Regular Season
GP
4
W-L
4-0
PPG
9.3
APG
2.3
RPG
3.3
SPG
3.25
BPG
0.25
AST/TO
1.8
FG%
68.4%
3PT%
63.6%
Position
PF Splits — Five Star League Season 2
Playoffs
GP
2
W-L
0-2
PPG
5
APG
1
RPG
0.5
SPG
0.5
BPG
0
AST/TO
—
FG%
57.1%
3PT%
66.7%
| Split | GP | W-L | PPG | APG | RPG | SPG | BPG | AST/TO | FG% | 3PT% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Regular Season | 4 | 4-0 | 9.3 | 2.3 | 3.3 | 3.25 | 0.25 | 1.8 | 68.4% | 63.6% |
| Playoffs | 2 | 0-2 | 5 | 1 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0 | — | 57.1% | 66.7% |
- Regular Season: Audited regular-season position split; official team records are stored separately.
- Playoffs: Verified completed playoff box scores only; shortened and missing-stat games remain context-only. Published aggregate includes 0.5 turnovers per game.
Season 2 PF ranking analysis
Regular season: 4 PF games, 4-0, 9.2 PPG, 3.2 RPG, 2.2 APG, 3.2 SPG, 0.2 BPG, 68.4% FG, 63.6% 3PT
Playoffs: 2 complete PF games, 0-2, 5.0 PPG, 0.5 RPG, 1.0 APG, 0.5 SPG, 0.0 BPG, 0.5 TO, 57.1% FG, 66.7% 3PT
Team context: No. 2 opponent PPG; No. 1 opponent FG%
I drop nuts was the regular-season backend of the league’s best opponent-shooting defense. The individual evidence supports meaningful credit: 3.2 steals, efficient spacing and an undefeated PF record. IQ finished No. 1 in opponent FG% and No. 2 in opponent PPG, the strongest eligible team-defense combination.
The Five Star playoff series weakens the final case. IQ went 0-2, his steal rate dropped, and he averaged only five points. That does not erase the regular season, but it separates him from the two players above.
Why not higher: The sample is small and the playoff impact was limited.
Why not lower: His regular-season individual production and league-best defensive environment align too strongly to dismiss as mere team credit.