In Defence Of: Allen Iverson

Choosing article subjects is tough. Topical lacks staying power. Historical ignores the present. Wait too long and the window closes. This article has sat in draft for over a year and I realized that every day it's less relevant. Lets discuss Allen Iverson and the hose job his legacy received. Now.

The clichés are common. AI was a selfish scorer. He was The (C)answer. His comments about practice are engrained in the sports vernacular forever.

People rarely examine his career logically though. Few consider what he did and the context he played in. They just say selfish and use AI for an easy punching bag to further their career as a sports writer. Lets not do this. Lets examine AI's worst perceptions and try to shed light on reality of one of basketballs biggest stars of all time.

They all boil down to one bone of contention:

AI is a selfish player who's only concern on the court was scoring his own points.

dj steve porter yo

Over his career he has more dimes per then Billups, Bibby, Jason Williams, Tony Parker, Damon Stoudamire, Jason Williams, Larry Bird, Avery Johnson and is just behind Tim Hardaway and Wade. AI was a scorer who often played 2 guard instead of traditional point. He still got more assists then all time point guards. AI is ahead of all 2 guards all time except Wade who played plenty of point himself pre-LBJ/Bosh. Setting up his team was obviously a major part of AI's game.

You say this. People claim it's just because he always had the ball in his hands. While this is true for Jordan and the plethora of other guards who also dominated the ball but never dished for as many dimes.

AI didn't change his game to score more points. In a previous article I crunched AI's Scoring Assist Differential. When AI scored more he got pretty much the same number of assists. He got more points by raising his FG% by almost 10%. Selfish players alter their game to score by taking tougher shots instead of passing for better ones. AI, much to the contrary of popular belief, did just the opposite.

Why was Iverson scoring so much? The answer has quite a bit to do with setting.

You can break Iverson's career down to two distinct eras. Philly and Denver.

Philadelphia 76ers

2 words describe the supporting cast. Offensively. Absent.

This Is How LA Lost It's Only Game. All AI.

The season he averaged 31.4 PPG he also played almost 44 minutes a game trying to get W's. They were the 23'rd ranked offensive team in the league and had almost no other viable scoring options. Was he going to pass to washed up 34 year old Derrick Coleman? Or his first option, 7.4 ppg career scorer Aaron McKie? Or 35 year old offensively finished Mutombo? Or Matt Harpring? Or 6.8 ppg career scoring sensation Eric Snow? Hmm... no.

No one had ability to create their own shot. Except AI. He played his heart out to make things easy so they could get W's. People blamed AI and his famous selfishness despite many wins and a trip to the finals for the role players on his team. You still hear too selfish. Can't make other better. Is this true?

Lets reflect on how those players did with AI:

Matt Harpring: 11.1 ppg was his career high in 02, more then double what he'd done before.

Eric Snow: 11.9 PPG, .3 PPG off of his career high that happened the next year with AI as well. He shot 44%, 2'nd highest ever which followed next year's AI fueled 45%.

Career: Bench Player.
Career With AI:
2'nd Leading Scorer
On A Finals Team

Aaron Mckie: 12.2 ppg. 45%. His career high ppg. Twice his career average. His career high FG % occured the previous year with AI in 01. He also shot his second best from 3 at almost 40%, exceeded only one season in Portland.

Mutombo: 11.5 ppg. The most he had scored in 6 seasons when he was still in his prime as Atlanta's franchise guy. His 6'th highest PPG mark of his whole career. After his 11.5 the next year in Philly with AI, he would never score over 5.8 PPG again.

Coleman: His career was done, but 15.1 PPG was the highest he would post in his last 5 seasons in the league.

The entire starting line up put up career highs or totally revitalized seasons in points and shooting percentage. AI drew that out of them. They stank, but stank a little less when Iverson led them to the highest play in their careers.

But stats are not everything!!!

Indeed. Lets ignore the stats in Philly and focus on careers.

When has Aaron McKie been the 2'nd option on a championship contender and finalist team?

When was the last time Mutombo was the starting center on a finals team?

Or Eric Snow (Cleveland does not count because he was a zombie then)?

They were key contributors on one of the very best teams in basketball and batting WAY above their station. Kind of like the lead dork banging the hot cheerleader at the end of Revenge Of The Nerds. Every one of those guys are bench players who see a few minutes on a contending team of the day like the Kings or Lakers.

With AI they made the finals and were the only team to beat the juggernaut Lakers behind AI's incredible 48 point, 5 steal, 6 dime, 5 board performance. AI averaged 47.4 MPG and 35.6 PPG vs LA losing the next two games by only 9 and 5 points. Which sounds not so great.

Then you consider that the stacked Blazers (Pippen/Sheed/Stoudamire/Steve Smith/Bonzi Wells/Sabonis/Dale Davis/Rod Strickland/Detlef Schremph/Will Purdue) were blown out by 13, 18 and 13 points.

The stacked Kings (Webber/Peja Stojakovic/Vlade Divac/Hedo Turkoglu/Jason Williams/Nick Anderson/Doug Christie/Lawrence Funderburke/Bobby Jackson/Jon Barry/Scot Pollard) lost by 3, 6, and then were blown out by  22 and 13.

The stacked Spurs (Tim Duncan/David Robinson/Sean Elliot/Avery Johnson/Antonio Daniels/Derek Anderson/Danny Ferry/Steve Kerr/even Malik Rose) lost by 8, and were blown out by 14, 29 and 39 points.

If You Forgot, AI Stopped LA's Perfect
Playoffs Where Every Other Team Failed

AI, leading his motley crew of role players, played a hair under 48 minutes a game. Their worst loss was by 14 points when second leading scorer Aaron McKie shot 1/9. Every other game was competitive.

People credit MJ for making his team mates better. I just find it interesting that he was obviously surrounded with far superior HOF caliber all stars who could 'almost' win a title without him. AI somehow hurt his team of role players by making them more effective statistically AND in general carrying a lottery team within 3 wins of the title vs one of the most dominant teams in hoops history.

The degree that AI made his team over-achieve pretty much blows MJ out of the water but AI will never get credit for being the awesome leader that he was. With the exception of Mutombo (who only played 20 games or so that season) none of those guys gets off the Bulls bench. Ever. But they're starting in the finals.

If you put AI in Jordan's position, in his prime, with Pippen/Rodman/Kukoc and Harper, I think he wins many titles. With just Pippen and the cast offs of the Bulls first title that took the Knicks to 7 games (who went to 7 games vs the champion Rockets) he merely wins a couple to a few. Does Jordan win rings in Iverson's shoes? Pretty much: no. He ends up just like Iverson.

Okay, that makes too much sense the nay sayers say. So the fall back slam is:

AI couldn't play with good players

That's what I've heard. Time to consider the second era of AI's career.

Denver Nuggets

The closest foil we have is his two post-prime Denver seasons. His last 2 seasons before NBA retirement. He posted two career high FG%'s. Note there were 0 complaints when his shots went from 25/game to under 19 and he scored the lowest PPG since his sophomore year.

When he had better teammates in Denver his FG% climbed up to 45% while his TO's dropped from 4 to yet another career career mark, 3 TO/game. He happily let his attempts drop to an 11 year low to make someone else the team's clear leading scorer.

Funny all that, since some Philly trends did carry over. That same Allen Iverson trend of everyone around him playing the best offensive basketball of their careers.

Melo Has Not Produced More Or Shot
A Higher %'age Before Or After AI

Melo posted a career high 28.7 PPG.

