Iverson's career stats

[Mike G]

... iverson's shooting stats and rate for offensive efficiency in 03-04 are ... lousy ..

Have you missed noticing The Iverson Effect?
http://www.apbr.org/metrics/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=8426

He shoots .030 worse (TS%) than the rest of his team; but the rest of his team shoots .050-.060 better when he's on the floor!
He leads the team in turnovers. But when he's not on the floor, his team has 2-3 more TO per 100 possessions!

[permaximum]

... iverson's shooting stats and rate for offensive efficiency in 03-04 are ... lousy ..

Have you missed noticing The Iverson Effect?
http://www.apbr.org/metrics/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=8426

He shoots .030 worse (TS%) than the rest of his team; but the rest of his team shoots .050-.060 better when he's on the floor!
He leads the team in turnovers. But when he's not on the floor, his team has 2-3 more TO per 100 possessions!

And I strongly believe 2003-04 was Iverson's worst year because he tried to play through serious injuries and it was obvious he struggled. No wonder without him the sixers' win record stayed more or less the same and it's the only exception between 1997-2006. As you pointed out, even in that year at least he did help.

[permaximum]

To remember how the mvp balloting went in 2001

Iverson totaled 1,121 points and received 93 of a possible 124 first-place votes in the balloting done by a panel of sportswriters and broadcasters throughout the United States and Canada.

At 6-0, Iverson is the shortest player in NBA history to win the award. At 165 pounds, he is also the lightest player in NBA history to win

Iverson was the only player named on all 124 ballots.

Code: Select all

╔═══════════════════════════════╦═════╦═════╦═════╦═════╦═════╦═══════╗
║  2000-01 MVP voting results   ║     ║     ║     ║     ║     ║       ║
╠═══════════════════════════════╬═════╬═════╬═════╬═════╬═════╬═══════╣
║ Player, Team                  ║ 1st ║ 2nd ║ 3rd ║ 4th ║ 5th ║ Pts   ║
║ Allen Iverson, Philadelphia   ║ 93  ║ 20  ║ 9   ║ 2   ║ 0   ║ 1,121 ║
║ Tim Duncan, San Antonio       ║ 18  ║ 41  ║ 34  ║ 21  ║ 6   ║ 706   ║
║ Shaquille O'Neal, L.A. Lakers ║ 7   ║ 26  ║ 45  ║ 29  ║ 14  ║ 578   ║
║ Chris Webber, Sacramento      ║ 5   ║ 29  ║ 27  ║ 39  ║ 16  ║ 521   ║
║ Kevin Garnett, Minnesota      ║ 1   ║ 5   ║ 4   ║ 17  ║ 35  ║ 151   ║
║ Tracy McGrady, Orlando        ║ 0   ║ 2   ║ 3   ║ 6   ║ 17  ║ 64    ║
║ Karl Malone, Utah             ║ 0   ║ 0   ║ 0   ║ 4   ║ 9   ║ 21    ║
║ Jason Kidd, Phoenix           ║ 0   ║ 0   ║ 0   ║ 3   ║ 9   ║ 18    ║
║ Kobe Bryant, L.A. Lakers      ║ 0   ║ 0   ║ 1   ║ 0   ║ 6   ║ 11    ║
║ David Robinson, San Antonio   ║ 0   ║ 1   ║ 0   ║ 0   ║ 1   ║ 8     ║
║ Ray Allen, Milwaukee          ║ 0   ║ 0   ║ 0   ║ 2   ║ 1   ║ 7     ║
║ Vince Carter, Toronto         ║ 0   ║ 0   ║ 0   ║ 1   ║ 4   ║ 7     ║
║ Paul Pierce, Boston           ║ 0   ║ 0   ║ 1   ║ 0   ║ 0   ║ 5     ║
║ Jerry Stackhouse, Detroit     ║ 0   ║ 0   ║ 0   ║ 0   ║ 3   ║ 3     ║
║ Michael Finley, Dallas        ║ 0   ║ 0   ║ 0   ║ 0   ║ 1   ║ 1     ║
║ Anthony Mason, Miami          ║ 0   ║ 0   ║ 0   ║ 0   ║ 1   ║ 1     ║
║ John Stockton, Utah           ║ 0   ║ 0   ║ 0   ║ 0   ║ 1   ║ 1     ║
╚═══════════════════════════════╩═════╩═════╩═════╩═════╩═════╩═══════╝

Besides current NBA greats, former NBA greats, broadcasters, sportswriters, panelists, gms; the coaches speak very highly of Iverson too. His coaches also said something along the lines of what Lebron, Durant and others said before;

Larry Brown: "He is the best player at his size to ever play the game,"

Larry Brown: "He might be the greatest athlete I've ever seen. I don't think there'll be another one like him."

