RealGM Top 100 List #54

ceiling raiser · Post #21 » by **ceiling raiser** » Tue Nov 25, 2014 3:36 am

magicmerl wrote:
penbeast0 wrote:The Iverson debate ties into a possible debate between Nate Thurmond and Ben Wallace. Both great defenders and excellent rebounders; offensively, one shoots low efficiency on sometimes high volumes while the other barely shoots at all. If Iverson is a positive offensively despite his efficiency (not compared to other scoring stars this time but just a positive for his team which I think trex has safely established), is Thurmond's inefficient shooting more valuable than Ben's avoidance of shooting and by how much?

If you shoot at low efficiency, I think the less you shoot the better.

Thurmond is an interesting case. He got most of his offense, as far as I can tell, from shooting long jumpers. If he tried to do less offensively, what kind of scoring role would you guys suggest? Putbacks scoring inside off created opportunities mostly? Or do you think the long jumper could have some use? Probably made them at a 40% clip, not sure if defenses would respect the shot enough for it to have spacing value.

Joao Saraiva · Post #22 » by **Joao Saraiva** » Tue Nov 25, 2014 5:25 am

magicmerl wrote:
penbeast0 wrote:The Iverson debate ties into a possible debate between Nate Thurmond and Ben Wallace. Both great defenders and excellent rebounders; offensively, one shoots low efficiency on sometimes high volumes while the other barely shoots at all. If Iverson is a positive offensively despite his efficiency (not compared to other scoring stars this time but just a positive for his team which I think trex has safely established), is Thurmond's inefficient shooting more valuable than Ben's avoidance of shooting and by how much?

If you shoot at low efficiency, I think the less you shoot the better.

That's not entirely true. The player, team and coach just got to make that particular player get easier shots. I'm not saying he should have high volume, but not shooting at all can really hurt your team and make defenses collapse a lot.

Take the 2008 Cavs as an example. Because Ben Wallace did absolutely nothing on offense and his coach didn't help him get anything, the pressure on the other players increased a ton. In the Celtics vs Cavs series you can actually see the negative effect of Wallace on LeBron James. KG and Pierce doubling LeBron or KG simply over helping a lot, because Ben Wallace doesn't do anything. He doesn't even get into good positions for a pass.

ronnymac2 · Post #23 » by **ronnymac2** » Tue Nov 25, 2014 5:42 am

Vote: Alex English

My true contenders for this spot are Nate Thurmond, Alex English, Allen Iverson, and VC.

English is a very good all-around player and might be the most consistently great player left. His 1985 REG SEA and playoffs is one of the underrated peak seasons on this board in my opinion. He could score, pass, rebound, and handle. Took pretty good care of the ball. He led the first 110+ offense in NBA history, too.

Spoiler:

Post #24 » by **trex_8063** » Tue Nov 25, 2014 6:07 am

magicmerl wrote:I don't understand the support for Allen Iverson.

Seriously? Well, it goes like this (much of this is re-cap from prior threads):

Did a year-by-year evaluation of with/without impact during his prime years (in which he missed any games: '99-'02, '04-'06) in Philly, and compared to that of Kevin Johnson during his prime years in PHX. Results were thus:

Spoiler:

Can show the work, year-by-year, if requested. Gist is that KJ appears to have a larger offensive effect, but overall (effect on SRS) his impact on team success appears no better than Iverson's in Philadelphia. Both affected a roughly +4 SRS change on their respective teams. Based on effect on win% (wins added), Iverson---at a glance---has a sizable advantage; however, I don't think that's reliable as wins are more difficult to "add" the nearer the top you are (i.e. elevating an otherwise poor 32/33-win team to a decent 46/47-win team---what Iverson was typically doing throughout his prime in Philly---is likely no larger an accomplishment that elevating an already good 46/47-win team to a very good 54-win team). SRS, I feel, is more reliable.

I was asked about Iverson's effect in Denver. I did not figure the with/without in '07, because it was going to require too much work (given the season is split between two franchises, so cannot simply reference the teams' season stats for comparison); and he didn't miss any games in '08. However, in response I noted that '08 represent Iverson's career best RAPM (and '07 was his 5th-best); his RAPM was significantly higher than Melo's in both years.