JR Smith posted a career high 13 PPG.

Marcus Camby posted the highest PPG in the last 6 years of his career, 11.5, and the second highest he'd posted since he was in his prime in NYC 6 years before (and a special note, oh my, what a player he was there. Drool!)

Nene posted a career high despite being hurt.

Najera was .1 ppg off from his career high and has never scored more since.

Earl Boykins posted his career high.

Iverson was exactly the opposite of a selfish scorer. Team-mates playing better followed his entire career. That is because so few scorers of AI's ability were such willing passers.

Only 5 players in history have averaged over 25 PPG for their careers and over 6 dimes. Iverson. Wade. Lebron. Jerry West. Oscar Robertson. Making Iverson one of the least selfish prolific scorers in history. In the modern era only Jordan and AI have put up 30/8 for a whole season. No one else. Not one.

People refuse to accept it. Team Canswer!

Before AI Denver had the 17'th best offense in the NBA. After trading a very good prime Andre Miller for post-prime AI that went up to the 8'th best offence despite the team's injuries. How does trading a selfish offensive player past his prime for an awesome passing PG in his prime improve your offensive rank by more then double? It can't is the short answer. Otherwise a very good Andre Miller has to suck. Or the opinion of AI has to change.

"Why he didn't average 8 or 9 a game for his career?" some ask. Answer... AI was a scorer? Maybe? It's like criticizing Nash or Kidd for not scoring 30 ppg. Especially spending his prime surrounded by terrible offensive and injury ravaged teams.

So Why Are His Efficiency Stats So Low? How Did He Improve His Teams Posting Those Numbers?

Left: The True Answer. Right: The True Canswer

Defences zoned in trying to slow him and pulled down AI's percentages. With distracted defences his teammates killed while his stats like FG% and assists/game went down. If they miss frequently, defences will cheat to shut you down. Iverson's team was filled with terrible offensive players. Perhaps the most terrible of any successful team in history.

Iverson moved the ball around plenty but always got it back because no one on his team was capable of creating a shot for themselves or a teammate. Often left with no choice but to force offense. It all comes into focus when you compare AI's prime efficiency to his improved efficiency in Denver past his prime.

So Why Did AI Make People Better?

Defences collapsed routinely to stop his penetration leading to fouls and open shots for all. That's the short answer.

AI would break a defence in half, score if he had a good look or run options to find the open man. If "hockey assists" were recorded Iverson would be an all time leader. Not being the second last guy to touch the ball doesn't mean you are not the one responsible for creating the play.

Think of how teams approach guarding truly great scorers. There are two options you hear ad nauseam:

1. Let him get his points but shut down everyone else. This works if he's only a little great and can't routinely win games all by himself.

2. Gear the entire D to reduce his effectiveness (no way we can stop him) and force his teammates to beat us. This only happens when 'him' is so good that option 1 leads to a big fat loss.

Team's playing Iverson 'always' picked option #2. Shutting down his Philly teams simple. They stank and were already plodding. Better to focus on Iverson which explains his lower FG%. It's also why his career high efficiency from the field, arc and handle at the point happened counter-intuitively past his prime in two straight Denver seasons. Career efficiency at age 32? For a guy who's game relied so much on speed and athleticism? On a brand new team adjusting to a new role? Only one conclusion makes sense.

AI was not forcing bad shots in Philly. He was being asked to take them.
People say he needs the ball too much to be effective but it's not shown to be the case in any statistical way. Melo's scoring didn't drop in 07, it actually went up while his shooting stayed virtually the same. AI's dimes stayed consistent. What did change was his TO's which dropped to career lows.

AI  Is A System Player

This argument goes this way:

He's good with bad teammates like in Philly. But he'd have been a terrible with someone like Pippen or really anyone not a spot-up shooter. He needs to dominate the ball. With out a system around him AI is less then productive, he's a hindrance.

AI Still Brings It, It's Love Of The Game

Denver's lack of dominance with Iverson has one true cause. Health. If only Melo/AI played full seasons (they missed 55 gams between them) Denver wins 55 games.

It didn't end there though. Yakhouba Diawara started 19 games. Camby played hurt/was injured half the season. Nene was out or in recovery. Kenyon Martin's micro-fracture recovery took 2 seasons. Chris Andersen was suspended. None of those things are on AI.

Factor them in and you're easily talking a 60 win team and 1 seed for the whole playoffs. A lock for the West finals and a legit title contender. All they needed to do was win 6 more games (with one win over the Lakers) and instead of being the 8'th seed they are a 1 seed with home court.

AI did not hinder Philly. AI did not hold back Denver. Asked to carry the offensive load or not Iverson delivered. He didn't need a system catering to his game and Melo is not close to a spot up shooter. His game didn't rely on a hobbled Marcus Camby for all their inside presence, his team did. AI's game did not have problems. AI's teams had problems. One had a front office problem. The other had a medical problem.
You say things like this, still they'll continue to argue:

Chauncy Billups Did More With The Same Team, AKA The Bizzaro Third Era Of Allen Iverson

Yes, the bizzaro third era Chauncy Billups. AI didn't play, but people act like he was kept in a cage plotting to ruin Denver's season and only Billups prevented him from getting out. All that Denver accomplished with Billups reflects a failure of Iverson... right? The Nuggets came within two games of the finals and Iverson didn't make it out of the first round. So AI sucks cuz Billups 'fixed' everything. Right?

Lets examine this particular myth in the most astute sophisticated terms we can find.

FUCK NO!

This did NOT happen. How drastic was this soaring improvement? Is 4 more wins drastic? Hmm... it's not.

Did Billups have the same team? No.

1. Kenyon Martin was playing aggressively again and had finally recovered from double micro-fracture knee surgery.

2. Nene didn't even play in a game with Iverson in 2008. In 2009 he started 76 games with a fully healthy season. He's an amazing defensive center who also led the league in FG%.

3. Chris Andersen came back from suspension. He brought so much to that team as their sixth man and energy guy. He was not even on the Roster when AI was there. He was a candidate for sixth man of the year in both 2009 and 2010 when he was 2 votes shy of second place. (more on his performance from the bench shortly)

They were better though. Why? Because the only players who showed marked improvement after AI left were players I just mentioned who were NOT there the season before (and yes, K-Mart replacing 08's washed up Kenyon Martin does count).

Chris Anderson could only play 20 MPG and averaged 6.2 boards and 2.5 blocks in a measly 20 MPG with crazy clutch play in the post season. Per 36 minutes that's 11 points, 12 boards and a freakish 4.5 blocks a game. Without his clutch play they probably get swept by the Lakers in 09 just like in 08, except it probably happens in the first round, not the West finals.

South Park's Equivalent Of
The Answer, Confidence? No Problem.

3 huge contributors are not why they won 4 more games. It's not because Chauncy Billups was 'better' dishing fewer assists, scoring less points, shooting at a lower percentage while putting up the same assist percentage.

Was Billups more effective because?:

Melo scored significantly less points at a lower percentage.

Or cuz Linus Klezia scores significantly less points at lower percentage.

Or cuz JR Smith's FG% fell.

Or cuz Anthony Carter's FG% fell.

Billups manned the point while the Nuggets had their first healthy team since AI was still in Philly. He played 35 minutes, scored 17 points, dished 6.4 dimes and shot 42%. He was unable to raise the level of play of the rest of the team. With far superior talent they only won 4 more games then with AI. A pithy gain. With far superior talent they had nearly identical offensive and defensive ratings only that AI had to help carry the team through injuries and Billups was able to rest on his laurels knowing how deep his team was.