Jim O'Brien: "I think we are witnessing one of the great careers in the NBA, put on by one of the most talented, tough and big hearted guys out there."

If someone thinks all these people from the actual game itself are wrong, there's probably something wrong with the one who thinks everyone is wrong.

[Mike G]

Larry Brown was a tough 5' 9" PG. Most Americans are shorter than most NBA players, but Iverson is actually small. People identify with someone who is more like they are.

When Iverson would miss games, people would say, "See how valuable he is; his team can't win without him".
When Shaq would miss games, they'd say, "See what a slacker he is, deserting his team in time of need."

Everyone Hates Goliath, said Wilt. Conversely: You gotta love the little guy.
When you have to qualify his qualities by adding, "at his size", or otherwise granting him a handicap, you're admitting he is getting extra credit for his lack of physical presence.

In the 2001 Finals, there was little doubt about the most valuable player:

Code: Select all

Finals'01   Min    Pts    Reb   Ast   Stl   Blk   TS%   ORtg  DRtg
Shaq       45.0   33.0   15.8   4.8    .4   3.4   .575   115   101
Iverson    47.4   35.6    5.6   3.8   1.8    .2   .486   103   111

Iverson outscored Shaq by 13 points in 5 games. He also took about 40 more shots (TSA).
http://www.basketball-reference.com/pla ... ml#LAL-PHI

[permaximum]

Without Kobe, Shaq wouldn't be that dominant. Without Shaq, Kobe wouldn't be that efficient (not exactly the finals but generally). Still, Iverson stole an away game from them. I believe that Lakers was one of the greatest teams of all time. If I remember right they were 19-0 undefeated until Iverson's shot over Lue gave them the only defeat.

However, I agree MVP of the finals was Shaq but MVP of the season was without a doubt Iverson.

[Mike G]

Teammates matter, but the truly great players aren't defined by them.
With 4 teams, Shaq was in the playoffs every year from age 21 to 35. Past the 1st round in 12 consecutive years.
Iverson got in 8 times, past round 1 on 4 trips.

Regular season 2001, Shaq was #1 in PER, BPM, VORP, and WS. Tied with DRob in WS/48
Iverson is 7, 11, 11, 11, and 12 in those measures.
Players higher in all 5 indices: Shaq, Vince, Malone.
[Shaq wasn't eligible for MVP, because he wasn't as dominant as he'd been the year before -- ?]

It's always interesting when the Real mvp meets the MVP winner in the playoffs: Jordan vs Magic, vs Barkley, vs Malone; Shaq vs anyone ...
In a best of 7, head to head, you can see who is the better player. Are they not the same players they were in the regular season?

[permaximum]

Teammates matter, but the truly great players aren't defined by them.
With 4 teams, Shaq was in the playoffs every year from age 21 to 35. Past the 1st round in 12 consecutive years.
Iverson got in 8 times, past round 1 on 4 trips.

Regular season 2001, Shaq was #1 in PER, BPM, VORP, and WS. Tied with DRob in WS/48
Iverson is 7, 11, 11, 11, and 12 in those measures.
Players higher in all 5 indices: Shaq, Vince, Malone.
[Shaq wasn't eligible for MVP, because he wasn't as dominant as he'd been the year before -- ?]

It's always interesting when the Real mvp meets the MVP winner in the playoffs: Jordan vs Magic, vs Barkley, vs Malone; Shaq vs anyone ...
In a best of 7, head to head, you can see who is the better player. Are they not the same players they were in the regular season?

Well, Jordan won with Pippen, Shaq won with Kobe, Wade, Kobe won with Shaq and Gasol, Wade won with Shaq and LeBron. Iverson's teammates were never that good of Shaq's.

