# Comments on the cut of Iverson's gib.



## such sweet thunder (May 30, 2002)

ai's switch to point guard this season has convinced me that his play is conducive for winning. i truly believe he is a step above the all-stars in the league and must be on par historically with any of the game's greats.

iverson has an innate sense of being able to fill the role that his team needs. it would be interesting to see what form iverson's game would take if he was playing alongside more talent. hes won scoring titles but if you put him next to jordan/garnett/shaq level players and i bet he would become a dsitrbuting point guard. 

a lot was made last off-season of the critical comments from skiles for not being a practice player. iverson's clashes with larry brown have also been well documented. i wonder if ai wasn't correct all along. perhaps, it really was more improtant for him to get healthy then suiting up on off days. i keep going back to ai's heart and drive. the philly team always adopts his image and plays hard for forty eight minutes. 

i just took a peak at iverson's season numbers and they are mind boggeling and perhaps the best of his career: 30.1 p, .424 shootinig, *7.9a*, 4.0r, 2.4s. its not a coindidence that his resurgence coincides with his team getting an influx of talent.


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

miz  AI - always have, always will 

plus i just love his reebok commercial in the pool hall.

skiles (and others) need to look beyond the tattoos and practice comments. 

allen iverson _will always have my respect_ for representing his country at the olympics when other star players couldn't even be bothered. 


:usa:


----------



## such sweet thunder (May 30, 2002)

mizenkay said:


> miz  AI - always have, always will
> 
> plus i just love his reebok commercial in the pool hall.
> 
> ...



ha :banana:


----------



## Dan Rosenbaum (Jun 3, 2002)

such sweet thunder said:


> ai's switch to point guard this season has convinced me that his play is conducive for winning. i truly believe he is a step above the all-stars in the league and must be on par historically with any of the game's greats.
> 
> iverson has an innate sense of being able to fill the role that his team needs. it would be interesting to see what form iverson's game would take if he was playing alongside more talent. hes won scoring titles but if you put him next to jordan/garnett/shaq level players and i bet he would become a dsitrbuting point guard.
> 
> ...


Interestingly, if you take the 7 players in my top-10 list of players who have been stars in each of the past three seasons (Ginobili, Kirilenko, and James are excluded) - this includes Garnett, Duncan, Nowitzki, S. O'Neal, Kidd, B. Davis, and McGrady - the lowest adjusted plus/minus rating for any of those 7 players over the combined 21 seasons is McGrady's 4.2 points per 40 minutes more effective than the average NBA player in 2003-04.

Iverson, on the other hand, has consistently been average at 0.5, 0.9, and -1.5 points per 40 minutes more (less) effective than the average NBA player over the past three seasons.

Adjusted plus/minus statistics are noisy, but they are not noisy enough to explain why Iverson is so consistently below the top players in the league.

So yes, Iverson puts up gaudy statistics but for some reason it does not seem to translate into helping his team as much as the superstars of the league.


----------



## such sweet thunder (May 30, 2002)

Dan Rosenbaum said:


> Interestingly, if you take the 7 players in my top-10 list of players who have been stars in each of the past three seasons (Ginobili, Kirilenko, and James are excluded) - this includes Garnett, Duncan, Nowitzki, S. O'Neal, Kidd, B. Davis, and McGrady - the lowest adjusted plus/minus rating for any of those 7 players over the combined 21 seasons is McGrady's 4.2 points per 40 minutes more effective than the average NBA player in 2003-04.
> 
> Iverson, on the other hand, has consistently been average at 0.5, 0.9, and -1.5 points per 40 minutes more (less) effective than the average NBA player over the past three seasons.
> 
> ...


 iverson's +/- was 1.5 less this year then the average nba player? ai appears to me to be more effective playing point guard and to be having a better season then the past few years. can you give me more explanation on why the +/- number looks like this?


