Malcolm Gladwell’s review of our book focused primarily on what we had to say about Allen Iverson. Consequently the media has often mentioned Iverson when discussing our work.
It is important to note that much of our book – in fact, the vast majority of our book – does not mention Allen Iverson. In fact, much of our book isn’t even about basketball. Given our desire to talk about these other subjects, we have frequently tried to comment on topics other than The Answer.
Still, a few weeks ago I promised someone that I would comment more on Iverson. Specifically, someone wanted to know how Philadelphia got to the Finals in 2001 with a team of role players and Allen Iverson. I was able to comment on that issue in the last post.
In this post I want to focus solely on Iverson’s value. Let me begin by reviewing Iverson’s career productivity. If one goes HERE, you can see how many wins Iverson has produced across the first ten years of his career. In four of these seasons, including the two most recent, Iverson has been above average. In other words, he has been “good.” And when he is “good”, Iverson does produce a substantial portion of his team’s wins.
But I would add, even when Iverson has been “good”, he has never been one of the top players in the game. In other words, many other players have been more productive.
Now people look at these numbers and come back with this argument: When Iverson does not take the floor, Philadelphia plays badly. I have not systematically checked the validity of this evidence, but I am willing to accept this as true. Without Iverson, Philadelphia has trouble winning. So does this mean Iverson is more valuable than his Wins Produced numbers suggest?
To answer this question, let me tell a story.
Imagine you are traveling and you come across a group of workers clearing a field. The workers are not using any machines, just machetes. You wonder at the efficiency of this approach so you suggest to the owner of the field, “there are machines that would allow your workers to clear this field much faster. Perhaps you should re-think the machetes.” The owner responds, “look we did a study. We had the workers clear the field with and without machetes. When we take the machetes away virtually no work gets done. Clearly this means the machetes are incredibly valuable and they must be the best tool for the job. In fact I can’t imagine another machine having the value of these machetes. Seriously, without these, the workers do nothing.”
Now, what does that have to do with basketball? Recently I argued that one can think of wins in the NBA being produced by two inputs: scorers and role players. In making this argument I was suggesting that scorers are indeed necessary to produce wins. So perhaps the best way to evaluate these players is to compare each scorer to another player who has the same job. In other words, one should compare scorers to other scorers.
Although it may not be clear, my machete story is designed to add to this tale. Basically, I would like to suggest that studies that look at a team with and without a player can be quite misleading.
And I can explain why with another story.
Imagine you are traveling and come across a basketball team. You look at the basketball team and notice that the team has only one scorer, yet the scorer is not very efficient. So you say to the owner of the team, “there are other scorers you could hire who are more productive players.” The owner responds, “look we did a study. When the scorer is not on the court the team has trouble winning. Therefore this scorer must be incredibly valuable and he must be the best player on this team. In fact, I can’t imagine another scorer havin the value of this scorer. Seriously, without this scorer, the team cannot win anything.”
The first story is about clearing a field, which I know nothing about. So if you ask me which machine is better than the machete, I really have no idea. I imagine, though, that technology has moved forward far enough that workers have better options than machetes. More importantly, and this is the point of the story, one would not evaluate the value of a tool by seeing how a worker did with and without that specific tool.
The second story is making the same point. And I think one can argue that the team in the story is the Philadelphia 76ers.
I looked at Philadelphia from 2000-01 – the year they reached the NBA Finals – to the 2005-06 campaign. Which scorers did this team employ across this time period? Let me define a scorer as a player who gets at least 0.4 points per minute and who plays at least 1,000 minutes in the season. As a point of reference, in 2005-06 the average NBA had 3.9 players who met my definition of a scorer. So, on average, NBA teams employ four scorers.
Philadelphia, though, often tries to get by with less. Here are the players who meet the definition of a scorer on the 76ers over the last six seasons.
2000-01: Allen Iverson
2001-02: Allen Iverson, Derrick Coleman
2002-03: Allen Iverson, Keith Van Horn
2003-04: Allen Iverson, Glenn Robinson
2004-05: Allen Iverson, Corliss Williamson, Marc Jackson, Willie Green
2005-06: Allen Iverson, Chris Webber
As this list indicates, in only one year did Philadelphia have four scorers. And in that year, everyone besides Iverson played less than 2,000 minutes. In every other year besides 2004-05, the team tried to get by with only one or two scorers. And other than Iverson, the team has changed scorers every season.
So if teams need scorers and role players to win in the NBA, and a team only has half the number of scorers employed by a typical team, what do we expect will happen when one of these scarce players is removed?
