PDA

View Full Version : Where do you rank Ray Allen all time as far as SGs go?



arlubas
08-14-2013, 08:32 AM
Got his 2 rings now, has shown longevity, remains efficient, was the go-to guy over in Seattle, was also a key part on those successful Bucks teams' of the early 00s, one of the best 3pt and FT shooters of all time. His resume is pretty full but what's his place among all time greats?

Here's his stats, for anyone wanting to check the numbers:

http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/a/allenra02.html

HouRealCoach
08-14-2013, 08:52 AM
MJ




Kobe
Wade
Big O

Anywhere after that... I'll do a list later

TheNumber37
08-14-2013, 12:58 PM
Probably... top 15. He's passed Reggie Miller and Vince Carter in my book because of the winning, but even with the rings I don't have him ahead of Iverson.

bagwell368
08-14-2013, 01:10 PM
Probably... top 15. He's passed Reggie Miller and Vince Carter in my book because of the winning, but even with the rings I don't have him ahead of Iverson.

Clearly ahead of Iverson. In the 7-11 bracket, but I haven't thought it all through yet.

MonroeFAN
08-14-2013, 01:14 PM
It would be difficult for me to place him above AI. But I think top 15 is fair.

RiLoc
08-14-2013, 02:29 PM
I'm never good at ranking, find it difficult making comparisons from different eras.

But the people I have ahead of Ray Allen would be MJ, Kobe, Big O (Well... I don't consider him a SG), Dwyane Wade, Allen Iverson and Clyde Drexler. And from way back, Sam Jones, his numbers aren't impressive but he's a 10-time champion. George Gervin (if you consider him a SG) is close. So, I think somewhere between 6 and 8.

I think he's past Earl Monroe, Pistol Pete, Mark Aguirre, Vince Carter, Reggie Miller, Joe Dumars, etc. Maybe some people would disagree... In that case, maybe between 6 and 11?

Was trying to think of other players; I have a lot of trouble rating people from before the 80s, because the game becomes more and more different. You have a whole slew of 6'4"-6'5" small forwards who are shooting guard height in today's game like Havlicek (http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/h/havlijo01.html) or Baylor (www.basketball-reference.com/players/b/bayloel01.html).

bagwell368
08-14-2013, 02:56 PM
I'm never good at ranking, find it difficult making comparisons from different eras.

But the people I have ahead of Ray Allen would be MJ, Kobe, Big O (Well... I don't consider him a SG), Dwyane Wade, Allen Iverson and Clyde Drexler. And from way back, Sam Jones, his numbers aren't impressive but he's a 10-time champion. George Gervin (if you consider him a SG) is close. So, I think somewhere between 6 and 8.

I think he's past Earl Monroe, Pistol Pete, Mark Aguirre, Vince Carter, Reggie Miller, Joe Dumars, etc. Maybe some people would disagree... In that case, maybe between 6 and 11?

Was trying to think of other players; I have a lot of trouble rating people from before the 80s, because the game becomes more and more different. You have a whole slew of 6'4"-6'5" small forwards who are shooting guard height in today's game like Havlicek (http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/h/havlijo01.html) or Baylor (www.basketball-reference.com/players/b/bayloel01.html).

Sam Jones numbers were quite good in his day. If you buy advanced metrics, he was better than Russell a couple of years, and #2 about 6 more times for the greatest dynasty by ring count. I agree with the rest of what you say. I'll have to study Gervin v Ray a bit closer. Ray was a more complete player when asked, and Gervin pretty much stayed on the PPG side of things.

Chronz
08-14-2013, 03:08 PM
I'm never good at ranking, find it difficult making comparisons from different eras.

But the people I have ahead of Ray Allen would be MJ, Kobe, Big O (Well... I don't consider him a SG), Dwyane Wade, Allen Iverson and Clyde Drexler. And from way back, Sam Jones, his numbers aren't impressive but he's a 10-time champion. George Gervin (if you consider him a SG) is close. So, I think somewhere between 6 and 8.

I think he's past Earl Monroe, Pistol Pete, Mark Aguirre, Vince Carter, Reggie Miller, Joe Dumars, etc. Maybe some people would disagree... In that case, maybe between 6 and 11?

Was trying to think of other players; I have a lot of trouble rating people from before the 80s, because the game becomes more and more different. You have a whole slew of 6'4"-6'5" small forwards who are shooting guard height in today's game like Havlicek (http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/h/havlijo01.html) or Baylor (www.basketball-reference.com/players/b/bayloel01.html).

Elgin would likely have been listed at 6"7 in todays NBA.

abe_froman
08-14-2013, 03:22 PM
between 7-15 off the top of my head

RiLoc
08-14-2013, 03:24 PM
Sam Jones numbers were quite good in his day. If you buy advanced metrics, he was better than Russell a couple of years, and #2 about 6 more times for the greatest dynasty by ring count.No argument there. I just envision some people looking at his stats and saying, "Dude didn't score 20ppg until he was 31!"


Elgin would likely have been listed at 6"7 in todays NBA.Yea, fair point. He was 225lbs too.

Chronz
08-14-2013, 03:30 PM
Yea he already had the prerequisite strength, unlike the issue with height listings, weight is far more flexible IMO. I mean we see guys like Al Harrington nowadays losing 35lbs in 1 year. As the league bulked up, Baylor would have (if necessary) as well.

TheNumber37
08-14-2013, 03:39 PM
Clearly ahead of Iverson. In the 7-11 bracket, but I haven't thought it all through yet.

clearly.. no.

Just think about what your saying. Ray Allen is greater than Iverson. Sure Ray won the rings, but not the MVP, all NBA teams, all star mvps, scoring and steals titles...At Ray's best years in Seattle, I'd take Iverson in his prime over him..

Mj, Kobe, Wade, Clyde, Dumars, Iverson ahead of him... Walt Frazier played guard no? but he has passed Miller, Carter and Mitch Richmond.

RiLoc
08-14-2013, 03:45 PM
Yea he already had the prerequisite strength, unlike the issue with height listings, weight is far more flexible IMO. I mean we see guys like Al Harrington nowadays losing 35lbs in 1 year. As the league bulked up, Baylor would have (if necessary) as well.Absolutely, I meant that he was strong, athletic, 6'5" (6'7" today) and around 225, which is consistent with forward today. Mentioning 225lbs was just a means of quantifying that he was heavier/bulkier than a lot of the other stars around 6'5"; Robertson was 6'5" 205, Havlicek was 6'5" 203, Paul Arizin 6'4" 190, Dr J 6'6" 200, etc.