On the topic of RAPM:

Spoiler:

Here is a look at PER, WS/48, WS (both rs and playoff for all), Per 100 volume stats, VORP, and BPM, comparing Iverson to four of his top competitors for this spot (KJ, Lanier, Nique, and English), as well as the last two players voted in (Gasol---thru '14 only---and Cowens):

Spoiler:

I also think it's important to note that nearly all of the above metrics are either directly "per minute" stats (PER, WS/48), or indirectly "per minute" (RAPM, BPM, Per 100 stats......all per x possessions, and the more minutes played the more relative possessions played). That in mind, here's some mpg info:
career rs MPG
1. Allen Iverson: 41.1
2. Dave Cowens: 38.6
3. Pau Gasol: 35.6
4. Dominique Wilkins: 35.5
5. Kevin Johnson: 34.1
6. Bob Lanier: 33.5
7. Alex English: 31.9

career playoff MPG
1. Allen Iverson: 45.1
2. Dave Cowens: 42.3
3. Dominique Wilkins: 38.8
4. Pau Gasol: 38.6
5. Kevin Johnson: 36.9
6. Alex English: 35.7
7. Bob Lanier: 35.2

Other thing I'd give consideration to while looking at the above numbers is strength of era: I’d call it a near wash between KJ, Iverson, Wilkins, and Gasol for playing in the toughest era, followed closely by English, then Lanier, with Cowens in the weakest era.

Now, if we were to also add in some more subjective measures which are more media-driven......for instance, MVP Award Shares rank:
Allen Iverson: 24th
Dave Cowens: 29th
Dominique Wilkins: 38th
Bob Lanier: 52nd
Alex English: 75th
Kevin Johnson: 101st
Pau Gasol: never received MVP votes

Accolades, too, would place Iverson at the top of this heap. Depending on how much weight you put in things like that (or really, if you put any weight in these things), it could easily place him at the front of these seven players.

But yeah: media....meh. Hopefully this forum isn't overly media-influenced, so....here's a look at RealGM RPoY Shares rank (bearing in mind that *this forum isn't overly appreciative of Iverson, too *DISCLAIMER: am NOT crying "bias" with that statement, but simply pointing out the criteria trends on this forum do not favor someone like Iverson):
Dave Cowens: 43rd
Bob Lanier: 48th
Allen Iverson: 55th
Dominique Wilkins: 58th
Kevin Johnson: 91st
Alex English: 107th
Pau Gasol: never received any RealGM RPoY votes

Strength of era considerations apply to these things as well.

There's some negative media spin which has dogged Iverson since late in his career, which I think is well addressed in the article Joao Saraiva included in his post, quoted below:

Spoiler:

Joao Saraiva wrote:Vote for Allen Iverson once more. I didn't get to vote for anyone else so far.

"Iverson not only won the 2001 regular season MVP--though I think that Shaquille O'Neal deserved the honor that year--but he received at least one MVP vote in eight of his 13 full seasons. Iverson won the 1997 Rookie of the Year award and two All-Star MVPs while making the All-Star team 10 years in a row (2000-09). Iverson earned seven All-NBA selections, including three First Team nods.

ESPN noted that Iverson is one of only three players in NBA history who averaged at least 25 ppg, five apg and two spg--the others are Michael Jordan and Jerry West; of course, steals have only been officially recorded since 1973-74 in the NBA, so West's "career" average only includes 81 steals in 31 games in his final season, which means that in the past 35 years the only two players to average 25-5-2 during full length careers are Jordan and Iverson.

Numbers rarely tell the whole story but check out Iverson's NBA/ABA ranks in some key categories: fourth in career mpg (41.4), sixth in career scoring average (27.0 ppg), sixth in career spg (2.2), 11th in career free throws made (6277) and 22nd in career points (24,020)--and Iverson stepped up his game in the postseason, ranking second in career ppg (29.7, trailing only Michael Jordan), third in mpg (45.1, trailing only legendary iron man centers Wilt Chamberlain and Bill Russell) and seventh in spg (2.07, just behind Jordan).

Now, let's put those statistics in historical perspective. Iverson lapped the field in career regular season points among the six foot and under set (Hall of Famer Calvin Murphy is second with 17,949)--but he also scored more career points than Charles Barkley, Robert Parish, Adrian Dantley, Elgin Baylor, Clyde Drexler, Gary Payton or Larry Bird! The regular season career mpg leader list is dominated by Hall of Fame big men like Chamberlain, Russell, Jerry Lucas and Bob Pettit, plus powerfully built swingmen Oscar Robertson, Elgin Baylor and LeBron James. Jerry West is the only other relatively small player in the top ten and he is a legit 6-3; Latrell Sprewell, a 6-5 shooting guard, rounds out the top 10.