Ironically Billups is the system player who could never seem to get anything going for so many years of his career till he landed on a do what you're told Larry Brown team. They made a system that could win with poor offensive performance from the point. A system that depended on it's shooting guard for as many dimes as it's point guard.

I like Chauncy. It's not fair to compare him to AI who's an all time great but this perception has got to go. He was not better. Even AI's post-prime production eats Denver Billups for breakfast. There is no traditional or advanced metric that gives Billups any edge. Except 'hype' based metrics I suppose.

But Billups' Denver Teams Functioned So Much Better

Iverson == Heart. Easily One Of The Most Honest,
Forthright Confessions By Any Star In The History Of Sports

True, but no team functions better with vastly inferior front lines and talent.If Billups was better in Denver than it would show up somewhere no? They pushed LA in the West finals after getting swept by them the year before and that's all it's really based on.

Lets look at that series then. They won 2 games.

Game 1: Billups had a pretty mediocre game. 8 dimes, but he shot 5/13 and 2/7 from 3 for 18 points. They lost by 3 points and were only in it because Melo carried them shooting 70% for 39 points.

Game 2: Gritty 2 point team effort for a squeaked out a 3 point win. Billups had 4 dimes and 27 points shooting 40%.

Game 3: 6 point loss. Totally mediocre game. 18 point on 5/15, 2/7 from 3, 7 dimes 4 TO's.

Game 4: 19 point win. Was it because Billups led them there with 24 points on 7/16, 1/6 from 3 and 3 dimes? Or because in 24 minutes Andersen yanked down 14 boards and two blocks. Not to mention, Kenyon Martin had 15 boards and 2 blocks. And Nene had 13 boards. Billups had 3 assists and scored 24 points on 43% shooting and going 1 of 6 from 3. Think about who contributed to the winning, who choked, and who gets credit.

Game 5: 9 point loss. 12 points on 4/7, 3/6 from 3, 5 dimes. Is this bad? It's more effective shooting but that's becasue it's such lower volume yet not replaced with more dimes. It's certainly not good.

Game 6: 25 point loss. 10 points, 9 dimes, 2/7 shooting, 1/3 from 3, 5 to's. Nice on the dimes... finally. It's not making up for playing terribly, getting shut down and not being able to produce after your confidence is broken. I watched this series. That's exactly what happened. No one ever talks about it. Could AI have played mediocre basketball while being carried to wins? I think so? Would AI have his confidence broken? Never. AI beat a much stronger Laker team with Shaq all by himself, in their building, on a much grander stage.

Billups gets cred for 'leading' Denver so close to the finals. The reality is that Billups is not the reason they won games in that series. He didn't even have a single good game. He choked when it really mattered. Billups got carried vs the Lakers and ultimately it's his mediocre play that cost them a trip to the NBA finals.

I've got to repeat myself. I don't mean bash on Billups. He's a solid pro who took his own difficult path to top. Kudos. The same uninformed style arguments were used to slam while he was on that path. People never seem to learn that judging players on things beyond their control only produces unfounded opinions.

It's never going to stop from casual fans. This is precisely why they are casual. But that's not a reason true fans shouldn't look deeper. After the 13 years of blood, sweat and tears he gave to this league (and continues to give to the sport in Turkey of all places) I think Allen Iverson deserves it.

Scoring Assist Differential - Breaking Down The Kobe Laker Era

For Winning A Title Without Shaq, Kobe Gets A Cool Picture On Full Court Pest!Just a note... this is not a typical Kobe article. Its about a predominantly unbiased stat trying to avoid the pitfalls of Kobe discussion. After the stat more subjective matters are discussed but its more or less separate from the stat which is homer/hater neutral. Took a long time, it's unique, no one has seen it before, so I hope you check it ot if not my own thoughts. :)

Its now the cusp of game 5, NBA finals. The Lake Show is up 3-1. They'll close out and Kobe wins a title without Shaq. The NBA and it's fans are going to be subjugated to the largest purple and gold PR in history. Its going to top Kings/Blazers. It will stymie the Isiah injury pooh pooh. It will dwarf the 2006 MVP injustice outcry.

I don't want to enter the hate zone. I don't have an agenda against him that prevents me from being fair. I'm a bigger fan of other players but if the guy does well, I'll say it. He's played great in the finals and at the end of the Denver series. He did so why deny it? His fans are going to go off the deep end in full force. Know what? After sticking with the guy and defending all the criticism they deserve a day in the sun and Kobe deserves this ring. Congratulations Kobe Klan, talk it up. Examples?

Every claim will be amplified and expounded on Ad Nauseam and doubters silenced. Kobe is the greatest of all time, top 3 or top 10. The best perimeter/mid-range shooter ever. Kobe Got Shaq His! Or... Is That How It Really Went Down?
Shaq/Kobe history will be rewritten with such vigor that time will fold on itself and reverse. Shaq needed Kobe. They shared the team. Kobe was the better player and Shaq rode his coat tails. The best scorer, offensive player and leader since Jordan. Maybe better. Much better! Jordan just had a better team, Right? You ARE going to hear it if you're a fan.

I say: no so fast. Kudos... but titles count for too much to me. Kobe's career is top 3 because he wins 4 games and top 30 if he loses 4 games depending on who is talking. Both love/hate statements are misguided. I've got enough self-confidence that I won't be swayed by 4 out of 1000 games no matter what the stage.

In my opinion during those other games he inflates his scoring numbers by not passing. He wanted to be all time and thought scoring was his ticket. This I saw with my eyes. I was informed this is merely my subjective bias fueled by my hatred of all things Bean (though I love Jellybean(s)?!?!). To respond I made a simple stat that effectively removed a great deal of personal bias in evaluating the trend.

I took special care to not look at Kobe's numbers until the moment I crunched his data. No accusations of proving bias opinions 'with stats' as is so commonly suggested. I did not expect the results to be as significant as they were. I expected the same trends expressed volumetricly across all players.

The Premise

The only stat I considered was one I knew. In 2006 Kobe let his dimes drop from 6.0 to 4.5 and scored 35 PPG. 1.5 dimes for ~10 PPG. Good trade, right? My opinion: padding scoring by not passing. Instead of great games at a higher level he stops passing and focuses himself on overwhelming the most visible category. Result: a perception of elite play disguising imbalanced offense generating increased sportscenter highlights and attention for MVPs. That's the premise. It seems logical but a 1.5 drop is weak evidence I was informed, and I agreed. So I made...

The Stat

Meaningful Stats Don't Have To Look Like This... Do They?
Take +40 point games over a given period, subtract the average assists and from the average assists of games scoring X or more points. This gives us play making trends with respect to scoring output. The result we can call scoring/assist differential. So...

scoring/assis diff= average assists (all games) - average assists (scoring > x) and took data at 5 point increments.

Like a scoring average this stat indicates the highs and lows of play making at different levels of scoring giving general relative output. A very simple comparison of a player scoring X points to their average play.

The Numbers:

Without further adieu, lets examine Kobe and players who are prolific enough as scorers to compare him to.

