APBRmetrics

Posted: **Thu Sep 25, 2014 12:24 pm**

colts18 wrote: It wont let me download that spreadsheet

Better now? I tweaked the sharing permissions.

Posted: **Thu Sep 25, 2014 3:59 pm**

DSMok1 wrote:
colts18 wrote: It wont let me download that spreadsheet
Better now? I tweaked the sharing permissions.

No. I get this message when I try to download:

"Sorry, you can't view or download this file at this time.

Too many users have viewed or downloaded this file recently."

Posted: **Thu Sep 25, 2014 4:35 pm**

Still that same message, not that I am in a rush.

Posted: **Thu Sep 25, 2014 4:45 pm**

Apparently Google Drive is experiencing technical difficulties and the team is working on it: https://productforums.google.com/forum/ ... yhZCg8HzQJ

Hopefully the issue is fixed soon. Thanks for the feedback!

Posted: **Thu Sep 25, 2014 7:01 pm**

DSMok1 wrote:Apparently Google Drive is experiencing technical difficulties and the team is working on it: https://productforums.google.com/forum/ ... yhZCg8HzQJ

Hopefully the issue is fixed soon. Thanks for the feedback!

Those difficulties rise from Turkish webmasters who manipulates google drive to restore 720p and 1080p movies which are being watched online by more than a few million people each day. I'm a webmaster who owns a movie site too, sorry man

Posted: **Mon Mar 23, 2015 11:01 am**

I just came upon a video about former NBA stars deciding on the next 10 greatest NBA players after 50 greatest. In October 2014 on NBA TV Shaquille O’Neal, Charles Barkley, Kenny Smith, Chris Webber, Isiah Thomas, Reggie Miller, Chauncey Billups and Ernie Johnson. The first 5 or 6 player selections were unanimous (ducan, kobe , ai, lebron, kg and then dirk), came up to their minds in a few seconds and had no discussion. Although it wasn't specified if the list was in order or not it felt like they wanted to go in order.

1. Tim Duncan
2. Kobe Bryant
3. LeBron James
4. Allen Iverson
5. Kevin Garnett
6. Dirk Nowitzki (unanimous although his name came up a bit later than the first five)
---------------------
7. Dominique Wilkins
8. Bob Mcadoo
9. Kevin Durant
10. Dwyane Wade

Mentions:
Webber
Pierce
Miller
McGrady
Nash

Also, NBA.COM (Frank Blinebury) had their list too and it was in this order.

1. Tim Duncan
2. Kobe Bryant
3. Lebron James
4. Dirk Nowitzki
5. Kevin Garnett
6. Allen Iverson
7. Dwyane Wade
8. Jason Kidd
9. Chris Webber
10. Kevin Durant

http://hangtime.blogs.nba.com/2014/10/0 ... e-next-10/

This made me remember TNT made a similar thing before in 2006. The voters were four star players Barkley, Kenny etc. and two panelists who voted on the initial list in 1996. And the results were: (the list was in order)

1.) Tim Duncan
2.) Kobe Bryant
3.) Dominique Wilkins
4.) Allen Iverson
5.) Bob McAdoo
6.) Kevin Garnett
7.) Reggie Miller
8.) Connie Hawkins
9.) Jason Kidd
10.) Gary Payton

Other nominees were bellamy, dumars, dantley, english, dennis johnson, bernard king, t-mac, gilmore, lanier, rodman, miller, aguirre, carmelo, bob davies, joe fulks, heinsohn, issel, kevin johnson, nowitzki, nash, richmond, jo jo white.

Ultimately, Iverson's unanimous and automatic selection with the other 4 names (duncan, kobe, lebron, garnett and some even put him above than garnett and lebron) made me think about how analysts here would oppose those former NBA greats and voters of the initial list. Not just current greats such as Lebron, Durant, Kobe, Wade etc. think so highly of Iverson but former greats, voters of the first 50 greatest list and official MVP voting think highly of him too. Are we certain that today's "advanced statistics" and "plus minus" data capture the player's impact on the court correctly without serious bias or noise for any player? I mean aren't there extreme cases for some players? Even if there are I got the feeling you don't think Iverson was one of those extreme cases that hard to be captured by advanced metrics or plus minus data. Player tracking data would help but unfortunately Iverson era didn't have it.

