PDA

View Full Version : The Misconception of Allen Iverson



Eagles710
02-25-2013, 04:22 PM
Okay, Reason Thread made, is cause there are countless people that Kill Iverson for not passing the ball... Okay For his Career He Avg'd 6.2 Assist's ... also something else people mistake is that he was a PG .. Iverson was a SG ... also there was seasons that he avg over 7 assists per game.

Was he a Chucker? Sure! ... But he was a superstar on a bad team

Some players iversn played with

Mutombo
Raja Bell ( I Believe rookie Year )
Eric Snow
Aaron Mckie
Jurmaine Jones

He Took ^^^ That team to the finals, and 1 won game lol

So The thing is the word " Chucker " on a team like that, Is kinda a have to... who should he have passed to exactly?

But either way... he did Avg 6.2 assists for career . which means he did in fact pass the ball

Chronz
02-25-2013, 04:26 PM
You can be a high assist player who kills ball movement and/or makes teammates worse.

Not saying thats AI but his assists dont really point to anything other than playmaking ability.

The only misconception about AI is that people actually think he carried a team to the Finals when in reality he had the best supporting cast for a player of his caliber and style, that cast was ELITE defensively and carried him on that end of the court while he carried the mediocre offense. That talent amounted to the best in the East but I admit AI makes them the best. Still its not the poo poo platter people think it is. DPOY,6MOY,COY,MVP

4milesperday
02-25-2013, 04:26 PM
Okay, Reason Thread made, is cause there are countless people that Kill Iverson for not passing the ball... Okay For his Career He Avg'd 6.2 Assist's ... also something else people mistake is that he was a PG .. Iverson was a SG ... also there was seasons that he avg over 7 assists per game.

Was he a Chucker? Sure! ... But he was a superstar on a bad team

Some players iversn played with

Mutombo
Raja Bell ( I Believe rookie Year )
Eric Snow
Aaron Mckie
Jurmaine Jones

He Took ^^^ That team to the finals, and 1 won game lol

So The thing is the word " Chucker " on a team like that, Is kinda a have to... who should he have passed to exactly?

But either way... he did Avg 6.2 assists for career . which means he did in fact pass the ball
A.I does pass the ball once in a while but whenever he's on a team, there is no ball movement. He holds the ball and shoot or pass it when there is rarely enough time for you to do anything other than shoot. He dominates the ball too much. Learn to pass the ball back to the pg once in a while. Most people didn't even know that A.I wasn't the pg because he holds the ball all the time.

4milesperday
02-25-2013, 04:28 PM
You can be a high assist player who kills ball movement and/or makes teammates worse.

Not saying thats AI but his assists dont really point to anything other than playmaking ability.

The only misconception about AI is that people actually think he carried a team to the Finals when in reality he had the best supporting cast for a player of his caliber and style, that cast was ELITE defensively and carried him on that end of the court while he carried the mediocre offense. That talent amounted to the best in the East but I admit AI makes them the best. Still its not the poo poo platter people think it is. DPOY,6MOY,COY,MVP

I agree. Just look at Rondo, you wouldn't know the Celtics were this good at ball movement before Rondo got injured.

ewing
02-25-2013, 04:35 PM
You can be a high assist player who kills ball movement and/or makes teammates worse.

Not saying thats AI but his assists dont really point to anything other than playmaking ability.

The only misconception about AI is that people actually think he carried a team to the Finals when in reality he had the best supporting cast for a player of his caliber and style, that cast was ELITE defensively and carried him on that end of the court while he carried the mediocre offense. That talent amounted to the best in the East but I admit AI makes them the best. Still its not the poo poo platter people think it is. DPOY,6MOY,COY,MVP

That team also had the easiest road to the finals i've ever seen and it still took them 7 games to beat the Raptors and Bucks. Then they got man handled by LA like everyone else.

waveycrockett
02-25-2013, 04:43 PM
AI was a top 3 player in his prime. Anyone who says otherwise is really going off is a misunderstood reputation. Both tmac and kobe had the same rep

Mr_Jones
02-25-2013, 05:11 PM
Another example of how numbers are stupid.

Easily misinterpreted.

bagwell368
02-25-2013, 05:21 PM
Okay, Reason Thread made, is cause there are countless people that Kill Iverson for not passing the ball... Okay For his Career He Avg'd 6.2 Assist's ... also something else people mistake is that he was a PG .. Iverson was a SG ... also there was seasons that he avg over 7 assists per game.

Was he a Chucker? Sure! ... But he was a superstar on a bad team

Some players iversn played with

Mutombo
Raja Bell ( I Believe rookie Year )
Eric Snow
Aaron Mckie
Jurmaine Jones

He Took ^^^ That team to the finals, and 1 won game lol

So The thing is the word " Chucker " on a team like that, Is kinda a have to... who should he have passed to exactly?

But either way... he did Avg 6.2 assists for career . which means he did in fact pass the ball

You're starting a thread to defend AI and you don't even know he spent years as a PG? Nearly half of his career he was a PG.

AI had a career .452 eFG% - that's pathetic. 6.2 assists? He played a lot of minutes, per 36 that's 5.4.

AI is #3 all time for Usage %, in the top 15 you have these other gunners (shooting a lot and poor FG%):

Aguirre and Carmelo similar to AI to shooting until it hurt the team. Even Wilkins and Gervin who neared that level and were in the top 15 were not as bad as AI, Carmelo, and Aguirre. The rouges gallery of selfish low efficiency gunners. Explain that away.

The two players ahead of AI in Usage is Jordan and Wade. Wade has nearly as many APG, and Jordan isn't far behind - but both were much more efficient shooters.

Basically if you can't score points effectively you should shoot less. AI never figured that out. He played with some players that had more success elsewhere. Maybe it was the team, or maybe it was getting away from the selfish one.

Rivera
02-25-2013, 05:22 PM
AI and Derrick Rose are eeeeerrrrily similar. besides AI having a slightly better mid range game and rose being a physcial freak those 2 career paths down the line may miror each other

both are ball stopping scoring pgs surrounded with elite defensive talent.

to me the difference is AI never had a luol deng on offense. deng aint the greatest but hes a far suprerior offensive talent than anyone Iverson played with when iverson was at the peak of his powers

bagwell368
02-25-2013, 05:27 PM
AI and Derrick Rose are eeeeerrrrily similar. besides AI having a slightly better mid range game and rose being a physcial freak those 2 career paths down the line may miror each other

both are ball stopping scoring pgs surrounded with elite defensive talent.

to me the difference is AI never had a luol deng on offense. deng aint the greatest but hes a far suprerior offensive talent than anyone Iverson played with when iverson was at the peak of his powers

No... no.... no....

Rose put up seasons at age 22 and at age 23 that eclipse any season AI ever had.

Early on AI was a tough defender, but his offensive game as it was later was inefficient - badly so, and never matched Rose - once. In Scoring? sure, but at the cost of missed shot after missed shot.

Alayla
02-25-2013, 05:30 PM
Okay, Reason Thread made, is cause there are countless people that Kill Iverson for not passing the ball... Okay For his Career He Avg'd 6.2 Assist's ... also something else people mistake is that he was a PG .. Iverson was a SG ... also there was seasons that he avg over 7 assists per game.

Was he a Chucker? Sure! ... But he was a superstar on a bad team

Some players iversn played with

Mutombo
Raja Bell ( I Believe rookie Year )
Eric Snow
Aaron Mckie
Jurmaine Jones

He Took ^^^ That team to the finals, and 1 won game lol

So The thing is the word " Chucker " on a team like that, Is kinda a have to... who should he have passed to exactly?