Rain City
08-14-2013, 04:03 PM
clearly.. no.

Just think about what your saying. Ray Allen is greater than Iverson. Sure Ray won the rings, but not the MVP, all NBA teams, all star mvps, scoring and steals titles...At Ray's best years in Seattle, I'd take Iverson in his prime over him..

Mj, Kobe, Wade, Clyde, Dumars, Iverson ahead of him... Walt Frazier played guard no? but he has passed Miller, Carter and Mitch Richmond.

i dont put dumars ahead of ray. not as good of a scorer, not as long of a career. close tho.

i think in prime AI>Ray.. slightly... but that is only one aspect in a a greatest list debate, look at longevity and it is ray>>>AI... team success, signarutre moments, efficiency, consistency, and im sorry AS MVPs mean jack, if ray really wanted to im sure he coulda got one of those... i dont hesitate to put ray ahead of AI, and i LOVE AI.

MJ, Kobe, Wade, west, is oscar a SG?, Clyde (slightly), prolly an old timer or 2 im too lazy to look up.

when you are talking about all time shooting guards... ray is the best shooter of all time (i see you steph curry), so that has to win some tie breakers, gotta be somewhere in top 10.

abe_froman
08-14-2013, 04:14 PM
is oscar a SG?.
pg

but as for the ai-ray debate-i put ray above ai ,ai was just too wildly inefficient

bearadonisdna
08-14-2013, 06:07 PM
Ai over allen by a long shot. Allen seems to be a bit overated. In boston was a third fiddle. Never had a 2000 point season. Miller did.

WadeKobe
08-14-2013, 06:15 PM
Ai over allen by a long shot. Allen seems to be a bit overated. In boston was a third fiddle. Never had a 2000 point season. Miller did.

lol... gross points. lol.

arlubas
08-14-2013, 06:15 PM
Allen seems to be a bit overated. In boston was a third fiddle.
Not really. He was just the one out of the big three that made the most sacrifices on his numbers in order for that team to be successful. That Celtics team does not get a title without Ray on its roster.

bagwell368
08-14-2013, 09:01 PM
Ai over allen by a long shot. Allen seems to be a bit overated. In boston was a third fiddle. Never had a 2000 point season. Miller did.

Allen crushes AI. Look at the shooting efficiency for starters. When Allen was asked to play D by the Celts, he did. His longevity is much better than AI. He was better in the playoffs than AI. Allen wasn't a jerk off/coach killer like AI.

In a 17 year career he averaged 15 FGA and 3.9 FTA for 19.4 points. eFG: .530 TS: .580

It took AI 21.8 FGA and 8.9 FTA to generate 26.7 PPG eFG: .482 TS: .518 ---- pathetic - really poor on AI's part. Much more like a PG, not an elite SG.

HAHAHAHAH! In 8 of AI's seasons his FG% was .421 or less, that's .020 more or less than Ray's career 3PT%, in fact two of those years were below .401, Imagine a "star" after 1970 shooting at those percentages - who would believe it?

Iverson drove more (normal since he was a PG half the time), he dominated the ball, and he shot way to much.

Allen was smooth and got the job done

AI was a whirling dervish that shot way too much, and caused trouble almost everywhere he went.

lukass
08-14-2013, 09:25 PM
Top 10 for sure, I think a lot of people (many may be to young) forget how damn good he was in Milwaukee and Seattle forget Boston and Miami he's just a spot up shooter in those cities but back in the day that's when he was Jesus.

arlubas
08-15-2013, 04:15 AM
Top 10 for sure, I think a lot of people (many may be to young) forget how damn good he was in Milwaukee and Seattle forget Boston and Miami he's just a spot up shooter in those cities but back in the day that's when he was Jesus.
I've been following him ever since his UConn days so needless to say I watched him in Milwaukee as well but when he went to the Sonics... damn that was beast mode.

I will never forget watching this game live back in 2006, if I'm not mistaken, and going crazy with what he was doing.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U951kjBs7i8

naps
08-15-2013, 05:01 AM
Top 10.

bearadonisdna
08-15-2013, 05:08 AM
Allen crushes AI. Look at the shooting efficiency for starters. When Allen was asked to play D by the Celts, he did. His longevity is much better than AI. He was better in the playoffs than AI. Allen wasn't a jerk off/coach killer like AI.

In a 17 year career he averaged 15 FGA and 3.9 FTA for 19.4 points. eFG: .530 TS: .580

It took AI 21.8 FGA and 8.9 FTA to generate 26.7 PPG eFG: .482 TS: .518 ---- pathetic - really poor on AI's part. Much more like a PG, not an elite SG.

HAHAHAHAH! In 8 of AI's seasons his FG% was .421 or less, that's .020 more or less than Ray's career 3PT%, in fact two of those years were below .401, Imagine a "star" after 1970 shooting at those percentages - who would believe it?

Iverson drove more (normal since he was a PG half the time), he dominated the ball, and he shot way to much.

Allen was smooth and got the job done

AI was a whirling dervish that shot way too much, and caused trouble almost everywhere he went.

AI was 1st team all nba 3 times.
Allen was 2nd team and 3rd teām all nba once each.
Throughout their same eras, iverson was considered elite while allen was just very good.

The goods
08-15-2013, 05:18 AM
MJ, Kobe, Elgin, A.I., Worthy, Wade, then Ray... maybe.

bagwell368
08-15-2013, 06:45 AM
AI was 1st team all nba 3 times.
Allen was 2nd team and 3rd teām all nba once each.
Throughout their same eras, iverson was considered elite while allen was just very good.

1st team "awards" are subjective in large part, and often go to more recognized (or outrageous personalities).

Who considered AI elite? Fans and ESPN highlights creators? I assure you this x D1 player and coach held my nose when watching AI's antics and his game. OTOH, Allen's lack of D used to irritate me, but, he stepped it up in Boston and kept that sweet stroke.

bagwell368
08-15-2013, 06:47 AM
MJ, Kobe, Elgin, A.I., Worthy, Wade, then Ray... maybe.

What??

Elgin was a forward and so was Worthy. Neither played guard.

D-Leethal
08-15-2013, 10:27 AM
Allen crushes AI. Look at the shooting efficiency for starters. When Allen was asked to play D by the Celts, he did. His longevity is much better than AI. He was better in the playoffs than AI. Allen wasn't a jerk off/coach killer like AI.