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

He's a great player, but if I was in the NBA, I wouldn't want to play with him, because my game would suffer due to how he plays the game. He is not willing to sacrifice his own game for the sake of his teammates and has a "me against the world" mentality in basketball games that makes his teammates become bystanders watching him go one on 5. Yes, he's a marvelous talent, but he'll be remembered as never being able to rein in his game a little bit to make sure everyone else got to eat too. I truly believe he could be a 18 points, 13 assists kind of player, but he's not willing to sacrifice taking a lot of shots and basically have free rein to do whatever the heck he wants out there. So you can keep Iverson personally, but I wouldn't want him on my team or to play with the guy if I was a player. 

I love to watch the guy play though, since Georgetown.


----------



## Dan Rosenbaum (Jun 3, 2002)

such sweet thunder said:


> iverson's +/- was 1.5 less this year then the average nba player? it seems to me that he is more effective with the ball in his hands then working off the ball and is having a better season then the past few years. can you give me more explanation on why the +/- number looks like this?


The Sixers this year just played better when Iverson was not in the game. And this is accounting for the fact that Iverson tends to play with and against better players as a starter who plays heavy minutes. And it has nothing to do with the quality of his substitutes.

I do not watch a lot of Sixers games, but I think the issue is that the Sixers just don't need to Iverson to dominate the ball the way he does. Thus, given his inefficiency, espeicially considering his turnovers, he really does not help them as much as many think. I think that Iverson always is going to anchor his teams to the .500 mark. They will never be horrible and never be great, except when he is able to have a phenomenal defensive team (as when they had Mutumbo). With a phenomenal defensive team, the team can afford his inefficient offense and still win.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

Dan and HKF nailed it. The guy handles the ball so much, that almost any talented offensive players that come to play with him become a lot less effective, because they don't see the ball nearly as much. Honestly, watch a Sixers game and focus on how much Iverson handles the ball. It's jawdropping. He handles the ball atleast twice as much, if not more, than the player who handles the ball the 2nd most in the league (not sure who it is). Everyone says he just needs better teammates, but his teammates will always dissappoint, because they aren't put in the situation where they can succeed. Like HKF saod, they become bystanders, and even when they do get the ball, they're so out of rhythm because there is no flow to the offense. It's Iverson vs. the world. 

Like Dan said, Iverson can only succeed if they put great defenders around him. Iguodala and Dalembert is a start atleast. Korver provides a standstill shooter to bail Iverson out when there is a crowd around him. 

That said, he is extremely talented. He is probably more talented than almost any guard of all time, he just dominates the ball too much, which brings all of his teams down. If a player is bringing a team down, then he isn't a good player, even if he has all the talent in the world. The Sixers will be taking a step in the right direction the day they trade Iverson.


----------



## JRose5 (May 4, 2003)

Sir Patchwork said:


> Dan and HKF nailed it. The guy handles the ball so much, that almost any talented offensive players that come to play with him become a lot less effective, because they don't see the ball nearly as much. Honestly, watch a Sixers game and focus on how much Iverson handles the ball. It's jawdropping. He handles the ball atleast twice as much, if not more, than the player who handles the ball the 2nd most in the league (not sure who it is). Everyone says he just needs better teammates, but his teammates will always dissappoint, because they aren't put in the situation where they can succeed. Like HKF saod, they become bystanders, and even when they do get the ball, they're so out of rhythm because there is no flow to the offense. It's Iverson vs. the world.
> 
> Like Dan said, Iverson can only succeed if they put great defenders around him. Iguodala and Dalembert is a start atleast. Korver provides a standstill shooter to bail Iverson out when there is a crowd around him.
> 
> That said, he is extremely talented. He is probably more talented than almost any guard of all time, he just dominates the ball too much, which brings all of his teams down. If a player is bringing a team down, then he isn't a good player, even if he has all the talent in the world. The Sixers will be taking a step in the right direction the day they trade Iverson.



Great post.


----------



## Coatesvillain (Jul 17, 2002)

Dan Rosenbaum said:


> The Sixers this year just played better when Iverson was not in the game. And this is accounting for the fact that Iverson tends to play with and against better players as a starter who plays heavy minutes. And it has nothing to do with the quality of his substitutes.