The free throw numbers are a testament to Iverson's mental and physical toughness: he repeatedly drove to the hoop, crashed into players who were literally 100 pounds heavier than he is, accepted the punishment and made the free throws. You can legitimately question Iverson's shot selection at times but you can never question his heart, his toughness or his will to win.

Iverson's defense is often berated but he was a two-time Big East Defensive Player of the Year at Georgetown and his steals numbers in the NBA attest to the fact that he certainly put forth some effort at that end of the court despite the huge offensive load that he carried. Iverson was not a lock down defender but he proved under Coach Larry Brown in Philadelphia that he could be a cog on a very good defensive team and lead that team to the NBA Finals.

Iverson won four NBA scoring titles, matching 6-7 Hall of Famer George Gervin and exceeding every other player in pro basketball history except for Jordan (10) and Chamberlain (seven). Iverson won as many scoring titles as Kobe Bryant, LeBron James and Dwyane Wade combined! It is certainly true that Iverson did not shoot a great percentage from the field but TNT commentator Doug Collins consistently made the excellent observation that because Iverson drew so much attention with his bold forays to the hoop his misses often turned into excellent offensive rebounding opportunities for his teammates.

Many players who attempt 18-20 or more field goals per game get labeled as "selfish gunners" (though no one says that about LeBron James or Dwyane Wade). I have often expressed justifiable skepticism about how assists are officially recorded but the assist still remains the only statistic we have to quantify passing and it is worth noting that Iverson ranked in the top ten in the NBA in that category four different times, amassing a career average of 6.2 apg--better than Walt Frazier, Dave Bing and Chauncey Billups, among others.

Iverson and Billups will always be linked, of course, because Detroit's trade of Billups and Antonio McDyess to Denver for Iverson in November 2008 seems--in retrospect--to be the beginning of the end of Iverson's career. Much has been written about that trade and its aftermath--and most of what has been written is garbage. Let's dispel a few myths:

1) Contrary to revisionist history, Iverson did not "fail" in Denver: he ranked seventh in scoring and eighth in assists in 2006-07 and third in scoring and ninth in assists in 2007-08. The Nuggets made the playoffs both years, including a 50 win season in 2007-08 that was the best regular season performance by that franchise since 1987-88. In 2007, the Nuggets lost in the first round of the playoffs to the eventual champion Spurs, winning one more playoff game against San Antonio than LeBron James' Eastern Conference champions did in the NBA Finals. In 2008, the Nuggets were swept in the first round by the eventual Western Conference champion Lakers; Iverson led the Nuggets in scoring and assists during that series, while Carmelo Anthony shot just .364 from the field and led the Nuggets in turnovers.

2) Although Billups certainly played very well for Denver last season, the "change in culture" in Denver largely consisted of big men Nene and Kenyon Martin getting healthy, Chris Andersen playing better than anyone expected and several Western Conference teams battling injuries to key players (Spurs, Mavs, Suns, Jazz), thus enabling the Nuggets to move up in the standings. The Nuggets exceeded their 2008 win total by four, blew by undermanned Dallas and New Orleans teams in the playoffs and then lost to the Lakers.

3) When the Pistons acquired Iverson, Joe Dumars said that the team would use Iverson's ability to create shots for himself and others to become a more explosive offensive team, particularly in the fourth quarter, a time when the Pistons too often became stagnant during the past few years in the playoffs. Early in the season, Iverson played brilliantly in a Detroit win over the Lakers but the Pistons inexplicably decided that Rodney Stuckey must be in the starting lineup no matter what. That meant that either Iverson or Richard Hamilton would have to come off of the bench, a role that neither All-Star player is accustomed to filling. It made no sense for the Pistons to bring in Iverson and not let him play the way that he is used to playing, especially when Dumars specifically said that he acquired Iverson to make the Pistons more explosive offensively.

There is merit to the argument that regardless of what was said to Iverson that he should do whatever his coach asks him to do--including coming off of the bench--but clearly Iverson is too honest and too prideful to do that; Iverson does not want to sit behind inferior players. I think that Iverson is still capable of averaging 20-plus ppg for a playoff team but the poor way that the Pistons treated him--and the defiant way that Iverson responded--has clearly lowered Iverson's perceived value. The Memphis experiment was obviously doomed from the start and the less that is said about that brief moment in his career the better.