When this happens in the middle of a season, the team has to go to a player not accustomed to taking many shots and ask him to change his role. Now it is possible that any of these players could be scorers if that was their expectation when the season started. But suddenly changing a player’s role for one or two nights in the middle of the season is not likely to lead to very positive results. And I think this is what people observe when they see Philadelphia with and without Iverson.
Now the same observers who think that Iverson is essential to Philadelphia’s success might also notice the limitations of Iverson. But they look at the team without The Answer and conclude the stats must not matter. Although Iverson can’t shoot very well and is prone to turnovers, he must be valuable because the 76ers can’t succeed when he is not on the court.
I think the player statistics do tell us quite a bit about value, but you have to understand the production process to interpret the evidence. Specifically, if we wish to understand Iverson’s value we should look at how the 76ers team of role players perform with Iverson taking the shots vs. another scorer(s) playing the same role. In other words, as I said before, Iverson’s value might be measured best by comparing him to other scorers.
When we make this comparison, what do we see? Last year 114 NBA players played 1,000 minutes and scored at least 0.4 points per minute. Of these players, Iverson ranked 50th in Wins Produced per 48 minutes (WP48). This means Iverson was above average, but there were players who were more productive. Given the existence of better players at the scorer position, it is possible for the 76ers to replace The Answer with one or more of these players and post more wins.
So does all this mean the 76ers should trade Iverson? Actually, there is not a simple answer to that question. Here are some things to consider.
1. Iverson’s obvious star appeal does not appear to be important to Philadelphia. As we note in The Wages of Wins, star power attracts fans on the road. It does not attract many fans at home. And it is the home gate that matters to the team who pays Iverson.
2. So Iverson’s production on the court is what matters. Despite his shortcomings, Iverson has been an above average NBA player over the past two seasons. So he can be a “good” player. So he should not traded if the other team in the trade is not willing to part with a “good” player or two.
3. Iverson is also an old player. He will be 31 when the season starts, so he is closer to the end of his career than he is to the beginning.
4. Given his age, it is not likely that teams will give up much to acquire Iverson.
Put it all together, and Phildelphia has a problem. They currently have a player who will probably help them win some games next year. But given that player’s age, it is unlikely another team will part with much to acquire Iverson’s services.
I would emphasize that we are not alone in our assessment of Iverson. For the many people reading the Wages of Wins Journal faithfully, I apologize for going into re-runs. But I once again wish to emphasize the following:
As I noted a few days ago, Steve Kerr may have said it best when he said the following about Allen Iverson just a few days ago:
“This is not Charles Barkley or Shaquille O’Neal being shopped – a physical specimen who can dominate games and change the course of a franchise. Iverson is tiny – a ferocious competitor, yes, but a slightly built, high-volume, low-percentage shooter. (He has shot 42 percent for his career.) Yes, he’s a brilliant scorer – he poured in 33 points a night for the Sixers this past season – but he needs a lot of attempts to score his points. He dominates the ball and would dramatically alter the look of any team he joins. So any team that has a plan in place and is making progress would be very wary of threatening its blueprint by adding Iverson.”
Kerr seems to indicate that there are deficiencies to Iverson’s game. Furthermore, let me repeat the last sentence: “…any team that has a plan in place and is making progress would be very wary of threatening its blueprint by adding Iverson.”
I do not think Kerr is alone in this perspective. Again, trading Iverson for equal value might be difficult.
Consequently, I think the 76ers might be better off finding more productive role players to play along side Iverson. For six years Philadelphia kept trying to find another dominant scorer. So they went from Coleman, to Van Horn, to Robinson, and now to Webber. Certainly finding other scorers would help this team survive when Iverson is absent. But the most important input this team should focus upon is its role players. When the team had above average role players like Tyrone Hill, George Lynch, and Aaron McKie it reached the NBA Finals – a point made in the last post.
Of course, those players are not available. But I think similar players can be found and a championship team can be built around Iverson. That is, if Philadelphia simply finds the right inputs in the production process.
– DJ
Wages of Wins Journal 
Travis
July 25, 2006
DJ,
Many analysts often call A.I the next Isiah Thomas or the “Best little man to ever play the game.” I know that you’re a Pistons fan and as a result are probably a huge Isiah Thomas fan (at least as a player). So here is my question: in terms of Wins Produced who was really the better and more efficient player; A.I or Isiah Thomas?
