The 2001 Iverson Case Study: Was He Really Inefficient?

[Axe]

@Gohan

[mehyaM24]

Ok. He was an inefficient scorer. Problem is people end the discussion at that and never bring up his historically low turnover rate. In 2001 playoffs, Iverson posted the 3rd lowest TOV% by any player to have USG% > 35 and MPG > 35 in a run lasting over one playoff round. The only guy to post lower turnover rates is MJ.

When you're that good at not turning the ball over that's a major boost and compensates for poor shooting when looking at overall offensive efficiency. I'm simply doing AI justice. He was a very inefficient scorer with a historically low turnover rate. Overall he had an above average offensive efficiency.

iverson had low turnovers but also played bad defense. don't think either compensate for his poor shooting efficiency. e.g. having a negative impact on his team.

in TOTAL EFFICIENCY, like per for example, i agree that he was an above average player.

[mehyaM24]

If you shoot a high %, but turn the ball over a ton while doing it, you aren't an "efficient scorer". I buy OP's premise. I went back and watched a bunch of games from that run. Iverson wasn't just taking the shots, he was creating the shots with his own movement. There's something to be said about getting consistent offense in a way that doesn't involve a lot of energy expenditure from your entire team. There's something to be said for creating shots in a manner that doesn't lead to opponent fastbreak opportunities.

This guy ran around for 45 minutes a night powering an offense full of guys who weren't very good on offense. Dikembe was the only other starter to ever average 14ppg for a season in their ENTIRE CAREERS...and he only did it once (as a rookie). Of course he was taking tough shots and bailout shots. WHO ELSE WAS GOING TO SHOOT?

Edit: not trying to be rude to people for no reason.

i hear you on that. offensively, iverson wasn't surrounded with a whole lot of talent in philadelphia. no argument there. my only critique is when his fans pretend that missing shots don't matter, especially in playoff games that are decided by a few possessions. these debates get tricky & you have to be careful with how you phrase things. someone can interpret a post of mine thinking iverson was shit. not the case at all. he was a star & would be even better now.

[r0drig0lac]

OP

[iamgine]

In this small article, I’m going to break down Iverson’s stats from his 2001 Cinderella playoff run where he led the Sixers to the NBA Finals, ultimately losing to the Shaq-Kobe Lakers in 5 games. Iverson is wildly popular among NBA fans of all ages for his flashy crossovers and boy did he show his heart on the court. Much of the modern fanbase has turned their back on Iverson because of his poor scoring efficiency. But was Iverson really an inefficient offensive player in the 2001 playoffs or is there more to the story? I’ve set out to find the answer. And perhaps this article will change the general perception of Iverson and other similar players.

What this article won’t address is the type of shots Iverson took. Yes he took tough shots but so did other perimeter scorers especially in that era of isolation ball. Kobe, McGrady, Carter etc. all took shots of comparable difficulty to AI so I won’t use his shot selection to excuse his poor shooting when his contemporaries went through a similar cauldron.

What many fans and even analysts of the game sometimes miss is that when Iverson, or any player for that matter, takes the ball one of four outcomes can occur: 1) a made shot 2) a missed shot 3) a pass to a teammate 4) a turnover. With Iverson most of the conversation is about how many missed shots he had compared to made shots which is reflected in his poor TS%. In the 2001 playoffs Iverson had a 48.0 %TS which was 3.8% below league average. This is expressed as a -3.8 rTS (relative true shooting) and it’s really not a good result and doesn’t paint him in a good light. However, the other two outcomes of possessions that go through him are not often considered. Passes are somewhat inadequately represented by assists but I won’t dwell on his passing much. He was a moderately effective passer. The fourth outcome which is completely neglected when analyzing efficiency is turnovers. AI is one of the least turnover prone players in NBA history. That’s a strong statement but there is considerable evidence. Iverson averaged 2.9 turnovers per game in the 2001 playoffs while playing a super-heavy 46.2 mpg and having a ridiculous USG% of 36.8 which is the 4th highest of all time. His TOV% (turnovers per 100 possessions) is 7.7 which is historically elite. In fact it is the 6th lowest turnover rate in the postseason by any player with a USG% over 35 playing over 35 minutes per game. The only three players to record lower rates are Tracy McGrady (once), Michael Jordan (three times) and AI himself in 2002. And only two of the aforementioned Jordan runs spanned around 20 playoff games comparable to AI in 2001. The others’ stats were for 3-5 playoff games or one playoff round. Thus AI had the 3rd lower turnover rate in 2001 playoffs for any playoff run that went over 5 games.

How much value does his historically low TOV% have? League average TOV% in 2000-2001 was 14.1. If AI had a league average TOV% of 14.1 instead of 7.7 he would have averaged 5.3 turnovers per game instead of 2.9 turnovers per game! Thus AI makes 2.4 turnovers fewer per game. How much is that worth compared to say 2.4 missed shots? A turnover is much worse than a missed shot. Even a dead ball turnover gives away possessions outright whereas a missed shot had a 28.2% chance of being rebounded by the offensive team in 2000-2001. Then there are live ball turnovers which result in steals for the other team and generally lead to much better shots (often fast breaks) and hurt the team that makes those turnovers on the defensive end rather severely. Given league averages, about half of all turnovers are live ball turnovers and the other half are dead ball turnovers. A rough estimate can be made that an average turnover is about 50% worse than a missed shot and this is supported by regression analysis. Thus AI making 2.4 turnovers fewer is equivalent to missing 3.6 shots fewer per game. I conservatively rounded down to 3.5 shots missed.

