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

Again on the Rider's of the world

Expand Messages
  • HoopStudies
    ... assume ... I think the problem is the assumption that gets made (that it s better having low efficiency creative scorers). What I d like to get past is
    Message 1 of 9 , Feb 1, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In APBR_analysis@y..., "mikel_ind" <msg_53@h...> wrote:
      > --- In APBR_analysis@y..., "HoopStudies" <deano@r...> wrote:
      >
      > Any time a player plays a lot of minutes for a good team, and is a
      > featured scorer, despite a low shooting percentage, you might
      assume
      > there is sound reasoning behind it.
      > Finley, Sprewell, Jordan (this year), Stackhouse, Iverson, for
      > example.
      > Even on bad teams, Mercer, Jamison, Van Exel, perhaps even Jason
      > Williams, can chuck up lots of misses, yet their presence on the
      > floor is preferable to their not being there.

      I think the problem is the "assumption" that gets made (that it's
      better having low efficiency creative scorers). What I'd like to get
      past is that assumption. What is it that they do that helps the team
      and, more importantly, can we measure it? We all seem to agree that
      these other things they do are

      1. Freeing people up for offensive rebounds.
      2. Freeing people up for easy shots.

      Basically, they raise the efficiency of their teammates relative to
      other people (whoever those "other people" are). The problem is how
      to measure this. I don't want to identify guys who we think do this
      and measure only them. I want to possibly measure the number of
      offensive rebounds off all players' shots. I want to possibly
      measure the FG% off different players' assists. That kind of stuff.
      Supposedly, Sprewell, Finley, Stack, etc. improve something about the
      efficiency of their teammates. What is it? How does it happen? We
      MUST be able to measure it.

      -Isiah Rider was a very good example of a guy who was a "creative
      scorer", but who really was a bad player.

      -All those guys left for expansion drafts -- many of them became high
      scorers on bad teams. Does that mean they're good? No. Ron Mercer
      fits that mold a little right now.

      -Latrell Sprewell is someone who has not been a very efficient scorer
      and has generally been on teams with indisputably poor offenses. He
      didn't become top scorer in GS until the good players -- Webber and
      Hardaway -- left and the team's offense went to hell. Would NY now
      be worse without him? I'm not convinced, though it clearly depends
      on who you replace him with. (Allan Houston ain't great either.)

      -Iverson, despite his rap as a poor shooter, has generally been at or
      above the league average efficiency because the guy gets to the line,
      passes the ball (yes), and doesn't turn the ball over all that much.

      -Jamison's numbers fluctuate tremendously, but average below the
      league numbers for efficiency. His back-to-back 50 pt games last
      year were outstanding games, but relied on his unreliable jump shot.

      -Van Exel actually has been a pretty efficient scorer throughout his
      career, just very erratic from game to game, and a poor defender.

      -Stackhouse has improved his efficiency a bit through his career, but
      last year's Pistons team was still well below average offensively
      last year. Stackhouse was less efficient last year than Iverson (and
      Detroit was less efficient than Philly).

      One of the studies I'm bound to do is to look at all the teams of the
      last decade or so, collect their offensive efficiency ratings as a
      team, and look at the individual offensive ratings I calculate for
      their top scorer (along with how many possessions they use). There
      should be a strong correlation. Given the doubt there can be in
      individual efficiency numbers and their effect on a team's offense, I
      would hope this would clear things up a bit.

      >
      > Not only do the creative scorers disrupt the defense, opening up
      > offensive-rebounding possibilities. The fact that you have a
      > Stackhouse creates a job for a Ben Wallace. He wouldn't do as much
      > with, say, the Jazz.
      > Not only rebounding "specialists", but spot-up shooters see more
      > playing time when you have the "creators" mixing it up. Thus you
      see
      > Nash, Houston, Whitney, Atkins, McKie, Hoiberg, Lenard, etc.
      getting
      > open looks thanks to their more active runningmates.
      >

      Nash creates for himself very well. So does Nowitzki. I think that
      may be why the absence of Finley really didn't hurt the Dallas
      offense.

      > Offensive "efficiency" is not what one player does when he has the
      > ball, it's what his team can do when he has it.

      Teammates give a guy the ball because they know he can score or find
      someone who can score more efficiently than they can. That is what I
      try to measure.