It is bitterly ironic that in the immediate wake of Iverson's retirement announcement, Iverson's name was one of just six--the others being Kobe Bryant, Tim Duncan, Kevin Garnett, LeBron James and Shaquille O'Neal--mentioned during ESPN's NBA Shootaround as a candidate for "Player of the Decade." Love him or hate him, there is no denying Iverson's colossal impact on NBA history."

By David Friedman.

Found it very interesting to see the points about Iverson with Denver, and also some other aspects.

However in terms of Iverson's positive impact I think it has all been said: trex made some awesome points about it but some people here choose to ignore that. Definitely had a better impact than Dantley for example. And I'm not saying bad about Dantley, I actually thought he was a great player and one of the few I'd see as a possibly ranking over Allen Iverson in the multiple run offs he had...

I have no problem with people voting for someone other than Iverson here (Lanier is looking more formidable the longer I look at him). But given all of the above, I cannot fathom a sound reasoning for him to not even be in the discussion (which seems to be your implication).

One could disregard all subjective opinion, and all subjective and/or media-driven indicators (like accolades and MVP award shares, etc).......using the above objective metrics only, Iverson is very clearly at least "in the mix" among these guys.

Vote for #54: Allen Iverson.

Post #25 » by **Texas Chuck** » Tue Nov 25, 2014 3:26 pm

Official Vote: Dennis Rodman

Same as last time:

GOAT level rebounding--especially offensively
Elite defender with multiple DPOY and could legit guard all 5 positions and actually did so. Not theory like KG or Lebron.
Big part of 5 champions
Couldn't score, but still managed to be effective offensively with screens, O-rebounds, and good passing skills
Got into the heads of his opponents

Post #26 » by **penbeast0** » Tue Nov 25, 2014 4:16 pm

I have been a non-supporter of Iverson pretty consistently, but if Nique is getting votes, Iverson does deserve to be in the discussion. Nique and Iverson are very reasonably comparable plaers. It doesn't mean I will vote for Iverson over superior scorers like English or Carter, nor does it mean I value what he brings more than I value the contributions of a Dennis Rodman or Bobby Jones, but in the discusson . . . sure.

Post #27 » by **trex_8063** » Tue Nov 25, 2014 4:39 pm

penbeast0 wrote:I have been a non-supporter of Iverson pretty consistently, but if Nique is getting votes, Iverson does deserve to be in the discussion. Nique and Iverson are very reasonably comparable plaers. It doesn't mean I will vote for Iverson over superior scorers like English or Carter, nor does it mean I value what he brings more than I value the contributions of a Dennis Rodman or Bobby Jones, but in the discusson . . . sure.

Agree they're fairly comparable. I've edited my above post to include Nique's stance in all those rankings.

Post #28 » by **trex_8063** » Tue Nov 25, 2014 5:22 pm

Thru post #27:

Alex English (2) - penbeast0, ronnymac2

Allen Iverson (2) - Joao Saraiva, trex_8063

Bob Lanier (1) - Owly

Dominique Wilkins (1) - JordansBulls

Kevin Johnson (2) - Quotatious, john248

Ben Wallace (1) - magicmerl

Dennis Rodman (1) - Chuck Texas

~7-8 hours to run-off time....

Owly · Post #29 » by **Owly** » Tue Nov 25, 2014 5:59 pm

Alex English (2) -- penbeast0, ronnymac2

Allen Iverson (2) -- Joao Saraiva, trex_8063

Bob Lanier (1) -- Owly

Kevin Johnson (2) – Quotatious, John248

Dennis Rodman (1) -- Chuck Texas

Dominique Wilkins (1) – JordansBulls

Ben Wallace (1) -- magicmerl
The first ballot Gasol voters (RSCD3_, RayBan-Sematra) and Doc (Manu last time) yet to vote.

Had to leave computer, see this has since already been done. Ah well.

Ah well, my pitch for the non-voters. Lanier has Gasol like numbers (except a little better) I think he's the only player capable of having a two way impact (unless you're of the opinion Rodman was so good on the boards that he constitutes a plus there), though it seems he might not have done so consistently (waxing positive: clear with/without total impact and strong some positive reviews including aparent mobility, including a willingness to switch that's perhaps surprising given his size; negative: team metrics). He has less intangiable questions than some of the others on the board (that's my issue with Rodman around here and for me it's a huge one, I think for an handful of years, especially but not necessarily limited to San Antonio he's a huge liability to a contender), is probably the best playoff player, and may, at the borderline, arguably, perhaps, be the last conventional centerpiece from the "modern era" (McAdoo, but arguably a very short window, and reviews on D are less positive).

