to those covered by Moonbeam, mean I'm not presently super concerned about this, though it is on my radar as an issue.

[Doctor MJ]

Well, I can see the main contenders here, and expect a runoff shortly so I'll go ahead and vote along those lines:

Vote: Dantley

I have a lot of uncertainty around this guy. His stats are GOATworthy, but his impact wasn't. But just how weaker was that impact? I'm not sure, and we're reaching a sphere of debate where I can't honestly say with confidence that they were more capable than Dantley.

I also see that in a Dantley vs Iverson debate, my fear for Dantley is basically what Iverson actually was.

Other guys on my mind right now:

English - he doesn't pop out to me, but I could have easily voted for him by now.

Manu Ginobili - tremendous impact distributed over a long time. His limited minutes an unorthodox role make it difficult to judge him, but it's important to note that in this whole Popovich era, while we praise what's been done with the entire team, there are 3 guys who the +/- data singles out far above the others: Robinson, Duncan, and Ginobili.

Bill Walton - not saying he's imminent on my mind, but we're now at a point that I could see giving him a serious look

Cowens, Reed, Hayes, and Unseld - these guys are slipping and I don't know if that's actually a choice on the community's part. Seems like it might be a quirk of how things are flowing this time.

Pau Gasol - I don't want to overrate him. To me it seems pretty clear that as an alpha, he's good, but not worth getting into yet. But the way he fit into the Lakers, and now the Bulls, going along with his role in Spain, just makes me feel like he's pretty special.

Sheed - Ponder that consistent +/- stuff. Have we reached a point that he needs serious consideration?

KJ - another elite player with limited longevity

[Clyde Frazier]

FYI reed got voted in at 47.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

[trex_8063]

He doesn't get an MVP without the scoring, and everyone being considered for the top 100 is a multiple all-star. His one trip to the finals is not that impressive compared to the playoff runs of players like Worthy or even Billups. Again, all you have is scoring and accolades based on the scoring; change his scoring to the prime season you are talking about and you lose the recognition.

A 20+ppg season at better than 55 ts% has been done 525 times in NBA history (bbr.com for seasons of more than 60 games), it's not that unique a thing.

However, >26 ppg on >56 ts% (selected for anything >40 games) has been done only 135 times in NBA history.
>30 ppg on >54 ts% has been done all of 46 times in NBA history.

EDIT: Add in additional requirement of 7+ apg, and these things have been done a grand total of 19 and 12 times, respectively, in NBA history.

Iverson has done all of these things.

EDIT2: With requirements of >26 ppg, >56 ts%, >7 apg, and <3 topg----->has been done a grand total of 3 times (and Iverson is one).

On the bolded, for each of the above should the qualification "once" be put in place?

Looked into it, and the answer is yes.

Sure, if you want to point out that these types of years were not the norm for him. Although when the frequency of occurrence gets low enough (e.g. maybe 10-20 times, or less, in all of NBA history), I think the "once" label becomes less and less of a disparaging remark. With the one set of categorical criteria in which there are only three qualifying seasons, for instance, I don't think him having just one of the three can much be used against him (more on that one below).

I guess it depends on what the point is here. Is it meant to be that the minimum bar is arbitrary (they are, but more so when you cherry pick the requirements to include a single specific season), or is this a genuine Iverson has unique seasons point.

It's a little bit of both, I guess. I kinda like looking at these types of categorical criteria and seeing who qualifies. I don't put much stock in them, but still think they're interesting, and not totally without application. Where evaluating the uniqueness and/or greatness of a player is concerned, I think they can have variable amounts of relevance or validity, based on a few factors:
1) How many seasons qualify under the set of criteria.
2) WHO the other players who qualify are.
3) How far you must lower the bar on one or more of the criteria before it really opens up to include more players/seasons.
4) How many times the player in question satisfies the criteria (or, as you noted, is it more of a single outlier season for him).
5) What the criteria actually are (i.e. are there any frivolous or obviously discriminating criteria included). For example, suppose we did a search for how many times someone has avg better than 30 ppg/5 rpg/5 apg in the same season: we get a pretty short list of seasons (26, to be precise), generally all by fairly elite-class players. But then suppose we added in a 4th criteria of >35% 3pters: this is a complete frivolous and cherry-picking criteria for two reasons: 1) it automatically and obviously discriminates against the majority of big-men, as well as ALL players who played pre-early/mid 80's; and 2) it adds no value whatsoever to the accomplishment. Shooting >35% from trey /= being better than shooting <35% from trey (or shooting no treys at all). One can still have excellent shooting efficiency without the 3pt factor. e.g. when just selecting for 30/5/5 Michael Jordan has SIX qualifying seasons; throw in the 35% treys factor, and suddenly he has only two qualifying seasons (even though he still had excellent shooting efficiency during the other four years, too).

I recognized that turnovers were not recorded in the NBA before the late 70's, but after considering things, still didn't think including a <3 tov category was much discriminating. Pre-late 70's there were only 9 seasons qualifying even before adding in that category (six from Robertson, two from West, one from Archibald).....and in all instances I thought it at least moderately unlikely (if not highly unlikely) that they averaged <3 tov.
If anything in the criteria I set is discriminatory, it's probably the ts% (just given what league averages were back in the 50's/60's).

For instance Sam Lacey
http://www.basketball-reference.com/pla ... rder_by=ws

Fair point. That one is interesting (and fwiw, I have thought Lacey was a bit of an underrated player). Although this one might be a bit more era-discriminatory because AST% is not shown until '65, TRB% not until '71, and steals and blocks not recorded at all until '74. If these things HAD been tallied earlier, I'd not be surprised to find that Bill Russell had MULTIPLE seasons that satisfy these criteria (EDIT: Actually, it looks like probably not); Wilt might also have 1 or 2 that qualified (perhaps someone like Bob Pettit, as well????). At any rate, Lacey is somewhat an outlier from the other qualifiers (probably moreso than any way in which Iverson could be called an outlier from the others) in that Lacey is the only one (although Noah is close) who is not a relevant scorer for his team.

[penbeast0]

Adrian Dantley (5) -- Doctor MJ, Owly, Clyde Frazier, Moonbeam, penbeast0

Allen Iverson -- Joao Saraiva, trex_8063, E-Balla

Alex English -- ronnymac2, penbeast2

Notanoob -- Bill Walton

Well, it looks like English missed the runoff again. Dantley is the clear statistical leader and has been for a while but I had questions about his team impact and was unimpressed with his defense. Moonbeam, however, has done a great job of answering those questions so I can vote for AD in the runoff pretty easily.