Why Is Allen Iverson Considered To Be so Great? He was a chucker..

Sorry, I'm on a iPhone. Yes I'd take a guy who is 20-40 over a guy who is 10-30 but also has 16 points on ft's (fouled 10 times, shoots 80%). But even disregarding the 80% ft shooting that doesn't equate total points, it's still a hypothetical. The player who can consistently shoot 20-40 or 15-30 or 10-20 or whatever is going to generally also draw a lot of fouls and be a solid playmaker... Generally more so than the other guy.

This is why I've brought up Ray Allen and Reggie. As they seem to be that anthithesis player as best you can without being great foul drawers or playmakers themselves. The pure SG that scores a lot. I'd take Ray over AI. Reggie probably not but maybe... I think others would probably disagree.

I understand he comment wrt using PER to compare against a league average. But people are also using PER to compare AI to a Nash or Pierce, both of whom I find to be unquestionably better players even though PER may disagree.

If PER was tweaked to further penalize missed shots this might not be the case.

 

The guy was a 4 time scoring champion despite being 6'1''

 

TMAC given some respect. Good, good.

Ray Allen (champion and solid player), Vince Carter (solid player), Baron Davis (good player), TRACY MCGRADY mention again.

He not only beat these guys in the playoffs, but beat them in the regular season as well. And you compare the guy to a TMac and say he's no where near as good as TMac, yet Tracy couldn't get out of the first round or carry his team to first place in the division. Allen Iverson did many things that TMac couldn't and he did it at an 8 inch deficit.

Not a ridiculous thread, but definitely a ridiculous take on an all-time NBA great.

 

He was an overrated chucker. Wade is 10x the player and doesn't get anywhere near the among of love this cancer does.

 

While it's not as simple as giving a guy like DJ Augustyn more shots, there are other guys who could've put up similar numbers if they were given the opportunity to jack up shots at a 40% clip. Jerry Stackhouse had a year with Detroit where he averaged nearly 30/game, but he shot in the low 40%'s to get there. I think he actually got traded for Iverson around that time. The reason we don't see more of them is that one guy taking a lot of questionable shots isn't really a recipe for winning basketball games.

Iverson was extremely competitive, and he'll probably make the Hall of Fame, but I don't think he should be the lock that everyone says he is. The guy had the ball in his hands as much as anyone in his generation and he never cracked 8 assists/game. That combined with shooting around 40% or lower is reason enough to question him.

It would be interesting to see how his career would hold up with his numbers run through some advanced stats analysis. Maybe his free throw attempts offset the poor shooting, but maybe not. Career wise, he's probably closer to Monte Ellis than to Kobe or Dwayne Wade...

 

I think he is a sure-fire Hall of Famer. Not only because of his basketball skill but also all the attention he brought to the game. He brought a ton of attention and a whole new audience to the game of basketball by combining the hip-hop street culture with the game of basketball.

 

in the ****tiest conference to maybe ever exist in the NBA

 

You want the stat tweaked because it doesn't reflect your opinion.

I think it actually does a pretty good job to show that shot creation and high volume scoring (with decent efficiency) has value. And hsi PER is not that high. From what i see, Iverson's typically around no.7-10 in his good years. This or that comparison may be off, but in the global sense the stat doesn't overrate him, if anything it's the opposite sometimes.

(re TS% hypothetical, well, you changed it. In your hypothetical, player A has .500 TS%, and player B has .464 TS%, so TS isn't the same.)

 

It's an exact and precise rendering of your underlying logic and the resulting syllogisms.

If you don't like it, don't make obviously ridiculous claims. This should have dawned on you around the time you started frantically googling Dennis Rodman's basketball reference page in a thread about Allen Iverson's offensive production, if not prior.

 

Do you think hes gonna make the Hall Of Fame?

 

Any player who wins an mvp will end up in the hall (add in 7 all nba selections, 11 all star games), his game wouldn't have a place in today's game, but those awards, yeah, it's a foregone conclusion.

 

I haven't followed the JayZ-SamFisher debate, just skimmed through a few posts. I assume that it was triggered by my post because I first challenged the use of PER, bringing up Robinson's status in the all-time ranking.

Now this thread has two elements if you read the OP. One, it questions the GREATNESS of Iverson. Two, the argument is based on Iverson's efficiency.