Kobe: The Man
FG%	0.46
>40 FG%	0.51
dimes	5.19
>= points	dimes	differential
40	3.9	-1.29
45	3.5	-1.69
50	3	-2.19
55	2.6	-2.59

Okay, so lets compare Kobe to his peers

Lebron James
FG%; 47%
>40 FG%; 57%
dimes; 6.69
>= points	dimes	differential
40	7.15	0.46
45	7.26	0.57
50	8.5	1.81
55	7	0.31

MJ, 23 Ways To Make You Pay
FG%	0.51
>40 FG%	0.59
dimes	5.38
>= points	dimes	differential
40	5.08	-0.3
45	4.74	-0.65
50	4.53	-0.86
55	3.88	-1.5

Dwayne Wade
FG%; 48%
>40 FG%; 58%
dimes; 6.66
>= points	dimes	differential
40	7.25	0.59
45	8.14	1.48
50	6	-0.66 *
55	4	-2.66 *

Gilbert Arenas In Washington
FG%	0.43
>40 FG%	0.53
dimes	5.66
>= points	dimes	differential
40	5.44	-0.22
45	5.72	0.06
50	5.66	0
55	8	+2.44*

AI In Philly
FG%	0.42
>40 FG%	0.51
dimes	6.12
>= points	dimes	differential
40	6.07	-0.05
45	5.93	-0.18
50	5.3	-0.82
55	6	-0.12 *

Dominique Wilkins In Atlanta
FG%	0.47
>40 FG%	0.58
dimes	2.65
>= points	dimes	differential
40	3.3	0.65
45	3.58	0.93
50	3	0.35
55	4	+1.35 *

* (This is a very small sample size, more on this later)

Again, I did not even take a cursory look at people's stats beforehand. I've seen Kobe play and thought he wouldn't look great in them, but still shocked to see the disparity. I figured everyone's stats would decrease when they scored more points.

Conclusions

Based on these stats, I think its fair to say:

1. Kobe has a crap load of high scoring games in only a few seasons. He can really put it in the hoop at high volumes.

2. His scoring gets over-rated: shares the lowest shooting percentage with Iverson for > 40 point games and by far raises his shooting % at the lowest rate, almost half that of everyone else including Iverson.

3. Kobe seem to be the most selfish. Of all time? No hate, but maybe. He's a great scorer but appears to pad his stats by ignoring his teammates as his dimes continuously drop as points increase. I have two ideas about how he goes off on scoring binges based on watching.

• Kobe pre-meditates big nights and intentionally focuses his energy on scoring. Such a game is his 61 with 3 dimes and 0 boards vs NYK. Before Shaq: 31 40+ point games. 4 50+. The next season he had 10 40+ point games, a third of his 8 year output despite missing almost 20 games coupled with an 8 year assist low (after career), and a 9 year rebounding low. The only season he blocked less shots was his rookie year.
  

• By the 05/06 season Kobe realized W stats would be harder to get and went after the record books instead to vindicate Shaq's departure. Nearly tripled his previous season's 40+ games, took 7 more shots per and produced nearly the same # of 40 point nights as his first 8 seasons did. (I think he pushed too hard and wore himself out because since he's never attacked the rim the same way at all, but I digress)

• When Kobe hits shots early it appears he thinks of sports center and forgets his team existsFor Younger Fans Questioning 'Nique's Inclusion On This List, Click The Triangle Shaped 'Answer Button' Above This Caption beyond facilitating his scoring. In his famous Dallas game he hit all 7 first quarter shots, then jacked a much lower percentage for two quarters getting 0 assists for the game. With Dallas having an off night and his team up 30 Kobe put up 14 shots in the last 5 minutes of the third quarter to further pad his stats.

4. Kobe's got more 40 point games then everyone on this list except Jordan, Iverson and 'Nique. Sensible: the others have only been pros for that many seasons. Kobe had 69 40 point games after Shaq and 27 with Shaq in half the seasons.

He tries to score, more then anyone listed and possibly ever. Kobe is known for and considered the best scorer for his large number of 40/50/60 point games. Arenas only has one 60 point game. Wade 0. Lebron 0. Kobe has 5? Why? They don't alter play to focus on individual scoring. Wade gets his points by approaching a 10 point increase in field goal percentage and gets even more dimes then normal.

They elevate play across all categories. Kobe zones in on one highly visible category while sacrificing others. When scoring 45 points, Wade averages 1.48 assists more then normal. At 8 APG, Assuming 50% pass/assist completion (very high) you have to pass to a teammate in a position to score more then 14 times for those assists; likely its more. Lebron averages a full 2 assists more when scoring 50 points. In contrast, when Kobe's hot and passes you the ball, to have multiple 0 assist games... he expects it back. If Lebron or Wade were forcing those extra shots their points would be higher. So....

5. How many more 40, 50, 60, 70, 80, 90+ point games would these other guys on this list have if they played Kobe ball? I'm going to say that if Jordan had 0 dimes instead of 6, and 3 boards, not 18 when he scored 69 points it would only be a questions of how close he sat to Wilt.
Lebron Playing Kobe-Ball For 2 Minutes, People Knock Lebron For Not Having A 60 Point Game? What?If he passes 12 times to get 6 dimes and hit 62%, he's at something like 85-86 points. If he was not crashing the boards and was playing the worst defensive team in the league (Raptors) instead of great defensive team, I think Jordan break's Wilt's record.

The other guys go way up too. Wade's 48/12 pushes 60 as does 50/9, 48/11 and even 46/10. So does Iverson's 58/6, 60/6 goes up, maybe to 70, and 51/6. Arenas 60/8 pushes 70 for sure, and 51/5, 47/8 and 54/4 all push 60.

Lebron is the best scorer of this decade if he played this way. 56/5, 55/9, 52/11, 52/7/, 51/9, 51/9, 51/8, 50/9 and 50/10 all go upwards of 60 points. Consider 2009 is the first time he's even come close to his prime. Its not even close.

6. The only similar progression on the list is MJ. He also only passes kobe's differential for all 40+ games (1.22) when scoring over 55 points, ie: 9 of his 158 40 points games. In those 9 games he has a 10 dimes at 57 pts, 6 at 59 pts and 6 at 69 pts (not to mention 18 herculean rebounds!). From 50-55 he breaks 5 dimes 9 times out of 20.

Kobe has 1 8 dime game at 53. 1 8 dime game at 50. A 5 and 6 at 46. And 10 at 45. That's all his +5 dime games when scoring 45 or more. I don't have to get into the slower pace, tougher defenses or the rule changes softening perimeter defenses either. All things being equal, and they were not, its still not close.

To be fair, MJ was selfish himself. Very granted. By virtue of shooting 60% in 158 40+ point games and being Michael Freaking Jordan, unquestioned GOAT, he gets a deserved pass for most games. Him attacking a defense was often a better shot then a teammate's open jumper... while he chucked up his own 45 attempt losses he still was not nearly as selfish as Bryant.

The irony: Kobe was trying to pass him. He told Tracey McGrady when he was 19 that he was already a better player then Michael. Once Shaq left he made it his mission to try and get as close to Jordan as possible and unfortunately he, like so many others, over valued scoring and that's what will probably keep him from the truly rarified air.

The Triangle

A reader brought up the point that the triangle kills assist stats. Its seen in Jordan's stats as well proving it. Lebron/Wade et al look better because their team's offenses provide them better passing opportunities.

Its not really an assist stat though. By using average assists as a basis of comparison the sample size accounts for random fluctuation of an offense. By comparing a player in high scoring games to themselves on average we are no longer considering assists: just the change in assists. Kobe averaging 1 could kill Arenas averaging 50 in this stat. 'Nique fares great despite averaging the lowest assists of everyone as its the same offense/teammates at 30 points as 50.