In a 17 year career he averaged 15 FGA and 3.9 FTA for 19.4 points. eFG: .530 TS: .580

It took AI 21.8 FGA and 8.9 FTA to generate 26.7 PPG eFG: .482 TS: .518 ---- pathetic - really poor on AI's part. Much more like a PG, not an elite SG.

HAHAHAHAH! In 8 of AI's seasons his FG% was .421 or less, that's .020 more or less than Ray's career 3PT%, in fact two of those years were below .401, Imagine a "star" after 1970 shooting at those percentages - who would believe it?

Iverson drove more (normal since he was a PG half the time), he dominated the ball, and he shot way to much.

Allen was smooth and got the job done

AI was a whirling dervish that shot way too much, and caused trouble almost everywhere he went.

Your comparing the best shooter of all time who always played with great offensive talent to a bulk scorer who was the only offensive threat on his team for the prime of his career. Its apples and oranges and efficiency doesn't tell you the whole story. AI had to create the offense where Ray was able to feed off others and the majority of his shots were open jumpers (open for Allen is only a blink but its still open). Allen was never asked to shoulder the minutes or workload as AI. And while you say AI shot way too much - ask yourself this - who the **** else was capable getting a shot off on those Philly teams that wasn't a wide open spoonfed jumper? AI had to create everything, Allen had Cassell, Big Dog, Lewis, and the Big 3.

Allen had the benefit of playing with great offensive players his whole career at every stop, and AI still had more team success as his teams best player.

I think AI's peak is higher than Allen's peak, but I give Allen the nod due to longevity.

D-Leethal
08-15-2013, 10:39 AM
And is it really that hard to look at a players teammates and note their efficiency within that context?

2nd year AI with a young Stackhouse and Derrick Coleman (2 offensive threats): 46% FG, 53.5% TS

VERY NEXT SEASON - AI with Matt Geiger as his 2nd leading scorer: 41% FG, 50.8% TS

'04-05 AI, first year CWebb came to Philly and he was injured in all but 20 games leaving Marc Jackson (the C, not PG) as his 2nd leading scorer - 42.4% FG, 53.2% TS

VERY NEXT SEASON - CWebb healthy, plays 75 games, averages 20ppg - 44.7% FG, 54.3% TS

06-07 Philly team - AI traded mid season, played 15 games with Philly, Webber traded to DET - 41.3% FG, 52.9% TS

SAME SEASON - TRADED TO MELOS NUGGETS - 45.4% FG, 54.5% TS (did he miraculously get more efficient mid season or did having Melo by his side have something to do with it - this experiment holds true on Melo's side of the coin too for this season)

08-09 with Melo in Denver - 45% FG, 55% TS
08-09 SAME SEASON - TRADED MID SEASON TO A WASHED UP DETROIT TEAM DEVOID OF OFFENSIVE TALENT - 41.6% FG, 50.2% TS

You play with better offensive talent, you will have an easier time picking your spots and scoring efficiently. You play on teams devoid of offensive talent, and you are asked to shoulder a monster scoring load, your efficiency will take a hit. Its not rocket science, and this holds true for every single player that has every played in the history of the game.

Please stat heads, it shouldn't be that hard to at least attempt to provide some context when your throwing these stats out there at face value. Do us all a favor and next time your on basketball-refernence checking out your favorite efficiency stats, hit that little button over to the left, usually a 3 letter abbreviation for the team said player was on, and take a look at the roster, and try to determine why this guy struggles with your favorite stat in some seasons, while he is much better in others. There are usually pretty good reasons for it ya know.

Being less efficient doesn't always equate to being worse when you provide situational context for each player. The better player can be a less efficient scorer - yes, I know its hard to grasp that notion but its true.

ThuglifeJ
08-15-2013, 12:12 PM
Always thought he was a bit overrated imo. His professionalism and 3 pt shooting makes him so likeable and free of a lot of criticism. Great player, teammate, professional.. But he's never been a guy to lead a team or asked to create. A reason I feel he's overrated when he gets held above guys who did carry teams.

KnickaBocka.44
08-15-2013, 12:29 PM
AI was 1st team all nba 3 times.
Allen was 2nd team and 3rd teām all nba once each.
Throughout their same eras, iverson was considered elite while allen was just very good.

Don't take the bait, Bagwell, it's not worth it.

bagwell368
08-15-2013, 12:58 PM
Your comparing the best shooter of all time who always played with great offensive talent to a bulk scorer who was the only offensive threat on his team for the prime of his career.

I know, it's ridiculous to compare AI to Allen, wasn't my idea.


And while you say AI shot way too much - ask yourself this - who the **** else was capable getting a shot off on those Philly teams that wasn't a wide open spoonfed jumper?

I already went into this like two years ago. The Philly teams were not nearly as bad at creating shots or taking them as is made out.


Allen had the benefit of playing with great offensive players his whole career at every stop, and AI still had more team success as his teams best player.

What?


I think AI's peak is higher than Allen's peak, but I give Allen the nod due to longevity.

Overall, I don't believe they should be compared, but since they were, I'll take Ray.

bagwell368
08-15-2013, 01:04 PM
Being less efficient doesn't always equate to being worse when you provide situational context for each player. The better player can be a less efficient scorer - yes, I know its hard to grasp that notion but its true.

There are some great PG's that don't have the best shooting stats, but do enough on D and passing to make up for it. But a SG with low efficiency, that leads the league in FGA's, and even more so USG%, that's doesn't pass that much/well, or rebound much, or play D? It's a very tough argument to make, and so far, nobody can convince me AI is elite. He's just a morale/team dynamic wrecking DB.

bearadonisdna
08-15-2013, 01:13 PM
There are some great PG's that don't have the best shooting stats, but do enough on D and passing to make up for it. But a SG with low efficiency, that leads the league in FGA's, and even more so USG%, that's doesn't pass that much/well, or rebound much, or play D? It's a very tough argument to make, and so far, nobody can convince me AI is elite. He's just a morale/team dynamic wrecking DB.

The guy is a HOF lock and u can't even call him elite?

bearadonisdna
08-15-2013, 01:17 PM
lol. Ray allens career high in scoring is iversons career average.

valade16
08-15-2013, 01:27 PM
There are some great PG's that don't have the best shooting stats, but do enough on D and passing to make up for it. But a SG with low efficiency, that leads the league in FGA's, and even more so USG%, that's doesn't pass that much/well, or rebound much, or play D? It's a very tough argument to make, and so far, nobody can convince me AI is elite. He's just a morale/team dynamic wrecking DB.