      Dean Oliver
      Journal of Basketball Studies
    • John W. Craven
      ... I d guess that you d need to track rebound rates off of missed shots for each of these shooters. Personally, I m not sure that I buy the argument, but as
      Message 2 of 9 , Feb 1, 2002
      • 0 Attachment
        On Fri, 1 Feb 2002, HoopStudies wrote:

        > --- In APBR_analysis@y..., "mikel_ind" <msg_53@h...> wrote:
        > > --- In APBR_analysis@y..., "HoopStudies" <deano@r...> wrote:
        > >
        > > Any time a player plays a lot of minutes for a good team, and is a
        > > featured scorer, despite a low shooting percentage, you might
        > assume
        > > there is sound reasoning behind it.
        > > Finley, Sprewell, Jordan (this year), Stackhouse, Iverson, for
        > > example.
        > > Even on bad teams, Mercer, Jamison, Van Exel, perhaps even Jason
        > > Williams, can chuck up lots of misses, yet their presence on the
        > > floor is preferable to their not being there.
        >
        > I think the problem is the "assumption" that gets made (that it's
        > better having low efficiency creative scorers). What I'd like to get
        > past is that assumption. What is it that they do that helps the team
        > and, more importantly, can we measure it? We all seem to agree that
        > these other things they do are
        >
        > 1. Freeing people up for offensive rebounds.
        > 2. Freeing people up for easy shots.
        >
        > Basically, they raise the efficiency of their teammates relative to
        > other people (whoever those "other people" are). The problem is how
        > to measure this. I don't want to identify guys who we think do this
        > and measure only them. I want to possibly measure the number of
        > offensive rebounds off all players' shots. I want to possibly
        > measure the FG% off different players' assists. That kind of stuff.
        > Supposedly, Sprewell, Finley, Stack, etc. improve something about the
        > efficiency of their teammates. What is it? How does it happen? We
        > MUST be able to measure it.
        >

        I'd guess that you'd need to track rebound rates off of missed shots for each of these shooters. Personally, I'm not sure that I buy the argument, but as of now there's really no evidence either way - except as I'll append below.

        > -Isiah Rider was a very good example of a guy who was a "creative
        > scorer", but who really was a bad player.
        >


        But was his ability to create his own shots the reason why he was a bad player? I'm thinking not; in fact, I'm thinking that it had more to do with his absolutely horrendous defense - this is a guy who said at the beginning of this season that he didn't work hard on that end of the floor and didn't see the need to. His stats actually show him to be a fairly efficient player - mid-40s shooting percentage throughout his career with a lot of 3s, and a pretty good amount of FTs until the last couple years.

        Also, he was reportedly a poor practice player, which won't show up in the stats but will make a guy a real pain in the ass for his team.

        > -All those guys left for expansion drafts -- many of them became high
        > scorers on bad teams. Does that mean they're good? No. Ron Mercer
        > fits that mold a little right now.

        That's attributable to the Bad Team Effect. I _know_ that this exists, but I want to quantify it. As of right now, my team-defense adjustments seem to account for it pretty well.

        >
        > -Latrell Sprewell is someone who has not been a very efficient scorer
        > and has generally been on teams with indisputably poor offenses. He
        > didn't become top scorer in GS until the good players -- Webber and
        > Hardaway -- left and the team's offense went to hell. Would NY now
        > be worse without him? I'm not convinced, though it clearly depends
        > on who you replace him with. (Allan Houston ain't great either.)
        >
        > -Iverson, despite his rap as a poor shooter, has generally been at or
        > above the league average efficiency because the guy gets to the line,
        > passes the ball (yes), and doesn't turn the ball over all that much.

        I actually had Iverson as one of the 10 best players in basketball last year. The way I figure scoring, I assume that, as a function of being a member of an offense, any player on a team will make a specific amount of baskets per minute on the floor (which I figure out for each team by dividing assists by minutes played). Anything above that is, so to speak, gravy; the net effect is that guys who shoot 50% from the floor but make 4 attempts per game aren't rated ahead of guys who shoot 25 times a night at a 45% clip.

        Today's game is predicated too much on the ability of individual players to create their own shots to ignore this, IMO. No team in the league eschews the isolation play, guys who run the pick and roll well are going to get freed up for more shots than those who don't, and when there are 2 or 3 seconds left on the shot clock then that create-shots ability is of tantamount importance.

