NLSC Greatest of All-time: #3

Despite being an extremely clear beneficiary of the rules of the current era (I mean, they helped some others as well, but nobody more than him) as well as one of the most doubtful officiating jobs ever and losing some points for his constant injury issues, Wade is still the best option here. In his prime, he was a dominant offensive force and a plus defender which combined for an elite overall impact. That probably makes up for his prime being relatively short and edges out Iverson who wasn't a good defender.

Paul is the greatest three-point era point guard next to Magic. It's not even questionable.

Sure as hell is, Steve Nash would like a word with you.

This, though...

The Answer. The answer you can be named the league MVP and be considered one of the best players of the era simply by being popular and shooting a lot of shots. The god of ineffectiveness and destroying his teams offense. He gets a lot of undeserving recognition on offense.

That 2001 Sixers team was very good on defense, not because of him. Mutoumbo, Ratliff, Lynch. He was their best offensive player, hence the 25.5 FGA per game. So Mutoumbo was money in the Playoffs, especially on defense. Then there's the Finals, where he continued playing well, and where Iverson showed just how ineffective can he be. He took almost 60 shots more than Kobe in the series, and about 50 more than Shaq. Sure, No one except Dikembe helpe on offense, but how could they when the USG% between you and your big man is 56. You're supposed to be an All-time great scorer, which the other team had two of, to pull that off.

You are absolutely clueless, man. Honest question: do you consider any stats other than TS% when spouting this kind of nonsense?

Firstly, Iverson was MVP over Shaq in large part due to the cinderella factor. The Sixers were the out-of-nowhere success story, tying for the best record in the league with the behemoth Shaq-Kobe Lakers team. If you wish to belittle that with comparing conference strength, compare the roster strength as well.

Secondly, there is absolutely no evidence of Iverson "killing" his team's offense. Quite the opposite, actually. If you're thinking the sky-high USG%, answer one simple question for me: who else on that roster should have been taking those shots?

To get details of Iverson's killing the '01 Sixers with high USG, consider this:

regular season

Iverson 20 or less FGA: 9-5 (.643)
Iverson 21-30 FGA: 33-10 (.767)
Iverson 31+ FGA: 8-6 (.571)

The sweet spot (and most frequent one) is evident. Interestingly, the number of games with 20 or less FGA and 31+ FGA is identical and the record shows only a 1-game difference. AI shooting 31+ times isn't optimal, but neither is him taking fewer than 20. The volume of each FGA zone and the winning percentage shows that he usually did what was right for the team. What about the postseason, then?

playoffs

Iverson 20 or less FGA: 0-1 (.000)
Iverson 21-30 FGA: 5-6 (.455)
Iverson 31+ FGA: 7-3 (.700)

As defenses get tighter in the playoffs, Philly has to rely on AI even heavier to win games. With the other guys being very easy to eliminate from contributing, it is in the team's best interest that Iverson take as many shots as possible. With only one game seeing him take 20 or less shots, perhaps the better cutoff would be 25 FGA, but a criterion of 25 or less FGA still gives us only three games and... yeah, you guessed it - Philly lost all three.

If you're thinking TS%, then please adjust it for the fact that this is BEFORE handchecking became illegal (see the spike in TS% starting from 04-05?) and the fact that offensively, his support was absolutely pathetic - no shooters and no finishers. Opposing defenses were able to double and triple team Iverson all they wanted without worrying about role players punishing them.

Prime Iverson was one of the most unstoppable one-on-one forces ever. Teams quickly recognized it and began throwing many men at him. The sensible thing to do, then, is kick out to three-point shooters instead of chucking up lower percentage shots, right? Well... it may be easier said than done with a terrible shooting roster. Let's take a look at Philly's league rank in 3-pointers attempted from 98-99 (beginning of AI's prime) until he left in 06-07:

1999 - 29th (last)
2000 - 23rd
2001 - 28th
2002 - 29th (last)
2003 - 28th
2004 - 24th
2005 - 10th
2006 - 24th
2007 - 30th

In '05 the Sixers were coached by Jim O'Brien who emphasized pushing the tempo and shooting 3s. In '06, they were coached by Mo Cheeks who didn't want a young Kyle Korver to shoot threes, wanting him to develop a mid-range game instead.

