Small Numbers

ESPN's Daily Dime proclaim's Allen Iverson's Saturday performance the day's worst:

Was Iverson bad? Not exactly. Was he good enough? No way. His 7-for-20 shooting (0-for-3 on 3s) was not what Denver needed in such a big game.

Here's a question: Why does Iverson ever have games where he puts up three treys? The guy is an okay three point shooter -- he sinks the NBA three 31 percent of the time, which is a heck of a lot better than most people can do -- but though this is close, it's distinctly below the break even point. Score three points on 31 percent of your possessions and you'll rack up an offensive efficiency of 93 points per hundred possessions -- terrible. Teams can easily afford to give him that shot all day. This is, I think, the sort of thing where looking at the numbers really does matter. Watching games, the difference between a 31 percent three point shooter and a 37 percent three point shooter isn't going to be obvious. Over the long run, though, the 31 percent shooter is probably hurting his team while the 37 percent shooter is almost certainly helping. By eyeball, though, these are both guys who hit about one shot in three.

Comments

How often does the offense get a rebound when someone puts up a 3? Because at least some of those misses will turn into points, right?

(Or am I missing some fundamental issue about offensive efficiency?)

Posted by Steve H. | April 29, 2007 11:11 PM

How often does the offense get a rebound when someone puts up a 3? Because at least some of those misses will turn into points, right?

Yeah, you're right. I need to take that into account.

Posted by Matthew Yglesias | April 30, 2007 12:20 AM

Having watched AI for 10 years in Philly, I can tell you that there are a few reasons:

1) he's a streak shooter, and he'll occasionally knock down 6 in a row, so sometimes he'll just do a heat check.

2) a lot of times he'll get the ball very late in the shot clock or will take the last shot of the half or quarter, forcing him to take a bad three, so that skews it.

3) At 5'9", 155, he can't very well drive into the trees every time and expect to live. Sometimes he has to take the 3-ball.

4) Sometimes when he would play a guy who was hot shooting threes, like a Kobe or T-Mac or Stevie Franchise, he'd try to answer with a 3, which is not his game.

Incidentally, this year was his best year ever shooting threes, and he shot less per game this year than in years past. It was a big problem in Philly at one point, though never of the Antoine Walker gunner variety.

Posted by dday | April 30, 2007 2:02 AM

"Why does Iverson ever have games where he puts up three treys?"

Because when J.R. Smith and Linas Kleiza are on the bench - which is the majority of a Nuggets game - Iverson has the highest 3pt percentage of anyone on the court.

Thus, unless Denver is to abdicate the 3pt shot, Iverson is the best player to be taking them. And if you abdicate the 3pt shot, it gives a tremendous advantage to the defense.

And finally, since he came over to Denver and started getting less focussed defensive attention, Iverson has been shooting the 3 pointer at 34.7%.

Posted by Petey | April 30, 2007 7:47 AM

And about Game 3, I gotta say that George Karl confuses the hell out of me.

During the stretch run, he kept J.R. Smith in his doghouse, refusing to give him minutes, and not getting him ready for the playoffs. Fine. I mean, I kinda disagreed, since I like Smith. But he was using Kleiza in Smith's role and minutes and Kleiza was producing nicely.

So why, in the biggest game of the year, does Karl play Kleiza for 5 minutes and Smith for 16 minutes when Kleiza is well tuned and Smith is not?

As Woody Paige only slightly overstates:

Allen Iverson had tied the score at 64, and the largest frothing basketball crowd in Denver basketball history braced for a fast, furious, frenzied, fantastic finish - maybe a winning shot at the buzzer or an overtime victory.

Phooey.

That's when J.R. Smith entered stage left. Too bad he didn't exit stage right immediately.

The Spurs were as thrilled to see Smith as kids are to taste cotton candy.

Cotton candy would be more effective on defense.

By the time Smith's awful inbound pass was stolen by Robert Horry, who made a three-pointer, and Smith stole the ball and ludicrously didn't pass off to Iverson on the wing for an easy shot and had his own rejected by Horry, and Smith knocked down Iverson and fell over him, leaving the Spurs with an open three-point shot at the other end, and after Smith made a three-point play, but then missed a three-pointer and committed a flagrant foul at the other end on Ginobili, the Nuggets were down 77-67, and the foamy crowd became a fuming crowd.

The game was over. The series probably is over.

Karl put J.R. in a situation designed to have him fail, and fail he did.

Free Linas Kleiza!

Posted by Petey | April 30, 2007 8:25 AM

I can see it now - Petey's going to blame the series loss on Karl, rather than on where the blame should actually lie: Iverson (shooting 40% in the series so far).

Posted by Al | April 30, 2007 10:01 AM

"I can see it now - Petey's going to blame the series loss on Karl, rather than on where the blame should actually lie: Iverson (shooting 40% in the series so far)."

I think a huge amount of the blame for a series loss would go to Karl.

I also think a huge amount of the credit for a series win would go to Karl.

With a young team that is has very limited experience playing together, coaching becomes absolutely crucial. Do you think Don Nelson isn't responsible for a huge amount of what's going on in Dallas/GS?

Karl can't help Iverson hit layups or open shots - which he missed in copious quantities in game 2 - but he's got a huge amount of responsibility for the rest of Iverson's game. Iverson is playing within the role given to him, and his success or failure has a lot to do with the way his given role works within team schemes.

I thought Iverson had a mediocre game in game 3, but that it was good enough to get a Denver win. I thought the game was clearly lost during J.R. Smith's stretch on the floor during the late 3rd quarter and early 4th quarter, and I thought that in context of the Nuggets' team over the past two months, leaving Smith on the floor instead of Kleiza was absolutely mystifying.

If Karl had wanted to move Smith back into the rotation for the first time in months, the opportunity for that was Game 2, which the Nuggets could afford to lose. Not the more 'must-have' of Game 3.

Posted by Petey | April 30, 2007 10:20 AM

I also don't understand why Karl has relentlessly double-teamed Duncan in games 2 and 3 after successfully playing him with single coverage in game 1.

I'd much rather take my chances on Duncan getting 35 than on letting Finley and Horry shoot open 3 pointers.

Posted by Petey | April 30, 2007 11:17 AM