But either way... he did Avg 6.2 assists for career . which means he did in fact pass the ball

Snow had a screw in his ankle by playoffs and deke had a broken finger yet people dont think Iverson carried its madding
That being said lets clear up 2 more misconceptions 1. 2001 wasn't Iversons best season 05 06 and 2 of his 3 seasons with the nuggets where better.

2. That making thread trying to prove AI wasnt a selfish team killer can only end with more people thinking it and pages of AI bashing so its not worth the effort.

Rivera
02-25-2013, 05:32 PM
No... no.... no....

Rose put up seasons at age 22 and at age 23 that eclipse any season AI ever had.

Early on AI was a tough defender, but his offensive game as it was later was inefficient - badly so, and never matched Rose - once. In Scoring? sure, but at the cost of missed shot after missed shot.

its okay you can continue to hate on AI. im not really gonna continue this conversation. ill take AI 10 times outta 10 over d rose.

now you can pick this post piece by piece and write 3 paragraphs for one of my sentences and you can liter it with stats all you want. ill still take AI 10 times outta 10 over rose.

ai is one of those over/underrated players. hes a lightning rod. people that dislike what he did for the game of basketball will always hate him and people who loved AI will continue to love and defend AI. truth is he is somewhere in the middle of that.

oh yea did i say? regardless of what you say im still taking AI 10 times outta 10 over DRose?

Alayla
02-25-2013, 05:32 PM
You can be a high assist player who kills ball movement and/or makes teammates worse.

Not saying thats AI but his assists dont really point to anything other than playmaking ability.

The only misconception about AI is that people actually think he carried a team to the Finals when in reality he had the best supporting cast for a player of his caliber and style, that cast was ELITE defensively and carried him on that end of the court while he carried the mediocre offense. That talent amounted to the best in the East but I admit AI makes them the best. Still its not the poo poo platter people think it is. DPOY,6MOY,COY,MVP

It Honestly doesn't matter how good the team was Defensively and damn they where good when your 2nd scoring option is ARRON MCKEE your not winning a Title come on chronz your better than that.

Alayla
02-25-2013, 05:37 PM
I agree. Just look at Rondo, you wouldn't know the Celtics were this good at ball movement before Rondo got injured.

For the last time the celtics are not a better team without Rondo that idea is ludicris and this is comming from someone who thinks rondo is overrated.

This happened because the Celtics where doing what they have the past 3 seasons or so in that they stayed on cruse control until the 2nd half of the season and Turned it on when they needed too.

It just so happened that rondo getting hurt made them turn it on just a bit sooner than normal.

Alayla
02-25-2013, 05:42 PM
That team also had the easiest road to the finals i've ever seen and it still took them 7 games to beat the Raptors and Bucks. Then they got man handled by LA like everyone else.

If im not wrong and i very well may be didn't the Lakers SWEEP everyone out west? just the sixers winning one game coming out of the supposedly cupcake soft east should be a testament to how good they where and thats without even mentioning about a 3rd of our roster was injured and a rookie raja bell had to fill in for our starting PG deke had a broken finger Iverson was having major back trouble Lynch was hurt as well i mean we where BANGED up but no on remembers details like that huh. No one remembers that the Sixers where suppose to get swept or that in those weak teams you mentioned AI battled with the likes of Ray Allen Vince Carter and Reggie Miller on his way to the finals. You can not like Iverson all you want but dont undermine the work it took to get into that position.

Alayla
02-25-2013, 05:48 PM
You're starting a thread to defend AI and you don't even know he spent years as a PG? Nearly half of his career he was a PG.

AI had a career .452 eFG% - that's pathetic. 6.2 assists? He played a lot of minutes, per 36 that's 5.4.

AI is #3 all time for Usage %, in the top 15 you have these other gunners (shooting a lot and poor FG%):

Aguirre and Carmelo similar to AI to shooting until it hurt the team. Even Wilkins and Gervin who neared that level and were in the top 15 were not as bad as AI, Carmelo, and Aguirre. The rouges gallery of selfish low efficiency gunners. Explain that away.

The two players ahead of AI in Usage is Jordan and Wade. Wade has nearly as many APG, and Jordan isn't far behind - but both were much more efficient shooters.

Basically if you can't score points effectively you should shoot less. AI never figured that out. He played with some players that had more success elsewhere. Maybe it was the team, or maybe it was getting away from the selfish one.

1. if your Adjusting AIs assist numbers per 36 minutes than surely you have to ignore his FG% to some degree due to fatigue with affects your shot you speed and your quickness dramatically in games.

2.Take a look at some of the Names Wade and Jordan have played with and tell me comparing there shooting % directly with Iversons is entirely fair.

You cant just use stats without context you have to consider variables your a human not a robot

ewing
02-25-2013, 05:49 PM
If im not wrong and i very well may be didn't the Lakers SWEEP everyone out west? just the sixers winning one game coming out of the supposedly cupcake soft east should be a testament to how good they where and thats without even mentioning about a 3rd of our roster was injured and a rookie raja bell had to fill in for our starting PG deke had a broken finger Iverson was having major back trouble Lynch was hurt as well i mean we where BANGED up but no on remembers details like that huh. No one remembers that the Sixers where suppose to get swept or that in those weak teams you mentioned AI battled with the likes of Ray Allen Vince Carter and Reggie Miller on his way to the finals. You can not like Iverson all you want but dont undermine the work it took to get into that position.


Winning 1 games isn't impressive

2-ONE-5
02-25-2013, 05:49 PM
You're starting a thread to defend AI and you don't even know he spent years as a PG? Nearly half of his career he was a PG.

AI had a career .452 eFG% - that's pathetic. 6.2 assists? He played a lot of minutes, per 36 that's 5.4.

AI is #3 all time for Usage %, in the top 15 you have these other gunners (shooting a lot and poor FG%):

Aguirre and Carmelo similar to AI to shooting until it hurt the team. Even Wilkins and Gervin who neared that level and were in the top 15 were not as bad as AI, Carmelo, and Aguirre. The rouges gallery of selfish low efficiency gunners. Explain that away.

The two players ahead of AI in Usage is Jordan and Wade. Wade has nearly as many APG, and Jordan isn't far behind - but both were much more efficient shooters.

Basically if you can't score points effectively you should shoot less. AI never figured that out. He played with some players that had more success elsewhere. Maybe it was the team, or maybe it was getting away from the selfish one.

who else that played for the Sixers who capable of scoring effeicnetly? Please name the players that went on to have success elsewhere? (Also that is a weak weak argument)

JasonJohnHorn
02-25-2013, 05:50 PM
Iverson played as many season at PG as he did at SG. He was a combo guard. I see him more as a point guard due to his size, but he played both positions so to pigeon hold him to one is not really accurate.

That said, Iverson had played with some very talented rosters. He butted heads with Stackhouse and that lead to a trade. They could have been a great guard combo. As for the year they got to the finals, people act like Iverson carried that team on his back when the truth of the matter was that they were just as dependent on Mutumbo as the were on Iverson. People underestimate what Mutumbo did for that 76ers team.

