Tendex Ratings and Iverson
bob chaikin said: "...allen iverson (.481 tendex/min) may have led the league in scoring last season, but his overall production was only similar to players such as paul pierce, glenn robinson, stephon marbury, and (surprise) andre miller - his high scoring being "negated" by his poor shooting..."
msg_53 then said: "Here again, Iverson's scoring rate, while playing for one of the league's premier defensive teams, is undervalued unless you factor in the team PPG allowed. This may artificially apply his team's defense to his individual offense, but it does somewhat justify his MVP selection."
After watching Iverson repeatedly in slow-motion over the summer I want to get in a few jabs here. His MVP award can only be justified if the voters were only paying attention during his incredible 33-game hot streak that lasted from Dec 30th to March 9th (36.3 ppg). Before Dec 30 he was pretty awful and after March 9th he was hurt and not as spectacular (29.3 ppg, and if you want to throw out the season finale where Philly lost homecourt advantage to the Lakes, 31.1 ppg). There is no other justification that makes any sense to me. I'll debate that further if any cares enough.
Tendex (for whatever it's worth) appears to show that almost Al's entire value was based on his scoring and even that was tempered by the large number of shots he missed. Those guys who developed Hoopstats Grades would express the first part of the previous sentence by giving him a large Gun rating (-10, the largest ever for an MVP), which means except for shooting he ain't doing much for you.
Unfortunately, I fail to see msg_53's point that Al's scoring is undervalued unless you factor in his teammate's defense. Yes, 31 ppg by Iverson in a game that averages 185 points is of more value than Kiki Vandeweghe's 30 ppg in a game that averages 250, but so what? If Kobe or Vince or Stevie Franchise were in Al's shoes and took the same amount of shots they would score more points than Al (by basically the difference between the trio's much higher true shooting percentages and Al's) and Philly would win more often. Another way of stating my point is that playing in a 185 point game makes it harder to score 31 ppg but taking 29 of the available shots a game definitely makes it easier.
And while I'm bashing Iverson, he's not a good defender. I think he was the weakest defender of Philly's starting 5 last year. Iverson's defense in the Finals consisted of sagging off his man, going for steals, and whining to the ref. He didn't foul much because he usually guarded a guy who rarely took the ball to the rack. He got posted constantly when he matched up with taller guards (Shaw and Kobe), failed to get back on D, and several times left his man wide open at the three point line while inexplicably trying to double Shaq (like a 6-0 doubler is a bother). He consistently exercised poor judgement. Tendex says he gets a gang of steals, for whatever that's worth.
So much for Iverson and back to Tendex. I agree with dean oliver, if taken in it's usual form, what the hell is it trying to quantify? If you want to say "activity", I'll buy it, but anything else like "production" seems shaky. Assigning everything that the NBA statisticians track with equal value because it's simple makes it almost useless as an analytical tool. Moreover, combining offensive and "defensive" stats is just wierd. It's like combining home runs and putouts into a single formula and thinking you're on to something. Finally, I, too, think some stuff is double counted. For example, Tendex wants to give Shaq credit for offensive rebounds and points scored as if they were separate events, but in reality Shaq rewards himself by taking those offensive rebounds and jamming them in the hoop or getting fouled.
- --- In APBR_analysis@y..., "McKibbin, Stuart" <smckibbi@c...> wrote:
> Unfortunately, I fail to see msg_53's point that Al's scoring is
> unless you factor in his teammate's defense. Yes, 31 ppg by Iversonin a
> game that averages 185 points is of more value than KikiVandeweghe's 30 ppg
> in a game that averages 250, but so what? If Kobe or Vince or Steviewould
> Franchise were in Al's shoes and took the same amount of shots they
> score more points than Al (by basically the difference between thetrio's
> much higher true shooting percentages and Al's) and Philly wouldwin more
> often. Another way of stating my point is that playing in a 185point game
> makes it harder to score 31 ppg but taking 29 of the availableshots a game
> definitely makes it easier.I find it hard to say (impossible, actually) how a player's shooting
pct. would change if traded to another team. My assumption is that
any player who is a primary scoring option (and there are degrees of
primaryness) is going to have a lower shooting pct than he would IF
he had some scoring help.
Of Kobe, Vince, and Francis, only Carter is close to the one-man
offense that Iverson is (in their current situations). Perhaps
Iverson should shoot less; but who will take those extra shots?
> And while I'm bashing Iverson, he's not a good defender. I think hewas the
> weakest defender of Philly's starting 5 last year. Iverson'sdefense in the
> Finals consisted of sagging off his man, going for steals, andwhining to
> the ref.That may have something to do with playing 47 minutes per game, and
being the main offensive option (as well as the smallest player) 90%
of the time. If you are questioning the Philly strategy, question