The Iverson Factor is particularly intriguing, because missed shots have been a presumed chink in his armor over the years. His percentage is way up the last two seasons, but the common perception with AI is that he shoots – and misses – too often. However, would you still think that was the case if you could statistically prove that 19% (totally random number) of those misses led directly to easy baskets for his team? And that those baskets came only as a result of his prodigious penetration ability?
What if a miss like that didn’t count as a miss, but as an assist? This is obviously ridiculous, but bear with me and pretend that is the case. In the event that a player got an easy layup in a situation where it was created purely by the driving player, that goes as an assist and not a miss. If Iverson creates three such plays a game, then he has three less misses and three more dimes. His numbers from 2001 (when he was at the peak of his “missing layups while drawing four defenders and creating an easy follow-up dunk for a teammate” ability) would go from 42% shooting and 4.6 assists per game to 48% shooting and 7.6 dimes per night. Those are huge differences.
Again, I am not suggesting that we try this. For starters, the rules say that a missed shot is a missed shot and should be scored as such. Also, this would be tough to gauge – when do we know that the shooter created the put-back and when it was the rebounder doing the majority of the work? Obviously, it would never work to call a missed shot an assist. However, I think you get the point here. Iverson taking the ball to the basket and drawing the whole team was an extremely positive play for his team, even when he missed. Yet the stats say it was a completely negative play. This is a pretty significant disparity. And it matters because we use these stats years later to say how good a player was. Things like missed shots play a significant role in ascertaining a player’s supposed value.
For instance, the very misses I am claiming where tremendously valuable for the Sixers were the same shots lowering such analytical stats as John Hollinger’s PER. To put it plainly: Iverson’s personal stats are taking a hit even though he is helping his team.







Article comments
1 - -E
Congrats! This article has been selected as one of this week’s Editors’ Picks.