APBRmetrics

Posted: **Tue Nov 19, 2013 11:49 pm**

I wonder where do voters rank Allen Iverson? I see votes for players that never got past the first round...

McGrady has one vote. Do you see any others?
Iverson's here by virtue of being previously elected at around the 40-45 ranking (along with Cousy, Paul, McGrady ,and Parish). That's where I have him ranked, too, at #41.
J Brocato had him at #56 last time I checked.
d-rell had him #30
Need to Argue had him at #72 a couple of years ago.
Slam had Iverson at #40, but that was 2 or more years ago.

His playoffs were very good. I take the ratio of playoffs/regular season production. For average players, this is about .93; Iverson's po/rs is 1.03, meaning he had better numbers in playoffs.
Of 70 players we've elected or are now voting for, this (1.03) is below only 10 others: Isiah (1.10), Olajuwon, Jordan, Reggie, Barry, McGrady, Mikan, Cowens, Hayes, and Worthy.

Hey, there's McGrady! He was actually great in playoffs. His teammates weren't, though.
http://bkref.com/tiny/mCOa2
Others have had lots of team success without being individually that great.

Posted: **Wed Nov 20, 2013 12:25 pm**

Seeing that McGrady has fine playoff numbers, I wondered if his failure to reach the 2nd round was mostly or entirely due to failures by his teammates. It seems he had some heroic efforts fall just short of a win, in some elimination games.

Well, we can look up his stats in wins and in losses, here: http://bkref.com/tiny/PkQY5
I've limited the search to his Orlando and Houston years, 2001 to 2009, when he was the Man. This drops 3 playoff games for the Raps (2000) and a few more for the Hawks and Spurs, when he hardly played.
After mpg, these are per 36 minute rates.

Code: Select all

po  G   mpg   2fga   2fg%  3fga  3fg%  FTA   FT%  ORb  DRb   Ast  Stl  Blk    TO    Pts   TS%   GmSc
W  13  43.8   15.9  .484   4.2  .373   7.5  .746   .8  4.6   6.1  1.6  1.1   2.3   25.8  .549   24.5
L  22  42.0   16.6  .456   4.4  .259   7.9  .752  1.3  4.7   5.1   .9   .9   2.9   24.5  .501   18.8

In losses, he actually shot more, and worse from both 2 and 3. Lots worse from 3.
Assists are down in losses, possibly due to teammates shooting worse.

Iverson started all 71 playoff appearances:

Code: Select all

    G    mpg   2fga  2fg%   3fga  3fg%  FTA   FT%   Reb   Ast   Stl   Pts   TS%    GmSc
W  30   45.7   18.2  .436   4.3  .418   7.4  .782   3.5   5.1   2.1   27.1  .525   23.7
L  41   44.7   15.9  .406   4.1  .256   6.8  .749   2.7   4.5   1.3   21.2  .459   14.7

No appreciable differences in TO, PF, or Blk . In general, it seems his teams were even more dependent upon him than were McGrady's. That is, when he did badly, they lost.
With Iverson, Denver was 1-8 in playoff games. That skews some of these numbers a bit (FGA, 3fg%, Pts)

Posted: **Thu Nov 21, 2013 2:40 pm**

With 6 1/2 people voting, there are no unanimous picks.
5 - Ewing
4 - Drexler, Havlicek, Pippen, Wade
3 - Barry, Frazier, Hayes, Pierce, Schayes
2 - Cousy, Gilmore, Kidd, McHale, Mikan, Nash, Payton, Ben Wallace
1 - Cowens, Durant, Gervin, Iverson, McGrady, Reggie, Mourning, Mutombo, Parker, Paul, Isiah, Thurmond, Unseld, Dominique

Clearly as we get further from top 10 or top 20, there's a greater divergence of opinion. Right now, just 5 of 48 candidates have more than half of possible votes. Just 10 have 3 of 6.5 votes.
And 16 of 48 have zero votes.