I think this accounts for the fact that Iverson is playing most of the minutes. His plus minus will probably look bad from the Pistons series, even though he's been playing his best ball of the season, because of the amount of minutes he played. Even more so than his ball handling, I think the minutes he plays is a problem. After watching almost every Sixers game this season, I'd say that I could point out only a handful of occassions where the team performed better than when he was on the floor.

I think as the Pistons series went on, Iverson's role in the future became more defined, he was playing PG but still gave up the ball and worked off screens. This last three games, his shot selection was spectacular especially for AI standards. I truly think he has the capability to be a more efficient scorer, and he's showed the willingness to put the ball into the hands of his teammates in key spots where they can succeed.

This season was a learning experience for AI, and I truly believe him to be an even better PG next season. The better he is at that facet of the game, the better off the Sixers will be.


----------



## such sweet thunder (May 30, 2002)

Sir Patchwork said:


> Dan and HKF nailed it. The guy handles the ball so much, that almost any talented offensive players that come to play with him become a lot less effective, because they don't see the ball nearly as much. Honestly, watch a Sixers game and focus on how much Iverson handles the ball. It's jawdropping. He handles the ball atleast twice as much, if not more, than the player who handles the ball the 2nd most in the league (not sure who it is). Everyone says he just needs better teammates, but his teammates will always dissappoint, because they aren't put in the situation where they can succeed. Like HKF saod, they become bystanders, and even when they do get the ball, they're so out of rhythm because there is no flow to the offense. It's Iverson vs. the world.
> 
> Like Dan said, Iverson can only succeed if they put great defenders around him. Iguodala and Dalembert is a start atleast. Korver provides a standstill shooter to bail Iverson out when there is a crowd around him.
> 
> That said, he is extremely talented. He is probably more talented than almost any guard of all time, he just dominates the ball too much, which brings all of his teams down. If a player is bringing a team down, then he isn't a good player, even if he has all the talent in the world. The Sixers will be taking a step in the right direction the day they trade Iverson.


 I'm actually kind of tired of this point of view -- it seems like something i would have argued a year ago. who else on the sixers is going to score? korver and iggy are just nba toddlers. iverson has never played next to a legitimate offensive threat. i'm somewhat troubled by dan's +/- stats, but still don't believe ai is the chucker every one has made him out to be. . . maybe in the past. i look at his game and think that if he were playing next to all-stars he would average 15p, and 15a.


----------



## Dan Rosenbaum (Jun 3, 2002)

PhillyPhanatic said:


> I think this accounts for the fact that Iverson is playing most of the minutes. His plus minus will probably look bad from the Pistons series, even though he's been playing his best ball of the season, because of the amount of minutes he played. Even more so than his ball handling, I think the minutes he plays is a problem. After watching almost every Sixers game this season, I'd say that I could point out only a handful of occassions where the team performed better than when he was on the floor.


My analysis is based upon the regular season - not the playoffs. And most superstars play heavy minutes - Iverson is not alone in that regard. But the bigger question is this. Why is that Iverson's teams so consistently do about the same with or without him in the game, while the teams of superstars - some who play on good teams and some who play on bad teams - consistently are much, much better when they are in the game versus when they are not?


----------



## such sweet thunder (May 30, 2002)

hey dan, completely o.t.:

i would love to see a post on how the roy race came out in reference to your adjusted +/- statistics? anything interesting come up with gordon, okafor, howard, iggy, et. al.?


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

such sweet thunder said:


> I'm actually kind of tired of this point of view -- it seems like something i would have argued a year ago. who else on the sixers is going to score? korver and iggy are just nba toddlers. iverson has never played next to a legitimate offensive threat. i'm somewhat troubled by dan's +/- stats, but still don't believe ai is the chucker every one has made him out to be. . . maybe in the past. i look at his game and think that if he were playing next to all-stars he would average 15p, and 15a.