I would bet everything I have that he'll be selected first-ballot HOF in 2016 too and nobody will question it except some people here. Are all those current and former NBA players wrong or they are right because statistics can't capture all players' impact on the court correct enough and Iverson was one of those extreme cases.

As I said in my second post in this thread Iverson had 51.8% TS with high usage in a league that average was 52.6%. This is the problem for most of the analysts here I think except rapm supporters. Their problem with him is obviously his RAPM values constant but not high enough. Around 2.0-3.8. Although his WAR (referring to RPM one) would be close to Ginobili as far as RAPM goes.

Are these enough to discredit all those people?

Posted: **Mon Mar 23, 2015 2:30 pm**

Players like guys who gave everything they had, who were competitors above all else, and who fought adversity. That's why players love Iverson so much.

Posted: **Mon Mar 23, 2015 3:54 pm**

v-zero wrote:Players like guys who gave everything they had, who were competitors above all else, and who fought adversity. That's why players love Iverson so much.

So, you are saying that's what "greatness" is about according to the players and Duncan, Kobe and Lebron were bigger competitors than Iverson?

Also let's not forget the players were only a part of MVP voters and 50 greatest players list voters. But Iverson got love from non-player MVP voters and non-player 50 greatest players list voters too.

Posted: **Tue Mar 24, 2015 2:26 pm**

... his RAPM values constant but not high enough. Around 2.0-3.8. Although his WAR (referring to RPM one) would be close to Ginobili as far as RAPM goes.

Ginobili plays barely half the minutes that Iverson did...
But whenever these stats-vs-perception discussions come up, we can remember that we now have BPM (and it's VORP) for corroboration. Iverson's BPM ranged from 2.5 to 4.8 in his prime (thus better than RAPM), and totals 3.2 over the 11-year interval 1998-2008.

In the interval, his VORP and BPM bottomed out at 1.9 and 0.8, respectively in 2006-07, the year he was traded to Denver.
His 10 better seasons all rank in the top 600 VORP player-seasons from '98 to '08 -- 2.5 or better.
http://bkref.com/tiny/um3yJ

From those top 600, I've defined an xyz metric as the 5th root of (PER*WS*WS/48*BPM*VORP)

Iverson's highest-ranking xyz is 2001, his MVP season, in which he ranks 11th in the league.

Code: Select all

xyz     Player        Tm     Min    PER    WS   WS/48   BPM  VORP
5.59 Shaquille O'Neal LAL   2924   30.2   14.9   .245   7.3   6.8
5.02   Vince Carter   TOR   2979   25.0   12.9   .208   7.0   6.8
4.74   Karl Malone    UTA   2895   24.7   13.1   .217   5.9   5.8
4.68   Steve Francis  HOU   3194   21.6   12.2   .184   6.6   7.0
4.67   Ray Allen      MIL   3129   22.9   13.7   .211   5.6   6.0

4.57   Tim Duncan     SAS   3174   23.8   13.2   .200   5.4   5.9
4.52   Tracy McGrady  ORL   3087   24.9   12.2   .189   5.6   5.9
4.51   Dirk Nowitzki  DAL   3125   22.8   14.6   .224   4.7   5.3
4.45   Kevin Garnett  MIN   3202   23.9   11.8   .176   5.7   6.2
4.45   David Robinson SAS   2371   23.7   12.1   .246   5.5   4.5

4.21   Allen Iverson  PHI   2979   24.0   11.8   .190   4.8   5.1
4.14   Chris Webber   SAC   2836   24.7   11.0   .186   4.9   4.9
3.98   Kobe Bryant    LAL   2783   24.5   11.3   .196   4.2   4.4
3.91   Shawn Marion   PHO   2857   21.0   11.7   .196   4.2   4.5
3.84   Gary Payton    SEA   3244   22.1   10.8   .160   4.3   5.1

One could certainly question a metric that says Steve Francis was the league's top player.
Among these 15, AI's highest rank is in PER, at #7. It seems to be the "advanced" stat that likes him best.