When Iverson started he had Stackhouse and Derrick Coleman along with Scott Williams and Clarence Weatherspoon who made up a pretty decent front court. Coleman was near 20/10 and Weatherspoon was just about averaging a double-double. Then they had Jim Jackson and Theo Ratliff with Coleman, Joe Smith, Tom Chamber Tim Thomas, Brian Shaw, McKie, Snow and Scott Williams. There is no reason a team with that roster should miss the palyoffs, but they did. And they brought in some quality role players in like Matt Gieger and Tyronne Hill. And when they got to the finals people always say: Oh, he got their with Aaron McKie and Eric Snow. They had three-time champion Toni Kukoc on that team, and DPOY Mutumbo, and Hill and Gieger and Mad Max. Considering how weak the east was that year, it is not entirely impressive that Iverson got to the finals.

In Denver Iverson had an extremely talented roster to work with. Melo for one. An amazing front court with some monster rebounders and/or defenders: Camby, K-Mart, Nene, Reggie Evans. Through in JR Smith and Joe Smith and Andre Miller... this is a championship calibre team which Iverson couldn't even get out of the first round with. They trade Iverson away for Billups and next thing you know the team is in the conference finals. The Nuggets, with a good coach and a great roster were 1-8 in the playoffs with Iverson. With Billups they went 10-6 in one season! And even Billups second season with the Nuggets when they lost in the first round, Billups still helped the Nuggets earn more wins in that loss than Iverson got in two post seasons with the nuggets.

I don't want to blame the Detroit thing on Iverson, so I'll leave that out. But Iverson has had some pretty talented teams and failed to win with them.

Is he a chucker? Yes. Does he make the players around him better? I wouldn't say so. Does he detract from them? Possibly.

Alayla
02-25-2013, 05:53 PM
AI and Derrick Rose are eeeeerrrrily similar. besides AI having a slightly better mid range game and rose being a physcial freak those 2 career paths down the line may miror each other

both are ball stopping scoring pgs surrounded with elite defensive talent.

to me the difference is AI never had a luol deng on offense. deng aint the greatest but hes a far suprerior offensive talent than anyone Iverson played with when iverson was at the peak of his powers

Alot of people forget this but back in 2000 Before Iverson broke his wrist he was a pretty sick dunker even got selected for the dunk contest where kobe later replaced him in it.
Also AI was a SG who simply was forced to play PG due to an incompetent FO who failed to bring him a proper PG
but i argee with your overall point great post

The only reason i feel people Bash AI the way they do these days is being like bagwell and seeing only stats and never the context those stats happen in hes likely the type who thought Kevin Marten couldn't replace James Hardens efficiency at the beginning of the season.

Alayla
02-25-2013, 05:56 PM
Winning 1 games isn't impressive

Maybe not but Winning 1 game when over half your starting lineup are suffering Injury too a team who Swept supposedly stronger teams on there way there is.

You also dogged me challenging the teams rode to get there being so easy once again names they had to pass while Iverson was injured included Reggie Miller Ray Allen and Vince Carter 3 likely HOFers.

ewing
02-25-2013, 05:59 PM
Maybe not but Winning 1 game when over half your starting lineup are suffering Injury too a team who Swept supposedly stronger teams on there way there is.

You also dogged me challenging the teams rode to get there being so easy once again names they had to pass while Iverson was injured included Reggie Miller Ray Allen and Vince Carter 3 likely HOFers.

How old were you in 2001?

Alayla
02-25-2013, 05:59 PM
Iverson played as many season at PG as he did at SG. He was a combo guard. I see him more as a point guard due to his size, but he played both positions so to pigeon hold him to one is not really accurate.

That said, Iverson had played with some very talented rosters. He butted heads with Stackhouse and that lead to a trade. They could have been a great guard combo. As for the year they got to the finals, people act like Iverson carried that team on his back when the truth of the matter was that they were just as dependent on Mutumbo as the were on Iverson. People underestimate what Mutumbo did for that 76ers team.

When Iverson started he had Stackhouse and Derrick Coleman along with Scott Williams and Clarence Weatherspoon who made up a pretty decent front court. Coleman was near 20/10 and Weatherspoon was just about averaging a double-double. Then they had Jim Jackson and Theo Ratliff with Coleman, Joe Smith, Tom Chamber Tim Thomas, Brian Shaw, McKie, Snow and Scott Williams. There is no reason a team with that roster should miss the palyoffs, but they did. And they brought in some quality role players in like Matt Gieger and Tyronne Hill. And when they got to the finals people always say: Oh, he got their with Aaron McKie and Eric Snow. They had three-time champion Toni Kukoc on that team, and DPOY Mutumbo, and Hill and Gieger and Mad Max. Considering how weak the east was that year, it is not entirely impressive that Iverson got to the finals.

In Denver Iverson had an extremely talented roster to work with. Melo for one. An amazing front court with some monster rebounders and/or defenders: Camby, K-Mart, Nene, Reggie Evans. Through in JR Smith and Joe Smith and Andre Miller... this is a championship calibre team which Iverson couldn't even get out of the first round with. They trade Iverson away for Billups and next thing you know the team is in the conference finals. The Nuggets, with a good coach and a great roster were 1-8 in the playoffs with Iverson. With Billups they went 10-6 in one season! And even Billups second season with the Nuggets when they lost in the first round, Billups still helped the Nuggets earn more wins in that loss than Iverson got in two post seasons with the nuggets.

I don't want to blame the Detroit thing on Iverson, so I'll leave that out. But Iverson has had some pretty talented teams and failed to win with them.

Is he a chucker? Yes. Does he make the players around him better? I wouldn't say so. Does he detract from them? Possibly.

He played SG entirely due too being undersized and because the FO kept failing to find him a PG (see us drafting Larry Hugues).

As for the detracting from his team give me a list of players who played with Iverson who did BETTER at any point after not being his teammate anymore

Alayla
02-25-2013, 06:01 PM
How old were you in 2001?

Irreverent stop doing my posts and actually comment because consistently backing down isn't helping your case.

LAKERMANIA
02-25-2013, 06:04 PM
Just because the 2001 Sixers didn't technically have another superstar didn't mean that team was "bad"

That team had the defensive player of the year, the coach of the year, the sixth man of the year all in one team.. And that team was specifically catered around AI.. That team was perfect for him and they managed to win 1 game against the Kobe-Shaq Lakers in LA in game 1...

Alayla
02-25-2013, 06:09 PM
The saddest part about all these people talking about how weak the east was is that there missing the point. This isn't about 2001 hell that wasn't even his best season even if it where how is the east being weak in any way relevant NO ONE at the time expected the sixers to go to the finals they shocked the world thats why its still being talked about today we where expected to lose literately every single one of those series.

But once again thats not whats really important here whats important and what the OP failed to get across is AI played with heart he was never trying to selfishly gun for stats what he really wanted was to win and he did what he believed would give his team a chance to do so.

The man cried atfer losing games and threw his body around taking beating after beating ive never seen players recover from as many injury as he did during his career and play trough so many and especially at his size winning always came first with Iverson.

But then again the type of people who reply to threads like this dont want to hear those things.

Like i said no good can come of this thread and it really needs to be locked up.

At the end of the day the only way Iverson will get respect is if people stop talking about him let it die for awile give people a chance to miss what he did on the court.

Alayla
02-25-2013, 06:11 PM
Just because the 2001 Sixers didn't technically have another superstar didn't mean that team was "bad"

That team had the defensive player of the year, the coach of the year, the sixth man of the year all in one team.. And that team was specifically catered around AI.. That team was perfect for him and they managed to win 1 game against the Kobe-Shaq Lakers in LA in game 1...

Name to me 1 team in the post Joran Era that has won it all with a 2nd scoring option with an average of 12 PPG

LAKERMANIA
02-25-2013, 06:16 PM
Name to me 1 team in the post Joran Era that has won it all with a 2nd scoring option with an average of 12 PPG
Once again, just because a team doesn't have 2 superstars on it, doesn't make them a bad team...