        >
        > -Jamison's numbers fluctuate tremendously, but average below the
        > league numbers for efficiency. His back-to-back 50 pt games last
        > year were outstanding games, but relied on his unreliable jump shot.
        >

        Again thanks to the vaunted team-defense adjustment, I have Jamison rated very, very low. In some cases, I think that the team-defense thing is unfair, but in Jamison's case he's really not a very good defender at all, and this gets reflected somewhat.

        > -Van Exel actually has been a pretty efficient scorer throughout his
        > career, just very erratic from game to game, and a poor defender.

        Also a very underrated passer. His defense seems to be erratic as well; for example, he gives Gary Payton fits on both ends of the court.

        >
        > -Stackhouse has improved his efficiency a bit through his career, but
        > last year's Pistons team was still well below average offensively
        > last year. Stackhouse was less efficient last year than Iverson (and
        > Detroit was less efficient than Philly).
        >
        > One of the studies I'm bound to do is to look at all the teams of the
        > last decade or so, collect their offensive efficiency ratings as a
        > team, and look at the individual offensive ratings I calculate for
        > their top scorer (along with how many possessions they use). There
        > should be a strong correlation. Given the doubt there can be in
        > individual efficiency numbers and their effect on a team's offense, I
        > would hope this would clear things up a bit.
        >
        > >
        > > Not only do the creative scorers disrupt the defense, opening up
        > > offensive-rebounding possibilities. The fact that you have a
        > > Stackhouse creates a job for a Ben Wallace. He wouldn't do as much
        > > with, say, the Jazz.
        > > Not only rebounding "specialists", but spot-up shooters see more
        > > playing time when you have the "creators" mixing it up. Thus you
        > see
        > > Nash, Houston, Whitney, Atkins, McKie, Hoiberg, Lenard, etc.
        > getting
        > > open looks thanks to their more active runningmates.
        > >
        >
        > Nash creates for himself very well. So does Nowitzki. I think that
        > may be why the absence of Finley really didn't hurt the Dallas
        > offense.
        >
        > > Offensive "efficiency" is not what one player does when he has the
        > > ball, it's what his team can do when he has it.
        >
        > Teammates give a guy the ball because they know he can score or find
        > someone who can score more efficiently than they can. That is what I
        > try to measure.
        >
        > Dean Oliver
        > Journal of Basketball Studies
        >
        >
        >
        > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
        > APBR_analysis-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
        >
        >
        >
        > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
        >
        >
        >
      • HoopStudies
        ... bad player? I m thinking not; in fact, I m thinking that it had more to do with his absolutely horrendous defense - this is a guy who said at the beginning
        Message 3 of 9 , Feb 1, 2002
        • 0 Attachment
          --- In APBR_analysis@y..., "John W. Craven" <john1974@u...> wrote:
          >
          > > -Isiah Rider was a very good example of a guy who was a "creative
          > > scorer", but who really was a bad player.
          > >
          >
          >
          > But was his ability to create his own shots the reason why he was a
          bad player? I'm thinking not; in fact, I'm thinking that it had more
          to do with his absolutely horrendous defense - this is a guy who said
          at the beginning of this season that he didn't work hard on that end
          of the floor and didn't see the need to. His stats actually show him
          to be a fairly efficient player - mid-40s shooting percentage
          throughout his career with a lot of 3s, and a pretty good amount of
          FTs until the last couple years.

          I don't have my numbers here at work and I hate speaking out of my
          bad memory, but here goes -- he was typically scoring the most for
          his team, but always less efficiently than his teammates and when he
          changed teams, the offense of his new team got worse, the offense of
          his old team got better. Would that qualify as a bad offensive
          player? Not necessarily. Not if he was being traded for outstanding
          offensive guys. I'd need to look.

          > > -All those guys left for expansion drafts -- many of them became
          high
          > > scorers on bad teams. Does that mean they're good? No. Ron
          Mercer
          > > fits that mold a little right now.
          >
          > That's attributable to the Bad Team Effect. I _know_ that this
          exists, but I want to quantify it. As of right now, my team-defense
          adjustments seem to account for it pretty well.

          The "Bad Team Effect"? A guy's teammates bring him down? Is that
          what you're saying? Do we have any evidence that Mercer was ever a
          good offensive player before? Why didn't Rider's offensive numbers
          get better when playing with better teammates?