I know Isiah had much better talent around him like Rodman, Dumars, and Sally just to name a few but was Isiah just a good player on a great team or a great player who made a good team great?
I have a feeling that if you put A.I on Detroit’s “Bad Boys” teams they would not have done nearly as good as they did with Isiah Thomas. Also if you put Isiah on any of A.I’s Philly teams I suspect they would have done far better.
Keep up the good work,
-Travis W
dberri
July 25, 2006
Travis,
I estimate that Isiah produced 97 wins across his career and had a career WP48 of 0.132. His third, fourth, and fifth seasons were his best. In these years he produced 44.8 wins — about half his career total — and had a WP48 of 0.242. So for three seasons you are correct, Isiah was much more productive than Iverson. And Isiah, unlike Iverson, was above average much of his career. Still, I am not sure Isiah would have made Philadelphia substantially better.
RSaunders
July 25, 2006
One thing that occurs to me is that AI (seems to) play more minutes than other players/scorers, thereby diminishing his WP48. If a coach cut his playing time, would he produce the same output in terms of shots taken, etc. (to make up for the lost time)–probably not; would he be more judicious and improve his efficiency during his time on the court (take fewer bad shots, be more rested and be more effective when playing)–maybe, although if you can’t time the stock market, it’s probably hard to time the players’ inefficiencies.
Still, I wonder: is it possible to examine intra-game patterns (e.g., more efficient at the start of games, after a timeout, or returning to game after being on the bench)? Even at an aggregate level: is he more efficient in games when he plays fewer minutes? More ad hoc theories than you can shake a data analyst at 8-)
dberri
July 25, 2006
RSaunder,
Martin Schmidt looked at this issue in a posting a few weeks ago:
Basically, Marty couldn’t find evidence that Iverson shoots better when he shoots less. I also brought up Iverson’s Olympic record which suggests the same thing.
I think the best interpretation of Iverson’s shooting problems is that he is not, relative to other NBA players, a great shooter. In other words, if you reduced his shots to 10 a game he would not start hitting 50% of his shots.
I would add that the Isiah Thomas and the New York Knicks have been seduced by this thinking. The Knicks last year were a team of scorers. Because there were so many options, no one player had to carry the scoring load. Were these players suddenly much more efficient from the field? It doesn’t look like that happened.
Maybe I should post something on that…
Harold Almonte
July 25, 2006
Is there any relationship between more team assists (less make own shots) and wins production by scorers?… and more rebounds, blocks (or deffense) and wins productions by role players?
I can see something from your scorers/role players table, but I´m not sure at all.
Dan Rosenbaum
July 25, 2006
Hey Dave,
Your machete story is a great analogy, but it isn’t even needed here. At least over the past four seasons during which I have data, Allen Iverson’s adjusted plus/minus ratings have been remarkably and consistently average. So there is not much evidence that Iverson has been more effective than an average player over this period.
Now my box score stats metric – which in theory is similar to your Wins Produced measure but is calibrated to predict adjusted plus/minus ratings – consistently pegs him to be a little better than that, but he never rates as a superstar (he comes the closest in his MVP year). So, if anything, it appears that Iverson’s impact on his team has been less than what his box score stats would suggest. That suggests that Iverson may not have been a good fit for his teams or that he does things not recorded in the box score stats that on balance hurt his team.
As I posted earlier, I think the story with Iverson is that he has an unusual capacity for creating mediocre shots. Not good shots, but mediocre shots. Now most scorers would get to the point they were creating terrible shots if they shot his volume of shots, so the benefit of Iverson is that regardless of the adjustments defenses make, he can get mediocre shots.
So if his team can be good enough defensively (or get enough offensive rebounds) so that his mediocre shots become relatively good shots, then Iverson can be really valuable, perhaps even an MVP candidate (although that is unlikely since he is not THAT much better than other scorers at creating shots).
As Dave and his co-authors have noted, scorers are expensive and what Iverson allows a team to do is go into that market just once (or maybe twice) and then concentrate on filling the rest of the team with players from the much less expensive role player market. So the potential is there to get the best of the best of the role players.
In those circumstances Iverson could be an MVP candidate, but put him on a highly efficient offensive team that plays good but not great defense and he likely would make that team worse. Some players would be effective in pretty much any context, but Iverson is such a special case that how valuable he is really depends a lot on what kind of team he plays on. Context matters with most players, but it matters more for Iverson.
Best wishes,
Dan
art kyriazis
July 27, 2006
Dear Dr. Berri:
I’ve been reading your book and your website materials and papers.