Clearly, outside of 2005, those numbers are brutal. Keep in mind that this is already with Iverson himself shooting about 4 threes per game. He had no spacing on the team, nobody who could shoot AT ALL. Imagine Wade or Paul or any player who operates on pick and rolls without any shooting around them. Now ask them to be efficient while the defense can easily double or triple them on pretty much every play. Add to that perhaps the worst management any superstar player has had during his prime (the most offensive help AI ever got was a broken down Derrick Coleman and a one-legged, washed up Chris Webber). Today's stars would be crying their way out of there in no time.

If you need further validation of Iverson being capable of more efficient scoring (as well as compromising a few shots and some USG), look no further than his 07-08 season in Denver with quite a bit of offensive firepower. 26.4 PPG on 26.7% USG and 56.7% TS - and this is an Iverson in his 30s, already on the decline. Imagine the kind of damage he could have done with good offensive support in his prime... and if it was in the no-handchecking era as well, he might have averaged around 15 FTA to go along with it.

It might be a totally new concept for the TS% generation, but when a player has a talented offensive team with many scoring threats, he gets easier shots and less double teams, because the defense cannot afford to put as much pressure on him. When the team has no offensive talent, it's a lot harder for that player to be efficient, because the reverse is true.

Despite his own inefficiency, Iverson was greatly boosting his team's offense by putting an enormous amount of pressure on the opposing defense, as the '01 Sixers were the 13th best offensive team in the league. That's quite remarkable for a team with 1 (read: one) scoring threat. For comparison's sake, the universally praised and efficient Wade with a subpar offensive support only led the '09 and '10 Heat to the 20th and 19th best offense, respectively.

Okay, but how do we know it was indeed Iverson who was boosting the team's offense? Well, the following year AI misses over 20 games and Philly's offense tanks to 23rd in the league. In 02-03, The Answer plays all 82 and the Sixers have the 11th offense in the game, while in 03-04 he plays with a hamstring injury which eventually sidelines him for the latter half of the season, resulting in Philly being the 26th offense of the NBA.

Now, to the Sixers only being good because of their defense and not because of Iverson...

With Iverson: 50-21 (.704)
Without Iverson: 6-5 (.545)

Sure, an 11-game sample may not be ideal, but the tendency is clear. An East powerhouse playing .700 ball becomes an around .500, mediocre team. That's how much you can realistically achieve with very good defense and no offense.

And let it be known that I have no intention of negating those Sixers' defensive prowess. Snow, McKie, Lynch, Hill, Mutombo - these are all very good to excellent defensive players. You're really pushing it with Mutombo being helpful on offense, though. He was a stiff with no jumpshot and no post game. He could finish layups... if he managed to catch the pass. Few people remember he's one of the worst cases of stone hands in recent memory. If you want to find a somewhat helpful offensive player on that roster, you look at McKie, not at Mutombo.

I don't consider Iverson the GOAT, I don't think he was a flawless player or person, I don't think he had no defensive help in Philly and I don't even think he was the best player in the league in 2001 (Shaq and Duncan were better), but he still deserved the MVP for reasons mentioned at the beginning of this way too long reply. But your description of AI is just disrespectful and horribly misguided and I won't stand for that. Thanks to the TS% generation, AI is so universally shouted about and "known" to be overrated that I think he may actually be becoming underrated now.

TL;DR version: Allen Iverson is one of the greatest scorers in NBA history who had a very positive impact on his team in his prime, as proven by statistical measures, impact estimating stats that look beyond the boxscore, as well as common sense. Stop using TS% and TS% only to evaluate players. Less knowledgeable people may believe you and you would be doing them a great disservice.


Now... one last question for the TS% generation representatives here... does Adrian Dantley happen to be your GOAT?

Sure as hell is, Steve Nash would like a word with you.

Paul took what Nash was on offense, improved it, and added elite defense. Nash isn't even in the same sentence.

Nash peak Ortg seasons are Pauls average.

Nash peak Ws/48 are bellow Pauls average. I could go on.

I can live with people putting Stockton above. But Nash ? Lol.