In his prime 11 seasons, Iverson makes the top 20 xyz 4 other times; he misses the top 50 in '04 and '07.
If we add up all the qualifying xyz seasons (>2.5 VORP) in the interval, he lands in the middle of these:

Code: Select all

xyz	Player
54.7	Kevin Garnett
52.3	Tim Duncan
40.7	Dirk Nowitzki
39.6	Shaquille O'Neal
39.5	Kobe Bryant
38.9	Jason Kidd
37.3	Allen Iverson
36.1	Tracy McGrady
34.4	Paul Pierce
33.4	Ray Allen
31.4	Shawn Marion
30.3	Elton Brand
29.1	Vince Carter

Actually, Iverson's total includes his 2007, which was not a 'qualifying' season. Subtracting that (1.82), he drops behind McGrady.
Everyone listed above Iverson is clearly 1st-round MVP material. Those below are a mixed bunch.

EDIT: Playoffs are ignored in all the above; and they're another whole realm of discussion material.

Posted: **Tue Mar 24, 2015 3:26 pm**

Of course, b-r.com offers Cumulative Season Totals, as well; so Iverson's 1998-2008 prime ranks in the middle of these players in the same interval:

Code: Select all

xyz    1998-2008   Min    PER    WS    WS/48  BPM   VORP
13.07  Garnett   32575   25.0  139.6   .206   7.1   74.8
12.47  Duncan    30617   25.1  141.3   .222   6.1   62.9
11.20  Shaq      24569   27.4  111.9   .219   5.6   46.9
10.72  Dirk      27642   23.9  127.0   .221   4.6   45.8
10.62  Kobe      30468   23.9  122.0   .192   4.7   51.3

9.89   LeBron    16088   25.2   64.6   .193   7.7   39.1
9.85   McGrady   26281   23.4   90.6   .165   5.4   49.1
9.47   Malone    18053   24.1   79.6   .212   5.5   34.0
9.24   Kidd      30603   19.2   94.1   .148   4.8   52.5
9.10   Marion    25550   20.8   94.1   .177   4.4   41.0

xyz    1998-2008   Min    PER    WS    WS/48  BPM   VORP
8.78   Pierce    27490   21.4   93.9   .164   3.9   40.7
8.77   Brand     23500   22.7   81.9   .167   4.4   37.9
8.63   Carter    26325   21.7   83.7   .153   4.2   41.0
8.58   R Allen   29691   20.4   97.1   .157   3.6   41.6
8.17   Iverson   31581   21.7   91.3   .139   3.2   41.2

8.07   B Wallace 26381   16.1   82.0   .149   4.2   41.4
8.07   Kirilenko 15478   19.8   53.0   .164   6.2   32.0
7.77   Payton    27505   19.5   84.9   .148   3.2   36.2
7.52   Billups   24085   19.0   90.5   .180   2.7   28.8
7.52   E Jones   25615   16.6   79.1   .148   3.5   35.3

xyz    1998-2008   Min    PER    WS    WS/48  BPM   VORP
7.19   R Wallace 28364   17.6   87.1   .147   2.6   32.9
6.99   Webber    22978   20.8   61.7   .129   3.3   30.6
6.93   Nash      25843   20.3   93.7   .174   1.9   25.5
6.67   Camby     19406   18.2   58.5   .145   3.3   25.9
6.66   B Davis   21577   18.5   55.0   .122   3.5   30.1

6.40   Francis   21632   18.3   54.1   .120   3.2   28.2
6.26   R Lewis   23997   18.1   68.7   .137   2.2   25.7
6.00   Terry     24667   17.7   66.9   .130   2.0   25.2
5.81   Marbury   29153   19.1   74.1   .122   1.5   25.5

Only KG played more minutes in this "Iverson Era".
He doesn't get much relief from any of these metrics; nor from the product of them. He looks like a star for mostly mediocre teams, and never really a superstar.