I have been a close reader of Bill James’ work for more than twenty years and a devoted sabrmetrics fan with a healthy background in biostatistics.
Just as Pete Palmer has not controlled for “27 outs” in his linear weights system, I do not believe your win shares system is fully fleshed out in chapters 6 and 7 of your recent book.
It would be difficult for me to believe that drawing up a list of win shares for the 2000-2001 Sixers, that Iverson was well down the list below players like Ratliff, Snow, McKie or other such role players.
Keep in mind that Iverson scored 50 points or more ten times that season, and in the playoffs, scored 50 points twice in the quarters, twice in the semis against Vince Carter, and let the Sixers to an overtime win against a heavily favored LA squad.
I’ve been watching Iverson for years and his intangibles, his desire to win and his constant attack at the basket, wears defenders down.
There is no doubt he is a streaky and at times, inconsistent shooter. He can go entire games where he doesn’t shoot well. But in clutch games he always rises to the occasion.
The other point is that he has always played with a poor supporting cast.
He has never had great rebounding, great passing, or great defensive presence behind him. The best he ever had was Theo Ratliff at center and Eric Snow at point guard. That was about it.
If you traded Iverson’s spot with Chauncey Billups, you’d see Iverson take fewer shots and more accurate shots, because he’d be passing the ball a lot more to his Pistons teammates.
He has had seasons where he averaged 10 assists per game while averaging 33 points per game. He also has led the NBA in scoring five times, while leading the NBA in steals 4 times.
Incidentally, his scoring average was achieved during an era when scoring totals were historically lower than at any time since the shot clock was invented–around 90 points per game– and he was accounting for more than 35% of the Philly offense. Wilt Chamberlain’s 35-40 points per game were achieved in an era when teams scored 125 points per game.
Whose offensive points are worth more? Iversons.
It seems to me that the value of a point scored is far greater in a 90 point per game league than in a 125 point per game league, and your win share analysis has to account for that.
Finally, your individual win shares have add up to the team win shares for any given season. Iverson is clearly the best player on the sixers. When you remove him they always lose. He can’t be the #2 #3 or #4 in win shares.
–art k Philly
dberri
July 27, 2006
Art,
A few things to think about…
1. Your analysis of productivity makes a mistake often made. You focus almost entirely on Iverson’s scoring. A player’s contribution to team success goes beyond scoring.
2. You make claims that I do not see in the data. “..in clutch games he always rises to the occasion.” If this were true, why has Iverson’s team only won more than 50 games once?
3. You argue that on a better team Iverson would be more accurate. When he played for the 2004 Olympic team Iverson also shot poorly. How do you explain that performance? I am going to offer a simple explanation for Iverson’s inefficient scoring. Iverson is not a very good shooter. I think that is the simple story. There is little evidence, and my co-author Marty addressed this in an earlier post, that Iverson shoots better when he shoots less.
4. Iverson’s scoring, steals, and assists are clearly positive. But you cannot evaluate Iverson without considering everything he does. And that includes low shooting efficiency and turnovers. When you put the complete picture together, it becomes easier to understand why his Wins Produced is lower than people expect.
art kyriazis
July 27, 2006
Dear Dr. Berri:
I appreciate the points made, but you make the converse mistake. Your analysis of win shares for basketball overly emphasizes defense and rebounding. The Bill James version of the formula for baseball allots a far greater share of the formula to offense.
So to reply:
(1) Aside from scoring, Iverson has very high career assist numbers, almost ten a game, has led the NBA in steals and averaged almost 3.0 steals a game, and has a very high assist to turnover ratio, which directly refutes your assertion in your book that he turns the ball over a lot. The season you looked at, 2004-05, Coach O’Brien made him play point guard, a position he did not usually play, Iverson normally plays 2 or off guard and Eric Snow, a very efficient point guard, and an all-NBA defender, played point for almost six years. It’s no accident LeBron James got into the playoffs with Eric Snow as his point guard, by the way.
Incidentally, points scored do matter, a lot, especially where the points per game are only 90 ppg. We’re in a point scarce environment, so a guy who scores 33 ppg is a valuable commodity.
(2) By clutch, I refer to 4th quarter scoring and playoff scoring. It’s no secret that Iverson’s ppg in the playoff, although his career ppg are like 29 ppg, his playoff avg is actually 5 ppg HIGHER, and all his stats are higher in playoff games. He has scored 40 or more points in several playoff games, and 50 or more twice. Only Michael Jordan, Elgin Baylor and Wilt Chamberlain have achieved those feats. You can’t tell me that Iverson isn’t exceptional, even if it took him 1000 shots to match those two guys scoring feats.