If we vote for more players in each round, we get more ties. The process moves along more quickly; but there are many players who aren't being debated whatsoever. This isn't necessarily a problem, and we don't have to be in a hurry. Except that, in dating this poll, the season is ongoing. The longer we debate Durant or Howard or Paul, the more their careers will upgrade.

Posted: **Thu Nov 21, 2013 11:34 pm**

Here are some of Scottie Pippen's numbers (per 36 minutes) in playoff wins and losses.

Code: Select all

po   G   mpg   2fga  2fg%  3fga  3fg%   FTA   FT%   Reb   Ast   Stl   Blk   TO    PF    Pts   TS%
W  136   39.1  10.8  .510   2.5  .320   5.2  .721   7.0   4.9   1.9   .9   2.6   2.8   17.1  .551
L   72   38.7   9.8  .426   3.7  .281   3.9  .731   7.2   4.3   1.4   .7   2.8   3.5   14.3  .471

There's a rather profound difference. He rarely was The Man, yet his performance was highly correlated with his teams' success in big games.

Patrick Ewing

Code: Select all

po  G   mpg   2fga  2fg%   FTA   FT%   ORb   DRb   Ast  Stl   Blk    TO    PF   Pts    TS%   GmSc
W  72  37.9   16.5  .486   5.9  .733   2.5   8.0   2.0   .9   2.3   2.3   3.5   20.6  .535   16.6
L  67  37.0   15.6  .453   5.6  .701   2.2   7.1   1.8   .8   1.9   2.4   3.8   18.2  .497   12.8

Clyde Drexler:

Code: Select all

po  G   mpg   2fg%  3fg%   FTA   FT%   Reb   Ast   Stl   Blk   TO    PF   Pts   TS%    GmSc
W  68  39.9   .510  .299   5.9  .777   6.8   6.2   1.9   .8   2.3   2.9   20.1  .552   19.6
L  63  38.7   .474  .278   5.3  .792   6.2   5.0   1.6   .6   2.8   3.2   18.7  .518   15.2

Drex didn't shoot that much worse in losses; just less of everything else.

Dwyane Wade:

Code: Select all

po  G   mpg   2fga  2fg%   3fga  3fg%  FTA   FT%   DRb   Reb    TO    Pts    TS%   GmSc
W  82  39.0   14.8  .506   1.3  .441   7.9  .788   4.2   5.6   3.1   22.9   .585   19.4
L  50  40.4   14.6  .471   2.2  .214   5.7  .752   2.8   4.1   3.5   19.5   .503   14.4

When DWade is getting DReb and FTA, they win. When it's 3's, they lose.
http://bkref.com/tiny/92wyy

Paul Pierce:

Code: Select all

po  G   mpg   2fga  2fg%   3fga  3fg%  FTA   FT%   ORb  DRb   Ast    TO    Pts   TS%   GmSc
W  72  38.9   10.3  .468   4.1  .400   6.7  .841   .7   5.3   3.7   2.5   20.2  .582   16.1
L  64  40.8    9.8  .436   4.5  .279   6.4  .825   .9   4.6   3.4   3.4   17.6  .514   12.1

No exceptions to the rule: It's very hard to win a playoff game when your main man is struggling.

Ron Harper:

Code: Select all

po  G  mpg   2fga  2fg%   3fga 3fg%   FTA   FT%   ORb   Reb   Ast  Blk    TO    Pts   TS%   GmSc
W  77  26.2   8.0  .507   2.4  .313   3.1  .709   1.7   5.2   3.8   .7   1.3   12.5   .534   8.3
L  35  28.2   8.8  .471   2.2  .246   2.2  .667   1.1   4.6   3.5  1.3   1.7   11.4   .475   7.2

Even for a middling player like Harp, performance is rather closely tied to teams' winning or not.

Steve Kerr:

Code: Select all

po  G   mpg  2fga  2fg%   3fga  3fg%  FTA   FT%   ORb  DRb   Ast    PF    Pts   TS%
W  85  16.0   4.0  .500   4.3  .404   1.9  .863   .4   1.7   2.6   2.4   10.8   .595
L  43  14.7   4.2  .446   3.7  .288   1.4  .917   .6   1.1   3.3   2.9    8.2   .482

Even a 15 mpg guy on a talented team is much different in wins and in losses.