This, though...

do you consider any stats other than TS% when spouting this kind of nonsense?

Ortg, Ws/48, PER, OBPM , VORP ? Ever heard of those?

Duncan and Shaq ere both more deserving.

You bring up those stats without mentioning he was pretty much the only offensive option on that team. Still doesn't mean it was a good one.

Their defense was far more important than shot happy Iverson. He was a bellow-efficient offensive player on a roster that required him to be a volume shooter. He was surrounded by good defenders as it was the thing that the management probably though it would be best. Clearly when he really became more efficient is in Denver where he had another reliable scoring threat in Carmelo.

Prime Iverson was one of the most unstoppable one-on-one forces ever. Teams quickly recognized it and began throwing many men at him.

Thus making him ineffective.

Imagine Wade or Paul or any player who operates on pick and rolls without any shooting around them

Wade had 2 seasons in his prime where the Heat finished 20th and 17th in 3PA and was clearly better than Iverson.

During Pauls amazing 08/09 campaign Hornets finished 14th in 3PA. He also played on a team that finished 25th. In his prime. Where he was better than Iverson. In his prime.

washed up Chris Webber

He also had Iguodala. Kyle Korver still attempted many threes. Webber Was still better than most Paul pre-LAC teammates and Wades in the Shaq Inj/Post Shaq and Pre LBJ era. Where they were more efficient and better than Iverson.

I really don't understand why you are just using Philly team stats instead comparing the players ?

It might be a totally new concept for the TS% generation, but when a player has a talented offensive team with many scoring threats, he gets easier shots and less double teams, because the defense cannot afford to put as much pressure on him. When the team has no offensive talent, it's a lot harder for that player to be efficient, because the reverse is true.

That's exactly why Iverson wasn't efficient in his first prime with the 76ers, and was during his second one with the Nuggets. You just proved my point.

Okay, but how do we know it was indeed Iverson who was boosting the team's offense? Well, the following year AI misses over 20 games and Philly's offense tanks to 23rd in the league.

This is just a blatantly unimportant argument. Of course if your best offensive player gets injured, you're going to drop off in offense.

And let it be known that I have no intention of negating those Sixers' defensive prowess. Snow, McKie, Lynch, Hill, Mutombo - these are all very good to excellent defensive players.

Good to see we agree on something.

You're really pushing it with Mutombo being helpful on offense, though. He was a stiff with no jumpshot and no post game. He could finish layups..

This arguments should be called stupid. DeAndre Jordan has a very limited skillset but is incredibly efficient in the right system. Mutoumbo was efficient in the 2001 Playoffs.

Thanks to the TS% generation, AI is so universally shouted about and "known" to be overrated that I think he may actually be becoming underrated now.

Iverson was given the wrong role thinking he was an All-time great scorer and that he could remain efficient while carrying so much load offensively. Just proves my point how overrated he was on offense.

Stop using TS% and TS% only to evaluate players. Less knowledgeable people may believe you and you would be doing them a great disservice.

Lol, learn to read posts and analyze stats.

Adrian Dantley happen to be your GOAT?

Are you crazy. Is he not a top 3 scorer in the 3pt era? Can't you read and acknowledge stats? Other than your whole post being consisted of really no important factor to the discussion, you question if Dantley was great offensively?

LOL!

EDIT: Had a good laugh at the whole TS% generation thing. You sound like that TS% isn't important. Clearly it isn't to you since it doesn't favour Iverson. You're also pretty "special" for saying I only use TS% as an argument when I obviously haven't mentioned it at all in my previous posts. You brought it up. Iverson slacks in every category compared to Paul and Wade. Media fanboy.

Last edited by Mandich on Wed Jun 10, 2015 6:46 am, edited 8 times in total.

Players with similar USG% with having little offensive help, that were better than Iverson:

Wade, Jordan, Kobe, T-Mac, LeBron, Bernard King, Gervin etc.

Notice something? There were all given a similar role to Iverson as the lone superstar offensive option, it's just that in their prime they actually were All-time greats in scoring.

You yourself said Iverson had absolutely no help on offense, yet when he was out they remained around or above .500.

Just shows you the defensive value those teams had.