PER, BPM, VORP and WS mean little to me. I have done a very large research about their prediction accuracy and I didn't like what I saw. A simple thing as MPG is so close to BPM (which already includes MPG) and WS and better than PER. Even xRAPM or RPM is not that good as you think. When I tried to predict Y (per season for each team) with Y-1 and Y-2, RMSE was around 53 for MPG-1 + MPG-2 blend while it was around 48 for xRAPM-1 + xRAPM-2 blend which was the best metric.

I guess former basketball players, coaches, gms, and some of the sportswriters know something akin to this in their minds since a large majority of them saw Iverson as the MVP that year.

I have to get my hand on this PT data to see if it improves things a lot.

Edit: I believe, this mindset to decide on MVP is a lot better than looking at those metrics. Look at the top teams in NBA. Look at their top players and decide on which one has the less support. In 2001 Shaq had Kobe and got 56 wins, Duncan had David Robinson and got 58 wins, Iverson had no player in that caliber and got 56 wins.

This is a working mindset.

[bchaikin]

As an Iverson fan I took the bait.

then can you be objective?...

I don't give much credit to WS, WP or other advanced stats besides RAPM so I won't talk about those kind of stats.

this is a stats analysis group. what stats are you using to show how good he was? not accolades, but stats...

I think some "advanced" metrics should start to include something simple as "ability to still play instead of an average player" kind of factor...

you don't need advanced metrics to know that when a player misses a ton of shots, he hurts his team...

most of the players' efficiency drops terribly if they play longer than their body allows.

most? simply untrue - player playing time is dictated solely by coaches. whose to say what their bodies would allow?...

you need only look at players who were for the most part reserves that then played big minutes for expansion teams for evidence...

You will never see Ginobili or top RAPM, WS/48 etc. guys (or anyone in this decade) go 21/32 in a playoff game (between 4th-5th) for 55 (20 in the fourth) along with 8 assists and make his team win a very close game with 98-90.

nor will you see ginobili shoot in playoff games like this:

9899 - 7/28 (L), 13/33 (L)
9900 - 5/21 (L), 9/25 (L)
0001 - 11/34 (L), 6/24 (L), 5/26 (L), 5/27 (L)
0203 - 5/25 (L)
0405 - 7/24 (L)

all by iverson...

from the ages of 23-32, in 71 total playoff games, iverson shot just 42.0% on 2s and 32.7% on 3s, for a poor 43.4% eFG% (2s and 3)...

forget just players, how many teams shot just 42.0% on 2s and 32.7% on 3s and won playoff games?...

Iverson's +/- playoff numbers suffer hugely because especially in Philly he played almost 95% of available minutes in playoffs. He usually came out for a min or two in a game and that small sample size taken from a game skews +/- numbers.

exactly - so you do understand the concept that you cannot compare sample sizes that are vastly different and draw any definitive conclusion because the smaller one can more easily be skewed...

Actually I thought about a statistic that I would consider important alongside my own eyes and that's with and without record of teams. That statistic is obviously very rough because of different oppositions but it doesn't have the lackings of RAPM's bias and noise. And in the long term it becomes more stable. If I see an obvious pattern in that statistic in the long run, then I would be 100% sure about that player's importance without looking at any other metrics. So, now I bet Sixers won a lot more with Iverson in his career so I'll try to prove it... Alright it took some time but here's it.

Code:
╔═════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════╗
║ Season With Iverson Without Iverson FG% TS% ║
╠═════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════╣
║ 1996/97 21-55 (.277) 1-5 (.166) .416 .513 ║
║ 1997/98 31-49 (.388) 0-2 (.000) .461 .535 ║
║ 1998/99 28-20 (.584) 0-2 (.000) .412 .508 ║
║ 1999/00 42-28 (.600) 7-5 (.583) .421 .496 ║
║ 2000/01 50-21 (.705) 6-5 (.545) .420 .518 ║
║ 2001/02 36-24 (.600) 7-15 (.318) .398 .489 ║
║ 2002/03 48-34 (.586) - .414 .500 ║
║ 2003/04 19-29 (.396) 14-20(.411) .387 .478 ║
║ 2004/05 41-34 (.547) 2-5 (.285) .424 .532 ║
║ 2005/06 35-37 (.487) 3-7 (.300) .447 .543 ║
╚═════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════╝


The patternt in the long term is very obvious and Iverson's effect on winning games is enormous except 03/04. It's not that different in that season.

oh wait - no you don't understand...

that's 682 games with iverson, yet just 106 without...

you appear to use whatever data you want when it says what you want, but ignore it when it doesn't...


