Posted by bobs3304:

Marbury wasn't as good as AI, get your brain outta ur butt.

He had a solid 2nd half, and surprisingly made some big plays.

but AI kept the Sixers in the game. 40 and 10. He's a hog, but damn he's the best hog we've seen since Michael...

Marbury, not AI, was realgm's player of the day interestingly

Posted by fishmike:

was he a chucker when he brought the sixers back from down 9 to force OT? Was he chucking when he drilled a game tying 3 with seconds left in OT? Did he chuck his way to 4 scoring titles and an MVP? The guy is one of the league's elite CLUTCH players, and one of the best scorers to ever play.

Fish, I'm not denying the guy is a clutch scorer, because he is, when the game is on the line it seems like he ALWAYS make the jumpshots that he cant make during the first 3.5 quarters of the game, but that doesnt mean he's not a chucker. He needs alot of shots to be a prodcutive scorer, if he were to cut down his number of poor jump-shots and converted those to drives into the lane, when he either gets fouled or makes the layup then he's a MUCH MUCH more of a % scorer. I love the guys grittyness and his will to win but that doesn't mean I don't think he needs alot of shot attempts to be productive.

Posted by nyk4ever:

Just taking a look at 82games.com, I see that 68% of AI's shots are jumpshots, where he has a 40.5% eFG%. The other 32% are closerange shots(layups and chip-shot jumpers) where he shoots an outstanding 59% If he would only stop chucking(I hate to keep using that term) the jumpers and instead took the ball inside more he'd be a much more effective scorer and less of a need-to-shoot-alot-to-be-productive-player. Wow thats alot of hyphens... didn't know how to term it differently.

[Edited by - nyk4ever on 11-27-2005 3:51 PM]

Exactly; that's why I said he'd be one of the most efficient scorers in the league if NEVER shot from beyond 18 feet.

chucker= poor shot selection coupled with low bball iq. usually does not make a pass and continually hogs the ball.

no way in hell does ai qualify chucker status.

chucker= poor shot selection coupled with low bball iq.

No, chucker = lots of bad shots. That is all it takes to qualify.

A ball hog is not necessarilly a chucker, but these traits are frequently found together, particularly in guards.

oohah

Which is all offset by his ability to win the game.

Again, he IS a chucker (putting up tons of shots and hitting very few) from 3 pt range and around the perimeter, but not when he chooses to attack the basket. I also wouldn't discount the difference between 42 and 45% like you appear to. Six points out of every 100 shots can make quite a difference.

[Edited by - Bonn1997 on 11-27-2005 8:52 PM]

hmm... Iverson is a 42% career shooter. Who's not a chucker?
Kobe = 45% for his career
TMac = 44% for his career
AI gets to the line more than both.

For those that arent good with math or PHD students lets take a look at the #'s

AI misses 58 shots of 100
TMac misses 56 shots of 100
Kobe misses 55 shots of 100


So oohah, Elite... do tell are TMAC and Kobe chuckers as well? These guys are prolific and take 25-30 shots a game. That translate into AI missing about 1 shot more a game than those other 2 I mentioned.

First let me give you the short answer: McGrady and Bryant both are chuckers too.

The problem is to prove a point you are bringing in two players out of left field that have very little resemblance to Iverson outside of their propensity to chuck. Therefore, your argument is intrinsically flawed.

I'm not sure if you are trying to imply something about my math skills but I can see you are trying to cook the numbers--badly:

Tracy McGrady first year 97-98, career field goals made and attempted: 4,550-10,263
Kobe Bryant first year 96-97, career field goals made and attempted: 5,029-11,143

Allen Iverson first year 96-97, career field goals made and attempted: 6,031-14,416

So in one more year of play Iverson has taken more than 4,000+ more than McGrady, and in the same number of years 3,000+ more shots than 3 time champion Bryant.

If you're going to call me out do your research first!

Please elaborate on this as I have WATCHED AI play quite a bit. I've WATCHED him win games single handedly like he almost did yesterday.

Like he almost did yesterday? You almost made a point above. Almost doesn't count.

I've WATCHED him win scoring titles and an MVP and I watched him and Larry take some pretty LAME teams to the playoffs for 5 years in a row.

I don't think anyone has argued Iverson is not a great player.

After this analysis its pretty obvious.

Analysis?

Knicks need some chuckers like AI

If all you are concerned about is the making the first or second round maybe you are right.

***

I might also add that Both McGrady and Bryant have more miles left. They can also mix it up with the trees and play on the perimeter. In addition, when considering guys who shoot as much as the three you mentioned a couple of percentage points is quite significant. Those are just the facts Jack, sorry if I made comments about your hero Iverson that you did not like.