Even Carter was better in his prime.

Want to know players that have a higher career Ws/48 than Iverson?

Alex English, Gilbert Arenas, Rashard Lewis, Al Jefferson, Chris Webber, Jason Kidd, Deron Williams ..I could go on. I still haven't entered the first 100 players.

Iverson is the most overrated player of the last 20 years. Get over it. It's like saying Isiah Thomas is in fact a top 3 pg as the media presents him to be.

i am giving my vote to wade. close, but wade. his flopping technique is far superior to chris pauls

Good point. He who flops and flails to the Finals and a title, flops and flails best.

Not all floppers are created equal. 3 is greater than 3.

3 > 3

My vote for Wade, I like them both. Chris Paul is obviously the best PG on the League, Wade has had a great career and should have an MVP. But those 3 chips make the difference. The 2006 Finals were all about Wade. He played really great on the OKC Finals, Spurs one was more a LeBron show. Last year his knees had given all they had, so I don't foul him for losing.

I really would like to see Paul walk away with a ring, maybe he'll pull out a Jason Kidd at the end of his career.

If someone hasn't voted, he should. Because Paul is currently leading.

EDIT: And we're tied again. Just let someone win.

Vote for Wade. Screw the Conference Finals Virgin.

Paul took what Nash was on offense, improved it, and added elite defense. Nash isn't even in the same sentence.

Nash led many of the most efficient offenses of all-time. Paul is an elite playmaker, but doesn't touch Nash who is - along with Magic - on a tier above everyone else in that regard. In addition to that, Nash had the ability to become a volume scorer if that's what his team needed (despite always being a pass-first guy), which allowed him to go to the conference finals numerous times in the tough West despite his support being maybe slightly above average. Not sure what the problem is with Paul, but it's puzzling that with decent teams around him he can't get out of the 2nd round. Can't say I follow the Clippers all that closely, though.

Obviously, Paul is a much better defender, but PG is the least relevant position in regards to team defense. Having your PG be a good defender is clearly preferable to having him be a defensive sieve, but it isn't nearly as big a deal as a no-defense bigman.

Also, Nash was a very poor one-on-one defender, but a decent team defender in regards to IQ, positioning and rotations. He was also very good at drawing charges. All things considered, Nash was only a slight negative on defense, not one of the worst defenders ever that the public opinion makes him out to be.

Nash peak Ortg seasons are Pauls average.

Nash peak Ws/48 are bellow Pauls average. I could go on.

So? These are all box score stats. They have some value, but don't tell you about team impact.

I can live with people putting Stockton above. But Nash ? Lol.

The only case Stockton could have over either Paul or Nash would be insane longevity. Then again, Nash's is pretty good as well while Paul is obviously still working on his.

Ortg, Ws/48, PER, OBPM , VORP ? Ever heard of those?

Sure. Never heard of them being gospel, though. Or more important than one's value brought to his team.

You bring up those stats without mentioning he was pretty much the only offensive option on that team. Still doesn't mean it was a good one.

I mentioned it multiple times. Iverson was a one-man army offense out of necessity, not because of being a big, bad ballhog.

Duncan and Shaq ere both more deserving.

They were better players. It's not the only factor in awarding the MVP, though - as I've mentioned. In terms of value brought to HIS team, AI was right up there with them.

Their defense was far more important than shot happy Iverson. He was a bellow-efficient offensive player on a roster that required him to be a volume shooter. He was surrounded by good defenders as it was the thing that the management probably though it would be best.

Making some progress, okay. The surrounding of him by defensive role players elevated the team defense and worsened the team's offense, Iverson's efficiency along with it as he had no space to operate due to his teammates not commanding any attention from the defense.

Clearly when he really became more efficient is in Denver where he had another reliable scoring threat in Carmelo.

Yeah, that's what I'm saying. When a team only has one offensive option with no spacing around him, he won't be efficient. That's common sense.

Thus making him ineffective.

Effective enough to have big impact on the team's offense.

Wade had 2 seasons in his prime where the Heat finished 20th and 17th in 3PA and was clearly better than Iverson.

During Pauls amazing 08/09 campaign Hornets finished 14th in 3PA. He also played on a team that finished 25th. In his prime. Where he was better than Iverson. In his prime.