Oh and on AI, I'm certainly fine with him in the conversation. It's narrow margins at this point (and maybe portability given you aren't necessarily talking best player on a non-ensemble consistent credible contender here) so that means I wouldn't be outraged by him staying out for a while, but equally he could get in now. The Nique comparison too seems reasonable (Nique better in the RS, AI in the playoffs; I'm typically an "RS guy" but the playoff numbers for Dominique are somewhat of an issue).

Post #30 » by **Clyde Frazier** » Tue Nov 25, 2014 8:04 pm

Vote for #54 - Alex English

After dantley got in I said I was between cowens, hayes and english. Now cowens is in, and I didn't get a chance today to do a full write up for a vote. As I looked at dantley vs. english, I came away really impressed with english's versatility as a scorer, and still brought an all around skill set to the table. He was about as consistent as anyone at a high volume for a long time (26.9 PPG on 55.7% TS from 81-89). During that span he only missed a total of 5 games, and his playoff production was similarly impressive.

Will be considering iverson soon.

Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

magicmerl · Post #31 » by **magicmerl** » Tue Nov 25, 2014 8:38 pm

fpliii wrote:
magicmerl wrote:
penbeast0 wrote:The Iverson debate ties into a possible debate between Nate Thurmond and Ben Wallace. Both great defenders and excellent rebounders; offensively, one shoots low efficiency on sometimes high volumes while the other barely shoots at all. If Iverson is a positive offensively despite his efficiency (not compared to other scoring stars this time but just a positive for his team which I think trex has safely established), is Thurmond's inefficient shooting more valuable than Ben's avoidance of shooting and by how much?

If you shoot at low efficiency, I think the less you shoot the better.

Thurmond is an interesting case. He got most of his offense, as far as I can tell, from shooting long jumpers. If he tried to do less offensively, what kind of scoring role would you guys suggest? Putbacks scoring inside off created opportunities mostly? Or do you think the long jumper could have some use? Probably made them at a 40% clip, not sure if defenses would respect the shot enough for it to have spacing value.

Would it have been possible for him to set up closer to the basket? That would have presumably increased both his efficiency and offensive rebounding. It's hard to say since he was a product of his times and the 60s were not the efficiency era.

Post #32 » by **Doctor MJ** » Tue Nov 25, 2014 9:07 pm

Vote: Kevin Johnson

Y'know as I think about it, Johnson was pretty damn elite. He's a guy who I wonder if he'd be considerably better if he played today too. He's a scoring guard like Iverson, who did it without taking bad shots. That's a big deal.

Longevity is the concern, but I was just looking at Win Shares and realized he was right up there with Iverson, English, Ginobili, etc. Seems like an appropriate time to vote him in.

ceiling raiser · Post #33 » by **ceiling raiser** » Tue Nov 25, 2014 9:14 pm

magicmerl wrote:Would it have been possible for him to set up closer to the basket? That would have presumably increased both his efficiency and offensive rebounding. It's hard to say since he was a product of his times and the 60s were not the efficiency era.

Good question. I'm not sure if getting good position was within his skillset. I'm going to have to defer to people who watched him live to get their viewpoints (apologies if I'm missing anybody...).

johnlac1 wrote:tag

Samurai wrote:tag

penbeast0 wrote:tag

Post #34 » by **Texas Chuck** » Tue Nov 25, 2014 9:58 pm

Doctor MJ wrote:
Y'know as I think about it, Johnson was pretty damn elite.

I've been thinking the same thing the last few threads. He definitely doesn't get enough mention when we talk about the best PGs ever and while he's not on that top tier, he's really really good. And if we start talking about just the offensive end, I'm not sure he doesn't belong in the top 5-6 of all-time.

Not quite ready to change my vote from Rodman, but yeah KJ was a pretty special player.

Post #35 » by **penbeast0** » Tue Nov 25, 2014 10:08 pm

Alright, this time it's Alex English v. Kevin Johnson . . . both classy guys and good scorers. English was more prolific and more consistent as well as healthier; Johnson adds elite playmaking to his scoring.

RayBan-Sematra · Post #36 » by **RayBan-Sematra** » Tue Nov 25, 2014 10:59 pm

VOTE : English

Two great offensive players here who both belong in the discussion by now.
Johnson was more explosive and certainly more exciting to watch but English was more consistent and has noticeably superior durability & longevity.

English has 8 really solid elite years and 2-3 other really good years.
Johnson has about 8-9 elite years but nothing much outside of that.
Seems arguable Kevin's playoff resume is slightly better then Alex's.
So overall its close but I decided to go with English.