Now check out the stats:

Tracy McGrady

 

CAREER AVERAGES  
                REBOUNDS PER GAME    
YEAR TEAM G GS MPG FG% 3P% FT% OFF DEF RPG APG SPG BPG TO PF PPG 
 97-98  TOR    64 17 18.4 .450 .341 .712 1.6 2.6 4.2 1.5 .77 .95 1.03 1.30 7.0 
 98-99  TOR    49 2 22.6 .436 .229 .726 2.4 3.2 5.7 2.3 1.06 1.35 1.63 1.90 9.3 
 99-00  TOR    79 34 31.2 .451 .277 .707 2.4 4.0 6.3 3.3 1.14 1.91 2.03 2.50 15.4 
 00-01  ORL    77 77 40.1 .457 .355 .733 2.5 5.0 7.5 4.6 1.51 1.53 2.57 2.10 26.8 
 01-02  ORL    76 76 38.3 .451 .364 .748 2.0 5.9 7.9 5.3 1.57 .96 2.49 1.80 25.6 
 02-03  ORL    75 74 39.4 .457 .386 .793 1.6 4.9 6.5 5.5 1.65 .79 2.60 2.10 32.1 
 03-04  ORL    67 67 39.9 .417 .339 .796 1.4 4.6 6.0 5.5 1.39 .63 2.67 1.90 28.0 
 04-05  HOU    78 78 40.8 .431 .326 .774 .9 5.3 6.2 5.7 1.73 .67 2.58 2.10 25.7 
 05-06  HOU    6 6 35.5 .389 .370 .800 1.5 7.2 8.7 3.8 1.00 .67 2.67 1.30 21.7 
 Career     571 431 34.6 .443 .348 .759 1.8 4.6 6.4 4.3 1.37 1.10 2.25 2.00 22.0  

Kobe Bryant

 CAREER AVERAGES  
                REBOUNDS PER GAME    
YEAR TEAM G GS MPG FG% 3P% FT% OFF DEF RPG APG SPG BPG TO PF PPG 
 96-97  LAL    71 6 15.5 .417 .375 .819 .7 1.2 1.9 1.3 .69 .32 1.58 1.40 7.6 
 97-98  LAL    79 1 26.0 .428 .341 .794 1.0 2.1 3.1 2.5 .94 .51 1.99 2.30 15.4 
 98-99  LAL    50 50 37.9 .465 .267 .839 1.1 4.2 5.3 3.8 1.44 1.00 3.14 3.10 19.9 
 99-00  LAL    66 62 38.2 .468 .319 .821 1.6 4.7 6.3 4.9 1.61 .94 2.76 3.30 22.5 
 00-01  LAL    68 68 40.9 .464 .305 .853 1.5 4.3 5.9 5.0 1.68 .63 3.24 3.30 28.5 
 01-02  LAL    80 80 38.3 .469 .250 .829 1.4 4.1 5.5 5.5 1.48 .44 2.79 2.90 25.2 
 02-03  LAL    82 82 41.5 .451 .383 .843 1.3 5.6 6.9 5.9 2.21 .82 3.51 2.70 30.0 
 03-04  LAL    65 64 37.6 .438 .327 .852 1.6 3.9 5.5 5.1 1.72 .43 2.63 2.70 24.0 
 04-05  LAL    66 66 40.7 .433 .339 .816 1.4 4.5 5.9 6.0 1.30 .80 4.09 2.60 27.6 
 05-06  LAL    11 11 41.2 .444 .286 .825 1.5 3.6 5.1 4.4 .73 .55 2.82 3.00 33.1 
 Career     638 490 35.1 .451 .332 .831 1.3 3.8 5.1 4.4 1.44 .60 2.84 2.70 22.6  

Allen Iverson

 CAREER AVERAGES  
                REBOUNDS PER GAME    
YEAR TEAM G GS MPG FG% 3P% FT% OFF DEF RPG APG SPG BPG TO PF PPG 
 96-97  PHI    76 74 40.1 .416 .341 .702 1.5 2.6 4.1 7.5 2.07 .32 4.43 3.10 23.5 
 97-98  PHI    80 80 39.4 .461 .298 .729 1.1 2.6 3.7 6.2 2.20 .31 3.05 2.50 22.0 
 98-99  PHI    48 48 41.5 .412 .291 .751 1.4 3.5 4.9 4.6 2.29 .15 3.48 2.00 26.8 
 99-00  PHI    70 70 40.8 .421 .341 .713 1.0 2.8 3.8 4.7 2.06 .07 3.29 2.30 28.4 
 00-01  PHI    71 71 42.0 .420 .320 .814 .7 3.1 3.8 4.6 2.51 .28 3.34 2.10 31.1 
 01-02  PHI    60 59 43.7 .398 .291 .812 .7 3.8 4.5 5.5 2.80 .22 3.95 1.70 31.4 
 02-03  PHI    82 82 42.5 .414 .277 .774 .8 3.4 4.2 5.5 2.74 .16 3.49 1.80 27.6 
 03-04  PHI    48 47 42.5 .387 .286 .745 .7 3.0 3.7 6.8 2.40 .10 4.35 1.80 26.4 
 04-05  PHI    75 75 42.3 .424 .308 .835 .7 3.3 4.0 7.9 2.40 .12 4.59 1.90 30.7 
 05-06  PHI    14 14 43.9 .444 .304 .795 .7 2.3 3.0 8.2 2.14 .07 3.07 1.60 33.3 
 Career     624 620 41.6 .418 .309 .770 1.0 3.1 4.0 6.0 2.38 .20 3.74 2.10 27.6  

oohah



[Edited by - oohah on 11-27-2005 10:49 PM]

mcgrady might not have a whole bunch ofmiles left on him either, he suffers from back spasms worse than Q does...it would be a shameif he retired early like LJ..matter of fact mcgrady was close to retiring two summersago because he said thepain was excruciatinglyunbearable