I thought volume scoring is a thing for ineffecient guys. Iverson is not inefficient.

compared to all other players, you are correct - iverson is not inefficient...

but compared to other high scorers he most certainly is...

from the ages of 23-32 he scored 19443 pts (regular season) and 28.9 pts/g. since 1977-78, among the 44 players to have scored at least 14000 pts in that same age range, his rate of offensive efficiency of 1.94 pts/0ptposs (pts scored per zero point team possession personally responsible for) is the absolute lowest/worst...

also among those same 44 players he had the lowest/worst ScFG% (2s, 3s, and FTs) at 50.8% and the lowest/worst eFG% (2s and 3s) at 44.9%...

looking at it in a slightly different way, from the ages of 23-32 all players that averaged scoring 20+ pts/g but with at least 20000 minutes played, iverson's 1.94 pts/0ptposs is the 2nd lowest/worst (only chris webber was worse)...

Iverson in his prime is better than LeBron

as this is a stats analysis group, what is this statement based on?...

As an ex basketball-player I do think I know the game and I think I can differentiate a game-changer player when I watch a few of his games.

try watching alot more than just a few of his games. did you watch the playoffs games listed above, all those loses where he shot poorly? was he a game changing player in those games?...

Kobe did not hurt his team despite his very poor 37% shooting.

are you seriously trying to suggest that if bryant shot better the lakers would not have won more games? care to substantiate that?...

if for example when i simulate bryant for 40 min/g and 82 games at his current shooting percentages, then repeat the simulation but change his 2pt and 3pt FG%s to say his single season career highs of .510 on 2s and .383 on 3s, the lakers win 9-10 more games per 82 game season...

considering that the difference between the best and worst starters at a particular position for 40 min/g and 82 games is upwards of 15-16 wins, 9-10 wins is a huge difference for just changing a player's shooting %s (and not say his turnover rate, rebounding, defense, etc)...

-You miss Kobe's or Iverson's on the court presence's effect on his teammates' and opponents' efficiency because of the other variables you miss.

such as?...

Have you missed noticing The Iverson Effect?... He leads the team in turnovers. But when he's not on the floor, his team has 2-3 more TO per 100 possessions!

how is that affected by who his teammates are?...

Iverson's replacements that year were a rookie Willie Green, Greg Buckner, and other filler. In a better year for Iverson and for his supporting cast, we might see different results.

plus missed shots followed by opponent rebounds from a team perspective are the same as turnovers...

Without Kobe, Shaq wouldn't be that dominant.

incorrect...

for 4 years from 92-93 to 95-96 when with orlando, shaq averaged 27.2 pts/g (.574 ScFG%) and 12.5 reb/g playing 38 min/g...

the next 4 years 96-97 to 99-00 with the lakers he averaged 27.9 pts/g (.562 ScFG%) and 12.2 reb/g playing 38 min/g...

the next 4 years for LA from 00-01 to 03-04 he averaged 26.3 pts/g (.569 ScFG%) and 11.5 reb/g playing 38 min/g...

Without Shaq, Kobe wouldn't be that efficient

from 99-00 to 03-04, with shaq, bryant played 39 min/g, scored 26.2 pts/g, shot a 53.8% ScFG%, with 2.22 pts/0ptposs...

from 04-05 to 08-09, without shaq, bryant played 39 min/g, scored 30.0 pts/g, shot a 55.6% ScFG%, with 2.32 pts/0ptposs...

incorrect again...

[permaximum]

Shooting doesn't mean efficiency. Your whole post is centered around that and I've already shown you can't rely on that sole stat. What if Iverson took mostly below 30% shots an average player can make just to create a scoring chance in hard situations while his teammates took high percentage shots because of the double-teams, triple-teams he got? There are a lot of factors to consider. When you get that, we can discuss more. Have you played basketball before? What's your view on Tyson Chandler?

I know I'm objective because I'm the not one considers Iverson's shooting inefficient (51.8 TS%) in a league with 52.6% TS average while saying nothing about T-Mac's ineffecition shooting (51.9 TS%) when his name comes up in this kind of discussion.

Do you still think Iverson in Denver or Memphis was a better player because of his so-called "efficient" shooting?

Slightly off-topic but do you consider hand-check rules when you compare TS% of different players from the different eras?