Owly · Post #37 » by **Owly** » Tue Nov 25, 2014 11:09 pm

Peak wise English's best PER 24.12 (64th), KJ's 23.72 (77th); KJ oddly enough ranks (or ranked, as before the database isn't absolutely up to date) at the exact same position in WS peak with 0.2202 (77th); but English's best just .166 places him outside the top 251. English is thus ineligible (or not qualified) for a PPR ranking, KJ is 61st (with a PPR score of 108.8944443).

KJ has 9 top 2000ish player seasons by PER (not including last year, I think 1000, minutes bar, so that I wasn't arbitrarily cutting off in the middle of one DP by alphabetical order it's actually a top 2026 season or player-seasons above 17.9 PER). Though not necessarily full schedules. Also 9 top 2000ish (2046) Win Share per 48 seasons (.144 WS/48 or better).

English has 11 such PER seasons, just 4 above the WS/48 bar.

From this plus the general boxscore comparisons (mine in the last thread, trex's here) KJ seems to have a fair (overall) advantage by the metrics though in the postseason English's numbers sneak ahead (KJ's postseason numbers are very volatile, slightly dragged down by an awful comeback year playoffs).

Both (as I think Pen alluded to) won the J. Walter Kennedy Citizenship award (sometimes KJ was getting questioned whether he was focusing too much on outside stuff, kinda like David Robinson, though IMO this type of criticism seems harsh).

Neither was great on D, but nor were they bad. English probably better than most of the scoring minded 80s SFs. KJ, from what I've read, improved when Barkley arrived and he could focus more on D (having more energy).

Anyway enough waffling, given the metric advantage (and I guess team level performance helps corroborate) I'm picking KJ.

magicmerl · Post #38 » by **magicmerl** » Tue Nov 25, 2014 11:09 pm

I'm inclined to agree. English has a excellent TOV as well.

Alex English

Post #39 » by **Doctor MJ** » Wed Nov 26, 2014 12:25 am

[quote="trex_8063"]
Did a year-by-year evaluation of with/without impact during his prime years (in which he missed any games: '99-'02, '04-'06) in Philly, and compared to that of Kevin Johnson during his prime years in PHX. Results were thus:

Spoiler:

Can show the work, year-by-year, if requested. Gist is that KJ appears to have a larger offensive effect, but overall (effect on SRS) his impact on team success appears no better than Iverson's in Philadelphia. Both affected a roughly +4 SRS change on their respective teams. Based on effect on win% (wins added), Iverson---at a glance---has a sizable advantage; however, I don't think that's reliable as wins are more difficult to "add" the nearer the top you are (i.e. elevating an otherwise poor 32/33-win team to a decent 46/47-win team---what Iverson was typically doing throughout his prime in Philly---is likely no larger an accomplishment that elevating an already good 46/47-win team to a very good 54-win team). SRS, I feel, is more reliable.[/spoiler]

So first let me compliment you on doing this work. A solid project.

My thoughts:

1. Fundamentally what we're talking about with Iverson is a guy on pretty weak offenses, with high volume & weak efficiency, who showed a lot of resistance toward working with teammates to make a cohesive unit. Were you to ask me generally how well such a guy translates to actual strong offenses, I would say he was suspect. This is something you commented on as a factor so I'm not saying you don't know it, or that you ignore it, just saying that to me there's a fundamental issue when considering him against guy who proved themselves while working with others.

2. KJ of course, is a high efficiency guy who typically played on exceptional offenses, and part of the reason his on/off doesn't look as good is because that's what happens when you play with other strong talent. KJ & Barkley did great things together, but they were also capable of doing some great things apart, which makes both look weaker by on/off that you might expect.

3. I really respect the on/off analysis, but it's not the same thing as +/-. And while that's not entirely a bad thing because it gives some information +/- can't, it's also far noisier. Fundamentally it's just tough to get past the fact that +/- data doesn't rate Iverson very well, and teams basically did okay when they moved on from him.

Joao Saraiva · Post #40 » by **Joao Saraiva** » Wed Nov 26, 2014 12:26 am

Run off vote: Alex English

Great volume scorer: top 5 in the NBA 6 times in his career.

He had very good efficiency trough his best years in the NBA, frequently above 55%ts on more than 25 PPG.

Decent playmaker and rebounder, but not elite at any of those categories.

He also was a good playoff performer, it's just a shame that we didn't get a bigger sample for his playoff performances, but that's really not his fault.