I think its a question of maturity. MJ's early years were famously his selfish years. After losing to the pistons repeatedly he realized it hurt his team and changed his game to win. The change was learning how to use his scoring to help make his teammates better. Observe (with a little credit where Zen credit is due :) ):

Triangle MJ
FG%	0.5
>40 FG%	0.583
dimes	5.07 *
>= points	dimes	differential
40	4.73	-0.34
45	4.26	-0.81
50	4.54	-0.53
55	4.75	-0.32

* Note: only a .2 assist drop in the triangle

Dimes drop a bit at 45, then bounce back to 8 time's kobe's differential. Better decisions feed a superior FG%. I'm not Smushing (so to speak) it in Kobe's face about MJ. He's the only comparison for the triangle. In any offense, good decisions create easy baskets for all, keep FG%'s high. If it is maturity, it does make sense. Jordan had to play years figuring out how to balance his game. Kobe realized how hard carrying a club was once Shaq left and had to start his learning process over.

Explainable, yet one of the following has to be true.

1. After playing for years in the triangle, Kobe did not understand the offense or how to use it to play well as an individual and teammate simultaneously.

2. Kobe's career is that of a selfish player who ignores his teammates when playing his best to maximize his scoring visibility.

Comprehensive Shot Of Everyone In Staples Center Kobe Bryant Has Thoughts About Not Named Kobe Bryant Once He Gets Going
Is this fair? I can't come up with other explanations. If anyone would like to make a better one I'll gladly add it to the list (comment below).

An aptly labeled ball hog, Allen Iverson, kills him with a negligible differential at all levels of scoring. Lebron and Wade got it it in year 1, probably from watching Jordan/Kobe's struggles the same way Magic/Bird watched Chamberlain.

Use the attention to break the defense. Then score from the mismatch, whoever has it, before they recover. Its team basketball. When you play it, good things happen. Try to win yourself and a better team beats you. Russell beat Wilt. Isiah beat Jordan. And KG beat Kobe. Lebron/Wade/et al simply play team basketball (in a team sport ) at a much higher level.

The Comp

I earlier claimed Kobe pre-meditated big scoring nights contradicting the Laker truth that high Kobe scoring was the only way they could win. Challenging this is sure to draw the scorn of Kobe's legions of fans. You'll get a response something like this: (an actual response... actually)

Bryant has scored 40 or more points in 96 regular season games, third on the all-time career list behind Wilt Chamberlain (271) and Michael Jordan (173). The Lakers posted a 65-31 record in those games, a .677 winning percentage that is better than their overall winning percentage (.656) during Bryant's career. Bryant had 27 of those 40 point games in 2005-06, when he led the NBA in scoring with a 35.4 ppg average that ranks eighth on the single season scoring list; the Lakers went 45-37 overall that year (.549) but they went 18-9 (.667) in his 40 point games.

Bryant has scored at least 50 points in a game 23 times; he ranks third on that all-time career list as well, again trailing only Chamberlain (118) and Jordan (31). The Lakers went 16-7 in Bryant's 50 point games, which is an even better winning percentage (.696) than they posted in the games in which he scored 40-49 points. Bryant's only 50 point game this season happened when he set a Madison Square Garden record with 61 points in a 126-117 victory.

Sounds convincing.... look closer.

Who are these high totals against? If you believe this scoring to win theory, you may be surprised. I'm going to call it the 27, 32, 60, 32, 22, 33, 23, 37, 22, 52 club. Those are the opponent season win totals of Kobe's top 10 scoring games. 1.5 quality wins vs Dallas and Houston... the only .450+ teams. 1.5 as Vs. Houston he scored 53 twice in the same season going 1-1. LA was supposed to win the others. Its really a revision to say Kobe was shooting
"because its the only way they could win" instead of padding his stats.

Quality wins, top 10 scoring. 1.5 W's .5 L.

• Win 1: 62 vs Dallas they won because Dallas shot 37% and 13% from 3. Kobe's 10 3 attempts are 3 more then anyone's regular attempts with 0 assists. He reportedly told teammates he was going for 50 before the game regardless. Kobe jacked up 14 shots (almost half of his 31) with his team up 30 in the 3'rd quarter. They apparently didn't need 62 to win at all.
  

• Win .5: 53 vs Houston HOU just started the season without T-Mac still depended on him for everything. The game still went to OT. Credit Kobe 8 dimes and 10 boards however he still took 38 shots on 44% though the other starters shot 43%, 46%, 50% and 57%.
  

• Loss .5: 53 vs Houston now with a full lineup. Despite only 2 assists from Kobe, Smush Parker shot 58%, Kwame Brown 63% and Vladimir Radmonovic 50%. Odom shot 33% but had 17 rebounds. Kobe shot 43% and 33% from 3, on 44 shots, the sixth highest shot total in 25 years by any player. Kobe's 9 3's were more then any players FGA's in the whole game.

Now, if Kobe is shooting to win, lets look at losses in the top 10 too.

• Loss 1: Kobe's 6'th highest scoring game the Lakers lose to the 33 win Bobcats. Kobe took 45 shots, the 5'th highest attempts in 25 years to beat a team featuring Adam Morrison shooting 1-15 (6.7%) and Raymond Felton shooting 7/24 (29%).
  

• Loss 2: In Kobe's 7'th highest scoring game the Lakers posted a loss to the the 22 win Grizzles. Granted the Lakers didn't have Kwame Brown, but it was because the Grizzles played without Pau Gasol due to the ironic most lopsided trade ever for Kwame. Their second option was Darko Milicic and it gets worse from there.

Why do the Lakers need Kobe to take record shots to lose to craptacular teams? I argue the losses are due to the shooting and the wins due to the average 33 games won between the teams. I argue Kobe should get credit for big scoring sometimes, but poor offense when he plays like this.

I Bring You!!! THE KOBE KILLERS! Umm... It's Really Them... HonestLosing to a 33 win expansion team that's given 15/29 shots to guys shooting 6.7%/29% and named Adam Morrison/Raymond Felton respectively has to go down as shameful when you are supposedly the L's best player. My head spins. 6 players on his team shot 50% or better? Kobe took more 3's then any player on his team took shots. Is that worse then losing a major pride game, at home, to a team who's best player you just stole and switched with a role player. I'm not sure, but I think I know how it happened.

From 05-09, Kobe had a solitary triple double. Plenty when Shaq was there. With 08's stacked team he got 0 and only got one before the playoffs in 09. 05-09. Lebron. 25 triple doubles. Crappy teammates, check. This is why Bron is considered better. The GM who traded a great center in his prime for Kobe said as much. Wade has 3 even though he spent 2/4 seasons injured or playing hurt.


Kobe's Help

The oft cited reason for Kobe's team suckage. Was it his teammates who damaged his career? Or was it a failed opportunity to silence critics.

If Kobe led Kwame to 55 wins he gets back to back MVPs. Maybe a West finals appearance? I, and every basketball fan, accept that he's the best since Jordan because it would be obvious as that team has no business winning that much. Kobe: the only other scoring guard to win without a dominant center. Athletically? Way beyond Steve Nash. But he played losing ball over 3 seasons, people saw through the high scoring and Nash, not KB24, got two MVP awards.

Kobe's help follow a trend. They get there. They peak. Then decline in their primes. If your uber-talented star didn't have 1 triple double in 4 years of play while you took all the blame for every loss and the star took all the glory for wins wouldn't you get discouraged? Lets take a look at his talent and their career arcs. They supposedly have 0 talent, however:

Jordan Farmar - Played huge in college where he was absolutely a good player, then he had a solid rookie season. Solid playoffs. I know he was good from watching in college. Made strides last year. Before the last finals and this season Farmar a stated reason the Lakers would win. Fisher out, Farmar in. Instead all his per 36 numbers dropped and he's gone from shooting over 70% from the line to shooting in the 50's.