I think the OP made a mistake at putting all his eggs in one basket, i.e. efficiency. I would argue that Iverson is not one of the greatest players not just because he was inefficient but also because his style did not produce much more winning when he was playing on a talented team.

If you are using PER to argue for Iverson's efficiency, it's a messy business because PER is a complex metric that is based on a lot of assumptions and the debate is beyond just Iverson. There are other simpler ways to measure efficiency.

If you are using PER to argue for Iverson's GREATNESS, then it is definitely a bad move. I challenge the PER argument solely on the ground that Robinson has the fourth highest CAREER (not just a single season) PER in NBA history. The only big man who is higher than Robinson is Shaq. Unless you are ready to defend the notion that David Robinson is the fourth greatest player and the second greatest big man that has ever played in the NBA, using PER is just not a very bright idea.

 

Not only are you incapable of reading comprehension, your an ass, too! You represent the bad side of this board. If you want to argue at least attempt to do so ala donatas fanboy. Wait I forgot, you're you... You try and figure out what you think the other person is saying instead of actually reading!

I get it... you think AI is better than Steve Nash and Paul Pierce

 

AI gave hope to all little people. That's why he was iconic. I really didn't a **** about him

 

I want the stat tweaked for the same reason wages of war does. A player can add per simply by shooting more at a horrible percentage. That's a flaw.

I think the stat does overrate him. Not only is it flaw wrt defense, rebounding, etc as we all know, it makes him look more efficient than he really was offensively. Though I do still admit he was a much better playmaker than most give him credit for. It's as god and as bad as the other all encompassing stats. But he twice put up PERs of 24 or higher. Nash never got above 23.8. That's a flaw, even if you think Nash shouldn't have won those MVPs. John Stockton's high PER is 23.9. Paul Pierce's high PER is 23.6.

If we're going to reference stats and PERs to judge a players greatness, and the stat produces the above, that's a problem. It makes it an empty stat (or more empty).

 

It doesn't, you're rewarded in the same sense that scoring more does that (same as shooting 30 ppg at 60% is better than shooting 20 ppg at 60%), but when the formula compares you to the league average, it rewards or punishes you for efficiency.

 

Not as far as I can tell. See the links and subsequent back and forth with Hollinger. The math still shows that when looking at a player, if that player simply shot more above a certain fg%, which for PER is a way low %, their PER would go up.
Been posted already
http://wagesofwins.com/2006/11/24/john-hollinger-responds/

Yes, PER is meant as a comparison to a league "average". But it doesn't negate the fact that it rewards inefficient shooting and high usage, despite how they correlate to wins.

Wages of wins goes a little (a lot?) too far in some of their analysis as well. They are not big fans of AI - understatement.
http://wagesofwins.com/2013/01/15/yeh-points-allen-iverson-what-was-the-question/

But there's got to be some value in statistically analyzing how a players performance correlates to wins, right? That's the whole point.

 

Re Wages of Wins - I guess we've gone full circle now. Like I said, I don't think Wages of Wins argument is similar to yours. If they are correct, that means that PER might fail to "punish" extreme inefficiency.

But you aren't discussing a case of extreme inefficiency. You are discussing Iverson -- above league-average efficiency, most of the years. You are asking to "penalize" Iverson, but you haven't made a strong case why.

It's not like PER doesn't reward super-efficient scoring (i.e Reggie Miller or such). It does. Scoring some points with super efficiency is valuable. But scoring a ton of points with lesser - but still solid - efficiency is also valuable.

You simply want Reggie to be rewarded even more, not because of some mathematical PER flaw, at least I haven't heard a convincing argument of how this applies in this case. But because you subjectively seem to value Reggie's high efficiency+lower volume type of player much more than Iverson's decent efficiency+huge volume type of player.

As for Paul Pierce, Nash and Iverson, and who's the better offensive player at their peak, I think those are legit discussions.

 

Anyway, at the core of it, we probably disagree on value of Iverson type players in general.

 

No I think he has a higher player efficiency rating, and that this is a substantial piece of evidence against the argument that he's simply DJ Augustin who shoots more, which was the laughable premise here.

And acknowledging this reality doesnt lead me down the path of ill advised dishonestly framed tangential diatribes about the 1995 WCFs or Dennis Rodman trying to dethrone PER as a metric, topped with a plaintive petulant protests of silver tongued devilry being deployed in dastardly fashion.

PS Rudy Gay approves of the preceding 72 hours of your posting career.

Burn.