20th is the 07-08 season when the Heat went 15-67, Wade played 51 games and Miami had the worst offense in the league. So... nope.

17th is the 09-10 season when despite Wade being great, the Heat were a below average offensive team. Spacing matters.

25th for Paul would be 10-11. At least he had a 40+% 3-point shooter in Belinelli and the team was still below average on offense despite Paul's great play.

14th in 08-09 is way higher than all but one season for Iverson... and the team was barely above average on offense.

This is a good time for a reminder that with nobody able to shoot from outside, Iverson led Philly to an above average offense multiple times. The few times Wade and Paul had a subpar shooting support, they struggled to do so despite very good individual numbers - helped by no handchecking, mind you.

He also had Iguodala. Kyle Korver still attempted many threes. Webber Was still better than most Paul pre-LAC teammates and Wades in the Shaq Inj/Post Shaq and Pre LBJ era. Where they were more efficient and better than Iverson.

This is all in the 05 and 06 seasons, when Iverson was already decently efficient. See the correlation?

As for Webber being good... oh, man. Since you like TS% so much, why don't you check his for the Philly years? All he did was throw up mid-range bricks. He also played no defense anymore and there was the infamous "coach, I don't do that low-post thing anymore!".

Paul in NO had David West (elite mid-range and p&r big man) and a rotating crew of 3-point shooters: Stojakovic, Peterson, Butler, Posey and Thornton, among others. He had ample space to do his thing, which is run picks with West and have shooters prevent the defense from overhelping.

Wade had a post-injuries J.O. and a few shooters as well in Cook, Chalmers, Wright and Richardson. That's a below average offensive support, but still enough to give Wade space to drive after picks, which has always been his game.

I really don't understand why you are just using Philly team stats instead comparing the players ?

Because I'm interested in a player's impact on his team, not TS%. Boxscore stats don't tell the entire story.

That's exactly why Iverson wasn't efficient in his first prime with the 76ers, and was during his second one with the Nuggets. You just proved my point.

Not sure what your point was, then. I proved that Iverson's inefficiency was a product of his very bad offensive support and handchecking still being legal. When that changed, he all of a sudden became a decently efficient scorer. Did he suddenly learn how to play basketball or did his circumstances change?

This is just a blatantly unimportant argument. Of course if your best offensive player gets injured, you're going to drop off in offense.

You seemed to be questioning that Iverson had anything to do with good results of that Sixers team, which makes that argument important as it proves the offense absolutely nosedived without him while being above average with him, despite his inefficiency.

This arguments should be called stupid. DeAndre Jordan has a very limited skillset but is incredibly efficient in the right system. Mutoumbo was efficient in the 2001 Playoffs.

Again, TS% isn't everything. Literally the only valuable thing Jordan does on offense is get offensive rebounds. Other than that, with his complete lack of skills on that end, all he accomplishes is pushing Griffin out to the high post mid-range area. Jordan has to be under the basket as he's so useless anywhere else that the defense could freely use his defender to help somewhere else. No shit you'll be efficient when all shots you take are dunks. Jordan's efficiency is a product of Paul and Griffin creating shots (well, dunks) for him. Mutombo's efficiency was the product of the defense being focused entirely on Iverson.

For all his defensive brilliance, Mutombo wasn't a good offensive player, period. His impact also is helped by offensive rebounds, but he was still a negative on offense, as evidenced by his consistently negative offensive on/off and ORAPM.

Iverson was given the wrong role thinking he was an All-time great scorer and that he could remain efficient while carrying so much load offensively. Just proves my point how overrated he was on offense.

His role was fine. He did it efficiently in later years when given just a little offensive competence from his support. What that accomplished is not allowing the defense to be focused entirely on him.

Let me emphasize again that in the modern era of basketball, 3-point shooters and spacing are essential to offensive efficiency. A volume scorer surrounded by no shooting and with handchecking still legal was bound to be inefficient. That's a load no player can carry efficiently, other than maybe prime Shaq and prime Wilt who just dominated physically over everyone else.