I'm tired of this point of view, seems like something I would have argued a couple years ago. Basketball is a team game, not a one man show. I always hear his supporting cast get talked up (I've heard Iggy called the ROY, Dalembert better than Curry and Chandler, etc), but it's never Iverson's fault when the team underachieves. It's like when you go to the park and there is that guy who just wants to do everything from create his own shots, to creating your shots, to calling all the shots for the team. Then when your team loses, he blames it on not having teammates, but in reality, he was the one who wanted to everything and failed. That style of play failed, and when something fails, you try a different style of play. Unfortunetly, I doubt Iverson knows how to play any other way but "him against the world" which means he'll be leading mediocre teams the rest of his career, and fans will continue to talk about how he just needs a supporting cast. 

Dan's numbers say a lot.


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

Sir Patchwork said:


> I'm tired of this point of view, seems like something I would have argued a couple years ago. Basketball is a team game, not a one man show. I always hear his supporting cast get talked up (I've heard Iggy called the ROY, Dalembert better than Curry and Chandler, etc), but it's never Iverson's fault when the team underachieves. It's like when you go to the park and there is that guy who just wants to do everything from create his own shots, to creating your shots, to calling all the shots for the team. Then when your team loses, he blames it on not having teammates, but in reality, he was the one who wanted to everything and failed. That style of play failed, and when something fails, you try a different style of play. Unfortunetly, I doubt Iverson knows how to play any other way but "him against the world" which means he'll be leading mediocre teams the rest of his career, and fans will continue to talk about how he just needs a supporting cast.
> 
> Dan's numbers say a lot.



What a great analogy. One man can't do it alone. Everyone needs to embrace the people that are there to help them. That post was rep worthy, no doubt.


----------



## Dan Rosenbaum (Jun 3, 2002)

such sweet thunder said:


> hey dan, completely o.t.:
> 
> i would love to see a post on how the roy race came out in reference to your adjusted +/- statistics? anything interesting come up with gordon, okafor, howard, iggy, et. al.?


I would have rated Duhon and Iggy as tied for first, followed by Gordon, Okafor/J. Smith tied, Deng, and then Howard. Gordon had a horrible start to the season, so by the second half, he probably belonged with Duhon and Iggy.


----------



## such sweet thunder (May 30, 2002)

Sir Patchwork said:


> Dan's numbers say a lot.


dan's numbers do say a lot. but theres no perfect magic formula for statistically measuring everything a player contributes. its like searching for the fountain of youth. using statistics is a step in the process but not an ultimate proof. 

i haven't seen anyone say that iggy should be rookie of the year. i posted a couple days ago that he likely would have been a better match for this team then gordon. but, he is still very limited at this point in his career.

my point, which seems to be echoed by the philly phan, is that ai's game has changed since being moved to the point. i believe what iverson brings is conducive to what his team need and is within the sixers "team concept." you put more talent on that team that is able to create offensively and i bet he doesn't control the ball like many observe.


----------



## Coatesvillain (Jul 17, 2002)

Dan Rosenbaum said:


> My analysis is based upon the regular season - not the playoffs. And most superstars play heavy minutes - Iverson is not alone in that regard. But the bigger question is this. Why is that Iverson's teams so consistently do about the same with or without him in the game, while the teams of superstars - some who play on good teams and some who play on bad teams - consistently are much, much better when they are in the game versus when they are not?


Sorry for the confusion, I was aware that your stats were of the regular season, I was just making a point of if they were done over the first round series, and used that as an example.

Truthfully, after thinking your question over, I can't really answer it without looking at the numbers myself. I'll think it over and come back.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

From a business point of view, I think Iverson's the most underpaid guy in the NBA. Along with Kobe and possibly Vince Carter, no one lost more money when the last CBA was agreed to. The guy puts 20,000 fannies in the seats night-in, night-out, and while I'm sure Sixer coaching and management is well aware of his shortcomings as a basketball player, they're not going to kill the golden goose.


----------



## bullet (Jul 1, 2003)

I love AI - he's amazing , especially given size and Weight.