Posted: **Sun Nov 24, 2013 9:35 am**

Mike G wrote:Iverson started all 71 playoff appearances:
Code: Select all
    G    mpg   2fga  2fg%   3fga  3fg%  FTA   FT%   Reb   Ast   Stl   Pts   TS%    GmSc
W  30   45.7   18.2  .436   4.3  .418   7.4  .782   3.5   5.1   2.1   27.1  .525   23.7
L  41   44.7   15.9  .406   4.1  .256   6.8  .749   2.7   4.5   1.3   21.2  .459   14.7
No appreciable differences in TO, PF, or Blk . In general, it seems his teams were even more dependent upon him than were McGrady's. That is, when he did badly, they lost.
With Iverson, Denver was 1-8 in playoff games. That skews some of these numbers a bit (FGA, 3fg%, Pts)

As you stated his playoff games with Denver where he wasn't the only man skews the numbers considerably. However, things may look different from where you look at the numbers. For example Iverson has been known for his low FG%. However, his career 52% TS equals NBA average (1996-2010) with 31.8% usage. Only Jordan, Kobe and Wade's USG% surpass his. From FGA/m*36 perspective, there are 33 players who played more than 100 games and had 19+ fga per 36 mins. When we sort the list by TS%, Iverson's placed at 14.

This is the Iverson bias I was talking about. Is he a ballhog that jacks up shots? There are at least 30 players comes before Iverson. Is he a bad shooter? No. He's a better shooter than majority of NBA players, absolutely.

Also as per/min stats, one may argue what's the point of being a better per/min player, if you can't help your team for 10+ minutes each game. I would always give more value to per/game stats. There's a reason coaches sit players. And that's called stamina. Stamina should be an another ranking factor.

Do I have to mention when it comes to per game, Iverson in Philly (or even in Denver) would roll the floor with T-Mac and most of these top 35 guys?

Posted: **Sun Nov 24, 2013 10:29 am**

From FGA/m*36 perspective, there are 33 players who played more than 100 games and had 19+ fga per 36 mins. When we sort the list by TS%, Iverson's placed at 14.

This is true. In regular seasons, Iverson was a better shooter than Togo Palazzi, Fred Hilton, Joe Ruklick, Bubbles Hawkins, and other historic chuckers.
Add the ABA, and he's 15th of 38. http://bkref.com/tiny/BubtE

The most recent player to shoot as often, and worse than Iverson's .518 career TS%, would be Quintin Dailey (1983-92). Before him, John Williamson (1974-81). Such players don't come along very often these days.

... with 31.8% usage. Only Jordan, Kobe and Wade's USG% surpass his.

Of 8 players with 30+ Usg% and 500 games, Iverson is 8th in TS%, 8th in ORtg, 8th in WS/48, tied for last in PER.

Of 18 players with Usg% >28, Iverson's TS% is 17th -- better than Pete Maravich. His ORtg is also better than Glenn Robinson's. His WS/48 also beats Aguirre and Free.
http://bkref.com/tiny/L2ciR

I'm kind of an Iverson fan, and I think some of his value is missed by the stats. By playing long minutes, he got big totals, and that's good. But his efficiencies are not going to look good by any statistical measure, vs similar high-usage stars.

Before Larry Brown came along and resigned himself to making Iverson the heart of the franchise, there was plenty of speculation that he was uncoachable and not a player who could bring out the best in teammates. So a great experiment was undertaken, to see if in fact a team could be built around him. And it was done about as well as possible, and they were good for a time.

The argument that no other player could have led that group to the 2001 Finals is sort of like saying no replacement engine could work as well in a Ford Escort. It doesn't mean the original engine is that great, but that no other will fit in it -- and so what?

Posted: **Sun Nov 24, 2013 8:56 pm**

Hard to fathom seeing Wallace with same amount of votes for the top 35 of all time as Cousy or Mikan.