If you're interested in the effect no shooting has on a modern NBA offense, look no further than the 14-15 Sixers. They were on pace to set some all-time offensive futility records before signing Robert Covington, and still came close with him. Now think about how adding an inefficient prime Iverson to that team would make them slightly above average on the offensive end. That's elite impact.

Had a good laugh at the whole TS% generation thing. You sound like that TS% isn't important. Clearly it isn't to you since it doesn't favour Iverson.

It's important. It's not a be-all, end-all though and that's how you're using it.

You're also pretty "special" for saying I only use TS% as an argument when I obviously haven't mentioned it at all in my previous posts. You brought it up.

You may not have mentioned it outright, but you were claiming Iverson ruined his team's offense. I then made the assumption you did so because of his TS% and guess what, it's correct!

I like how you blatantly ignored stats saying how the '01 Sixers actually won the most with Iverson taking 21-30 shots in the RS and won more the more he shot in the playoffs, contrary to what his TS% would have you believe.

Players with similar USG% with having little offensive help, that were better than Iverson:

Wade, Jordan, Kobe, T-Mac, LeBron, Bernard King, Gervin etc.

Notice something? There were all given a similar role to Iverson as the lone superstar offensive option

King, Gervin and young Jordan played in the 80s or even late 70s (3-point shot not relevant yet, spacing not relevant yet, zone defense illegal therefore basically no help defense - when Detroit was helping out on Jordan's drives by bringing over multiple defenders people were calling it "Jordan Rules", lol). Irrelevant.

LeBron, Wade and Kobe had their prime in the post-handchecking era with more spacing and offensive help than AI (especially Bryant and James). Then again, I never said AI was better than those three.

Prime Jordan was... well, prime Jordan. Iverson obviously can't touch that. '03 T-Mac was the closest thing to Jordan, but his prime was cut short by injuries.

You yourself said Iverson had absolutely no help on offense, yet when he was out they remained around or above .500.

Just shows you the defensive value those teams had.

Yeah, and with adding one inefficient offensive player they went to .700. How can an inefficient chucker elevate his team like that? This goes against TS%.

Even Carter was better in his prime.

Nope.

Want to know players that have a higher career Ws/48 than Iverson?

Not really. WS is hardly even an individual stat. No offense, but you seem to have recently discovered basketball-reference and think that you've reached the pinnacle of analyzing basketball by looking at "advanced" box score stats.

Iverson is the most overrated player of the last 20 years. Get over it. It's like saying Isiah Thomas is in fact a top 3 pg as the media presents him to be.

The one sensible thing in this quote is that Isiah Thomas isn't a top3 PG, but I'm not sure I've seen him described as such.

------

Saving the best for last: Dantley.

Are you crazy. Is he not a top 3 scorer in the 3pt era? Can't you read and acknowledge stats? Other than your whole post being consisted of really no important factor to the discussion, you question if Dantley was great offensively?

This reply tells me that all you know about Adrian Dantley is his PPG and TS%.

Adrian Dantley was a low-post scoring small forward. Very strong for his size, he had a knack for using his body to create contact and with contact, create space to get off a shot and/or draw a foul. He was quite exceptional at that, but this can be concluded from his TS% already.

The Utah teams in his prime were absolutely miserable. They struggled mightily to break 30 wins (let alone make the playoffs), which is already strange with a seemingly all-time great like Dantley on board. What's more strange is that the team didn't miss a beat (and actually got a tiny bit better) when Dantley got injured for most of the season in '83 and got better after getting rid of him in '86.

Then he went to Detroit, where the team had some success with him. Then they traded AD for Mark Aguirre and went from contenders to back-to-back champions. All that while Dallas (Dantley's new team) went from WCF to lottery to first-round sweep.

Point is, his impact was neutral to slightly negative in his Utah years and a big negative in his later years. He was a defensive sieve and his offense was a miniscule positive at best.

You're probably thinking "this makes no sense. 30+ PPG on 60+TS% - how can that not be helping a team?". The answer to that is simple, but it would require you to get out of basketball-reference and actually watch a basketball game.