Allen Iverson's career AST% was 28.8. His peak was 37.6. Ray Allen's AST% was 16.7 and his peak was 23.3.

To put that in perspective Allen Iverson's AST% was routinely at where half of starting PGs in the league are today...

If there is a myth that Iverson's teammates were worse at offense than you say, there is an equal myth that Iverson didn't pass, because it's flat not true...

bagwell368
08-15-2013, 01:35 PM
The guy is a HOF lock and u can't even call him elite?

I look at the entire player and what I see I don't like in many ways. He might be a HOF'er, but he's not a winner, he was a divisive coach killer, a ball dominant guard that was too short to be a SG, and didn't have the right instincts to be a PG. Ray Allen had a smaller role, but was better at it than AI, and also lasted longer than AI (and is still going) and wasn't a DB. The worst thing he did is get in a hissy fit w/ Rondo and the Boston media. AI did worse on many occasions (see his wiki for a primer).

I wouldn't want AI on my team.

DreamShaker
08-15-2013, 01:35 PM
Man...AI is one of those guys that really brings about some heavy debate. Ray Allen had a better career, no doubt. Iverson left the NBA in about the most shameful ways possible. He wasn't worth the trouble. But to me, it's crazy to put prime Ray over prime AI. Those Sixers teams demanded him to chuck the way they were built, but he still lead them to the finals over a deeper Bucks team led by...Ray Allen. Dude was a beast and a joy to watch for me. So relentless. Stats snobs hate him for good reason...but I view him subjectively for who he was. That being said...not sure anyone would take his career over Ray's.

Chronz
08-15-2013, 01:47 PM
Man...AI is one of those guys that really brings about some heavy debate. Ray Allen had a better career, no doubt. Iverson left the NBA in about the most shameful ways possible. He wasn't worth the trouble. But to me, it's crazy to put prime Ray over prime AI. Those Sixers teams demanded him to chuck the way they were built, but he still lead them to the finals over a deeper Bucks team led by...Ray Allen. Dude was a beast and a joy to watch for me. So relentless. Stats snobs hate him for good reason...but I view him subjectively for who he was. That being said...not sure anyone would take his career over Ray's.
Its a chicken or the egg thing tho aint it? Its not like the Sixers didn't try to surround him with offensive players. Seemed to me like the guys that best meshed with AI were the ones who didn't get in his way with regards to touches. I remember he and Stackhouse bickering over AI not playing like a true PG.

So couldn't you argue that the Sixers tried to pair him with scoring threats, but saw that they didn't mesh, thus decided to surround him with guys who could impact the game without taking the ball out of Iversons hand? They certainly had their most success that way. Whereas Ray Allen has the type of game that makes everyone better without taking away anyones touches.

And what do you mean a deeper Bucks team (AI did have the 6MOY)? AI had the best supporting cast he could ask for in that conference (defensive talent is STILL talent) and he still needed every series to go 7 games (and the reffing was questionable that series too). In fact, its arguable if Iverson was even his teams most important playoff performer. Deke was huge during that run, the Sixers defense without him on the court went to ****, and that holds true for the teams offense without AI but it still a debate as to which was more pivotal IMO.

justinnum1
08-15-2013, 01:48 PM
top 10

bagwell368
08-15-2013, 01:52 PM
Allen Iverson's career AST% was 28.8. His peak was 37.6. Ray Allen's AST% was 16.7 and his peak was 23.3.

Try for context. Allen was NEVER a PG, AI spent half of his career trying to be one. Also AI had the ball much more than RA.

AI 31.8% USG% career (3rd all time) - AST% 28.8
RA 24.1% USG% career (95th all time) - AST% 16.7

Allen's numbers match his role as a SG, not a distributor.
AI's numbers show us a ball dominant player that was a PG much of the time.
Why should Allen's numbers in assists be as many or more than AI, it's ridiculous to claim that they should.


To put that in perspective Allen Iverson's AST% was routinely at where half of starting PGs in the league are today...

But his FGA and USG% were both much higher than your basic starting PG.


If there is a myth that Iverson's teammates were worse at offense than you say, there is an equal myth that Iverson didn't pass, because it's flat not true...

He passed, but considering his role as a SG much of his career, and his FGA and USG% numbers paint him into the same group as Jordan, Wade, Bryant, LeBron - but he's none of those guys is he? None of them is a PG. In fact you have to get to 53rd on the all time list of USG% before you hit the first PG. It's mostly SG and SF, with a few PF and C mixed in.

OK, AI held the ball and shot the ball too much to be a PG
AI missed too many shots to be considered an elite SG.

He was moody. Didn't play much D most of the time. I didn't see any evidence of him lifting his teammates up with his play. I saw maybe the greatest sub 6 foot one on one player ever. Too bad the game is 5 on 5 and there is no height restriction. It's so strange to see so many battling so hard for such a flawed and troubled player.

bagwell368
08-15-2013, 01:58 PM
Man...AI is one of those guys that really brings about some heavy debate. Ray Allen had a better career, no doubt. Iverson left the NBA in about the most shameful ways possible. He wasn't worth the trouble. But to me, it's crazy to put prime Ray over prime AI. Those Sixers teams demanded him to chuck the way they were built, but he still lead them to the finals over a deeper Bucks team led by...Ray Allen. Dude was a beast and a joy to watch for me. So relentless. Stats snobs hate him for good reason...but I view him subjectively for who he was. That being said...not sure anyone would take his career over Ray's.

I can respect that argument.

Pacerlive
08-15-2013, 01:58 PM
Probably... top 15. He's passed Reggie Miller and Vince Carter in my book because of the winning, but even with the rings I don't have him ahead of Iverson.

Lets be clear here because of the ring chasing you have him ahead of Reggie.

Miller still has more win shares and points scored and a higher TS% than Ray Allen whether you look at regular season or playoffs.

bearadonisdna
08-15-2013, 02:13 PM
Try for context. Allen was NEVER a PG, AI spent half of his career trying to be one. Also AI had the ball much more than RA.

AI 31.8% USG% career (3rd all time) - AST% 28.8
RA 24.1% USG% career (95th all time) - AST% 16.7

Allen's numbers match his role as a SG, not a distributor.
AI's numbers show us a ball dominant player that was a PG much of the time.
Why should Allen's numbers in assists be as many or more than AI, it's ridiculous to claim that they should.



But his FGA and USG% were both much higher than your basic starting PG.



He passed, but considering his role as a SG much of his career, and his FGA and USG% numbers paint him into the same group as Jordan, Wade, Bryant, LeBron - but he's none of those guys is he? None of them is a PG. In fact you have to get to 53rd on the all time list of USG% before you hit the first PG. It's mostly SG and SF, with a few PF and C mixed in.

