Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: The Allen Iverson Project

Expand Messages
  • Mike Goodman
    ... touches ... overlapped 30 ... 45.3%. He ... jumpshot. He was ... Stuart, have you broken down the FT attempts resulting from these 3 categories of shot
    Message 1 of 10 , Oct 22, 2001
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In APBR_analysis@y..., "McKibbin, Stuart" <smckibbi@c...> wrote:
      > Perhaps a summary of Iverson is in order.
      >
      > 452 possessions. 328 touches.
      > 86 of the touches came from Iverson advancing the ball. 67 of the
      touches
      > were in transition. Transition touches and advancing touches
      overlapped 30
      > times.
      >
      > Overall, Al shot the 162 times (162/328 = 49.3%). He was 33-85 with
      > jumpshots, including 11 treys for a true shooting percentage of
      45.3%. He
      > was 15-33 (45.5%) when he drove and then pulled up for the
      jumpshot. He was
      > 18-44 (41.0%) when he drove to the basket for a layup.

      Stuart, have you broken down the FT attempts resulting from these 3
      categories of shot attempts? My guess is that adding in those points
      and attempts will yield a much more favorable case for Iverson going
      to the rack.
      And that doesn't even consider damage done to the opponent by picking
      up fouls. Maybe this could be quantified?

      > However, when he was in transition, and many times unguarded, his
      shooting
      > percentage went way up. In transition situations he was 18-31
      (58%). 3-5
      > with jumpshots, tsp = 70%, 5-9 with the pullup jumper, 10-17 taking
      it to
      > the rack. So when Allen took it all the way to the basket and
      wasn't in
      > transition he was a mere 8-27 (29.6%), demonstrating that in the
      half court
      > at least it's still a big man's game. But in the open court Al's
      speed is a
      > hell of an advantage.
      >
      > On his 86 advances Iverson passed the ball 37 times, shot it 33
      times, and
      > was fouled 7 times. The other 8 advances consists of various misc.
      > happenings.
      >
      > Al passed the ball 109 times, (109/328 = 33.2%). 17 assists and 12
      > "assist-like" plays. .
      >
      > He had 11 turnovers (11/328 = 3.3%) and was fouled 32 times with
      the ball
      > (32/328 = 9.7%) and was fouled 7 times away from the ball. 14 other
      > miscellaneous things (like jumpballs, deflections, timeouts, away
      from the
      > ball fouls, illegal screens, etc.) happened to round out the 328.

      So if Iverson was fouled with the ball 32 times, 7 in transition,
      that leaves 25. If 20 of these were while attempting to shoot, and
      15 (just guessing) were on layup attempts, he may have another (24-30
      FT, just a guess) equivalent of 12-15 shooting to add to his 8-27 FG.
      This is 20-42, which is right up there with his long-range TSP.

      > There were 170 possessions when Al did not touched the ball. Philly
      scored
      > 148 points or 0.87 pts/poss.
      > There were 119 possessions when Al touched the ball and didn't get
      a FGA or
      > a FTA. Philly scored 116 points or 0.97 pts/poss.
      > There were 172 possesions were Al had either a FGA or FTA. Philly
      scored 203
      > points or 1.18 pts/poss. 32 of the 203 points came from Philly
      hitting the
      > offensive boards (including Al recovering his own shot, so there is
      a little
      > double counting here).
      > I don't count the technicals Al shot as part of any possession.

      This makes a strong case that Iverson should in fact be taking the
      shots on this team. In fact, he wasn't in the game at all some of
      the time, and if this were more than 1 or 2 minutes it might need to
      be figured separately.
      Is it possible to break down the offensive rebounding resulting from
      the 3 categories (outside jumper, pullup jumper, layup)?
      And how did you classify those times when Iverson beat his man and
      lobbed it up over Shaq? Those seemed to fall at a high percentage.

      Mike Goodman
    • McKibbin, Stuart
      Stuart, have you broken down the FT attempts resulting from these 3 categories of shot attempts? My guess is that adding in those points and attempts will
      Message 2 of 10 , Oct 22, 2001
      • 0 Attachment

        "Stuart, have you broken down the FT attempts resulting from these 3

        categories of shot attempts? My guess is that adding in those points

        and attempts will yield a much more favorable case for Iverson going

        to the rack. And that doesn't even consider damage done to the opponent by picking

        up fouls. Maybe this could be quantified? So if Iverson was fouled with the ball 32 times, 7 in transition,

        that leaves 25. If 20 of these were while attempting to shoot, and

        15 (just guessing) were on layup attempts, he may have another (24-30

        FT, just a guess) equivalent of 12-15 shooting to add to his 8-27 FG.