It's all in his playstyle. He was a notorious ball-stopper and black hole on offense. He would get the ball posted up about 15 feet from the basket, back down, back down, back down, pump fake, pump fake, pump fake... if he got a shot off, he often drew a foul as well. Efficient offense. When he didn't, though? He would still burn the entire shot clock, then pass out to one of his teammates for an awful, contested shot at the end of the shot clock. Keeps his USG down, keeps his TS% high, tanks the team's offensive efficiency and record. Dantley completely killed any ball movement and turned his teammates into spectators on every possession. He functioned solely as a #1 option and you had two choices when he's on your team:

a) you give him the ball and play 1v5 - and he will take the entire shot clock to set up his moves to score (or pass out at the last second)
b) you don't give him the ball and play 4v5 - Dantley didn't move without the ball very well

For all the crap a guy like Melo gets for hogging the ball and not passing, let me tell you he's a LOT more willing to move the ball than Dantley was.

And it wasn't a case of doing what the team asked, either. His playstyle was upsetting members of the team and caused multiple clashes. First with coach Frank Layden in Utah, then with Isiah in Detroit. The Pistons wanted Dantley to move out to the mid-range area to space the floor better and avoid clogging the paint for their other interior scorers. He was unhappy about it and wouldn't. When Utah asked him to move the ball more, he wouldn't. Reportedly, he even kind of clashed with Abdul-Jabbar and Wilkes in LA, before the Utah years. Both of them not really known for being selfish or whatever.

The truth is, good teams that had Dantley didn't want him. Buffalo drafted Dantley, he averaged 20 PPG as a rookie... they traded him to LA. Lakers had Dantley right before drafting Magic and... they traded him. Utah was miserable with him for half a decade while he put up historically great scoring stats. When they got a good coach (Layden) and started improving... they traded him. Detroit wouldn't get him to fit, he clashed with Isiah... they traded him. He could definitely play the game, but only HIS way. Nobody wanted him for very long.

So, unfortunately for the TS% worshippers, Adrian Dantley is the ultimate "empty stats" player. He put up huge numbers on huge efficiency that weren't having an effect on his teams. He played no defense and his offense was ball-stopping on the level of Rondo and then some.

To answer your question: the problem isn't my stat reading capability. The problem is that not all of basketball can be expressed in a box score.

Discussing with you is clearly pointless since you dismiss every HARD fact I present to you.

Stats provide a perfect way to analyze a players worth/efficiency etc. You running away from them isn't really helping your case. Have a nice day.

EDIT: Lold at "watch the game " refference.

Spree#8, props to you for making a hella big deal out of that.
Seriously though, you have too much time in your hands.

And you are an idiot with your stupid one liners

Said the Chicago native with his one liner.

touche, mon ami

Spree#8, props to you for making a hella big deal out of that.
Seriously though, you have too much time in your hands.

I hope you're not allergic to reading too.
Go to Twitter if you like short pointless discussions instead of long pointless ones in the forums.

Says the forum troll.

Get a room

You don't have to agree with what Spree is saying but you should appreciate he's puting time and effort into the discussion

Or maybe I'm wrong. Discussion is not encouraged here and one liners is the way to go

You aren't wrong but hearing lecture on it from a one liner specialist shadowgrin made me salty iykwim.

Discussing with you is clearly pointless since you dismiss every HARD fact I present to you.

Stats provide a perfect way to analyze a players worth/efficiency etc. You running away from them isn't really helping your case. Have a nice day.

EDIT: Lold at "watch the game " refference.

Technically, box score stats are indeed facts. Practically, they aren't the ultimate knowledge. Games are won and lost with high/low impact players who aren't necessarily the highest/lowest TS% players.

But I digress. According to your logic, LeBron is killing the Cavs' offense in the Finals with his low efficiency. Keep worshipping Adrian Dantley's TS% which even makes Jordan look like an inefficient chucker (Jordan's best TS% season at 61.4% is under Dantley's career average of 61.7%). Too bad the only team that didn't play hot potato on him was winning 25-30 games per season in his prime.

Nice day to you, too.

Spree#8, props to you for making a hella big deal out of that.

Sorry. I thought the point of a forum is to have discussions. I did add a "TL;DR version" to the first one, forgot the second time. That's my bad and I do promise to improve.


TL;DR version: nothing to see here, keep scrolling.