OK, AI held the ball and shot the ball too much to be a PG
AI missed too many shots to be considered an elite SG.

He was moody. Didn't play much D most of the time. I didn't see any evidence of him lifting his teammates up with his play. I saw maybe the greatest sub 6 foot one on one player ever. Too bad the game is 5 on 5 and there is no height restriction. It's so strange to see so many battling so hard for such a flawed and troubled player.

Ray allen is a career 45% shooter while AI was a 42% career shooter. The seperation there is not much but iverson has the SUPERIOR scoring numbers. First team allnbas, mvp, scoring titles.

KnickaBocka.44
08-15-2013, 02:23 PM
Ray allen is a career 45% shooter while AI was a 42% career shooter. The seperation there is not much but iverson has the SUPERIOR scoring numbers. First team allnbas, mvp, scoring titles.

Is it hard to understand that he has superior scoring numbers because he was a chucker? Allen's efficiency blows him away. You need to stop looking at stats like fg% and ppg alone.

When you shoot a lower percentage you have to take more shots to get the same amount of points as another player who shoots a higher percentage, unless you are making tons of 3's. That wasn't the case with Iverson, he had a lower percentage while making way less 3's than Allen.

bearadonisdna
08-15-2013, 02:46 PM
Is it hard to understand that he has superior scoring numbers because he was a chucker? Allen's efficiency blows him away. You need to stop looking at stats like fg% and ppg alone.

When you shoot a lower percentage you have to take more shots to get the same amount of points as another player who shoots a higher percentage, unless you are making tons of 3's. That wasn't the case with Iverson, he had a lower percentage while making way less 3's than Allen.

Throwing stats out the window, AI has all the accolades. If u don't want to use fg% then where does ray get the nod in efficiency?
Ray is getting props for longevity but AI still has more all stars appearances. 11 for AI 10 for Ray.
Ai was clearly the more celebrated player during their overlapping eras.

bearadonisdna
08-15-2013, 02:49 PM
U don't get to be first team all nba by having a 'crazy ' personality like bagwell suggested. Ray wasn't good enough to be all nba 1st team once. I don't know how this is even a discussion.

valade16
08-15-2013, 02:51 PM
Try for context. Allen was NEVER a PG, AI spent half of his career trying to be one. Also AI had the ball much more than RA.

AI 31.8% USG% career (3rd all time) - AST% 28.8
RA 24.1% USG% career (95th all time) - AST% 16.7

Allen's numbers match his role as a SG, not a distributor.
AI's numbers show us a ball dominant player that was a PG much of the time.
Why should Allen's numbers in assists be as many or more than AI, it's ridiculous to claim that they should.

He was moody. Didn't play much D most of the time. I didn't see any evidence of him lifting his teammates up with his play. I saw maybe the greatest sub 6 foot one on one player ever. Too bad the game is 5 on 5 and there is no height restriction. It's so strange to see so many battling so hard for such a flawed and troubled player.

Even in seasons where he didn't play much PG he still had a far higher AST% than Ray. Heck, even the USG rate doesn't explain the good AST%. Spin it any way you want it. a 28.8 (and 30+ in many years) is good for a SG, PG, combo G, what have you. Not to mention their TO% was nearly identical (12.2 to 11.3). Meaning Iverson had the ball way more (USG), was a way better passer (AST) and didn't turn the ball over as much (TO + USG). You can say no PG attempted as many shots and that's true. But what's awesome about Iverson is he was their primary (and best) scorer by far, but he still was pretty good at setting others up.

And the only thing strange to me is seeing people attempt to spin Iverson into an average or bad player. Dude was amazing. Heck, despite his incredible inefficiency he had a higher PER than Ray Allen. Despite their drastic difference in efficiency Iverson was statistically at or above Rays level.

Iverson absolutely belongs in the conversation. You can point to Iverson's attitude and off-the court drama as reasons you'd take Ray Allen, but let's not act like the numbers are black and white.

bagwell368
08-15-2013, 03:01 PM
You can say no PG attempted as many shots and that's true. But what's awesome about Iverson is he was their primary (and best) scorer by far, but he still was pretty good at setting others up.

Scoring is one thing, doing it with efficiency is another. A SG is supposed to be a meeting of great scorer and great percentage shooter. AI certainly shot too much and/or too poorly for his own good, and the good of his team.


And the only thing strange to me is seeing people attempt to spin Iverson into an average or bad player. Dude was amazing. Heck, despite his incredible inefficiency he had a higher PER than Ray Allen. Despite their drastic difference in efficiency Iverson was statistically at or above Rays level.

PER is a very questionable stat in that it rewards missed shots, which AI had entirely too many of. RA has a better ORtg, WS and WS/48 than AI if you want to talk advanced stats - to go with his shooting.

Also, Iverson didn't play past age 34, Ray is 37 and still playing, this decreases Ray's averages, so if you are going to compare them career wise, I think Ray age 35-37 should be omitted. Iverson signed a two year deal to play in Turkey after the NBA was dead and managed 9 games, then quit due to a boo boo. He was done while Allen is still going pretty well.

Iverson was obviously an above averge player, and deserves to be a HOF. But that doesn't make him automatically #1, #5, or #10 among SG's or PG's.


Iverson absolutely belongs in the conversation. You can point to Iverson's attitude and off-the court drama as reasons you'd take Ray Allen, but let's not act like the numbers are black and white.

RA has a longer career, shot much better (FA, 3PT, FT all) in the regular season and playoffs than AI. He mixed well with others. He played D when he was asked, and he was the 3rd wheel on a Championship team, and a 7th man type for another. That's some black and white right there.

KnickaBocka.44
08-15-2013, 03:02 PM
Throwing stats out the window, AI has all the accolades. If u don't want to use fg% then where does ray get the nod in efficiency?
Ray is getting props for longevity but AI still has more all stars appearances. 11 for AI 10 for Ray.
Ai was clearly the more celebrated player during their overlapping eras.

TS%. Are you really going to point to 1 all-star game?

It doesn't matter who was more celebrated, we are talking about who was better.

KnickaBocka.44
08-15-2013, 03:03 PM
U don't get to be first team all nba by having a 'crazy ' personality like bagwell suggested. Ray wasn't good enough to be all nba 1st team once. I don't know how this is even a discussion.

