Allen Iverson's Position at Georgetown University

Allen Iverson played for two years in college, for the Georgetown University Hoyas, in 1994-95 and in 1995-96. According to CBS Sportsline, his assists per game were 4.5 and 4.7 per game for those two years.

Does anyone on this board know whether his position was point guard. shooting guard, or both during those two years? If both, do you know approximately what percentage of the games Iverson played more PG than SG? Thanks in advance for the valuable info.

 

Bump - no need to repost this thread as it was moved to the Big East forum

 

It should be in the College Basketball General Forum, because those who know the answer are not going to be limited to just those who are interested in the Big East.

But whatever, it doesn't matter, because I pretty much found what I was looking for. The answer is obvious from the Hoya stats I have just discovered. These stats are at the Georgetown Basketball History Project, and they show that Iverson was overwhelmingly dominant in assisting; details later.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (tremaine @ Mar 19 2008, 03:14 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>It should be in the College Basketball General Forum, because those who know the answer are not going to be limited to just those who are interested in the Big East.

But whatever, it doesn't matter, because I pretty much found what I was looking for. The answer is obvious from the Hoya stats I have just discovered. These stats are at the Georgetown Basketball History Project, and they show that Iverson was overwhelmingly dominant in assisting; details later.</div>

Then you can do research on all of the college PG's that failed to make it as NBA PG's so you can realize that there isn't a direct correlation between college "assisting" and being able to run an NBA team.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (cpawfan @ Mar 19 2008, 02:18 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (tremaine @ Mar 19 2008, 03:14 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>It should be in the College Basketball General Forum, because those who know the answer are not going to be limited to just those who are interested in the Big East.

But whatever, it doesn't matter, because I pretty much found what I was looking for. The answer is obvious from the Hoya stats I have just discovered. These stats are at the Georgetown Basketball History Project, and they show that Iverson was overwhelmingly dominant in assisting; details later.</div>

Then you can do research on all of the college PG's that failed to make it as NBA PG's so you can realize that there isn't a direct correlation between college "assisting" and being able to run an NBA team.
</div>

Oh great, now Iverson was a complete failure as a PG even though he was moved to a different position after just his rookie season. And even though there are only 7 players in the NBA who get more assists per game right now, I might add.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (tremaine @ Mar 19 2008, 03:21 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (cpawfan @ Mar 19 2008, 02:18 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (tremaine @ Mar 19 2008, 03:14 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>It should be in the College Basketball General Forum, because those who know the answer are not going to be limited to just those who are interested in the Big East.

But whatever, it doesn't matter, because I pretty much found what I was looking for. The answer is obvious from the Hoya stats I have just discovered. These stats are at the Georgetown Basketball History Project, and they show that Iverson was overwhelmingly dominant in assisting; details later.</div>

Then you can do research on all of the college PG's that failed to make it as NBA PG's so you can realize that there isn't a direct correlation between college "assisting" and being able to run an NBA team.
</div>

Oh great, now Iverson was a complete failure as a PG even though he was moved to a different position after just his rookie season. And even though there are only 7 players in the NBA who get more assists per game right now, I might add.
</div>

What you posted has absolutely nothing to do with I just posted. You missed the point entirely.

 

Who was the Bulls PG - Pippen or MJ?

 

There's a difference between running the point and running the point effectively. From what I have seen in the past, Iverson has always dominated the ball too much and looked to distribute second. Assist totals/averages can be a bit misleading (after all, Stephon Marbury's regularly been one of the best at racking up assists but is still a terrible PG).

 

No, Iverson was not remotely a failure as a PG either at Georgetown or in his rookie year for the 76'ers:

Iverson's Rookie Year NBA Leaders

STATISTICS FROM IVERSON'S ROOKIE YEAR, 1996-97, FOR THE 76'ERS UNDER COACH JOHNNY DAVIS
# of Field Goals: 14th best in the NBA
# of 3-Point Field Goals: 17th best in the NBA
# of Free Throws: 15th best in the NBA
# of Free Throw Attempts: 10th in the NBA
# of Assists: 11th best in the NBA
# of Steals: 10th best in the NBA
# of Points: 8th best in the NBA
Minutes per Game: 8th highest in the NBA
Points Per Game: 6th highest in the NBA
Assists Per Game: 11th highest in the NBA
Steals Per Game: 7th highest in the NBA
Assist %: 17th highest in the NBA
Usage %: 6th highest in the NBA

To say that Iverson was a failure at the PG position in his rookie year, when he was the designated PG, so that it was a smart thing to move him over to SG is nuts, pure and simple. I can now prove that both Larry Brown and George Karl were both total jerks with respect to handling Allen Iverson.