And the 2003-2004 Detroit Pistons HAD NO SUPERSTARS and they managed to win the 2004 NBA Title, beating a team with 2 superstars on it...

Rivera
02-25-2013, 06:23 PM
Alot of people forget this but back in 2000 Before Iverson broke his wrist he was a pretty sick dunker even got selected for the dunk contest where kobe later replaced him in it.
Also AI was a SG who simply was forced to play PG due to an incompetent FO who failed to bring him a proper PG
but i argee with your overall point great post

The only reason i feel people Bash AI the way they do these days is being like bagwell and seeing only stats and never the context those stats happen in hes likely the type who thought Kevin Marten couldn't replace James Hardens efficiency at the beginning of the season.

Oh I know how gifted ai was athletically but he is no where near as built as rose is Even in ais prime I don't think he is as explosive as rose was

But also you could argue ai was a better finisher by he basket and he could take contact and knew how to get to the free throw line

Rose sometimes avoids contact when he goes to the hole

SMH!
02-25-2013, 06:23 PM
Once again, just because a team doesn't have 2 superstars on it, doesn't make them a bad team...

And the 2003-2004 Detroit Pistons HAD NO SUPERSTARS and they managed to win the 2004 NBA Title, beating a team with 2 superstars on it...

You dodged his question, answer it.

LAKERMANIA
02-25-2013, 06:25 PM
You dodged his question, answer it.
2004 Pistons had no one scoring over 20ppg, and they won a championship..

The 2001 Sixers had AI who scored over 30 a game, and 3 other players in double figures..

That destroys his question..

Alayla
02-25-2013, 06:26 PM
Once again, just because a team doesn't have 2 superstars on it, doesn't make them a bad team...

And the 2003-2004 Detroit Pistons HAD NO SUPERSTARS and they managed to win the 2004 NBA Title, beating a team with 2 superstars on it...

Did i ever say they needed a superstar? no i didnt but you simply cannot win with arron mckee as a 2nd scoring option
and those pistons you mentioned are my proof rasheed wallece 20 a game prince 10 a game with 14 the next 2 years billups 16 a game Rip 17 a game even Ben Wallece who is known for being a limited offensive player had 9 a game as well as mcdyess with 9

LAKERMANIA
02-25-2013, 06:27 PM
Did i ever say they needed a superstar? no i didnt but you simply cannot win with arron mckee as a 2nd scoring option
and those pistons you mentioned are my proof rasheed wallece 20 a game prince 10 a game with 14 the next 2 years billups 16 a game Rip 17 a game even Ben Wallece who is known for being a limited offensive player had 9 a game as well as mcdyess with 9

Your stats are completely wrong, the 2004 pistons had no one scoring over 20 a game in the season

http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/DET/2004.html

PurpleJesus
02-25-2013, 06:33 PM
When you are the primary ball handler, you are going to get assists, it doesnt mean that you are a good passer, it just means the offense runs through you.

LAKERMANIA
02-25-2013, 06:34 PM
Here was my point, since there is some sort of confusion:

1) That 76ers team was a lot better than people make it out to be. Just because there weren't big names on that team doesn't mean it was AI and a bunch of 8th graders vs. the NBA

2) A team can still be considered a good team even if they don't have 2 superstars on it.

Alayla
02-25-2013, 06:35 PM
2004 Pistons had no one scoring over 20ppg, and they won a championship..

The 2001 Sixers had AI who scored over 30 a game, and 3 other players in double figures..

That destroys his question..

Sheed scored 20 a game that season and i would Aruge Sheed was a star back then Ben was a scary good defender so there goes the deke arugement
Billups at 16 PPG and rip at 17 a game are way better 2nd scoring options than AI ever had in fact
Billups and Rip account for 33 a game on top of Walleces 20

Thats 53 A game between 3 players want to see the scoring balence between the 2001 sixers top 3 scorers

Iverson 31 PPG Arron mcke 12 and deke 10
a total of 53 a game funny isnt it?
Thats with Iverson carrying 10 more points a game and thats not even considering the fact Wallece averaged 10 a game himself so it allmost negates the offenseive value deke had
Iverson needed at least 1 other guy who could score and wasnt given that guy

atfer seeing my stats where 1 year out of date i retract this post everyone is capable of making mistakes

Alayla
02-25-2013, 06:36 PM
Your stats are completely wrong, the 2004 pistons had no one scoring over 20 a game in the season

http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/DET/2004.html

my bad that was 1 year later Still if anything this SUPPORTs my arugement -_-
3 players over 12 a game and btw thats not even considering that that was one of the best defensive teams in history

LAKERMANIA
02-25-2013, 06:38 PM
Sheed scored 20 a game that season and i would Aruge Sheed was a star back then Ben was a scary good defender so there goes the deke arugement
Billups at 16 PPG and rip at 17 a game are way better 2nd scoring options than AI ever had in fact
Billups and Rip account for 33 a game on top of Walleces 20

Thats 53 A game between 3 players want to see the scoring balence between the 2001 sixers top 3 scorers

Iverson 31 PPG Arron mcke 12 and deke 10
a total of 53 a game funny isnt it?
Thats with Iverson carrying 10 more points a game and thats not even considering the fact Wallece averaged 10 a game himself so it allmost negates the offenseive value deke had
Iverson needed at least 1 other guy who could score and wasnt given that guy

Dude Rasheed averaged 13 and 7 a game that season... Look it up

LAKERMANIA
02-25-2013, 06:40 PM
my bad that was 1 year later Still if anything this SUPPORTs my arugement -_-
3 players over 12 a game and btw thats not even considering that that was one of the best defensive teams in history

But no one who scored OVER 20... That Sixers team was pretty damn good, I don't know why you're putting them down so much

Alayla
02-25-2013, 06:40 PM
My point still stands though the reason that only 3 players had 12 PPG or above on that team is becuase that team was STACKED with capable scorers and they all went on to prove it in the very next season the sixers had no such luck

Alayla
02-25-2013, 06:42 PM
But no one who scored OVER 20... That Sixers team was pretty damn good, I don't know why you're putting them down so much

Im putting them down becuase i KNOW how are you going to argue with someone who is a fan of the team? lol
On the offensive end of the Floor that team was HORSESHIT sure we where elite defensively but a career 8 PPG scorer just should never be a 2nd scoring option on a contending team.

Alayla
02-25-2013, 06:46 PM
Dude Rasheed averaged 13 and 7 a game that season... Look it up

I retracted that post dude but he averaged 20 the very next season so whatever once again you still have yet to find a team who has won with a 2nd option at the level of arron mkcee your own BBR link shows them having 3 scorers more potent then mckee and dont use the but no one was over 20PPG on that team arugement it doesnt work seeing as all of them have since proven to be all star level players there whole starting 5 where beasts that team was simply underrated at the time.

No one scoring over 20 only serves to support my argument that balance in scoring is a good thing AI wouldn't have put up 31 PPG if he had a decent 2nd scoring option thats the whole point of my arugment

LAKERMANIA
02-25-2013, 06:50 PM
Im putting them down becuase i KNOW how are you going to argue with someone who is a fan of the team? lol
On the offensive end of the Floor that team was HORSESHIT sure we where elite defensively but a career 8 PPG scorer just should never be a 2nd scoring option on a contending team.

This was so hard to read.. Punctuation?