Vladimir Radmonovic - shot 44% from 3 before they traded him. 44% is more then acceptable for a shooter role player type. He had value to the team too. 13/6.6/44% per 36 is very decent production for 20 minutes. He's averaging a career high in scoring per 36 minutes on 2 more shots/game with Charlotte now. His frustration was evident upon his arrival in Charlotte when he said:

"it was also frustrating not knowing when and how I'd play... Phil's system, great as it is, doesn't give a role player much opportunity... for Kobe Bryant, it's great."

Ronny Turiaf - good enough to get GSW's mid-level exception and continually improve. Often named one of the most under rated players in the NBA. 12/8.6/54% is awesome production for a guy getting 15-20 MPG and brought mad energy. His production declined after that peak though and they let him go. On GSW his FG% is back over 50% now.

Brian Cook - Good enough to be the key piece in a deal that got them Ariza, who's a great player. He was also good enough as a rookie to get rotation minutes on the HOF filled laker team that went to the finals. Then his game declined each year till they traded him. He was not able to settle into the Magic before Nelson went down and he was included in the trade for Rafer Alston before the deadline.

Sasha Vujacic - What more do you want? In 07-08 he shot 45%, 44% from 3, scored 17 ppg per 36 minutes and is positively a very above average defender. A full court pest if you will. Improved every year till the finals. Maybe if Kobe wasn't calling him She She 'The Machine' to the national media, calling him his little brother (which he hated himself viaShaq) and glaring at him every 3'rd play he would not have lost his confidence? You know he shot 92% from the line, right? As a role player, Vujacic was very good.

Luke Walton - Great, above average passer. Always has been. Can change a game without taking a shot. 12/5.5/5.5 45% per 36 minutes are very, very good numbers for a guy coming off your bench 20-25 minutes a game. Good enough to be rotation player on championship team (tomorrow).

Andrew Bynum - Raw out of high school but always had potential. His stats/36 minutes have always been great. He got derailed by injuries but I'm sure his star player hating on him didn't help start his career or his second dispirited come back great starts and it was seen in the results. When your star injures your knee and gets up with a pissed off look on his face, says nothing, and walks away its not exactly encouragnig either, but perhaps that looked worse then it was. Kobe did say Bynum was why they lost to Boston and the key to their title, that he changed their identidy as a team, with Pau Gasol. That alone indicates he's good, if quite raw.

Lamar Odom - I don't think needs to be said. He's a top tier player and one of the most versatile years. All-star calibre who didn't make it in due to a loaded west at his position. Match up nightmare and a top complementary glue guy. Odom as #2 or #3 can win games by himself with or without scoring points. He fills in any gap your team has on a given night. What more do you want?

Caron Butler - All star caliber player. LA fans don't mention that Odom/Butler were on Kobe's team at the same time. The previous year Dwayne Wade, as a rookie, and with Caron/Lamar as his second/third best players almost got them to the east finals. I repeat, he was a rookie. Kobe's team won 33 games. There's a variety of reasons but one of them has got to be Kobe and his change in style. None of them excuse 34 wins with 3 all star caliber players.

And now a special note on Kwame Brown and Smush Parker. The two guys who get the most heat for Kobe not winning more.

Kwame Brown - In Washington he had a 11/7.5/46% year. In 06 he improved playing less minutes, shot 52% overall, > 60% in 11 of his last 20 games, averaged 8 boards and had a large string of +10 board games. He's a big reason they took PHX to 7 and carried them in multiple games. One game he had a 19/6/2 blk 60% FG game that was full of potential. Overall 13 pts, 6.5 brds. 56% FG. 70% if you exclude two bad games you expect from raw players. One bad game they won and the other was the game 7 team collapse, including Kobe. Even in 07 he put up 11/8 per 36 minutes on 59% shooting. No Shaq but he wasn't giving you nothing. Its a myth.

Smush Had Heaps And Leaps Of Ability
Smush Parker - Great athlete. The guy had ups. All young prospects have downs, but man he could get up. Undeniable potential and shot a very respectable 44% in LA. No superstar but a very decent role player with heaps of potential. By year 2 his game started slipping and you could watch confidence peel off of him by the game. If Kobe spent more time building Smush up what could he have been? Parker has publicly stated that Kobe made his time on LA miserable despite him putting up good numbers.

The point is, you're not supposed to be given all-star teams. As the best player you and your coach are supposed to build those teams around you. Kobe's player's seem to fall off in the same pattern. The difference could hae made is instead of being a malcontent demeaning those without your talent on the radio, blaming them for losses and demanding trades you take those lemon players and make lemonade. Were they real lemons?

Can't help but say it... Jordan had this kid. Crazy athletic. Weak skills. Points all off dunks. His name was Scotti Pippen. Jordan turned him into the best all around player ever. With Sam Vincent as his #2, Pippen/Grant/Paxon playing 15-22 mpg, and Charles Oakley as his #3, Jordan won 50 games. They were contenders for the title and went out 4-1 to the champion Pistons. He didn't blame his teammates or destroy their confidence but pushed them to improve every year.

They made the east finals the next year. Went out 4-2 to the pistons. Got back the next year. Went out 4-3 to the Pistons. Then came back better and went on to win 3 straight. All with the same core of players who were not really good just a few years before. The similarities are striking. I think blaming Smush and Kwame for the team's failures is slightly valid but mostly weak. The fact that Kobe did it publicly and demand a trade is just cowardly. You're the star, accept the pressure or it will crack the lesser player's confidence. It did.

Why? Everyone has scrubs. Jordan had Scott Williams, Stacy King, Luc Longly, Brad Sellers, Will Purdue, Sam Vincent and others. Bron, Wade, Arenas and Iverson all played with crappy players. They all had a few scrubs who kept improving and none of them blamed the worst players on the team for losses. I won't say Smush could have been Scotti Pippen, but he could have been more then he became. He showed potential to be much more.

Something happened. Its a footnote now. LA fans will say I'm hate driven to suggest these players were anything but college scrub level. They will neglect to mention this. After a botched trade with Chicago Kobe realized his value was so high any trade for him would land him on the same kind of crappy team. Kobe realized this was his team, could not handle the scrutiny of another .500 season and played to win. His scoring went back down under 30. Assists and boards went back up. Kobe played team ball and these no talents were 15 games over .500 before Pau Gasol even arrived.

I Tried To Find A Pic Of The Chump Scotti Backed Up, But The Only Bulls Pic Was Of Pippen Throwing Down: True StoryKobe's fans will refuse to admit that his help was anythign but terrible. I think its a perception they can't help though. The NBA culture in LA is lucky. Their city is incredibly attractive to players, talent wants to play there so they got used to being stacked long ago. In their eyes a normal team appears unfair to their stars. I didn't say star, because LA has had 2-3 or more legitimate stars for nearly it's entire history. Kobe has always had at least one or two other top tier players and solid role players around him.

Kobe Bryant - You've got to add Kobe. Love or hate him, he's a fantastic talent and has to count as more then one guy. Kobe can win any game all by himself. Subtle difference: I think he tries to win every game by himself. Result: 33, 45 and 42 win seasons. He had good complementary players, championship level role players, the best coach in history. 3 games under .500 over 3 seasons result.