And all those whiney complaints about how Iverson doesn't pass enough because Iverson is selfish are garbage, because Brown and Karl have told him to pass less and score more.

 

I'd like to see you prove it. But keep in mind, that the best way to evaluate a point guard and how well he runs an offense is by his teammates production while he's on the floor. Assists, turnovers, scoring, etc. only tell you half the story. Trust me, I've watched TJ Ford put up very good statistics over the past season and a half and, but at the end of most of his games I can tell you right off the bat that the statistics inflate how good a PG he was (too much dribbling, the offense is left stagnant, selfishness at times, etc.).

 

Larry Brown had a CP3 (Chris Paul) type of player and he moved him to the wrong position.

And then after Iverson was back at PG for 3 1/3 years after Brown was gone in Philadelphia, George Karl jerks him back to SG again. Karl has jerked Iverson around as much as he has jerked JR Smith around if the truth were told. Iverson has been jerked around with respect to his role, and J.R. Smith has been jerked around with respect to his minutes.

Maybe someday there will be a player's union rule allowing a player and/or his agent to veto a position change, because there sure as hell should be one.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (tremaine @ Mar 19 2008, 03:59 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Larry Brown had a CP3 (Chris Paul) type of player and he moved him to the wrong position.</div>

Again, you have a fundamental flaw in your logic. AI was never a Chris Paul type of player.

Several of your base assumptions are just flat out wrong

Added:
Chris Paul's worst APG season (his rookie year) was 7.8 APG
AI's best APG season was 7.9 APG and all of his other seasons are less than 7.8

Chris Paul's highest FGA's is this season's 16.6
AI's lowest FGA was 17.6 and his career average was 22.7

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (tremaine @ Mar 19 2008, 03:49 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>No, Iverson was not remotely a failure as a PG either at Georgetown or in his rookie year for the 76'ers:

Iverson's Rookie Year NBA Leaders

STATISTICS FROM IVERSON'S ROOKIE YEAR, 1996-97, FOR THE 76'ERS UNDER COACH JOHNNY DAVIS
# of Field Goals: 14th best in the NBA
# of 3-Point Field Goals: 17th best in the NBA
# of Free Throws: 15th best in the NBA
# of Free Throw Attempts: 10th in the NBA
# of Assists: 11th best in the NBA
# of Steals: 10th best in the NBA
# of Points: 8th best in the NBA
Minutes per Game: 8th highest in the NBA
Points Per Game: 6th highest in the NBA
Assists Per Game: 11th highest in the NBA
Steals Per Game: 7th highest in the NBA
Assist %: 17th highest in the NBA
Usage %: 6th highest in the NBA

To say that Iverson was a failure at the PG position in his rookie year, when he was the designated PG, so that it was a smart thing to move him over to SG is nuts, pure and simple. I can now prove that both Larry Brown and George Karl were both total jerks with respect to handling Allen Iverson.

And all those whiney complaints about how Iverson doesn't pass enough because Iverson is selfish are garbage, because Brown and Karl have told him to pass less and score more.</div>

Those neither prove nor disprove that he was a success or a failure as a PG. It also needs to be pointed out that the Sixers were 22-60 that season.

No one here is complaining about AI not passing enough

 

Jim O'Brien and Mo Cheeks both played AI primarily as a 2. All of Iverson's major accomplishments have happened as a shooting guard and he's always been most effective as an undersized scoring guard, who can play spot minutes at the point. You can talk all you want about players vetoing position changes but have you ever gotten the impression that Iverson was upset being a team's shooting guard and primary scorer?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Chutney @ Mar 19 2008, 02:54 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I'd like to see you prove it. But keep in mind, that the best way to evaluate a point guard and how well he runs an offense is by his teammates production while he's on the floor. Assists, turnovers, scoring, etc. only tell you half the story. Trust me, I've watched TJ Ford put up very good statistics over the past season and a half and, but at the end of most of his games I can tell you right off the bat that the statistics inflate how good a PG he was (too much dribbling, the offense is left stagnant, selfishness at times, etc.).</div>

Iverson should have been and could have been molded to be an even better NBA point guard then he was in his rookie year, and obviously he would have gotten better with experience. But how could he have become an even better PG than he was in his rookie year when he no longer played the position starting with his sophmore year?