Alayla
02-25-2013, 06:56 PM
Let me put this another way okay rounded numbers here AI scored 31 PPG and with 5 APG 5 assists is a minimum 10 points right that means Iverson was personally responsible for 41 points EVERY SINGLE NIGHT. His USG rate was 36%

In the playoffs it got even worse Iverson averaged 33 points and 6 assists thats 50 points personally responsible a night at bare minimum. That is beyond insanity

Alayla
02-25-2013, 06:59 PM
Iverson made the best of a bad situation 1 scorer and a bunch of defensive role players does not a formula for a championship make.

Eagles710
02-25-2013, 09:11 PM
okay, so reading most of these everyone is pretty stuck on 2001 lol. possibly my fault should have never put that as an example lol.... What i am talking about is how people say he did not pass the ball.... When he actually did! , Problem was there was nobody of relevance to pass to, But him getting 6.2 assist a game, is impressive!... im not sure why so many AI haters?

bagwell368
02-25-2013, 10:00 PM
Alot of people forget this but back in 2000 Before Iverson broke his wrist he was a pretty sick dunker even got selected for the dunk contest where kobe later replaced him in it.
Also AI was a SG who simply was forced to play PG due to an incompetent FO who failed to bring him a proper PG
but i argee with your overall point great post

The only reason i feel people Bash AI the way they do these days is being like bagwell and seeing only stats and never the context those stats happen in hes likely the type who thought Kevin Marten couldn't replace James Hardens efficiency at the beginning of the season.

Nice try. I've spoken about details of AI, Bobby Jones, Moses, Wilt, Cheeks, and Barkley in the recent past. I'm a fan of all of them, except AI who was a chucker.

bagwell368
02-25-2013, 10:13 PM
okay, so reading most of these everyone is pretty stuck on 2001 lol. possibly my fault should have never put that as an example lol.... What i am talking about is how people say he did not pass the ball.... When he actually did! , Problem was there was nobody of relevance to pass to, But him getting 6.2 assist a game, is impressive!... im not sure why so many AI haters?

Well, the media and his fans are impressed with a short guy that can dunk, and score lots of points. As a long term student of the game, player, and coach, I'm not impressed with players of that type. I dislike Wilkins, Aguirre, Kiki, and similar players.

AI didn't elevate those around him. There were lots of years when more than half of his roster shot FG's at a better rate than he did. Just because most of them were not big scores does not mean that they couldn't have gotten 5-6 more shots a night as a group, and AI 4 or so less. Have you played? Do you go down floor on O as hard when you know you're not going to get the ball? No. Nobody does. So AI's excessive shooting hurt his teams, and his fans argue because they are fans, not because they are right.

Becks2307
02-25-2013, 11:02 PM
Man think about where people regarded AI in 2002 and now its amazing how much his name has been dragged through the mud. I don't have much of an opinion either way but I have never seen a player whose legacy has been so tarnished after he left the NBA.

2-ONE-5
02-25-2013, 11:03 PM
Iverson played as many season at PG as he did at SG. He was a combo guard. I see him more as a point guard due to his size, but he played both positions so to pigeon hold him to one is not really accurate.

That said, Iverson had played with some very talented rosters. He butted heads with Stackhouse and that lead to a trade. They could have been a great guard combo. As for the year they got to the finals, people act like Iverson carried that team on his back when the truth of the matter was that they were just as dependent on Mutumbo as the were on Iverson. People underestimate what Mutumbo did for that 76ers team.

When Iverson started he had Stackhouse and Derrick Coleman along with Scott Williams and Clarence Weatherspoon who made up a pretty decent front court. Coleman was near 20/10 and Weatherspoon was just about averaging a double-double. Then they had Jim Jackson and Theo Ratliff with Coleman, Joe Smith, Tom Chamber Tim Thomas, Brian Shaw, McKie, Snow and Scott Williams. There is no reason a team with that roster should miss the palyoffs, but they did. And they brought in some quality role players in like Matt Gieger and Tyronne Hill. And when they got to the finals people always say: Oh, he got their with Aaron McKie and Eric Snow. They had three-time champion Toni Kukoc on that team, and DPOY Mutumbo, and Hill and Gieger and Mad Max. Considering how weak the east was that year, it is not entirely impressive that Iverson got to the finals.

In Denver Iverson had an extremely talented roster to work with. Melo for one. An amazing front court with some monster rebounders and/or defenders: Camby, K-Mart, Nene, Reggie Evans. Through in JR Smith and Joe Smith and Andre Miller... this is a championship calibre team which Iverson couldn't even get out of the first round with. They trade Iverson away for Billups and next thing you know the team is in the conference finals. The Nuggets, with a good coach and a great roster were 1-8 in the playoffs with Iverson. With Billups they went 10-6 in one season! And even Billups second season with the Nuggets when they lost in the first round, Billups still helped the Nuggets earn more wins in that loss than Iverson got in two post seasons with the nuggets.

I don't want to blame the Detroit thing on Iverson, so I'll leave that out. But Iverson has had some pretty talented teams and failed to win with them.

Is he a chucker? Yes. Does he make the players around him better? I wouldn't say so. Does he detract from them? Possibly.

Mutumbo played half a season in 2001 and if Ratliff didnt get hurt he prob wouldnt of been traded for

97NYer
02-25-2013, 11:19 PM
In AI's best scoring season he averaged 31.4 from the field on 39.8% scoring. Not many all time greats shoot under 40 percent.

bagwell368
02-25-2013, 11:24 PM
Man think about where people regarded AI in 2002 and now its amazing how much his name has been dragged through the mud. I don't have much of an opinion either way but I have never seen a player whose legacy has been so tarnished after he left the NBA.

AI tarnished himself with his behavior and his play.

Jarvo
02-26-2013, 12:44 AM
Iverson is one of The Greatest point blank.

Eagles710
02-26-2013, 03:45 AM
Well, the media and his fans are impressed with a short guy that can dunk, and score lots of points. As a long term student of the game, player, and coach, I'm not impressed with players of that type. I dislike Wilkins, Aguirre, Kiki, and similar players.

AI didn't elevate those around him. There were lots of years when more than half of his roster shot FG's at a better rate than he did. Just because most of them were not big scores does not mean that they couldn't have gotten 5-6 more shots a night as a group, and AI 4 or so less. Have you played? Do you go down floor on O as hard when you know you're not going to get the ball? No. Nobody does. So AI's excessive shooting hurt his teams, and his fans argue because they are fans, not because they are right.

With your theory then... Kobe Is somebody you dislike as a player yes? .... And yes that is a bad year agreed... but he is a lifetime 42% shooter... Kobe is 45% ? So again? do you dislike Kobe as a Player?

bagwell368
02-26-2013, 09:34 AM
With your theory then... Kobe Is somebody you dislike as a player yes? .... And yes that is a bad year agreed... but he is a lifetime 42% shooter... Kobe is 45% ? So again? do you dislike Kobe as a Player?

I used to dislike Kobe quite a bit when he was younger - too much heaving, and chasing Shaq out of LA too.

But the one redeeming feature he has is his D in crunch times and crunch games - most scorers don't have that gear. He's also had a healthy career which is a plus. I tend to rate him lower than most, and wouldn't put him on my all time team due to his issues of having to be the Alpha, and not sharing the rock.

Alayla
02-26-2013, 11:11 AM
In AI's best scoring season he averaged 31.4 from the field on 39.8% scoring. Not many all time greats shoot under 40 percent.

that wasn't his best scoring season it was the season he scored the most there is a HUGE difference

Alayla
02-26-2013, 11:14 AM
Iverson played as many season at PG as he did at SG. He was a combo guard. I see him more as a point guard due to his size, but he played both positions so to pigeon hold him to one is not really accurate.