But if I had an expansion team , and I had to pick 1 player from NBA to start , I think I can think of more than 10 names I'd pick before him. Maybe even 20.


----------



## nanokooshball (Jan 22, 2005)

ScottMay said:


> From a business point of view, I think Iverson's the most underpaid guy in the NBA. Along with Kobe and possibly Vince Carter, no one lost more money when the last CBA was agreed to. The guy puts 20,000 fannies in the seats night-in, night-out, and while I'm sure Sixer coaching and management is well aware of his shortcomings as a basketball player, they're not going to kill the golden goose.


exactly.... iverson is the sole reason that the Phili stadium has tickets so they would be crazy to trade him away

...also i think what Phili has lacked all of iverson's career was a low post scorer... dalmbert and webber are NOT effective at scoring in the low post... if he had someone like Curry, shaq, Z, Ming...Iverson could lead the 76ers to a championship... i mean look @ wade and shaq... wade plays a lot like iverson, but his team has a lot more depth and talent than the Sixers EVER had except for when iverson went to the finals


----------



## SausageKingofChicago (Feb 14, 2005)

Dan Rosenbaum said:


> The Sixers this year just played better when Iverson was not in the game. And this is accounting for the fact that Iverson tends to play with and against better players as a starter who plays heavy minutes. And it has nothing to do with the quality of his substitutes.
> 
> I do not watch a lot of Sixers games, but I think the issue is that the Sixers just don't need to Iverson to dominate the ball the way he does. Thus, given his inefficiency, espeicially considering his turnovers, he really does not help them as much as many think. I think that Iverson always is going to anchor his teams to the .500 mark. They will never be horrible and never be great, except when he is able to have a phenomenal defensive team (as when they had Mutumbo). With a phenomenal defensive team, the team can afford his inefficient offense and still win.


See : Tyrone Hill , George Lynch , Matt Harpring , Eric Snow and Aaron McKie in that team as well when it went to the Finals.

Pretty impressive array of defensive talent

The Sixers seem to have always been in as much flux about finding their 2nd option as much as what the Knicks have been in finding their point guard (until Steph was traded for)

Seems to be a Sixers second option relegates you to the same fate as a drummer for Spinal Tap

While we're talking plus /minus ratings ... I don't know what Korver's is - and yes he has had some OK games where he has contributed in other ways when his shot is off ...but in his case being known as a gunner/shooter is the sucker punch for that boy. 

Takes way too many 3 point shots for my liking. Probably not his fault though in that most of the time its he who is featured and meant to be taking that shot.

I'm just saying JOB overuses him and he's not as money as his rep


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Out of curiousity...

Dan's numbers showed Antoine Walker to be one of the worst players who ever laced up sneakers.

Yet he joined the Celtics and they ended up winning their division, over Iverson's Sixers.

So what did the numbers show for the Celtics and Walker from after the trade?

Again, just curious.


----------



## Dan Rosenbaum (Jun 3, 2002)

DaBullz said:


> Out of curiousity...
> 
> Dan's numbers showed Antoine Walker to be one of the worst players who ever laced up sneakers.
> 
> ...


Walker does have very poor pure adjusted plus/minus statistics both this year and last. But he was about average when he played for Boston the first time. Overall, I have him rated as about average. Since he replaced the minutes of Mark Blount, who was terrible this season, it is not surprising that Boston played a little better after they traded for him, especially since they had a lot of young players who got better in the second half of the season. Walker has not been particularly effective in the playoffs, so far.