        This is 20-42, which is right up there with his long-range TSP."

        I quick run back through my chart breaks down the FT's like this:

        2 Technicals, 10 bonus fouls for 20 FTs, 8 Driving layups for 15 FTs (that includes one "and-1" FT),  4 pullup jumpers for 7FTs (that includes one "and-1" FT), and 1 jumpshot for 3 Fts. 16 times he was fouled without getting a FT. I'm missing a FT from Game 3, my charts say 12, the boxscore says 13. Perhaps it was a technical foul I didn't have the tape running for.

        So to continue your train of thought---Iverson took it to the rack with the intention of shooting it 51 times. He made 17, made 1 and was fouled, was fouled on 7 others for 14 FTs, and missed the other 26 attempts. Rather than see how many FTs Al actually made, I think it would be better to just multiply his FTA times his FT%. So the results were (18 + (15/2 x .8))/51 = 47%. (up from 41%) Which is just what you suspected, Mike.  I think what I should do is see which fouls came in transition and subtract those out (I never said 7 fouls came in transition).

      • McKibbin, Stuart
        Is it possible to break down the offensive rebounding resulting from the 3 categories (outside jumper, pullup jumper, layup)? And how did you classify those
        Message 3 of 10 , Oct 22, 2001
        • 0 Attachment

          "Is it possible to break down the offensive rebounding resulting from the 3 categories (outside jumper, pullup jumper, layup)? And how did you classify those times when Iverson beat his man and lobbed it up over Shaq? Those seemed to fall at a high percentage."

          The teardrops over Shaq were counted as layups---he wasn't pointing his elbow at the rim.

          Well here's the total breakdown of offensive rebounding based on shot type:

          Jumpshot: 52 misses. Teammates recovered 8 offensive rebs plus two team rebounds. The eight off rebs were converted into 18 points, with Al scoring 3 of the 18. The two team rebs were converted into 5 points with Al scoring all 5.------Total 10 second chances, 23 points.

          Driving Jumpshot: 18 misses. Teammates recovered 6 offensive rebs which were converted into 4 points.

          Layups: 26 misses. Teammates recovered two that hit the rim and converted them into 5 points. Teammates recovered one blocked shot and converted it into 2 points. 2 team rebounds were converted into 3 points. Al recovered 4 of his own shots and he converted them into 4 points by himself.----Total 9 second chances, 14 points.

          In my mind what Doug Collins termed the "Iverson effect" should be offensive rebounds by teammates only (recovering blocked shots, team rebounds or Al getting his own misses shouldn't count). So I'd put the Iverson effect as 87 misses, 16 offensive rebounds, 27 points.

        • Dean Oliver
          ... offensive ... or Al ... effect as 87 ... I m completely swamped at work these days, so I don t have much time, but I do have one comment on this. It s
          Message 4 of 10 , Oct 22, 2001
          • 0 Attachment
            --- In APBR_analysis@y..., "McKibbin, Stuart" <smckibbi@c...> wrote:
            > In my mind what Doug Collins termed the "Iverson effect" should be
            offensive
            > rebounds by teammates only (recovering blocked shots, team rebounds
            or Al
            > getting his own misses shouldn't count). So I'd put the Iverson
            effect as 87
            > misses, 16 offensive rebounds, 27 points.

            I'm completely swamped at work these days, so I don't have much time,
            but I do have one comment on this.

            It's interesting.

            OK, I have more than that. 16 rebounds of 87 misses isn't very
            good. The hypothesis has always been that teammates should rebound
            more of his misses proportionately. Apparently not true.

            However, 27 points on 16 orebs is pretty impressive. Much better
            than I thought it would be.

            Sooo... my calculations generally assume that a team performs just
            about as well off of misses as it does in a normal possession. 27
            points out of 87 misses is about right because the Sixers rebounded
            33% of their own missed shots in the postseason and scored 1.03 pts
            per possession. So my estimate on how many points should have been
            scored off of Iverson's misses is 1.03*0.327*87 = 29 pts.

            What I don't estimate very well, however, is that only 16 of his 87
            misses be rebounded. I estimated 0.327*87 = 28. This makes his
            offensive efficiency look higher than it was.

            On the other hand (I argue with myself a lot on these things), I do
            give credit for other players rebounding

            In the end, I estimated that Iverson scored on 48% of his 161
            possessions, "producing" 165 points. I defined possessions slightly
            differently -- a missed shot of his that is rebounded by a teammate
            is not considered a possession. I had him "winning" 2 of 5 games vs.
            the Lakers.

            OK, that's more time than I can afford. But I will study this stuff
            more after 11/19 when my life gets a little more normal. Very useful.

            Dean Oliver
            Journal of Basketball Studies
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.