Posted: **Tue Mar 24, 2015 8:37 pm**

Mike G wrote:He doesn't get much relief from any of these metrics; nor from the product of them. He looks like a star for mostly mediocre teams, and never really a superstar.

On the contrary current and old NBA greats, MVP voters, ALL-NBA team voters, 50 greatest list voters don't even debate his status among Duncan, Kobe, Garnett and lately Lebron.

I just think he's one of those players analysts won't love until someone can simulate an NBA game with really high accuracy. 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. I always thought a team with Iverson has a lot more chance to win the game without him. I have been watching the game since 1994 and only game-changers I have seen so far are Jordan, Shaq, Iverson, Garnett, Duncan, Kobe and then only in their a few years of primes T-Mac, and barely Vince Carter, LeBron and Nowitzki . This what my eyes and basketball experience say.

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: Select all

╔═════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════╗
║ 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.

I was very hopeful of RAPM but the bias and noise in it is too much to compare players accurately enough. It's still better than metrics such as PER, WP and WS but still not enough. These metrics are more helpful when you want to adress specific matters and when you're not 100% sure about a given players specific strengths or lackings or if you think you may be biased.

Also, here's an interesting work about the fact that Sixers won significantly more when Iverson shot more (regardless of his shooting percentage. I mean FG% doesn't have any consdierable effect on the stat)
Source: http://www.basketballforum.com/nba-stat ... empts.html

People always say Iverson's biggest fault is the amount of shots he takes. Well I did my homework, and this turns out to be not true. It seems the Sixers win more games when Iverson takes more shots.

2004-2005*

Less than 25 shot attempts: 18-20 / 47.4% - Over an 82 game stretch, that equals a record of roughly 39-43.

More than or equal to 25 shot attempts: 22-14 / 61.1% - Over an 82 game stretch, that equals a record of roughly 50-32.

More than or equal to 30 shot attempts: 9-3 / 75.0% - Over an 82 game stretch, that equals a record of roughly 62-20.

Some of you may believe that he's just shooting more in some games because he's actually hitting his shots, causing him to win more. Well that is not the case.

Less than 25 shot attempts: 335/789 - 42.5%

More than or equal to 25 shot attempts: 431/1018 - 42.3%

More than or equal to 30 shot attempts: 177/373 - 47.5%

So his field goal percentage for "less than" and "more than" 25 shot attempts are roughly the same, yet he wins more when he shoots more than 25 shot attempts. It does look as if when he takes 30+ shot attempts, he's really hitting his shots.

Now I wanted to make sure this wasn't just a one year fluke, so I did the same research for his entire career.

CAREER

Less than 25 shot attempts: 171-191 / 47.2% - Over an 82 game stretch, that equals a record of roughly 39-43.

More than or equal to 25 shot attempts: 141-101 / 58.3% - Over an 82 game stretch, that equals a record of roughly 48-34.

More than or equal to 30 shot attempts: 51-30 / 63.0% - Over an 82 game stretch, that equals a record of roughly 52-30.

So over his entire career, it follows roughly the same pattern. If Iverson shot roughly 25 or more shots per game for his entire career, he should theoretically have a better win-loss record than he currently has (312-292 / 51.7%).

Shot Average Per Season and Wins

1996-1997: 19.8 - 21-55 (27.6%)
1997-1998: 17.6 - 31-49 (38.8%)
1998-1999: 22.0 - 28-20 (58.3%)
1999-2000: 24.8 - 43-29 (61.4%)
2000-2001: 25.5 - 50-21 (70.4%)
2001-2002: 27.8 - 36-24 (60.0%)
2002-2003: 23.7 - 47-34 (57.3%)
2003-2004: 23.4 - 21-27 (43.8%)
2004-2005: 24.2 - 42-33 (56.0%)

So for the 4 seasons where he averaged 24 or more shot attempts, he had a combined record of 171-107 (61.5%) or an average season record of 50-32.

So therefore, Iverson shouldn't be criticized for taking so many shots, since he wins more if he chucks more.