----------



## T.Shock (Feb 11, 2003)

No offense but stats rarely tell even a portion of the story. If stats were the end of discussions then we could play games on paper. Face it, the reason Iverson's Sixers aren't a playoff team is because of the guys he has surrounding him. To make the claim he can't lead a team there is ridiculous. He's been there before. Dalembert and Iggy are steps in the right direction, unfortunately C-Webb was not, just because he needs guys who don't necessarily need the ball to score. If Iverson was playing with another legit star like Shaq, I'd almost guarantee Shaq would get his touches. How about the fact Iverson led the league in scoring and was in the top 10 in assists. The people that don't like AI hold that position usually because of jib-related issues. A lot of people said he couldn't last playing his style, yet he played injury free ball this season. The facts are: he is a top 5 scorer, a top 10 assist guy, a very good defensive player, one of the most exciting players in the league to watch, and a guy who legitimately cares more about the game and winning than cashing a paycheck.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Dan Rosenbaum said:


> Walker does have very poor pure adjusted plus/minus statistics both this year and last. But he was about average when he played for Boston the first time. Overall, I have him rated as about average. Since he replaced the minutes of Mark Blount, who was terrible this season, it is not surprising that Boston played a little better after they traded for him, especially since they had a lot of young players who got better in the second half of the season. Walker has not been particularly effective in the playoffs, so far.


Looking at the game log, the Celtics were 18-9 after Walker joined them. I would call that more than "a little better"...


----------



## Dan Rosenbaum (Jun 3, 2002)

DaBullz said:


> Looking at the game log, the Celtics were 18-9 after Walker joined them. I would call that more than "a little better"...


And in the playoffs, the Celtics are 2-0 in the games in which Walker has played 30 minutes and 0 minutes. The are 0-3 in games in which he played 31 minutes, 36 minutes, and 40 minutes.

Since the trade the Celtics are 17-11 in games in which Walker has played and 3-1 in games in which he has not played. That seems consistent with my assessment that the Celtics are a "little better" post-trade.


----------



## Coatesvillain (Jul 17, 2002)

Dan Rosenbaum said:


> Why is that Iverson's teams so consistently do about the same with or without him in the game, while the teams of superstars - some who play on good teams and some who play on bad teams - consistently are much, much better when they are in the game versus when they are not?


Okay, I think I'm ready. :banana: 

The main reason is the large number of possessions Iverson handles the rock on offense, when he's out there the Sixers lean on his production, and decision making more so than any other team on any other player in the league. Like Sir Patchwork pointed out, that often takes other players out of their game while he's on the floor leaving them watching. Often times those players get their touches when he's not and produced. The stats support that the team was just as good (or better) when Iverson sat, but from watching games I don't see that as the case more often than not, since the team often goes on cold streaks when he's out.

Allen Iverson's proof that statistical analysis still has a way to go to measure the three dimensional world of sports. Don't take that as a shot at what you do either Dan, as I'm definitely a fan of your work, and have a soft spot for indepth statistical breakdowns.

I'm not saying Iverson's a player without fault, check the record I'm probably his biggest critic on the Sixers forum. I'm just saying that he's a player who's making strides at becoming a PG, I don't think we'll ever call him a true point, but he's making improvements. That's the main reason why I'm so positive when it comes to looking towards next season, at the end of game four.. Iverson put his trust in the roleplayers and even though the team came up short, he gave players the ball where they could succeed.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

mizenkay said:


> miz  AI - always have, always will
> 
> plus i just love his reebok commercial in the pool hall.
> 
> ...


In a very platonic, manly man way, I agree with you completely.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Dan Rosenbaum said:


> And in the playoffs, the Celtics are 2-0 in the games in which Walker has played 30 minutes and 0 minutes. The are 0-3 in games in which he played 31 minutes, 36 minutes, and 40 minutes.
> 
> Since the trade the Celtics are 17-11 in games in which Walker has played and 3-1 in games in which he has not played. That seems consistent with my assessment that the Celtics are a "little better" post-trade.


OK, that's fair.

But 17-11 is way better than the Celtics' overall record.


----------



## Dan Rosenbaum (Jun 3, 2002)

PhillyPhanatic said:


> The stats support that the team was just as good (or better) when Iverson sat, but from watching games I don't see that as the case more often than not, since the team often goes on cold streaks when he's out.