That said, Iverson had played with some very talented rosters. He butted heads with Stackhouse and that lead to a trade. They could have been a great guard combo. As for the year they got to the finals, people act like Iverson carried that team on his back when the truth of the matter was that they were just as dependent on Mutumbo as the were on Iverson. People underestimate what Mutumbo did for that 76ers team.

When Iverson started he had Stackhouse and Derrick Coleman along with Scott Williams and Clarence Weatherspoon who made up a pretty decent front court. Coleman was near 20/10 and Weatherspoon was just about averaging a double-double. Then they had Jim Jackson and Theo Ratliff with Coleman, Joe Smith, Tom Chamber Tim Thomas, Brian Shaw, McKie, Snow and Scott Williams. There is no reason a team with that roster should miss the palyoffs, but they did. And they brought in some quality role players in like Matt Gieger and Tyronne Hill. And when they got to the finals people always say: Oh, he got their with Aaron McKie and Eric Snow. They had three-time champion Toni Kukoc on that team, and DPOY Mutumbo, and Hill and Gieger and Mad Max. Considering how weak the east was that year, it is not entirely impressive that Iverson got to the finals.

In Denver Iverson had an extremely talented roster to work with. Melo for one. An amazing front court with some monster rebounders and/or defenders: Camby, K-Mart, Nene, Reggie Evans. Through in JR Smith and Joe Smith and Andre Miller... this is a championship calibre team which Iverson couldn't even get out of the first round with. They trade Iverson away for Billups and next thing you know the team is in the conference finals. The Nuggets, with a good coach and a great roster were 1-8 in the playoffs with Iverson. With Billups they went 10-6 in one season! And even Billups second season with the Nuggets when they lost in the first round, Billups still helped the Nuggets earn more wins in that loss than Iverson got in two post seasons with the nuggets.

I don't want to blame the Detroit thing on Iverson, so I'll leave that out. But Iverson has had some pretty talented teams and failed to win with them.

Is he a chucker? Yes. Does he make the players around him better? I wouldn't say so. Does he detract from them? Possibly.

Just noticed this it allmost got by me Did you REALLY go there? take a look what he acutally did on the sixers fk all thats what dude was awfull.

Alayla
02-26-2013, 11:15 AM
Let me put this another way okay rounded numbers here AI scored 31 PPG and with 5 APG 5 assists is a minimum 10 points right that means Iverson was personally responsible for 41 points EVERY SINGLE NIGHT. His USG rate was 36%

In the playoffs it got even worse Iverson averaged 33 points and 6 assists thats 50 points personally responsible a night at bare minimum. That is beyond insanity

Just in case you all missed it since no one has had the balls to reply to it

Alayla
02-26-2013, 11:19 AM
okay, so reading most of these everyone is pretty stuck on 2001 lol. possibly my fault should have never put that as an example lol.... What i am talking about is how people say he did not pass the ball.... When he actually did! , Problem was there was nobody of relevance to pass to, But him getting 6.2 assist a game, is impressive!... im not sure why so many AI haters?

No your mistake was making this thread in the first place nothing positive can come of it
But your right about 1 thing the thing thats misleading about the assit stat is it only shows passes where there was a shot converted dirctly atfer his pass. The flaw with that is it doesn't tell you when another guy passes and the next guy hits or more importantly when players miss wicth unfortunately happened alot more than people think

2-ONE-5
02-26-2013, 12:35 PM
i love all advanced states eing used on AI when they hardly around while he was playing in his prime.

bagwell368
02-26-2013, 01:45 PM
Just in case you all missed it since no one has had the balls to reply to it

I'm involved in about 15 threads at any given time. There is no way I'm afraid to defend anything I say about AI.

In the regular season he averaged:

PPG: 26.7 FGA: 21.8 USG%: 31.8 APG: 6.2 eFG%: .452

In the playoffs

PPG: 29.7 FGA: 26.5* USG%: 34.3* APG: 6.0 eFG%: .434

* omg.... :facepalm:

So to score 3 more points a game in the playoffs, AI took 4.7 more FGA per game? That's classic typical AI. Shoot a ton more for meh results. Dealing with your defense of AI is like hitting a pinata with a 2x4 and no blindfold on.... ahhahahhaha

High volume shooters with meh efficiency (or worse) - do you want to name all of the top 20 in NBA history and how they did WRT winning titles? AI didn't win because his teams sucked. The way he played made his teams worse than they were, and he was never going to win, unless he went somewhere that was on the cusp of a title and he started shooting less then 12-14 a game.

bagwell368
02-26-2013, 01:50 PM
i love all advanced states eing used on AI when they hardly around while he was playing in his prime.

That's a good point, although it doesn't apply to me since I started watching the Celts play Philly when they had Greer, Wilt, Billy C., and Chet Walker.

BTW, Iverson is a volume shooter, with poor shooting percentages. He didn't raise his teams, he lowered them because who wants to play behind someone that can't win the big one, and is the 3rd worst ball hog of all time (#1 and #2 have 6 and 2 titles respectively - so they are tolerable to play with given the bonus checks and rings).

2-ONE-5
02-26-2013, 02:24 PM
]That's a good point, although it doesn't apply to me since I started watching the Celts play Philly when they had Greer, Wilt, Billy C., and Chet Walker.[/B]BTW, Iverson is a volume shooter, with poor shooting percentages. He didn't raise his teams, he lowered them because who wants to play behind someone that can't win the big one, and is the 3rd worst ball hog of all time (#1 and #2 have 6 and 2 titles respectively - so they are tolerable to play with given the bonus checks and rings).

that makes 0 sense.

if carrying a team to the finals and playing right there with a dominant Lakers team isnt rasing your team then i dont what is.

You can throw out all of the BS advanced stats you want its not gonna change the fact that Iverson is a top 50 player anf hall of famer.

Alayla
02-26-2013, 03:00 PM
That's a good point, although it doesn't apply to me since I started watching the Celts play Philly when they had Greer, Wilt, Billy C., and Chet Walker.

BTW, Iverson is a volume shooter, with poor shooting percentages. He didn't raise his teams, he lowered them because who wants to play behind someone that can't win the big one, and is the 3rd worst ball hog of all time (#1 and #2 have 6 and 2 titles respectively - so they are tolerable to play with given the bonus checks and rings).

It seems your entire argument regarding Iverson is that he failed to win it all because hes inefficient yet i have proven that being efficient in a playoff situation where your expected to personally account for 50 points a night while Injuried its impossible to expect efficiency or did that go right over your head.

Also before you claim that was Iversons own fault who else was expected to score like many have said the idea was to showcase his scoring and surround him to Defensive role players.

My whole argument centers around the fact that idea never worked before and Larry brown wasn't particularly wise for coming up with it.

So for all you typed you said a whole lot of nothing also your answer to 2-one-5 was a dodging act as well and i dont even like that guy.
If he is owning you in the debates you may as well quit the site lolol.

And ofc Scoring in the playoffs is harder how dense to you need to be to understand that defenses get tighter and your playing agiesnt better teams on average by definition. It also doesnt help that he was far beyond his prime by the time he had a proper 2nd options (iggy and mello respectively)

Not to mention the fact that had fk all to do with my post

Ive told you 4 times now that efficiency is nearly irrelevant in this case when someone is playing over 40 minutes a night there naturally going to be gassed its the nature of sports.