Then there are a lot of other things you don't know also.

bearadonisdna
08-15-2013, 03:08 PM
TS%. Are you really going to point to 1 all-star game?

It doesn't matter who was more celebrated, we are talking about who was better.

Why do u think he was more celebrated? not because he had cool hair. come on now.

bearadonisdna
08-15-2013, 03:13 PM
When I say celebrated, its in terms of nba sanctioned awards and honors, not parties held in iversons honor.

bagwell368
08-15-2013, 03:16 PM
Why do u think he was more celebrated? not because he had cool hair. come on now.

Fans and broadcasters often pick the wrong guys to pay attention to. In AI's case it's look at the small guy with the cornrows that plays constantly and takes it in against big guys - none of that means he was good, just notable. AI was the guy to talk about on the 76'ers for years too.

D-Leethal
08-15-2013, 03:19 PM
A deeper Bucks team meaning they had 3 all stars. Three 20 ppg scorers. Aaron McKie's 11-5 6MOY season really give them the nod? He had a great defensive team, but having ALL the talent he could ask for? Thats a huge reach. Bobcats had a great, top 3 defensive team with a ton of defensive talent a few years ago too - what did that get them? No team in this league can win big without multiple scoring threats, regardless of how great their team defense may be.

I do agree that I think AI was a very unique enigma of a player, and it took a unique mix of defensive stalwarts, a 6'6 defensive PG who could guard SG's, and guys who could hit wide open jumpshots consistently to mesh with his talents, but that doesn't change the fact that he carried a bigger scoring load than arguably anyone in history en route to the NBA Finals.

I mean Theo Ratliff and Dikembe Mutombo were his 2nd and 3rd leading scorers. Has anyone made the Finals with the complete absence of a second option like that before?

I don't think AI's uniqueness as a player, and the difficultly it took to build around him as the centerpiece should really be considered that much of a knock on him. I don't think it would even be possible to build a Finals team around Ray Allen as the best player and #1 option.

I still give Allen the nod as far as his career, but at their respective peak, AI was on another level than Ray.

KnickaBocka.44
08-15-2013, 03:21 PM
Why do u think he was more celebrated? not because he had cool hair. come on now.

Probably because kids saw that he scored 40 half the time without ever knowing what efficiency is and he was fun to watch.

DreamShaker
08-15-2013, 03:23 PM
Its a chicken or the egg thing tho aint it? Its not like the Sixers didn't try to surround him with offensive players. Seemed to me like the guys that best meshed with AI were the ones who didn't get in his way with regards to touches. I remember he and Stackhouse bickering over AI not playing like a true PG.

So couldn't you argue that the Sixers tried to pair him with scoring threats, but saw that they didn't mesh, thus decided to surround him with guys who could impact the game without taking the ball out of Iversons hand? They certainly had their most success that way. Whereas Ray Allen has the type of game that makes everyone better without taking away anyones touches.

And what do you mean a deeper Bucks team (AI did have the 6MOY)? AI had the best supporting cast he could ask for in that conference (defensive talent is STILL talent) and he still needed every series to go 7 games (and the reffing was questionable that series too). In fact, its arguable if Iverson was even his teams most important playoff performer. Deke was huge during that run, the Sixers defense without him on the court went to ****, and that holds true for the teams offense without AI but it still a debate as to which was more pivotal IMO.

I guess what I meant is on offense, the Bucks had more threats. The Bucks were the number one rated offense in the NBA. Big Dog, Sam, and Ray all could go off any night, but if Iverson were off, the Sixers lose. Theo and Mutombo were not going to pick up the slack. It is a heavy burden to be a 30ppg scorer when the next best option is Theo Ratliff.

I took a look at both rosters to refresh my memory, and that Philly team was more loaded on defense than I remembered. So I concede that both had teams that were equally potent on one of two ends of the floor. The Bucks were in the 20's in defensive rating, and Sixers were 13 on offensive rating, while being 5th in defense (according to basketballreference.com). It really does come down to offense vs. defense when comparing those two teams in a number of ways. But I still think Iverson had the greatest responsibility.

As far as fitting onto a team, Ray Allen is much easier to fit. There is no debating that. There was a bad trend of guards in that mold of score-first gunners at that time, so guys like Stackhouse never really made sense with him. It was just redundant. He needed a guy like Sheed or KG who could do everything, but fely more comfortable as the second option on offense. But you make really great points.

D-Leethal
08-15-2013, 03:24 PM
Seems like many people are using what they believe a SG should be and play like, and what they believe a PG should be a play like as a knock on AI for the uniqueness of his game/talent/size.

AI plays PG - you want him to pass more because you think thats how PGs should play
AI plays SG - you want him to shoot more efficiently because thats how SGs should player

AI was an enigma, he was a SG in a PGs body, he had a style of play that made purists cringe, but that doesn't mean he was not a top flight MVP caliber player in his prime, one of the best bulk scorers of the modern generation, and carried a larger load on those little shoulders en route to the Finals than probably anyone in that same modern generation. Being an enigma isn't always a bad thing.

DreamShaker
08-15-2013, 03:25 PM
A deeper Bucks team meaning they had 3 all stars. Three 20 ppg scorers. Aaron McKie's 11-5 6MOY season really give them the nod? He had a great defensive team, but having ALL the talent he could ask for? Thats a huge reach. Bobcats had a great, top 3 defensive team with a ton of defensive talent a few years ago too - what did that get them? No team in this league can win big without multiple scoring threats, regardless of how great their team defense may be.

I do agree that I think AI was a very unique enigma of a player, and it took a unique mix of defensive stalwarts, a 6'6 defensive PG who could guard SG's, and guys who could hit wide open jumpshots consistently to mesh with his talents, but that doesn't change the fact that he carried a bigger scoring load than arguably anyone in history en route to the NBA Finals.

I mean Theo Ratliff and Dikembe Mutombo were his 2nd and 3rd leading scorers. Has anyone made the Finals with the complete absence of a second option like that before?

I don't think AI's uniqueness as a player, and the difficultly it took to build around him as the centerpiece should really be considered that much of a knock on him. I don't think it would even be possible to build a Finals team around Ray Allen as the best player and #1 option.

I still give Allen the nod as far as his career, but at their respective peak, AI was on another level than Ray.

Good post.

DreamShaker
08-15-2013, 03:28 PM
Seems like many people are using what they believe a SG should be and play like, and what they believe a PG should be a play like as a knock on AI for the uniqueness of his game/talent/size.