Last question, since you're a "stat" person, can you say current box-score and/or PM data accurately captures xx% of the actual game? If you capture majority of the actual game can you prove you beat Vegas constantly?

[permaximum]

Well, I always assumed your numbers were correct but the first thing I looked at proved it was wrong. This happened with J.E (in this thread) and mystic (calculation of ridge regression in an another thread) before too. Add the developer of leading PT-PM to that list. You guys are so full of yourselves that you don't even know there's information pollution at the basic level. To prove you are right, you give false information knowingly or worse without even knowing it. How can I take you seriously as an analyst if you can't get the basic stuff right? I believed in you guys before but the more I become handy with advanced stats and calculations the more I lose faith in analysts. They're so focused that they always miss the big picture. So what if you can improve upon MPG by 8-9%. Does this mean stats and metrics alone should decide the fate of NBA players? On the contrary this only proves coaches (or ex-basketball players) actually know what they're doing.

Alright let's see the Iverson's playoff games you listed.

98-99 L(-3) - 7/28 shooting, If iverson shot 45% Philly would win.
98-99 L(-11) 13/33 shooting, if Iverson shot 50% Philly wouldn't win anyways.
99-00 L(-10) 5/21 shooting, if Iverson shot 45% Philly wouldn't win anyways.
99-00 L (-6) 9/25 shooting, if Iverson shot 45% Philly wouldn't win anyways.
00-01 L (-3) 11/34 shooting, if Iverson shot 45% Philly would win.
00-01 L (-12) 6/24 shooting, if Iverson shot 45% Philly wouldn't win anyways.
00-01 L (-14) 5/26 shooting, if Iverson shot 45% Philly wouldn't win anyways.
00-01 Win 5/27 shooting
02-03 L (-1) 5/25 shooting, if Iverson shot 45% Philly would win.
04-05 L (-15) 7/24 shooting, if Iverson shot 45% Philly wouldn't win anyways.

Well, one of them is actually a Win. In 6 of the other 9 games Sixers wouldn't win the game anyways. Like I said before Iverson probably kept shooting to get into rythm because he rightfully thought the team needed his hot streak to hold onto the game. In the other 3 he simply had a bad night and that was destined to happen in his long Sixers playoff history.

Do you know what would happen if Iverson didn't shoot above 55% TS with very high usage in some of the games in his playoffs era which average player had around 50% TS? What would the outcome of the Sixers' playoff games and series be?

Still you can't simply look at shooting percentage and say a team would win or lose the game if a given player shot 10% more accurate in the game. I just gave the above example to play "your game" which is not accurately describes the basketball. A simple basket at the right time can change a lot of things. And somebody has to take low percentage shots. It was Iverson in Sixers.

BTW what do you think about Westbrook's current season? Is it MVP caliber with 42.5% fg (identical to Iverson's career FG%) and 29.7% 3P (worse than Iverson's career 3P%)? What a shame a lot of people consider his season MVP-caliber... lol

[Mike G]

Have you missed noticing The Iverson Effect?... He leads the team in turnovers. But when he's not on the floor, his team has 2-3 more TO per 100 possessions!

how is that affected by who his teammates are?...

We don't know what he'd have done with teammates other than he had; but with the teammates he had, he seems to have raised team shooting by a large amount, and also to reduce team turnovers.

This would seem to be more relevant than his own missed shot totals and shooting%, or the TO assigned to him as an individual. If your simulations don't reproduce this effect, then it doesn't replicate the reality on the floor.

Here's that link again: http://www.apbr.org/metrics/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=8426
Note that with every combination of 3 and 4 other players, the team shoots well better with Iverson on the floor.

It may be that he was especially valuable on especially bad teams. That doesn't draw many MVP votes; and we don't know how he'd have been in his prime with another superstar or two, or as the 2nd or 3rd option, or playing Manu-like minutes of <30.

It's reasonable to discount or question garbage minutes in PM discussions. Meanwhile, there aren't really any "garbage games" in a season, at least for teams that are fighting for a playoff spot.

As permaximum's table shows, the Sixers with Iverson won .530 of their games over 9+ seasons.
In that interval he missed 106 games -- not a small sample -- and they won just .303 of those games (40-66).

The difference is .227, and that's almost 19 wins in 82 games.
That's probably consistent with a team that shoots .040 better and has 2 fewer TO per game.

