JawsGT asked a question I've long wondered myself:

Whats wrong with Alan anderson? Alot of people don't seem to like him or his game, what am I missing?
Now I'm personally indifferent to Alan Anderson. I think he's a great value contract (dirt cheap) and a quality if uninspiring veteran player, but I'm not losing any sleep if he's on the floor or off. However, there is a segment of the fan base who he's clearly not making friends with.

It seems that the biggest criticism is he shoots to much. Probably not an unfair assessment, but then again we are talking about a team who has never shyed away from high usage shooters as their modus operandi. So lets make a few comparisons.

usage - ast% - Pts/Poss. (where poss. = fga + 0.45(fta) + TO)

Alan Anderson

23.7 - 11.7 - 0.93

Demar Derozan

23.7 - 12.4 - 0.93

Rudy Gay

30.1 - 14.2 - 0.83

Terrence Ross

19.9 - 7.8 - 0.89

Landry Fields

12.7 - 9.2 - 0.84

I didn't want to fill this post with numbers, so I'll just add some tidbits people may find relevant:

- FTA/FGA (highest ratio to lowest): Derozan > Anderson > Fields > Gay > Ross (although AA/Fields/Gay are all very close)
- FGA/Min (most to least): Gay > Anderson > Derozan > Ross > Fields (although AA/DD/Ross are all rather close)



So what do we see here:

- Anderson does have a high usage and shots per minute (equal to Demar) although much lower than Gay
- a lower assist% than the other two vets, although the difference is marginal
- the highest pts/poss of all the wings

Is Alan Anderson a "chucker"?

Using most versions of that term I'd say yes. But aside from Fields, not much different than the Raptors other wing options. Yet given his (relative) efficiency it makes more sense for him to 'chuck' than the other options available to the team.

Another bit of information:

Anderson beats out Demar and Gay in almost all clutch stats - from win%, eFG%, to net +/-48 and is only beat by Ross in most categories (although Ross is on a small sample).

So its tough to make the argument that he should be off the floor at the end of games as he is perhaps a better option.

(I left Fields out because his sample is so small the numbers aren't even fair to him - but let me tell you the 0% wins, -80 +/- and what might be the worst ortg (70) and drtg (150) in history aren't enticing)


Conclusion:

What we see is a guy who, more or less, fits into what his peers do. Strangely enough, it seems to drive some fans away despite him being the better option for that role (if 'chucking' can be defined as a role). Now I understand people don't see him as a 'core' player, and want to see Ross get more minutes for experience so that changes the rational a bit. But this should perhaps raise 2 more important question - exactly how good is this 'core' when Alan Anderson is arguably the better option, and whose minutes should actually be sacrificied so Ross can get more minutes?