AI plays PG - you want him to pass more because you think thats how PGs should play
AI plays SG - you want him to shoot more efficiently because thats how SGs should player

AI was an enigma, he was a SG in a PGs body, he had a style of play that made purists cringe, but that doesn't mean he was not a top flight MVP caliber player in his prime, one of the best bulk scorers of the modern generation, and carried a larger load on those little shoulders en route to the Finals than probably anyone in that same modern generation. Being an enigma isn't always a bad thing.

He played a lot like Westbrook does now, except with less size. Both have bad shooting numbers, but without them, their teams crumble.

D-Leethal
08-15-2013, 03:29 PM
Probably because kids saw that he scored 40 half the time without ever knowing what efficiency is and he was fun to watch.

Some scorers are celebrated because of their ability to score in bulk over picking your spots and scoring efficiently. Ray Allen could never average 30 ppg with guys like Aaron McKie as the 2nd option behind him, and if he was asked to, his efficiency would take a HUGE hit. Just because they were both scorers doesn't mean the more efficient guy is the better guy. Ray was never asked to do what AI was asked to do, Ray always had capable scorers all over the place on all of his teams.

Ray couldn't do what AI did (average 30+, lead league in USG on playoff/Finals teams, be league MVP and be the #1 option on a Finals team with little to no scoring help)

AI couldn't do what Ray did ('get his' within the team concept, be effective and efficient with lesser touches, play a style that was conducive the long-term success, thrive as a 2nd/3rd fiddle)

The more efficient guy isn't always the better guy, even when were comparing scorers.

abe_froman
08-15-2013, 03:29 PM
When I say celebrated, its in terms of nba sanctioned awards and honors, not parties held in iversons honor.

because of the high ppg,efficiency wasnt talked about much than

KnickaBocka.44
08-15-2013, 03:35 PM
Some scorers are celebrated because of their ability to score in bulk over picking your spots and scoring efficiently. Ray Allen could never average 30 ppg and if he was asked to, his efficiency would take a HUGE hit. Just because they were both scorers doesn't mean the more efficient guy is the better guy. Ray was never asked to do what AI was asked to do, Ray always had capable scorers all over the place on all of his teams.

Ray couldn't do what AI did (average 30, be league MVP and be the #1 option on a Finals team with little to no scoring help)

AI couldn't do what Ray did ('get his' within the team concept, be effective and efficient with lesser touches, play a style that was conducive the long-term success, thrive as a 2nd/3rd fiddle)

The more efficient guy isn't always the better guy, even when were comparing scorers.

To me, these conversations boil down to basketball being a team sport. No matter how talented a player, they have to make their talents fit inside of a team dynamic. Iverson was not able to do that and, IMO, that goes against him as a player.

bearadonisdna
08-15-2013, 03:45 PM
Iverson really only had 2 down years. His last 2 years in the league. Ivo was in his prime throughout most of his nba career
Taking rays career ur getting a lot less production throughout.

Kashmir13579
08-15-2013, 07:11 PM
Well outside the top ten and behind Reggie Miller.

bagwell368
08-15-2013, 09:22 PM
He played a lot like Westbrook does now, except with less size. Both have bad shooting numbers, but without them, their teams crumble.

Crumble? Westbrook was 24 last year, and it can be argued that last year he was just about a tie with AI's 2000-01 season (age 25) - and he certainly shot better than AI did that year. Westbrook shot 18.7 FGA per game, AI 25.5. If Westbrook shoots too much (and I think he ought to cut down 2-3.5 a game) what should AI have been doing in that regard?

bagwell368
08-15-2013, 09:33 PM
Iverson really only had 2 down years. His last 2 years in the league. Ivo was in his prime throughout most of his nba career
Taking rays career ur getting a lot less production throughout.

Seriously? He sucked it hard in:

'96-'97
'99-'00
'03-'04
'06-'07
'08-'09
'09-'10

Not special in:

'97-'98
'01-'02
'02-'03
'04-'05

That leaves 4 years when he had a borderline elite or elite year.

He also sucked in these playoffs:

1999-00
2006-07
2007-08

The other 5 years he was pretty good, but was NEVER elite or the best guy on the floor, never.

bagwell368
08-15-2013, 09:36 PM
Well outside the top ten and behind Reggie Miller.

I think Miller comes before Ray, but he's either next or 2nd back from Miller. Doubt that Allen is out of the top 10 unless we count Baylor and Worthy like that guy wanted.

bagwell368
08-15-2013, 09:36 PM
To me, these conversations boil down to basketball being a team sport. No matter how talented a player, they have to make their talents fit inside of a team dynamic. Iverson was not able to do that and, IMO, that goes against him as a player.

x2

THE MTL
08-15-2013, 09:45 PM
Top 10 alltime.

bearadonisdna
08-16-2013, 03:46 AM
Seriously? He sucked it hard in:

'96-'97
'99-'00
'03-'04
'06-'07
'08-'09
'09-'10

Not special in:

'97-'98
'01-'02
'02-'03
'04-'05

That leaves 4 years when he had a borderline elite or elite year.

He also sucked in these playoffs:

1999-00
2006-07
2007-08

The other 5 years he was pretty good, but was NEVER elite or the best guy on the floor, never.

96-97 Rookie of the year.
-No ROY for Ray.
99-00 You call 28ppg and 2.1 steals per game sucking it hard? In todays era he would be likened to lebron. Nobody in todays nba is putting up 25+ and 2 steals per game.

bagwell368
08-16-2013, 07:52 AM
96-97 Rookie of the year.

Rahim, Camby, Kittles, Walker, Iverson... Iverson shot FG's at .416 and had 4.0 TOV per game, and played matador D. Yeah, that was great. Ray played 30 MPG, and was good enough for 2nd team rookie team along with Kobe.


99-00 You call 28ppg and 2.1 steals per game sucking it hard? In todays era he would be likened to lebron. Nobody in todays nba is putting up 25+ and 2 steals per game.

A 3.3 TOV to 4.7 APG ratio isn't anything to be proud of. TS% 249th out of 439. eFG% 268th out of 439. #1 in USG% well ahead of Malone. That USG% vs. those APG game (ranks 33rd) - meh - then pair up with those shooting stats? Uck. D better than usual - about average NBA wide. For a good player this is pretty good, for a slam dunk HOF, supposed top 30 all time player this is more proof that he is no such player.

Heatcheck
08-16-2013, 09:56 AM
96-97 Rookie of the year.
-No ROY for Ray.
99-00 You call 28ppg and 2.1 steals per game sucking it hard? In todays era he would be likened to lebron. Nobody in todays nba is putting up 25+ and 2 steals per game.