Since the point in this thread is apparently that we need to be alert for players who are anomalies in most of the boxscore measuring systems -- and Iverson is put forward as a prime candidate for such an example -- it makes sense to at least make an effort to explain the disparity between opinion/observation and individual stats.

[Mike G]

BTW what do you think about Westbrook's current season? Is it MVP caliber with 42.5% fg (identical to Iverson's career FG%) and 29.7% 3P (worse than Iverson's career 3P%)? What a shame a lot of people consider his season MVP-caliber... lol

A worthwhile reference indeed. Compare to Iverson's MVP season:
http://bkref.com/tiny/8zKap

Here are some relevant rates:

Code: Select all

mvp?        TSA    TS%   TReb%  Ast%   Stl%  Blk%  ORtg DRtg
Iverson'01 37.8   .518    5.2   23.0   3.2   0.5   106    99
Westbrook  38.0   .536   11.3   48.0   3.2   0.5   110   102

That's per 100 poss (est.) shot attempts. Some very equal rates, and Westbrook is twice the passer and rebounder.
Their ORtg/DRtg ratios are almost identical.

A notable difference is that Iverson sat out only 6 mpg on avg, and Westy gets more than twice as much rest.
Their summary b-r.com stats, and the same numbers multiplied by the % of minutes they play:

Code: Select all

mvp?        PER   WS/48   BPM   mpg  Min%  %PER   %WS   %BPM
Iverson'01 24.0   .190    4.8   42   .87   20.8   .165   4.2
Westbrook  29.3   .227   11.2   34   .70   20.6   .159   7.9

This isn't really apples to apples. What we can say is we don't know how Westbrook's numbers hold up for 42 minutes a night. He's only gone that long 4 times.

[permaximum]

You forgot two things but they are the most important ones. Wins are very important for an MVP candidate and his supporting cast is very important. Iverson's team had 56 wins on a team where the second best player was 35-year old Mutombo. I always think MVP is the one who has great raw per-game stats on a top team with less or comparable supporting cast than the other top teams. That's always been the case.

This discussion made me wonder, how does one's FG% change when his usage drastically doubles or more to pass 30% USG in the same amount of minutes throughout the season. I will take a look at it if there has been examples for that.

[permaximum]

Alright I took a quick look. Couldn't find drastic usage changes but;

With 36 MPG (for both seasons) and 30 FGA per 100 poss (for the next season) requirement, I have seen 4 players who took more than 5 fga/100 poss the following season to pass 30 FGA per 100.

1. Jerry Stackhouse:
1999-00: 23.1 FGA/100, FG%: .428
2000-01: 30.4 FGA/100, FG%: .402

2. Pete Maravich
1975-76: 25.0 FGA/100, FG%: .459
1976-77: 30.1 FGA/100, FG%: .433

3. Dominique Wilkins
1983-84: 24.3 FGA/100, FG%: .479
1984-85: 30.1 FGA/100, FG%: .451

4. Bernard King
1983-84: 25.3 FGA/100, FG%: .572
1984-85: 30.5 FGA/100, FG%: .530
------Barely Misses the Requirement--------
1989-90(32.8 mpg): 26.2 FGA/100, FG%: .487
1990-91(37.5 mpg): 31.0 FGA/100, FG%: .472

Getting 5 more shots to reach 30 cost them 3% of their FG% more or less. However, I'm not sure if this proves anything. There are many many variables at play. If the change was more drastic like 10 shots per 100 possessions it would be clearer. However, for very high usage players there haven't been that drastic changes and I don't think 10 FGA/100 increase to reach 25 from 15 would mean something. After 25 FGA/100 it's starting to get harder to "find" clear shots so that's what I looked for.

Edit: There's an exception...

Kobe Bryant
2004-05: 26.0 FGA/100, FG%: .433
2005-06: 35.0 FGA/100, FG%: .450 (Absolute Prime)

[permaximum]

After the last game with Westbrook's 40-point point triple-double, he is out of MVP race. You can't miss three straight threes without giving the ball to anyone else in the end of the game (despite the poor shooting) only to lose by 3 to an another MVP contender's team. And let's add considerably decreasing playoff chances into the mix.

Statistically he had a great night with 40 points 13 assists 11 rebounds. But he definetely lost MVP race already. This is one of those things metrics and advanced stats struggle to capture.