(3) Iverson is not a bad shooter, he is a streaky shooter. He shoots very well at times, and very poorly at times. If you’d watched him play 1000 times, like I have, by now, you’d know that he can have entire games where he shoots like 3 for 25, and the Sixers lose badly, but the next night he’s on fire and shoots great.
(4) His scoring, steals and assists are not only positive, they’re all that a guard can do. Comparing guards to Centers and Forwards, as you do, is like comparing pitchers to outfielders. They have different roles. Very few guards rebound the way Magic Johnson did. I agree that Iverson has a low shooting efficiency, but analysis shows that it’s because he attacks the defense all night long in order to get at them in the 4th quarter after they’re tired of defending him. It’s a strategy he willfully engages in. His turnovers are small in relation to his assists; I understand that his assist to turnover ration is among the best in the NBA. The complete picture is that he is among the best, not the worst.
Also, unlike some players in the NBA (ugh, Derrick Coleman, to name one), he doesn’t mail it in some nights. He comes to play every single night and always plays hard. You can’t say that about all NBA Players, some of whom I believe are guilty of point shaving, to say the least.
(5) It is arbitrary to say that 5 or 6 wins produced is an “average” player. Looking at the sixers rosters you showed, that would make Kenny Thomas and Allen Iverson “average” players. Those guys are superior, not average players. Corrie Blount, who you credited with 3.3 win shares one year, now he’s an average player.
It seems to me you have to lower the bar for average win shares from 41 wins and 5 win shares, to 22 wins and something like 0 or 2.5 win shares. Otherwise, you’re not being normative.
Clearly, a system which rates a Hall of Fame player as less than average has serious flaws and I will not only attack it, but I will ask my economist friends to take a look at your econometrics and debunk them.
I would ask that you take my comments a bit more seriously. I wish to review your book for a sabrmetrics website and we want to say that we overall feel that your contributions are exceptionally positive. We need a winshares system for basketball and football.
But we do not need another set of attacks on poor Allen Iverson.
Incidentally, he was the hardest player on that Olympic team. The other players were mailing it in. They hardly tried. Larry Brown was ashamed of them. You could see it in his eyes.
—Art K, Philly
ChrisH
July 28, 2006
Iverson has a career assist average of 6.1 per game. That isnt really close to 10. His turnovers are at 3.7/ game. so career assist/to is 1.65 I’m not sure where that puts him among active players but he finished 39th in that category for 2006.
RSaunders
July 28, 2006
Art, perhaps this is just quibbling, but streaky means that he alternates between being a good shooter and a bad shooter. On average though, he shoots worse than others who play his position. If you were dropping your clothes at the laundromat and on average 8 out of 10 shirts came back clean, you would never say, “Well, he’s streaky. Sometimes all 10 will be clean. Sometimes though he just has a bad day.” I’m not saying he has to make all his shots, but part of being a good shooter is consistency. Your average matters, but so does your variance.
Jake
July 28, 2006
art
you make a vaer common mistake when you say, “Clearly, a system which rates a Hall of Fame player as less than average has serious flaws,”
you have a preconcieved notion, although shared by many, that iverson is on eof the greatest players ever. therefore, you will only accept an analysis that confirms your opinion.
a true scientist, and economists are scientists, does not say “this is what i think, now let me prove it”, he instead says, “how can i find the truth, even if it will suprise me.”
the fact of the matter is that allen iverson is one of the most immensly talented and entertaining players ever, but that his innefeciency, and his inability to make his teamates better (see Wade with JWilliams et al this year) has left him with a career that could have been better.
his is a story of excitment offset by unfulfilled potential.
on a side note, i would like to ask Dr. Berri which players in the NBA he thinks the 76ers could relistically acquire, either to pair with AI, or in exchange for him, in order to better the team.
What would someone like andre miller, or corey maggette be like on this team?
Harold Almonte
July 29, 2006
Maybe if Iverson had played in a team which he was only a point and not the shooting and first scoring option. He is too shorty to be an effective (top and only scorer of a team), even with his speed and new check rules. The only star SG that won without a real center was 6´6″ M.J., but that happened when his offensive was more team offense (and better role players) and less isolated offense, and Jordan was streaky. O.K., the SG duty is to shoot, to score, but not alone and not in a unipersonal squeme. A.I. is a superb play creator, but I think he needs another higher terminator in the paint.