Miami started a rookie poin and a sleepwalking Marion so bad they traded him for Jermaine O'Neal's corpse AND worse contract before a playoff run. Their next best player was Michael Beasley who they could only justify giving 24 MPG. Even Shaun Livingston attempting a come back got 10 MPG on that team. The previous year they won 15 games still with Shaq and a host of decentish players. Wade took them to the playoffs in a single handed 28 game win improvement.

Which Of These Superstars Has The Worst Finals Supporting Cast Of All time?Lebron, took a horrible team to 50 wins and the NBA finals. They started Eric Snow's corpse, Larry Hughes, past prime Ilglauskus, Drew Gooden (who grew a beard on the back of his head, consider that) and Varajeo when he was putting the role in role player. His closing partner: Boobie Gibson who's now riding the pine. Only one player could manage over 30 MPG, Hughes, and he stunk it up shooting 40% and 33% from 3 for less then 15 PPG. They famously depended on Donyell Marshall 3's to win big games they were so bad. 50 wins/finals.

When they were down he stated "A Lebron James Team Is Never Desperate." That's building a winner because the process ultimately starts from losing with who you have. To make omelets you have to break eggs. To build teams you've got to got to lose some games on the backs of your teammates while taking heat on your shoulders.

I don't buy the no help card. Not all-stars or championship help, but not no-stars or losing team over 3 seasons help by any means. Not when you're as talented as Kobe Bryant.

What Could Have Been

Wade just had career highs in scoring, assists, blocks and steals and was .7 behind in boards on a far worse team. Everyone on Miami improved. Watch out for next year. With developed players LA wins that title vs rival Boston. They win this year. They probably beat PHX one year, maybe even beat the clippers in a historic LA only series and make the conference finals. That one guy totally carrying his team performance is whats sorely lacking from Kobe's resume. Its not winning without Shaq thats eluded him, its winning like MJ. While he's won, and will win again, he's never been able to elevate a team above par for that team's ability.

This is what could have been. 5 or 6 titles with Shaq if he waited to be handed the team a la TD/Robinson. LA then has a few years to build players around a winning program and Kobe probably ends with 6-8 titles, half of them finals MVPs. Instead he's got an 81 point game to hang his hat on. One of the greatest individual performances. And I'll rank it with Wilts. But both guys were intentionally setting records. Wilt did it vs 6.5 foot front line players. Kobe did it jacking shots up 20 with 43 seconds left vs the 6'(no D)" Mo Pete of the last place Raptors. I think both games go down as one of the most displays of selfishness over prowess.

PS: Kobe Just Found The Mouthwash And Deserves One More Cool Pic Of Him For Winning Without Shaq. I'm Cool With It, He Won With An Even Balance Of Scoring And Passing, I Feel Almost Vindicated Myself, But LA Fans Be Fair To The Haters, This Could Have Been A Mirror Image, And Its NotI feel bad for Kobe honestly. He wanted to pass Jordan, a daunting task. It motivated his training but mostly his scoring. At 19 Kobe told t-mac that he was already better than Jordan, he was going to crush him. Jordan was a scorer. It had to be done. His obsession with scoring that's going to hurt his comparison. People will always say he's a truly spectacular scorer, but... that's it!

Even with Shaqless rings there are buts. But he was best as a side kick. But he shot his favored team out of the finals on a 39 point losing effort. But nothin. There are no buts for Jordan. Magic. Bird. Isiah. Kareem. West. Soon enough, Lebron. They dominated to win and lose. They accomplished everything they set out to do and carried mediocre players to success and successful players to greatness... but they always carried them and were never 'held back' by them if you get my drift.

I truly relate and feel for the guy. No one actually enjoys seeing people who clearly put in effort lose, or I don't. The guy is kind of alone because no one else is like him. Kobe set out to be the best ever and win by totally carrying a team on his back like all those others he felt challenged by... wait for it... but, 09 title or not... he failed.

Could Iverson/Pistons Dilema Have Been Fixed?

Easy To Take Shots At; Hard To UnderstandI just read the following from JA Adande on ESPN.com:

If Allen Iverson means it when he says he'd rather retire than keep coming off the bench then this isn't an issue for Pistons coach Michael Curry or president Joe Dumars to resolve. This is a matter for Dr. Phil, because this is about Iverson's love of the game, his commitment to a relationship that's lasted for a quarter of a century.

Even this AI fan is falling for it. Allen Iverson has just shut it down for the season due to a 'back injury'. He's played through sprained ankles, debilitating sickness and broken bones. Its not his back people. He's encountered a strain to a part he just can't cope with: his heart.

I appreciate JA's analysis and perspective but he has this call wrong. There's 3 basic jobs in the NBA. GM's assemble teams for success. Coaches take players and create the best possible team/individual system and shows people how to play in it. Players follow the direction of the coach and execute that system to win games.

When 2 of these 3 institutions do a good job the result is success: two groups will motivate the third. When only one of them do their job an organization becomes disjointed and all three show frustration as it's sucked into the void. View any clippers season (except the one before Livingston got hurt and the Larry Brown year) and you'll see examples.

Is Iverson to blame? Partly, for sure. But JA is wrong when he thinks its only Iverson's issue.
Some Coaches Solve Problems, Some Sulk And Blame Their Players
Dumars brought Iverson into a system that was an obvious bad fit before the ink dried on the dotted line. Michael Curry failed in developing a system he could sell to his top 3 players and the team as a whole. Iverson? I truly believe Iverson has tried to work with the Pistons. His statement is honest: his game is dominating the ball and doing this is how he's most effective. Its not his fault: it's just who he is and he's saying he's not being competitive. Remember: the Pistons chose him... he did not choose the Pistons.

That's Dumars' fault but realistically the Iverson trade was a money dump which makes sense for the future of the team. He has done his job but it will just take a few years to show up in the W column. Iverson would love to do his job but can't and is a little past his prime to win lots of games with his style. These are facts. That leaves us with Curry. Curry really has not done much but try and slot Iverson into different roles of the team he used to coach before the trade happened.

No wonder he's had trouble selling it to the players. How do you really sell a game plan to the players that takes an all-star guard and puts him on the bench so the new guy can try and outperform him in that role? How are the other starters who went to war, won a title and made 7 straight conference finals with Rip at the 2 going to react to that? Badly. Iverson clearly does not fit Rip's role in the starting system anyway. Rip played it at a championship level so how does changing something that's not broken improve your team?

Plan B failed too. Take a player who's entire game is working with the ball in his hands and try and make him fit in as a reserve. How do you sell that to the team or Iverson? An all-star with the ball in his hands who made the finals that way. Now you expect him to excel hitting spot ups off the bench? Iverson feeds off of competition, playing hard and above all else contributing to his team's success. He's a hero player. Its his game.

I say kudos to both Rip and Al for trying both attempts over this season but hand Curry a big boo-urns for sulking that Billups is gone. Both minimally complained and expressed personal frustration that coming off the bench is not helping them help the team. Only Iverson took heat however when he complained that him being on the bench does not help the team and not adjusting. The man no one is talking about though, the coach, has been trying to fit square pegs in a round holes all season long.

Instead of creating a maximizing approach for his team's abundant talent Curry he's hanging onto his past team like Britney holds onto her past career. Its to the point now where Iverson is considering retirement openly. Curry gave up on a still prolific and capable player before he got there. In doing so he gave up on a season as well.

Whats needed is a game plan. One built around the pistons on the roster. One that keeps everyone happy. One that has a role for everyone to contribute. Whats needed is some compromise. So why not give Allen Iverson this challenge.