Posted: **Mon Nov 25, 2013 11:04 am**

It means there isn't just one supporter of an odd choice, but two.
I'm not inclined to elect any player getting just 2 of 7 votes. If we advance those with 3 or more votes, that's only 10 players.

If we stop at 10 electees for this round, we'd have a Top 33. And to move things along, we may as well shift into high gear and try for 25 in succeeding rounds.
This produces more ties, but maybe at this level it's no biggie. Cousy vs Iverson? -- off the top of my head, I can't call one over the other.

Another trend that seems to be persistent is that we 'like' players based on their impact on the game. Sometimes the impact is not immediately felt, during the player's career. For example, Magic and Bird were equal in their time; but in retrospect, we seem to have decided Magic had more impact.

Karl Malone impacted 1600 games, was the best player on the floor in perhaps 70% of them; but he didn't redefine anything, maybe. And we freely admit we don't like him.

Posted: **Mon Nov 25, 2013 11:25 am**

@MikeG

So you're saying Iverson is inefficient because his TS% (which is the same with T-Mac's but I don't remember anyone that blamed McGrady for his FG% or TS%) 51.8% is barely lower than... let's say Kobe's 55.5%.

Then I say, Kobe is ineffecient because he lacks Iverson's stamina thus his minutes were always lower and his PPG, APG, SPG numbers are lower than Iverson's. Let's compare the numbers.

Iverson's career numbers (Philadelphia, Denver, Detroit, Memphis, Philadelphia)

PPG: 26.7 (sixth all-time)
APG: 6.2
SPG: 2.2 (eight all-time - tie)
RPG: 3.7
BPG: 0.2
MVP: 1

Iverson's numbers from 1996-2006 Philadelphia run
PPG: 28.1 (third all-time behind Jordan and Chamberlain) (4 scoring titles)
APG: 6.2
SPG: 2.4 (fifth all-time) (3 straight titles)
RPG: 4.0
BPG: 0.2
MVP: 1

Kobe's career numbers
PPG: 25.5 (2 scoring titles)
APG: 4.8
SPG: 1.5
RPG: 5.3
BPG: 0.5
MVP: 1

Iverson's career playoff numbers
PPG: 29.7 (second all-time)
APG: 6.0
SPG: 2.1 (seventh all-time)
RPG: 3.8
BPG: 0.2

Iverson's playoff numbers from Philadelphia run
PPG: 30.6 (second all-time)
APG: 6.1
SPG: 2.2 (second all-time - tie)
RPG: 4.2
BPG: 0.2

Kobe's playoff numbers
PPG: 25.6
APG: 4.7
SPG: 1.4
RPG: 5.1
BPG: 0.7

But Iverson's 51.8% TS is lower than Kobe's 55.5% TS right? Is that why some say Kobe belongs to top 5 but Iverson doesn't even belong to top 35? Then Steve Nash or Kevin Durant should be the best player of all time.

As long as you accept stamina is a factor, you don't have a real argument besides TS% or FG%. I don't care about invalid arguments such as WS or championships or too noisy RAPM.

Posted: **Mon Nov 25, 2013 2:52 pm**

... some say Kobe belongs to top 5 but Iverson doesn't even belong to top 35?

In round 1, we picked 6. Iverson had one vote, Kobe zero.
In round 2, we picked #7-15. Kobe got 4 of 7 votes, so was elected to that stratum.

It may well be that Iverson will be elected in the next round, somewhere in the 30-50 range.
As for his stamina or durability, in his 10 full Philly seasons, he played in 682 of a possible 788 games. That's 71 of every 82 games.
At age 33 or 34, he was unemployable. Kobe at that age was still all-NBA 1st team. Ivy was done at that level by age 29.