But this is not a debateable point. _Accounting for who else was in the game,_ the Sixers played better when Allen Iverson was out of the game. That is a fact. What is debateable is whether or not that was due to something real or simply was bad luck on Iverson's part. Maybe the team just got lucky when Iverson was out. But this is not a debateable point.

Also, remember that I weight crunch time heavier and garbage time less or not at all. So this is not a matter of the Sixers playing well in garbage time.


----------



## Dan Rosenbaum (Jun 3, 2002)

DaBullz said:


> OK, that's fair.
> 
> But 17-11 is way better than the Celtics' overall record.


The 95% confidence interval for the "true" winning percentage for a team with a 17-11 record is between 0.422 and 0.792. That certainly includes Boston's pre-Walker winning percentage, so I would say that "way better" is an overstatement.

According to your definition of "way better," 3-1 is "way better" than 17-11.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Dan Rosenbaum said:


> The 95% confidence interval for the "true" winning percentage for a team with a 17-11 record is between 0.422 and 0.792. That certainly includes Boston's pre-Walker winning percentage, so I would say that "way better" is an overstatement.
> 
> According to your definition of "way better," 3-1 is "way better" than 17-11.


3-1 is ~5% of the season
17-11 is ~38% of the season


----------



## Coatesvillain (Jul 17, 2002)

Dan Rosenbaum said:


> But this is not a debateable point. _Accounting for who else was in the game,_ the Sixers played better when Allen Iverson was out of the game. That is a fact. What is debateable is whether or not that was due to something real or simply was bad luck on Iverson's part. Maybe the team just got lucky when Iverson was out. But this is not a debateable point.
> 
> Also, remember that I weight crunch time heavier and garbage time less or not at all. So this is not a matter of the Sixers playing well in garbage time.


Okay.. now let me ask a question, how does this account for missed games? Since in the games Iverson missed, they were all relatively close and Willie Green's minutes and productivity jumped.


----------



## Dan Rosenbaum (Jun 3, 2002)

PhillyPhanatic said:


> Okay.. now let me ask a question, how does this account for missed games? Since in the games Iverson missed, they were all relatively close and Willie Green's minutes and productivity jumped.


Those games are counted. If Green just got lucky, then Iverson's adjusted plus/minus will underestimate his "true" effect on the Sixers. But if Green or other players have the ability to step up when Iverson is not dominating the ball, then this isn't really luck and it says that Iverson really is not as effective as his gaudy numbers suggest.


----------



## RP McMurphy (Jul 17, 2003)

I think plus-minus is most useful for players who play about 24 minutes per game, and the closer you get to 48 (or 0) the less useful it is because there's a much smaller sample size of minutes that the player didn't (or did) play. For a guy who was a close second in the NBA in minutes per game at 42.3, I'm not sure how much credence I put into this, although I don't think Iverson was anywhere near being an MVP candidate this year.


----------



## dsouljah9 (Jul 9, 2002)

I too, like the cut of Iverson's jib :biggrin:

And he's a tough player to boot. It sucks that he;s on a bad team.


----------



## Dan Rosenbaum (Jun 3, 2002)

RP McMurphy said:


> I think plus-minus is most useful for players who play about 24 minutes per game, and the closer you get to 48 (or 0) the less useful it is because there's a much smaller sample size of minutes that the player didn't (or did) play. For a guy who was a close second in the NBA in minutes per game at 42.3, I'm not sure how much credence I put into this, although I don't think Iverson was anywhere near being an MVP candidate this year.


The comment about high-minutes players is very true, but I have 793 minutes this season, 1920 minutes last season, and 480 minutes the season before with which to estimate how the Sixers play without Iverson in the game. The standard error estimates suggest that is enough to get a reasonably good estimate for Iverson. Also, my box score based measure that uses everyone's adjusted plus/minus stats also suggests that Iverson is only a little better than the average NBA player. It suggests that the pure adjusted plus/minus stats are unlikely to be way off just because of small sample size.