I just recently talked to a poster in the Sixers forum, and they believe that the total shots isn't what makes Iverson hurt the team, it's the amount of plays begin and end with Iverson, so I'm going to dive into this matter a little bit deeper. I will be adding in the amount of assists and turnovers, since those are instances where the play would be beginning or ending with him.

2004-2005

Less than 6 assists: 5-11 / 31.3% - Over an 82 game stretch, that equals a record of roughly 26-56.

More than or equal to 6 assists: 35-23 / 60.3% - Over an 82 game stretch, that equals a record of roughly 50-32.

More than or equal to 10 assists: 15-8 / 65.2% - Over an 82 game stretch, that equals a record of roughly 54-28.

So now it's obvious that the more he passes, the more the team wins. Since he was talking possessions, I'll follow up by finding the win percentage with shots and assists intertwined.

Less than 6 assists with less than 25 shot attempts: 2-5 / 28.6% - Over an 82 game stretch, that equals a record of roughly 23-59.

Less than 6 assists with more than or equal to 25 shot attempts: 3-6 / 33.3% - Over an 82 game stretch, that equals a record of roughly 27-55.

No games were played where Iverson had less than 6 assists but more than, or equal to 30 shot attempts.

More than or equal to 6 assists with less than 25 shot attempts: 16-15 / 51.6% - Over an 82 game stretch, that equals a record of roughly 42-40.

More than or equal to 6 assists with more than or equal to 25 shot attempts: 19-8 / 70.4% - Over an 82 game stretch, that equals a record of roughly 58-24.

More than or equal to 6 assists with more than or equal to 30 shot attempts: 9-3 / 75.0% - Over an 82 game stretch, that equals a record of roughly 62-20.

More than or equal to 10 assists with less than 25 shot attempts: 6-4 / 60.0% - Over an 82 game stretch, that equals a record of roughly 49-33.

More than or equal to 10 assists with more than or equal to 25 shot attempts: 9-4 / 69.2% - Over an 82 game stretch, that equals a record of roughly 57-23.

More than or equal to 10 assists with more than or equal to 30 shot attempts: 3-0 / 100.0% - Over an 82 game stretch, that equals a record of roughly 82-0.

So now it shows that the more Iverson not only shoots, but has the ball in his hands leading to assists leads to an even more impressive win record. So pretty much, the more plays that begin and end with Iverson, the better the Sixers do.

Posted: **Tue Mar 24, 2015 11:57 pm**

I just think he's one of those players analysts won't love until someone can simulate an NBA game with really high accuracy.

i can - and he's just not that good in terms of wins generated, considering what most would expect from a 30 pts/g scorer...

the simple fact is that when you miss a shot that is rebounded by the opponent, from a team perspective that's the same as a turnover - and iverson missed a ton of shots...

from 99-00 to 05-06, 7 seasons (iverson ages 24-30), he averaged 29.9 pts/g but shot just 43.9% on 2s and only 30.7% on 3s playing 42 min/g. he missed 14.5 FGA per game, and during that time on average 72% of all missed shots were rebounded by the opponent. so that's like 10 more turnovers per game over and above the 3.7 TO/g he committed during that time...

Posted: **Wed Mar 25, 2015 1:02 am**

It's not simple as that. What would happen if Iverson didn't create a shot oppurtunity, what would happen if Iverson didn't take the attention, what would happen if Iverson didn't steal the ball of a fastbreak to counter, what would happen if Iverson didn't go in bursts like 25 straight points in games or going cold for 15 minutes, what would happen if iverson scored 30 in a constant basis instead of going like 45 one night and 15 other night, what would happen if iverson constantly shot 11/26 instead of 21/32 one night, 6/24 other night? How efficently Iverson scored when the score margin of an ongoing game is close or wide? What would happen if an average player played instead of Iverson? What would happen if Iverson shot around 48% regularly instead of shooting around +60% in 15 games of a season only to complete his 42.5% career average?

There are countless variables at work, you can't capture them. If you would, you could predict the outcomes of games and you would be banned from betting...