          Other questions: Should David Robinson's efficiency get better
          because Duncan is around? Did Stephon Marbury make Kevin Garnett
          better? If Larry Hughes were to go to Chicago, would he or Mercer
          take more shots? Would Chicago get better? Was Antonio Davis a
          worse player in Indiana because he didn't score as much as he does in
          Toronto? Should Davis' efficiency have been higher when he was
          surrounded by Reggie Miller, Rik Smits, and Chris Mullin than when
          his teammates are Vince Carter, Alvin Williams, Keon Clark? Jason
          Terry has been playing on a rather pitiful team, but his efficiency
          is above average, well above Mercer's. Both bad teams and Terry
          didn't have Brand around last year.

          Answering them all is above any simple rating system.

          > > -Iverson, despite his rap as a poor shooter, has generally been
          at or
          > > above the league average efficiency because the guy gets to the
          line,
          > > passes the ball (yes), and doesn't turn the ball over all that
          much.
          >
          > I actually had Iverson as one of the 10 best players in basketball
          last year. The way I figure scoring, I assume that, as a function of
          being a member of an offense, any player on a team will make a
          specific amount of baskets per minute on the floor (which I figure
          out for each team by dividing assists by minutes played). Anything
          above that is, so to speak, gravy; the net effect is that guys who
          shoot 50% from the floor but make 4 attempts per game aren't rated
          ahead of guys who shoot 25 times a night at a 45% clip.

          I don't officially rank players with one overall number. I calculate
          things like win-loss records, net points per game, offensive and
          defensive efficiencies. By everything but offensive efficiency,
          Iverson ranked very high last year. And I checked team numbers to
          see whether the individual numbers made sense. They generally did.
          He was important. I did that again this year when he missed time and
          posted it in an earlier message.

          >
          > Today's game is predicated too much on the ability of individual
          players to create their own shots to ignore this, IMO. No team in the
          league eschews the isolation play, guys who run the pick and roll
          well are going to get freed up for more shots than those who don't,
          and when there are 2 or 3 seconds left on the shot clock then that
          create-shots ability is of tantamount importance.

          Definitely. No one is questioning that.

          >
          > > -Van Exel actually has been a pretty efficient scorer throughout
          his
          > > career, just very erratic from game to game, and a poor defender.
          >
          > Also a very underrated passer. His defense seems to be erratic as
          well; for example, he gives Gary Payton fits on both ends of the
          court.

          I think Van Exel is underrated for his passing because he too often
          comes down court and throws up an early shot. He is not a bad passer
          nor a bad shooter, but he can be a very bad decision-maker.
          Especially when he played with Shaq, it really upset his teammates
          and coaches that he would come down the court at the end of a tight
          game where he was supposed to get the ball to Shaq, but just throw up
          a 3pt shot (and he admittedly made a few). Whenever I see him, he
          makes a couple bonehead decisions a game. With a less talented
          surrounding cast now, some of those 3pt shots don't seem as
          boneheaded, of course. Context is important. Decent player, but one
          that can drive a coach crazy.
        • John W. Craven
          ... Actually, exactly the opposite. A mediocre player on a bad team will put up numbers ahead of what he s shown to be capable of. I noticed this in the
          Message 4 of 9 , Feb 1, 2002
          • 0 Attachment
            On Fri, 1 Feb 2002, HoopStudies wrote:

            > --- In APBR_analysis@y..., "John W. Craven" <john1974@u...> wrote:
            > >
            > > > -Isiah Rider was a very good example of a guy who was a "creative
            > > > scorer", but who really was a bad player.
            > > >
            > >
            > >
            > > But was his ability to create his own shots the reason why he was a
            > bad player? I'm thinking not; in fact, I'm thinking that it had more
            > to do with his absolutely horrendous defense - this is a guy who said
            > at the beginning of this season that he didn't work hard on that end
            > of the floor and didn't see the need to. His stats actually show him
            > to be a fairly efficient player - mid-40s shooting percentage
            > throughout his career with a lot of 3s, and a pretty good amount of
            > FTs until the last couple years.
            >
            > I don't have my numbers here at work and I hate speaking out of my
            > bad memory, but here goes -- he was typically scoring the most for
            > his team, but always less efficiently than his teammates and when he
            > changed teams, the offense of his new team got worse, the offense of
            > his old team got better. Would that qualify as a bad offensive
            > player? Not necessarily. Not if he was being traded for outstanding
            > offensive guys. I'd need to look.
            >
            > > > -All those guys left for expansion drafts -- many of them became
            > high
            > > > scorers on bad teams. Does that mean they're good? No. Ron
            > Mercer
            > > > fits that mold a little right now.
            > >
            > > That's attributable to the Bad Team Effect. I _know_ that this
            > exists, but I want to quantify it. As of right now, my team-defense
            > adjustments seem to account for it pretty well.
            >
            > The "Bad Team Effect"? A guy's teammates bring him down?