The Human body is only capable of so much strain it doesn't help that he had no one to rely on when he wasn't shooting well hence the need for surprise a 2nd OPTION!

I feel like we are talking in circles you robotic presenting nothing but efficiency without context and I pointing out the equally flawed argument of human limitations.
Im starting to feel like both of us are on 2 extremes and that the truth lies somewhere in the middle of the 2. Something i doubt your sensible enough to agree with as well.

We seem to view players from a lens of tables and odds with all the stats we have these days and forget that these people are human beings who tire just like we do.

Isn't that in it of itself the very definition of greatness? the point at wicth limitations become blurred due to the actions of the person in question. At the time the idea of a 6 nothing player dropping 30 a night playing SG was nothing short of laughable

Just the way if we spoke of a 6 8 285 freight train dunking at will with over 1000 LBs of force would have sounded crazy during that turn of the century period.

Now in no way am i comparing Iverson to LBJ but my point is everyone has limits have you ever stopped to consider the possibility that maybe Iversons problems where not mental ones but physical ones?

have you ever thought that playing 40 minutes a night and carrying the scoring load for a team on your own might be too much on his body?
It would surely explain his steep and seemingly instant decline from the point he left the nuggets.

bagwell368
02-26-2013, 04:58 PM
that makes 0 sense.

if carrying a team to the finals and playing right there with a dominant Lakers team isnt rasing your team then i dont what is.

You can throw out all of the BS advanced stats you want its not gonna change the fact that Iverson is a top 50 player anf hall of famer.

The East was very weak, and he did it once in his career.

What advanced stats? Holding the ball isn't an advanced stat, neither is eFG% (unless of of course you flunked out of 6th grade math). PPG? APG?

LOL.

bagwell368
02-26-2013, 05:36 PM
It seems your entire argument regarding Iverson is that he failed to win it all because hes inefficient yet i have proven that being efficient in a playoff situation where your expected to personally account for 50 points a night while Injuried its impossible to expect efficiency or did that go right over your head.

Entire argument? Did you forget how many times I've gone over AI's behavior issues? Guess so.

AI is efficient in the playoffs? How does a ~20% lower eFG% and a bunch more FGA count as efficient? I'll have to go back and read your post again, I just assumed it was more of your ridiculous pro AI spew.


Also before you claim that was Iversons own fault who else was expected to score like many have said the idea was to showcase his scoring and surround him to Defensive role players.

AI is like any prima donna that can't tolerate not being the Alpha. Maybe it was the plan to surround him with defensive players, because offensive players couldn't see the light of the day with the black hole holding the ball. The NBA is full of cases where teams said one thing - like the Celts ML Carr saying the Celts were Championship driven in the Fall of 1994. That was a lie and a joke.


My whole argument centers around the fact that idea never worked before and Larry brown wasn't particularly wise for coming up with it.

So, AI comes up smelling roses and nobody else because he's your binky? LOL.


So for all you typed you said a whole lot of nothing also your answer to 2-one-5 was a dodging act as well and i dont even like that guy.
If he is owning you in the debates you may as well quit the site lolol.

In English please.


And ofc Scoring in the playoffs is harder how dense to you need to be to understand that defenses get tighter and your playing agiesnt better teams on average by definition. It also doesnt help that he was far beyond his prime by the time he had a proper 2nd options (iggy and mello respectively)

Yes scoring is harder in the playoffs - maybe he shouldn't have pushed his offense that much harder in FGA to make up for the shortfall - that's the point. But no, your hero never would have thought of that - because he never thought of anything but himself.


Ive told you 4 times now that efficiency is nearly irrelevant in this case when someone is playing over 40 minutes a night there naturally going to be gassed its the nature of sports.

Told me? No, you've tried to make the case, but it's ****ing rubbish. Wilt played 45+ minutes per game in a lot of seasons - check out his FG%.


The Human body is only capable of so much strain it doesn't help that he had no one to rely on when he wasn't shooting well hence the need for surprise a 2nd OPTION!

How could anyone tell when the black hole of the NBA was holding the ball forever. Hell, for all we know the 2nd Michael Jordan played alongside him, but, he was never discovered.... :laugh2:.


I feel like we are talking in circles you robotic presenting nothing but efficiency without context and I pointing out the equally flawed argument of human limitations.

Do I have to come up with my more subjective postings on AI? Stats actually make for a calmer argument IMO.


Im starting to feel like both of us are on 2 extremes and that the truth lies somewhere in the middle of the 2. Something i doubt your sensible enough to agree with as well.

Oh I see. You're wise because you've admitted I and others have undermined your prior opinion on AI - and I can only be wise if I agree that my thoughts on AI have changed?

AI is low efficiency high FGA scorer. I never saw much if any evidence that he was making his team better once his shooting got over the 15 FGA level - which is was constantly. He played some D when he was young. He had a lot of will power. I might very well take him as my #1 choice for a sub 5' 11" 1 on 1 guy, too bad the NBA is 5 x 5 with one ball. His behavior was beyond the pale and out too lunch. If I was building teams to play in some all time league in the sky, I wouldn't have AI under any circumstances as long as we are talking top 250 NBA players all time. I would easily take Mo Cheeks over AI for instance.

That's all textbook what I thought about AI back in say 2007.


We seem to view players from a lens of tables and odds with all the stats we have these days and forget that these people are human beings who tire just like we do.

Buddy I was a D1 player, and have Coached for 14 years on top of being a fan for decades. I can swing either way. Stats are useful for guys on the west coast I see 1-2 times a year. But for Eastern Conference guys that played for years? I have them right here in my mind. The 76'ers have had many better players than AI when the context is teams. Since the 3 and the dunk contest and ESPN most fans under 40 think that's most of the NBA. That's not the game, and a mini mite dunk 1 on 1 Champ type player that can't share the rock doesn't impress me - never has and never will.


Isn't that in it of itself the very definition of greatness? the point at wicth limitations become blurred due to the actions of the person in question. At the time the idea of a 6 nothing player dropping 30 a night playing SG was nothing short of laughable

So then, AI could only fit a very particular sort of team. How many all time greats suffer from that shortcoming? That doesn't recommend him - that limits him and devalues him in a team context.


Now in no way am i comparing Iverson to LBJ but my point is everyone has limits have you ever stopped to consider the possibility that maybe Iversons problems where not mental ones but physical ones?

His various run ins with Coaches, the law, teams, etc. makes it hard to take this claim as a 100% reason for his shortcomings. BTW, was he handicapped in some way that he couldn't pass the ball?


have you ever thought that playing 40 minutes a night and carrying the scoring load for a team on your own might be too much on his body?
It would surely explain his steep and seemingly instant decline from the point he left the nuggets.

Wilt and Oscar played more MPG than AI, and both shot FG much better in their time than AI in his. Of the 20 guys near him in MPG and meh FG% in the post 1970 era is Marbury and Sprewell. Interesting.

Maybe his Coaches should have found him more bench time? Or maybe they were afraid of him.

AI after age 32 fell off a cliff. Lots of NBA players lose it from age 30-35 - in particular 32-34 - no real evidence here for your claims. He was never a top 5 NBA player at any time, top 7-8 is it. That's great, few pull that off. But he could have done more and better.

Chronz
02-26-2013, 07:55 PM
Wait, we need an explanation for why a diminutive non shooter lost his luster early/quickly?

I thought it was something we all saw coming as he aged

Alayla
02-26-2013, 09:49 PM
Entire argument? Did you forget how many times I've gone over AI's behavior issues? Guess so.