If I remember right, I saw a work last year that average fan predictions for win totals in 2013-14 was better than a lot of analyst's predictions. Also, It's no surprise that xRAPM, BPM or any other metric is not much of an improvement over something simple as Minutes-Per Game at prediction accuracy.

However Sportvu data is an another baby step towards good-enough simulation.

Posted: **Wed Mar 25, 2015 3:34 am**

It's not simple as that.

oh yes it is...

how bad does a player have to shoot before you realize he's hurting your team?...

this 2014-15 season kobe bryant is leading the lakers in per game scoring (22.3 pts/g) and passing (5.6 ast/g) playing 34 min/g. but he's shooting miserably - just 40.1% on 2s and 29.3% on 3s. would you argue that he's helping his team despite this awful shooting simply because he leads the team in scoring and passing? by perhaps creating shot opportunities, having scoring bursts, or whatever other arguments you made for iverson?...

i ask because iverson's shooting stats and rate for offensive efficiency in 03-04 are virtually identical/lousy - the only difference is he played 42 min/g and scored 26.4 pts/g. some of his other seasons aren't much better...

There are countless variables at work,

perhaps...

you can't capture them.

don't need to - just the important ones...

simulation is used in many industries - the military (war logistics), medicine (protein folding, medicine interactions), engineering (building bridges, roller coasters), etc. - and they don't capture everything, but they model enough to make real world decisions. simulating the nba is no different...

If you would, you could predict the outcomes of games

yes...

If I remember right, I saw a work last year that average fan predictions for win totals in 2013-14 was better than a lot of analyst's predictions.

then i'm guessing you don't have a need for analysts...

Also, It's no surprise that xRAPM, BPM or any other metric is not much of an improvement over something simple as Minutes-Per Game at prediction accuracy.

there are some that may debate you on this...

However Sportvu data is an another baby step towards good-enough simulation.

yes it does help...

Posted: **Wed Mar 25, 2015 6:55 am**

Kobe did not hurt his team despite his very poor 37% shooting. If shooting percentage was everything Chandler would be one of the best players ever.

-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.

-Also you can't say these guys' poor shooting in 3 of 5 loses cost their teams the game. In most of those games if they shot 45% instead of 30% they wouldn't win the game anyways because of the margin. But if they shot 45% instead of 65% in 4 of 5 wins, it would cost their teams the game. The thing is these guys generally smart enough to know if they have a better chance at making the basket than his teammates or the team needs their bursts to win the game and the eventual rise of efficiency of others because of triple-doubles. Also Iverson and Kobe were doubled for years and Iverson played most at hand-check era.

-Do you know the effect of one guy's hot bursts in game other than the burst itself?

-Do you think Iverson was a better player in Denver? Because he was much more efficent with his shooting...

I love team-level metrics and specific metrics more than all-in-one player metrics. They can be useful time to time but that's it. Statistics should be supportive of what you actually see on the court.

Edit: Also I have a feeling you discredit Iverson's defense in his prime. He was selected Big East defensive player of the year 2 times in his 2 years in the college. In NBA, he was voted for DPOY 3 different times if I remember right and in one of them he got 1st place vote.

Edit 2: It's funny Iverson's Defensive RAPM is better than Kobe's in 14-year-RAPM despite the fact that Iverson suffered a few years of decline where Kobe suffered only 6 games of decline at the time but none mentions it. Now do we have to believe in RAPM that Iverson was a better defender than Kobe? As you can see I defend Iverson's status among greats but I don't think his defense was better than Kobe's although it was close.

APBRmetrics

Iverson's career stats

Re: Iverson's career stats

Re: Iverson's career stats

Re: Iverson's career stats

Re: Iverson's career stats

Re: Iverson's career stats

Re: Iverson's career stats

Re: Iverson's career stats

Re: Iverson's career stats

Re: Iverson's career stats

Re: Iverson's career stats

Re: Iverson's career stats

Re: Iverson's career stats

Re: Iverson's career stats

Re: Iverson's career stats

Re: Iverson's career stats