            Actually, exactly the opposite. A mediocre player on a bad team will put up numbers ahead of what he's shown to be "capable" of. I noticed this in the expansion years.

            > Is that
            > what you're saying? Do we have any evidence that Mercer was ever a
            > good offensive player before?

            No, in fact we have evidence that he's *not* a good offensive player, and yet he puts up attractive offensive numbers. I'm of the opinion that this is a direct result of his playing for a crappy team and being the least bad of all the bad options available.

            > Why didn't Rider's offensive numbers
            > get better when playing with better teammates?

            Well, this is exactly my point. Sorry I didn't explain myself better.

            >
            > Other questions: Should David Robinson's efficiency get better
            > because Duncan is around? Did Stephon Marbury make Kevin Garnett
            > better? If Larry Hughes were to go to Chicago, would he or Mercer
            > take more shots? Would Chicago get better? Was Antonio Davis a
            > worse player in Indiana because he didn't score as much as he does in
            > Toronto? Should Davis' efficiency have been higher when he was
            > surrounded by Reggie Miller, Rik Smits, and Chris Mullin than when
            > his teammates are Vince Carter, Alvin Williams, Keon Clark? Jason
            > Terry has been playing on a rather pitiful team, but his efficiency
            > is above average, well above Mercer's. Both bad teams and Terry
            > didn't have Brand around last year.
            >
            > Answering them all is above any simple rating system.
            >
            > > > -Iverson, despite his rap as a poor shooter, has generally been
            > at or
            > > > above the league average efficiency because the guy gets to the
            > line,
            > > > passes the ball (yes), and doesn't turn the ball over all that
            > much.
            > >
            > > I actually had Iverson as one of the 10 best players in basketball
            > last year. The way I figure scoring, I assume that, as a function of
            > being a member of an offense, any player on a team will make a
            > specific amount of baskets per minute on the floor (which I figure
            > out for each team by dividing assists by minutes played). Anything
            > above that is, so to speak, gravy; the net effect is that guys who
            > shoot 50% from the floor but make 4 attempts per game aren't rated
            > ahead of guys who shoot 25 times a night at a 45% clip.
            >
            > I don't officially rank players with one overall number. I calculate
            > things like win-loss records, net points per game, offensive and
            > defensive efficiencies. By everything but offensive efficiency,
            > Iverson ranked very high last year. And I checked team numbers to
            > see whether the individual numbers made sense. They generally did.
            > He was important. I did that again this year when he missed time and
            > posted it in an earlier message.
            >
            > >
            > > Today's game is predicated too much on the ability of individual
            > players to create their own shots to ignore this, IMO. No team in the
            > league eschews the isolation play, guys who run the pick and roll
            > well are going to get freed up for more shots than those who don't,
            > and when there are 2 or 3 seconds left on the shot clock then that
            > create-shots ability is of tantamount importance.
            >
            > Definitely. No one is questioning that.
            >
            > >
            > > > -Van Exel actually has been a pretty efficient scorer throughout
            > his
            > > > career, just very erratic from game to game, and a poor defender.
            > >
            > > Also a very underrated passer. His defense seems to be erratic as
            > well; for example, he gives Gary Payton fits on both ends of the
            > court.
            >
            > I think Van Exel is underrated for his passing because he too often
            > comes down court and throws up an early shot. He is not a bad passer
            > nor a bad shooter, but he can be a very bad decision-maker.

            Yeah, I totally agree.

            > Especially when he played with Shaq, it really upset his teammates
            > and coaches that he would come down the court at the end of a tight
            > game where he was supposed to get the ball to Shaq, but just throw up
            > a 3pt shot (and he admittedly made a few). Whenever I see him, he
            > makes a couple bonehead decisions a game. With a less talented
            > surrounding cast now, some of those 3pt shots don't seem as
            > boneheaded, of course. Context is important. Decent player, but one
            > that can drive a coach crazy.