2 steals is nothing to go crazy about, its not a particularly impressive number, nor does it show you can play effective defense. plus you leave out that he shot a horrific 42% from the field.

You cant build a legitimate team around iverson because, like melo, their concept of passing the ball is finding the open man when they get double teamed. you cant get a quality free agent wing man to play with someone like that, and you cant be bad enough to be able to draft one.

AnthonyTyrael
08-16-2013, 11:03 AM
96-97 rookie of the year.
-no roy for ray.
99-00 you call 28ppg and 2.1 steals per game sucking it hard? In todays era he would be likened to lebron. Nobody in todays nba is putting up 25+ and 2 steals per game.

lol!

AnthonyTyrael
08-16-2013, 11:08 AM
What I liked about both, when they were younger, both dunked a lot. Iverson always had this fighting attitude, due his height disadvantage. He really went hard after the rim and he played his socks off. I never liked his efficiency, nor his shooting either but he really had this "I'm smaller than you but I'll give you a ****" attitude. This plus his crossover, is something that's speaking for himself but besides, as a player, hybrid or not (what are many players today: TD,Bron, KG, Dirk and so on...) I'd prefer Ray. Also his passing was somewhat underrated imho, still nothing special though, but nevermind. His attitude killed his career too. It really hurt his knees, back and everything else.

RiLoc
08-16-2013, 02:47 PM
Allen Iverson is the only player in the three point shot era to average over 30 points a game and have a true shooting percentage below 50%.
Iverson and Jordan are the only players in the three point era to have scored 25 points a game and have a true shooting percentage below 50%.
Iverson, Jordan and Bryant are the only players to have average over 27 shots a game during the course of season in the three point era.

Yep... Iverson is the definition of the inefficient volume scorer.

I would never argue that Allen Iverson was efficient. He was very inefficient. That being said, dropping field goal percentages is probably a bit unfair to a player who took about 4 threes a game, 10 free throws and moonlighted as a paperweight.

The talk about efficiency, teamwork, etc. That's great, I'm definitely into that, but the NBA is also entertainment and fans thirst for iconic performances; signature moments of athletic excellence that make our eyes pop and time stand still. Iverson's way isn’t the best way, but many will remember performances like the underdog Sixers led by a tiny dude fighting their way to the finals and game 1 in 2001. It was fun. In that sense, while Iverson's may have been indulging himself with his inefficient volume scoring, he’s also indulging many of the fans as well.

I think the measurement of Ray Allen and Allen Iverson probably comes down to your definition of "greatest". How do you weigh this measurement over a variety of categories, such as team performance, chemistry with team, shoe sales, popularity, effect on culture, conventional stats, advanced stats, defense... Ray Allen and Allen Iverson are opposites and occupy different criteria. I think it's one part of what makes comparing those two so hard and the other part is....


Allen wasn't a jerk off/coach killer like AI.Allen Iverson is polarizing.

bagwell368
08-16-2013, 03:04 PM
Allen Iverson is the only player in the three point shot era to average over 30 points a game and have a true shooting percentage below 50%.
Iverson and Jordan are the only players in the three point era to have scored 25 points a game and have a true shooting percentage below 50%.
Iverson, Jordan and Bryant are the only players to have average over 27 shots a game during the course of season in the three point era.

Yep... Iverson is the definition of the inefficient volume scorer.

Cute. You'll catch some unsuspecting folks with that set of stats. How about some real ones?

Career wise (and note that Jordan and Kobe played at an older age than AI did in the NBA):

Career True Shooting %:

Jordan: .569
Kobe B: .555
Iverson: .518

Iverson isn't near the class of the other two. I find Kobe to be borderline inefficient, at least at times. But Iverson's rates are really notably low given his FGA.

Rain City
08-16-2013, 03:42 PM
i think if we are looking at prime of their career you could make a good case for AI w/ the finals appearance and scoring averages...., but i think if you ask a well educated hoop head to pick a SG to build around its going to be Ray (even in their prime). He is nearly as dynamic, and AI was way more high maintenance and difficult to find compatible players for.

than, look at what happened when AI tried to team up with melo, and coach karl, they had other pieces too and AI just couldnt or didnt want to sacrafice for the greater good which is something ray has flourished at.

i can honestly say i love them both equal. but ray>AI...its not that close if you look at all chapters.... especially if we are talking SG... if it is a PG debate, sure its AI :p

RowBTrice
08-16-2013, 04:07 PM
He's a top 150 SG for sure.

bearadonisdna
08-16-2013, 04:20 PM
Ok I will give in to ray maybe being the better sg since AI was a combo guard.
but AI the better player overall.

RiLoc
08-16-2013, 11:06 PM
Allen Iverson is the only player in the three point shot era to average over 30 points a game and have a true shooting percentage below 50%.
Iverson and Jordan are the only players in the three point era to have scored 25 points a game and have a true shooting percentage below 50%.
Iverson, Jordan and Bryant are the only players to have average over 27 shots a game during the course of season in the three point era.

Yep... Iverson is the definition of the inefficient volume scorer.Cute. You'll catch some unsuspecting folks with that set of stats. How about some real ones?

Career wise (and note that Jordan and Kobe played at an older age than AI did in the NBA):

Career True Shooting %:

Jordan: .569
Kobe B: .555
Iverson: .518

Iverson isn't near the class of the other two. I find Kobe to be borderline inefficient, at least at times. But Iverson's rates are really notably low given his FGA.:eyebrow: You're arguing with me because I wasn't clear enough about how ineffecient of an ineffecient volume scorer Iverson was when I pointed out that he had some of the worst high scoring, high attempts, low true shooting percentage seasons in the three point era?

My stats were real, despite you saying they weren't and I only added Kobe when pointing out that Iverson was in a similar class in terms of shot attempts; Jordan and Kobe took a lot of shots when they put up huge point totals, it is what it is. I was not accusing Jordan and Kobe of being as inefficient as Iverson.

To be fair, I shouldn't've pointed out that during 94-95 season Jordan had a miserable true shooting percentage while averaging 25 points a game, since he only played 17 games that year. I'll clear up my "cute" deception about how ineffecient Iverson was...

Allen Iverson is the only player in the three point shot era to average over 30 points a game and have a true shooting percentage below 50%.
Iverson is the only person who played more than 20 games in a season, average 25 points a game and have a true shooting percentage below 50% and he did it 4 different seasons.
Iverson, Jordan and Bryant are the only players to have average over 27 shots a game during the course of season in the three point era.