Ken
July 30, 2006
Why do you use a discrete measure of scorer/role-player status? Why not use a continuous measure to show the degree to which each player focuses on scoring?
Carlos
August 1, 2006
Like Dan said, AI greatest skill is his ability to create shots. So, while he doesn’t make a huge percentage of them (not a great shooter), he can create a huge amount of them, and make an average percentage of them. That makes him a very valuable player if he is surrounded by guys who aren’t very good creating their own shots, and a less valuable player if he is surrounded by guys who are good at creating their shots. The 2001 Sixers worked because he was surrounded by guys who were really good at doing everything EXCEPT creating their shots.
Mike Young
August 4, 2006
I don’t understand the business of basketball very well, so perhaps you can enlighten me on something. Who precisely does the evaluation of players in the NBA – is it a combination of the coach, assistant coaches, GM, Director of Personnel, and even the owner? Are they all using the same or different criteria? Do these criteria change when you are drafting vs. trading for a player?
I can’t help but wonder if some of these people might be pushing to keep AI (perhaps because of his “perceived” popularity) and others to trade him.
dberri
August 4, 2006
Hi Mike,
All these people play a role in decision-making. We looked at a few different decisions made by the NBA. These include salaries — which are negotiated by General Managers — and the voting for the All-Rookie team — done by the coaches. Each of these decisions are heavily influenced by scoring totals. In other words, shooting efficiency, rebounds, turnovers, steals, etc… appear less important.
With respect to Allen Iverson, I think there is a sense in Philadelphia that his popularity does not benefit the 76ers. Home attendance was down this year in Philadelphia despite Iverson playing relatively well. The key for the home team, as we have found in our research, is winning. Scoring and star power are not that important. And right now, Philadelphia is not winning much. Given this, I am not surprised that Philadelphia would try and trade AI. I am also not surprised, given his age, that the offers did not appear very enticing.
Nadum
March 14, 2008
I’m just running through these crazy AI/Sixers articles. In this beauty you use the words of a man who traded Shawn Marion for an almost-dead Shaq.
yongk
March 18, 2008
just one question, given two teams, one with 5 greatest centers shaq,kareem,wilt,russell,moses, all having rating much higher than iverson, and another team with only 4 of the 5 greatest centers with iverson playing the pg instead of moses, which would u prefer? if u want the seond team, isn’t it strange that iverson, having a rating so much lesser than moses is somehow more valuable than moses?
then how do we judge the value of iverson? Simple, remember that the primary task of a guard is to raise the FG% of the TEAM, not his own FG%, we should check the FG% of the sixers in his days and compare it to other teams. We’ll then realize, by sheer intuition, that iverson is one of the few guards in the history of nba to have a great influence on the FG% of his team, thus making him one of the greatest guard ever to play. Of course, u can still say that the value of a small man who can’t defend nor rebound by numbers is lesser than moses, but then, in this case all great guards would be overrated including jordanu, yet u will inevitably still choose iverson or jordan to be your guard instead of moses thus implicitly admitting that iverson more important than a higher player
MJ
June 13, 2008
This focus on AI’s shooting efficiency is flawed. It looks at an AI who played with teammates with offensive deficiencies. AI’s competitive nature makes him do whatever it takes to win, even if it means trying to shoulder the load of his team’s scoring weaknesses and diminishing his own statistics.
Look at AI’s time in Denver. With more talented offensive players, AI has indeed decreased his field goal attempts (nearly by ten at only 19/fga per game) yet still scored over 25 ppg AND had a 45%.
If you compare this to other top offensive talents in the game, only Michael Redd and Paul Pierce have ever shot so little and scored as high.
This is better than Kobe, T-Mac, Ray Allen and D-Wade have ever had in any of their careers. And AI’s FG% this season was nearly the same, if not better, than all of those players, including so-called “pure shooters” (Redd, Allen).
So, no, other guards cannot just “shoot as much as AI and score as high” as some would like to believe, nor has AI’s scoring or impact been hampered significantly by him scoring less. Since being with Denver, a better offensive team than he’s ever had, he’s increased his assist numbers, still maintained his scoring edge, still getting steals, and, on top of that, his energy and toughness rubs off on any team he plays with.
That whole theory about AI’s natural “inefficiency” can be thrown out the window along with this useless article.
Buy colin farrell sex tape
May 7, 2010
Thank You, colin farrell sex tape free [url=http://grou.ps/colinfarrellsextape#1]colin farrell sex tape free[/url], atn,