            Yeah, I've always kind of wondered about him. He seems to be the kind of guy who is, by dint of his playing style, completely unable to "tone down" his game to accomodate better teammates. I guess that if he could, he'd still be a Laker.

            John Craven
          • thedawgsareout
            ... will put up numbers ahead of what he s shown to be capable of. I noticed this in the expansion years. I may too be mis-reading this, but wouldn t that
            Message 5 of 9 , Feb 1, 2002
            • 0 Attachment
              --- In APBR_analysis@y..., "John W. Craven" <john1974@u...> wrote:
              > Actually, exactly the opposite. A mediocre player on a bad team
              will put up numbers ahead of what he's shown to be "capable" of. I
              noticed this in the expansion years.

              I may too be mis-reading this, but wouldn't that really only be the
              case if we were looking at primary statistics? Yes, the scoring
              average may go up, but any effective system of statistical analysis
              is going to show that this isn't an improvement, but merely the
              effect of more chances.

              If we're looking at a player's offensive effectiveness based in
              significant part on an efficiency ratio like points in possessions
              used, or something like that, I think the opposite effect is seen
              with secondary players. A guy that depends on teammates (Steve Kerr,
              for example) to create for him is going to have effectiveness which
              is largely a function of the quality of said teammates.

              It's my opinion (hope?) that doing something along the lines of my
              unassisted/assisted field goal project (I'm putting the results at
              www.sonicscentral.com/assists/index.html in case anyone besides DeanO
              is interested) will help to control to some extent for this effect.
            • John Craven
              ... From: thedawgsareout To: Sent: Friday, February 01, 2002 2:08 PM Subject: [APBR_analysis] Re:
              Message 6 of 9 , Feb 1, 2002
              • 0 Attachment
                ----- Original Message -----
                From: "thedawgsareout" <kpelton08@...>
                To: <APBR_analysis@yahoogroups.com>
                Sent: Friday, February 01, 2002 2:08 PM
                Subject: [APBR_analysis] Re: Again on the Rider's of the world


                > --- In APBR_analysis@y..., "John W. Craven" <john1974@u...> wrote:
                > > Actually, exactly the opposite. A mediocre player on a bad team
                > will put up numbers ahead of what he's shown to be "capable" of. I
                > noticed this in the expansion years.
                >
                > I may too be mis-reading this, but wouldn't that really only be the
                > case if we were looking at primary statistics? Yes, the scoring
                > average may go up, but any effective system of statistical analysis
                > is going to show that this isn't an improvement, but merely the
                > effect of more chances.

                From what I've seen so far, I don't think so. One of my points with the
                creating-shots skill was that, all other things being equal, a 45% shooter
                who takes 25 shots a game is a more skilled player than a 45% shooter who
                takes 10 shots a game. The problem is, when one team wins 20 games and the
                other wins 55, then all other things _aren't_ equal. Allen Iverson is a very
                good player; Antawn Jamison (IMO) is not.

                >
                > If we're looking at a player's offensive effectiveness based in
                > significant part on an efficiency ratio like points in possessions
                > used, or something like that, I think the opposite effect is seen
                > with secondary players. A guy that depends on teammates (Steve Kerr,
                > for example) to create for him is going to have effectiveness which
                > is largely a function of the quality of said teammates.
                >
                > It's my opinion (hope?) that doing something along the lines of my
                > unassisted/assisted field goal project (I'm putting the results at
                > www.sonicscentral.com/assists/index.html in case anyone besides DeanO
                > is interested) will help to control to some extent for this effect.
                >
                >
                > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                > APBR_analysis-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                >
                >
                >
                > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                >
                >
                >
              • mikel_ind
                ... Having played just a bit, I would say Jamison is very, very good, and Iverson is great; Jamison is a star, Iverson is a superstar. Mike Goodman
                Message 7 of 9 , Feb 1, 2002
                • 0 Attachment
                  --- In APBR_analysis@y..., "John Craven" <john1974@u...> wrote:
                  > . . . Allen Iverson is a very
                  > good player; Antawn Jamison (IMO) is not.

                  Having played just a bit, I would say Jamison is very, very good,
                  and Iverson is great; Jamison is a star, Iverson is a superstar.


                  Mike Goodman
                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.