You say: "AI, we know you've got trouble playing with our team. We know you need to be the star to be effective. Lets try something no one has ever done with you before."

I guarantee you, I'd bet a year's salary on it... Iverson's ears would perk up at this sentence. Instantly. What he told the press was not "I want to quit basketball" but that he's starting to think basketball is quitting on him. That everything has been tried and he just does not work on winning teams anymore. AI is saying he's not in it for the money.

Throw down this plan on him. Instead of trying to make Iverson change his style create a separate system for him. Build a second unit around his skill sets, then use it to crucify opposing team's benches and starters alike. It would be feared in the league. Say "We don't want to change how you , AI, we want you to change games."

Iverson is absolutely listening now. Iverson is still coming off the bench but because of the packaging rather then insulting his talent its challenging him. Show him clips of the Knicks team that made the finals with Spreewell leading a second charge off the bench that would change up the looks the opponents saw and often blow them away as the defense tried to adjust to the style switch on the fly. Teams were constantly caught with their pants down when Ewing went off the court the tempo changed.

It makes sense. The starters are too good together to change their system. Iverson is too Iverson to be effective playing any other way. Its a way to be himself, be proud of the way he contributes and not distract the team. It absolutely makes the Pistons much tougher to scout and match up with. Using the 'bad boy' unit you can lock down and dig in. Then switch to AI mode and run them off the floor and no team will know when its coming. Check out the line ups.

"Bad Boys"

5 Sheed

4 Dice

3 Prince

2 Rip

1 Stucky

That is what the Pistons are winning with right now. Great starting 5.

"AI Mode"

5 Kwame Brown (who did prove he can play a little in LA in the playoffs)

4 Jason Maxiell (who's also under used)

3 Amir Johnson/Hermann

2 AI/Afflalo/Bynum

1 AI/Afflalo/Bynum

Unit 2 is not going to win 50 or 60 games. But they could win 5-10 minute stretches. No sweat. There is not a leader who plays with more heart then AI. Its right on his sleeve and it WILL get Kwame going. It will get their bench guys going who thus far are severely under-performing.

Lots of combinations and possible tweaks exist too. Move Maxiell or Johnson to center and go small. Take prince and put him at the 3. Take any starter and move him to play with the second unit. The main point is that when the second unit is on the floor you play with a different game plan that utilizes Iverson's skills to put points on the board.

Its a match up nightmare. Your team gets ahead in the game D'ing up Detroits systematic offense. Your 2 is fighting Rip off screens. Your 4 or 5 is getting help to contain Sheed's inside/outside game. You're defending the pick and roll and Detroit's other half-court sets well. Then Iverson comes in and your point guard is getting isolated on the wing while the rest of the players are clearing out the strong side to run back in off screens while Iverson creates. Do you really think Daniel Gibson could have handled this in the Pistons last Cavs loss? Nope and I'll prove it.

Curry's ineptitude was shining bright recently in Cleveland. Iverson was finally given some minutes in the fourth. That is after running the offense throuugh Will Bynum created a 7 point deficit in the quarter. 9 plus/minus if you include the Bynum shot that Joe Smith swatted. 11 if you include his missed dunk. 13 if you count his bricked jumper. 14 because he could not stay in front of Mo Williams who hit Bron for an clear path pass on a back door play. The Cavs announcer needed extra dry cleaning to say the least after that.

So at the nine minute mark Iverson was allowed to use the ball. Every time AI pushed, this happened. Drained a pull up. Uncontested jumper in the key. Shot a pass to Maxiell from the 3 point line under the hoop for an easy lay in. Will Bynum missed a point blank lay up in transition. Shot Sheed a pass from under the hoop to the 3 point line for a wide open trey. (missed) Split the defense, drove the lane, easy lay up. Will Bynum threw a pass away then promptly raced down to foul 23 for the and 1. (at least he got a dime!) Drew a foul on Big Z trying to contain AI. AI got blocked. Good D by MO. Stuck on MO like glue forcing him to miss a shot. Gave it to McDyce for a wide open jumper. (missed) Almost turned it over driving to the hole but ripped it away from Varajeo and called time too quickly for him to react. Then as a reward for saving the possession Curry used the timeout Iverson fought for and called to take him off the floor.

For that 5:50, with the ball, they were down 7. Iverson responded with 9 points on 4 of 5 shooting, two assists, two wide open looks for teammates, 1 drawn foul, got the lead, and was pulled from the game. They were down 3 when Curry pulled him. They lost the lead when Bynum threw the rock away and fouled Bron. In fact, the only scoring plays Bynum was involved in during the stretch was when he passed it to AI and got out of his way. Curry put the starters back in and they promptly let the lead balloon to 8 before losing by 6. Oh yea, he also took a slap-in-the-face sized stake and drove it through the most exposed heart in the league. (its on his sleeve) In 18 minutes AI outscored everyone except Rip's 13 with 11 points. 9 in that 6 minute stretch when they, you know, let him play.

It was Iverson's second game back after not playing for over a month, after he rushed back from his back injury to contribute. Whats inside the mind of Curry? Well, this was his thinking before Iverson came back.

"Maybe Allen comes in and plays a lot of time at Will Bynum's spot," Curry said.

Now legions of fans, writers and anyone else are saying Iverson's horrible attitude and selfishness is why the Pistons are not doing well. Then questioning his heart. Then saying its his fault. I'm sorry, but that is bullshit. Iverson blamed 'himself' for his frustration, 'himself' for his failure to compete, 'himself' for everything. Even when its blatently Curry's arrogance and or incompetence thats directly to blame.

Put Iverson on a stationary bike like PJ did with Rodman. Or put him in the back hitting jumpers to keep in rhythm. Just make it work. If the starters start having an off quarter you throw AI in to play at top speed with his heart on his sleeve, get the fans into it and see what might happen. Maybe the goal of the AI crew is to run Iverson at another team's bigs and tally up a few quick fouls.

The Pistons Can't Comprehend 'Crazy For A Championship' Like They Used To
Rodman is a great comparison. He wanted special treatment and the Bulls gave it. In return he gave them a 72 win season on the GOAT NBA team. Teams too caught up in cliches about attitude often forget that winning is the bottom line. Winning is 'always' the team concept and when you're playing at the highest for all the marbles its all any winning teams care about.

Rodman worked on Chicago because Jordan cared about nothing, absolutly nothing, besides winning. He was willing to give Rodman special status. I guarentee you Jordan would have cleaned his toilets if it meant the Worm was going to pull down 20 boards that night. Except thats not happenomg here because , faults that he may have, came to a team/coach with a few other bottom lines. Instead they're scapegoating him as "The Answer" to the question "why are you underachiveing."

But its actually not too late. If the team gets mentally together and approaches Iverson with a direct plan. If they say we need them to shut up our doubters. AI doubters and Pistons doubters. If they say Allen Iverson: you can be the difference between us wining and losing. We can come together then they could still make the season work if you're up for it. No doubt Iverson's treatments will be magical and his back will heal overnight. Its not likely though as egos are probably too big to admit a mistake but the Pistons just don't have enough to get past the first or second round. Possible but a crazy long shot.

Anythings better then just giving up in my books. It says silently that the Pistons are not trying to win this year and says it from the top down. Many can't recover from a move like this. The suns could never recover from the forced style change the Shaq trade brought and the knowledge the current players had that their management had given up on them. Didn't believe in them. Now Iverson has quit on the Pistons and I fear its the beginning of the end for one of the present era's best and unheralded teams.