If any player is moved from one position to another, then obviously, you will be able to criticise his ability to play the position he was moved from as the years go by, because he has different priorities at the new position. It's sort of an optical illusion. From a coaching perspective, it's kind of a self-fulfulling prophesy. Once Iverson was moved to SG, and he was more selfish, Larry Brown and others could look out on the court and say, "See, Iverson is too selfish to play PG." But that is an invalid observation because Iverson had different priorities after his position was changed.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (cpawfan @ Mar 19 2008, 03:04 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (tremaine @ Mar 19 2008, 03:59 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Larry Brown had a CP3 (Chris Paul) type of player and he moved him to the wrong position.</div>

Again, you have a fundamental flaw in your logic. AI was never a Chris Paul type of player.

Several of your base assumptions are just flat out wrong

Added:
Chris Paul's worst APG season (his rookie year) was 7.8 APG
AI's best APG season was 7.9 APG and all of his other seasons are less than 7.8

Chris Paul's highest FGA's is this season's 16.6
AI's lowest FGA was 17.6 and his career average was 22.7
</div>

Iverson made 19.8 field goal attempts per game in his rookie year as a PG, 19% more than Chris Paul this year. I'll admit that is significant. But the question remains: at the beginning of the 2nd year, which was 1997-98, was the correct course of action to encourage more passing and a little less shooting, or to encourage still more shooting and less passing, as Larry Brown chose. I am sure that Brown made the wrong decision both for Iverson and for his team. To the extent that the 76er's were successful, it was mostly with Iverson playing both positions at once well, similar to what the Nuggets situation is today.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (speeds @ Mar 19 2008, 03:26 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Seems like this thread was bait all along.

John Thompson gave AI the ball and let him do what he wanted, and both of them were criticized for it. Thompson considered Iverson his PG.</div>

So Iverson was the PG but he wasn't held to much of anything in terms of PG duties? I think you are right on that. But Thompson knew that Iverson transcended position to some extent, and he knew he never had and would never have again a player of his caliber, and it was only college and not pro, so probably for all of those reasons he didn't care too much if Iverson made the SG almost irrelevant sometimes.

 

http://www.basketball-reference.com/boxsco...9711010CHI.html

That is a boxscore from the second game of the 1997-1998 season (AI missed the first game). The Sixers starting lineup was AI, Jimmy Jackson, Stackhouse, Coleman and Montross

When Stackhouse was traded in December, Tim Thomas took his starting SF role. When Jimmy Jackson was traded in February, Aaron McKie took his starting spot. At a minimum, 46 games of AI starting as a PG with two other non-PGs in the starting lineup before making any type of switch.

The Sixers did not have a wining record until the following season when Eric Snow took over the PG duties.

 

So Larry Brown did not immediatley, from day 1, move AI to the 2-spot? The question remains, why did he do it at all?

Since no one can know exactly what would have happened had AI remained at the PG position, you have to use logic and reasoning to make your best educated guess as to whether it would have been better or worse for the 76'ers if AI had remained at the position he was most experienced at. It's the same type of judgment that is needed now with the Nuggets.

I would like to ask, who are some guards who were PGs in college and who started out as PGs in the NBA, but were considered failures as PGs in a short time in the League, so that they were then moved out of the position over to the SG position? I am looking for players who started at PG one year and then either started or came off the bench for SG in subsequent years.

Are there any true comparatives to AI? In other words, to the extent there are examples of starting point guards losing their jobs, do any of these guards come close to how good AI was in 1996-97?

Wasn't this move by Larry Brown of one of the top players in the NBA away from the point guard position that he had played in college and as a rookie relatively unprecedented in the history of the NBA?

I would not even rule out the possibility that it was done to generate extra excitement, ticket sales, and merchandise sales for the then struggling 76'ers franchise. You could showcase A.I. much better at the 2-guard than at the 1-guard.