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

On a somewhat related topic, I believe that next year has the potential to be Iverson's greatest year yet. SST, you mention that Iverson has never had a great scorer to play along with him. Well, if Chris Webber's gimpy leg might be able to improve a bit in the offseason, I love the look of Philly's starting lineup. This assumes of course that they retain Dalembert, which is not a safe assumption since they have so much other money locked up in terrible contracts.

I think everybody can see the potential within Andre Iguodala to be some strange sort of dominant force in the game. I mean, would this guy please shoot some more? It's not common to ask that of a player, but he's a rookie swingman who shot 49.3% from the field. For a guy who supposedly can't shoot, that's damn impressive, and a 33% 3pt percentage is resepectable too. AI the younger really has a chance to be Iverson's running mate. I started to see the chemistry between them at the end of the year, with Iverson throwing all those alleyoops (sp?) to Iggy. Hopefully Andre can keep the pressure off AI at the offensive end too.

Webber, if he still has any juice left, is exactly the kind of offensive threat that could thrive next to Iverson, a quiet offensive power who can score from anywhere, is willing to pass, and doesn't try to take over the team. Dalembert is a really solid defensive presence, and Korver can really shoot.

Given a whole offseason to gel together, I'm excited to see what this team can do. Iverson may finally have some good players to pass to. Let's see how much Webber has left in the tank, though.


----------



## such sweet thunder (May 30, 2002)

Dan Rosenbaum said:


> I would have rated Duhon and Iggy as tied for first, followed by Gordon, Okafor/J. Smith tied, Deng, and then Howard. Gordon had a horrible start to the season, so by the second half, he probably belonged with Duhon and Iggy.


I guess whats missing from this discussion is the question of how much you believe in your numbers? do you believe your numbers show iverson only provides the contribution of an average player, or do they make a more general statment that hes good, but not a first tier star? for that matter, do you believe your numbers show that duhon brings more then all rookies sans iguodala, or are they making more of the relative statement that duhon is deserving of more credit? 

o.t., i'm sorry that if it seems like you are always defending yourself when you post here. i'm more curious then anything. . .


----------



## Dan Rosenbaum (Jun 3, 2002)

such sweet thunder said:


> I guess whats missing from this discussion is the question of how much you believe in your numbers? do you believe your numbers show iverson only provides the contribution of an average player, or do they make a more general statment that hes good, but not a first tier star? for that matter, do you believe your numbers show that duhon brings more then all rookies sans iguodala, or are they making more of the relative statement that duhon is deserving of more credit?
> 
> o.t., i'm sorry that if it seems like you are always defending yourself when you post here. i'm more curious then anything. . .


With Duhon I have just one season, so I am much closer to saying that he just is deserving of more credit. But with Iverson I have three seasons of data and he has been very consistent - consistently average in his effectiveness. It is possible that Iverson has gotten really unlucky for three years in a row, but the odds are that he just is not in the upper echelon of players. If his numbers bounced around a little more I would not say that, but his numbers are pretty consistent in my system.


----------



## Machinehead (Jun 12, 2002)

Antoine Walker played 50 minutes today - 24 points and a bunch of rebounds . 8 turnovers on 1 assist however

Paul Pierce was down on his regular output ( slightly ) Ricky Davis was slightly up 

Boston won on the road to go home for Game 7 

Just thought I'd mention


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Machinehead said:


> Antoine Walker played 50 minutes today - 24 points and a bunch of rebounds . 8 turnovers on 1 assist however
> 
> Paul Pierce was down on his regular output ( slightly ) Ricky Davis was slightly up
> 
> ...


I saw the game. Care to mention how he did in Q4, particularly?


----------



## SausageKingofChicago (Feb 14, 2005)

DaBullz said:


> I saw the game. Care to mention how he did in Q4, particularly?


Only saw highlights - not the full gamelog

But he hit . Yay . We get to get petty with the venerable Dan

He misses .. I'n sure Dan would be crowing bigger than Foghorn Leghorn 

Come to think of it ...... Hang on a minute...

Just jokes Dan .. you da man .. I'z outta hand .. throwing some poo into the fan


----------