During his prime, 1999-2008, in these 10 years he led the league in MPG 7 times and in PPG 4 times.
He narrowly led the league in Pts/Min one time -- 26.1 Pts/36 in 2005, over Amare's 25.9
Iverson shot .532 TS% that year, to Amare's .617

Posted: **Mon Nov 25, 2013 8:25 pm**

Whatever. Everyone has his/her own opinions. I don't give much value to per/min numbers along with some of the advanced metrics you seem to use consistently. However I think, NBA average of TS% in Iverson era and T-Mac's TS% somewhat have proven the bias against Iverson and his so-called poor shooting. Also, Iverson keep that average although he dominates the ball and takes the contested shots. There are better shooters with high usage thanks to their height and work ethic but that alone doesn't make them better players than Iverson. Nor does championships and theoritical advanced stats which highly depend on estimates.

Posted: **Tue Nov 26, 2013 6:17 am**

permaximum wrote:Whatever. Everyone has his/her own opinions. I don't give much value to per/min numbers along with some of the advanced metrics you seem to use consistently. However I think, NBA average of TS% in Iverson era and T-Mac's TS% somewhat have proven the bias against Iverson and his so-called poor shooting. Also, Iverson keep that average although he dominates the ball and takes the contested shots. There are better shooters with high usage thanks to their height and work ethic but that alone doesn't make them better players than Iverson. Nor does championships and theoritical advanced stats which highly depend on estimates.

Who said anything about t-mac? Seems he isn't really getting votes at this point either. I think you're leaning too heavily on the one year where Iverson lead his team to the finals. But other than that did he ever even get past the 2nd round? And consider the Billups trade where 08 Denver lost in the first round with Iverson then went to the WCF with Billups the next season while Detroit went to the ECF with Billups in 08 but lost in the first round with Iverson in 09.

Posted: **Tue Nov 26, 2013 12:55 pm**

Maybe the refs were also biased against Iverson?
One thing I really enjoyed about the 2001 Finals was that there were several occasions when Iverson and Shaq were somehow isolated together. Iverson seemed to score on the big man every time. The opposite was also true.

I also thought McKie would give Kobe a fight at both ends, but that didn't happen. Iverson never looked quite so alone. But it was pretty clear who the 'real mvp' was.
That year we saw the stark duality of the mvp argument: Iverson missed a few games, and his team floundered, proving how valuable he was. Shaq missed his usual few, and his team struggled, proving what an unreliable teammate he is.

Both guys ultimately got just the one MVP, making them equal on that list.
Both were the quickest players ever seen at their size. If Shaq were 6-0 and 160, he'd have been Iverson, and vise versa.

McGrady we might say was midway in size and repertoire. He may have had the most talent and the least work ethic of the three. Tough call there. Shaq had the longest career and greatest impact due to his size.

Voting will end in the next few hours.

Posted: **Tue Nov 26, 2013 2:07 pm**

I don't particularly want in on the Iverson debate but I notice amongst all the numbers above turnovers are missing. I couldn't do a comprehensive search, but I could only see Magic and Isiah above him in (NBA) career tpg. Maravich, too but on a limited sample.

Posted: **Tue Nov 26, 2013 3:08 pm**

Of those 18 players with career Usg% > 28 (linked a few posts earlier), Iverson ranks 11th best in TO%, tied with LeBron at 12.2, just behind Shaq.
Worse are Karl Malone, John Drew, Ewing, Glenn Robinson, Wade (13.6) and Maravich.
Jordan was best (9.3), then Wilkins, Carter, McGrady..

Looking at players with Usg% > 25, Iverson ranks 32 of 75 in TO%.
http://bkref.com/tiny/jUKpQ

Last call for votes!

APBRmetrics

Vote for the all-time top 85 players

Re: Vote for the all-time top 35 players

Re: Vote for the all-time top 35 players

Re: Vote for the all-time top 35 players

Re: Vote for the all-time top 35 players

Re: Vote for the all-time top 35 players

Re: Vote for the all-time top 35 players

Re: Vote for the all-time top 35 players

Re: Vote for the all-time top 35 players

Re: Vote for the all-time top 35 players

Re: Vote for the all-time top 35 players

Re: Vote for the all-time top 35 players

Re: Vote for the all-time top 35 players

Re: Vote for the all-time top 35 players

Re: Vote for the all-time top 35 players

Re: Vote for the all-time top 35 players