This is Allen Iverson’s average line in the 2001 playoffs:

32.9 PTS, 11.7 FGM, 30.0 FGA, 7.3 FT, 9.5 FTA, 48.0 %TS

Now let’s analyze what happens to AI’s TS% if he was more efficient scoring the ball. We are going to remove missed shots one by one:

-1 FGA: 32.9 PTS, 11.7 FGM, 29.0 FGA, 7.3 FT, 9.5 FTA, 49.6 %TS

-2 FGA: 32.9 PTS, 11.7 FGM, 28.0 FGA, 7.3 FT, 9.5 FTA, 51.1 %TS

-3 FGA: 32.9 PTS, 11.7 FGM, 27.0 FGA, 7.3 FT, 9.5 FTA, 52.8 %TS

-3.5 FGA: 32.9 PTS, 11.7 FGM, 26.5 FGA, 7.3 FT, 9.5 FTA, 53.6 %TS

With 3.5 fewer misses, his efficiency is 53.6 %TS which already puts him at +1.8 rTS (1.8% above league average efficiency) and comparable to the likes of Kobe and T-Mac from this era who were considered moderately efficient scorers.

Therefore we can conclude that Allen Iverson was above average in the 2001 NBA playoffs in terms of efficiency; not clearly below average which his scoring efficiency indicates. His historically low turnover rates must also be accounted for.

The problem is, most of the premier scorers that year had lower than average playoff TO%. You said the average was 14.1%?

Kobe - around 10%
Shaq - around 11%
VC - around 8%
Dirk - around 6%
Ray Allen - around 10%

I think the average playoff TO% for premier scorers that year was more like ~10%.

[dankok8]

The problem is, most of the premier scorers that year had lower than average playoff TO%. You said the average was 14.1%?

Kobe - around 10%
Shaq - around 11%
VC - around 8%
Dirk - around 6%
Ray Allen - around 10%

I think the average playoff TO% for premier scorers that year was more like ~10%.

Those guys' USG% didn't touch AI, none played as many minutes and all of them had lower AST%.

Plus you're kind of cherry-picking players or rounding incorrectly. Shaq was at 11.7%, Kobe at 10.7%, Duncan at 14.4%, Kidd at 18.3%, Nash at 16.9%.

[GOBB]

op just shitted on everyone in this thread. It was murder

[iamgine]

Those guys' USG% didn't touch AI, none played as many minutes and all of them had lower AST%.

Plus you're kind of cherry-picking players or rounding incorrectly. Shaq was at 11.7%, Kobe at 10.7%, Duncan at 14.4%, Kidd at 18.3%, Nash at 16.9%.

Well now the criteria is you have to match ai's minutes, usg and ast? So we can compare him to...0 players? VC's still at 8%. Shouldn't we maybe increase his efficiency too? Was he just so much much better than AI then? Kobe at 10.7% is still much lower than 14.1%.

[dankok8]

Well now the criteria is you have to match ai's minutes, usg and ast? So we can compare him to...0 players? VC's still at 8%. Shouldn't we maybe increase his efficiency too? Was he just so much much better than AI then? Kobe at 10.7% is still much lower than 14.1%.

The argument wasn't that AI was the best player in the league in 2001. You're the one missing the point.

And yes VC was also a pretty efficient player despite shooting around league average at +0.5 rTS. He also had low turnovers.

[iamgine]

The argument wasn't that AI was the best player in the league in 2001. You're the one missing the point.

And yes VC was also a pretty efficient player despite shooting around league average at +0.5 rTS. He also had low turnovers.

Uh i wasnt arguing that though. Just the 14.1% seems good until you look at others TO%. Ai's still inefficient compared to them.

[dankok8]

Uh i wasnt arguing that though. Just the 14.1% seems good until you look at others TO%. Ai's still inefficient compared to them.

Which others? A few names you cherrypicked? And again that's not the point of the thread. Just because some other (cherrypicked) stars that year also had low TOV% that means AI didn't?

[iamgine]

Which others? A few names you cherrypicked? And again that's not the point of the thread. Just because some other (cherrypicked) stars that year also had low TOV% that means AI didn't?

Well if other stars like the ones in OP also has low to%, then we can say iverson's still highly inefficient compared to them right?

[warriorfan]

If you shoot a high %, but turn the ball over a ton while doing it, you aren't an "efficient scorer". I buy OP's premise. I went back and watched a bunch of games from that run. Iverson wasn't just taking the shots, he was creating the shots with his own movement. There's something to be said about getting consistent offense in a way that doesn't involve a lot of energy expenditure from your entire team. There's something to be said for creating shots in a manner that doesn't lead to opponent fastbreak opportunities.

This guy ran around for 45 minutes a night powering an offense full of guys who weren't very good on offense. Dikembe was the only other starter to ever average 14ppg for a season in their ENTIRE CAREERS...and he only did it once (as a rookie). Of course he was taking tough shots and bailout shots. WHO ELSE WAS GOING TO SHOOT?

Edit: not trying to be rude to people for no reason.

I agree op’s premise is interesting and he makes some legitimate points.

The only thing I would say is it’s coming down to semantics here with the term “scoring”. Having very few turnovers technically doesn’t make you a better shooter or more efficient “scorer”, it does make you a more efficient offensive player. And considering that when it comes to AI we rarely hear turnovers being factored into the equation, instead we get a lot of splits focusing on his fg%, which doesn’t really paint the entire picture.

[DoctorP]

elite post by OP. Don't forget AI was also a midget.

[72-10]

This was the only Philly year where Iverson had help to the point that his team had a realistic shot at the championship, and this is primarily because he had a back-up center in Theo Ratliff, but the Lakers and Kings were doing well then, so you could just as easily say they were the 3rd best team in the league. I've never seen a player with as little help as Iverson.

But to say that Iverson wasn't a gun would be wrong. He didn't look for his teammates as much as he should have.