AI is efficient in the playoffs? How does a ~20% lower eFG% and a bunch more FGA count as efficient? I'll have to go back and read your post again, I just assumed it was more of your ridiculous pro AI spew.

Never said that i was explaining that its unreasonable to expect him to be when he is pulling so much weight

AI is like any prima donna that can't tolerate not being the Alpha. Maybe it was the plan to surround him with defensive players, because offensive players couldn't see the light of the day with the black hole holding the ball. The NBA is full of cases where teams said one thing - like the Celts ML Carr saying the Celts were Championship driven in the Fall of 1994. That was a lie and a joke.

Carmello Anthony

So, AI comes up smelling roses and nobody else because he's your binky? LOL.

Lol insults niceeee

In English please.



Yes scoring is harder in the playoffs - maybe he shouldn't have pushed his offense that much harder in FGA to make up for the shortfall - that's the point. But no, your hero never would have thought of that - because he never thought of anything but himself.

who else on that team was going to step up

Told me? No, you've tried to make the case, but it's ****ing rubbish. Wilt played 45+ minutes per game in a lot of seasons - check out his FG%.

Wilt is a center and is arugeably the best one ever comparing him to a 6 foot guard is a biased an argument as it gets

How could anyone tell when the black hole of the NBA was holding the ball forever. Hell, for all we know the 2nd Michael Jordan played alongside him, but, he was never discovered.... :laugh2:.

Give me a list of Iversons Teammates who became better players after leaving his team.

Do I have to come up with my more subjective postings on AI? Stats actually make for a calmer argument IMO.

a little subjective discussion never hurt anyone

Oh I see. You're wise because you've admitted I and others have undermined your prior opinion on AI - and I can only be wise if I agree that my thoughts on AI have changed?

AI is low efficiency high FGA scorer. I never saw much if any evidence that he was making his team better once his shooting got over the 15 FGA level - which is was constantly. He played some D when he was young. He had a lot of will power. I might very well take him as my #1 choice for a sub 5' 11" 1 on 1 guy, too bad the NBA is 5 x 5 with one ball. His behavior was beyond the pale and out too lunch. If I was building teams to play in some all time league in the sky, I wouldn't have AI under any circumstances as long as we are talking top 250 NBA players all time. I would easily take Mo Cheeks over AI for instance.

That's all textbook what I thought about AI back in say 2007.

No im just saying we take such drastic stances in this argument that everyone else would see us both as crazy
[B]
Buddy I was a D1 player, and have Coached for 14 years on top of being a fan for decades. I can swing either way. Stats are useful for guys on the west coast I see 1-2 times a year. But for Eastern Conference guys that played for years? I have them right here in my mind. The 76'ers have had many better players than AI when the context is teams. Since the 3 and the dunk contest and ESPN most fans under 40 think that's most of the NBA. That's not the game, and a mini mite dunk 1 on 1 Champ type player that can't share the rock doesn't impress me - never has and never will.

Fair enough

So then, AI could only fit a very particular sort of team. How many all time greats suffer from that shortcoming? That doesn't recommend him - that limits him and devalues him in a team context.

Never once said the legacy he had was a positive one did i you seem to think im an apologist of sorts but i realize Iverson was a massively flawed player.

His various run ins with Coaches, the law, teams, etc. makes it hard to take this claim as a 100% reason for his shortcomings. BTW, was he handicapped in some way that he couldn't pass the ball?

Im going with the Kobe Bryant argument here you dont tend to pass the ball to people you dont think you can trust see kobe in 2006.

Wilt and Oscar played more MPG than AI, and both shot FG much better in their time than AI in his. Of the 20 guys near him in MPG and meh FG% in the post 1970 era is Marbury and Sprewell. Interesting.

Oscar is quite literately the 2nd best PG in history and Wilt is a center and therefor not worth discussing in this context. If oscar is as far back as you have to go to find an example of an efficient 40 MPG player that has effectively proven my point

Maybe his Coaches should have found him more bench time? Or maybe they were afraid of him.

No problems here i actually agree with this in fact i never felt Iverson should have been given the ability to check himself in his minutes should have been controlled more.

AI after age 32 fell off a cliff. Lots of NBA players lose it from age 30-35 - in particular 32-34 - no real evidence here for your claims. He was never a top 5 NBA player at any time, top 7-8 is it. That's great, few pull that off. But he could have done more and better.
Thats my point he didn't just decline he disappeared players skills dont just vanish like that normally.

bagwell368
02-26-2013, 11:25 PM
Carmello Anthony

Another player that I don't care for at all.


who else on that team was going to step up

I've answered that in the past, you and your cronies yucked it up. Sorry, not getting trolled again.


Wilt is a center and is arugeably the best one ever comparing him to a 6 foot guard is a biased an argument as it gets

Wilt is just one name I mentioned. I also mentioned guards and there are forwards as well. Funny you would have selective memory to try and walk away from a straight fact that supports my points and not yours.


Give me a list of Iversons Teammates who became better players after leaving his team.

I believe I gave that in the past as well. How about produce two non 76'er Stepford Wives fans that are actually interested - then I will. Also I said better before or after playing with AI, not just after.

AI is low efficiency high FGA scorer. I never saw much if any evidence that he was making his team better once his shooting got over the 15 FGA level - which is was constantly. He played some D when he was young.


No im just saying we take such drastic stances in this argument that everyone else would see us both as crazy

All the Coaches that formed my way of looking at the game would also decry AI - if they are still alive and I could find them. I'm talking over 40 years. It's enough as a Celtics fan that I can actually see where Russell fits in the NBA. Speaking of fitting - a few hours ago I thought about the way Celts fans that came after the Bird era overrate Pierce so much most of them on the Celts board here will tell you he was better than Bird. Same thing with Philly fans. It's been a long time since those great 80's teams faded away, and AI is the big man on campus, so since fans have to have someone to root for, that's what you do. If you had KG instead of AI, then KG would be the big favorite.

I'm not interested in conforming my perceptions and knowledge to the lowest common denominator - it's a waste and a completely false goal. You should wake up about AI, in some ways you're a sharp fellow, but, when it comes to this topic...


Never once said the legacy he had was a positive one did i you seem to think im an apologist of sorts but i realize Iverson was a massively flawed player.

OK. You have to understand I rarely discuss hot button issues with people that go to the mat on players they actually know to be flawed. It's unusual.


Im going with the Kobe Bryant argument here you dont tend to pass the ball to people you dont think you can trust see kobe in 2006.

Kobe hoisted 27.2 FGA in the regular season, with 11.6, 9.5, 7.8, 6.3 FGA's from the next closest 4 guys. However in the playoffs Kobe sunk to: 20.7, and the next 4 guys had: 14.1, 11.9, 10.3, 9.3.

AI's trip to the Finals year, in the regular season, AI had 25.5 FGA per game, next 4: 9.4, 9.1, 8.7, 7.8.

In the playoffs AI went to the unimaginable level of 30.0 FGA per game, next 4: 13.1, 9.1, 9.0, 6.9

Hmmm... the year before Kobe hurt his leg, in '05-'06 I'm not sure if that was in play, or Kobe change. One thing for sure, is AI was more AI in the playoffs - nice against teams with records of: 41-41, 47-35 (7 games), 52-30 (7 games). Outside of the classic OT 1st game the Lakers soundly won the Championship in 5 games. AI hoisted 32.4 FGA per game, and shot horribly in 3 games (all loses), and well in 2 - 40.7% overall.

OF the 14 players on that roster with 375 MPG or more played, AI was 10th in eFG% - .447 (that isn't good).


Oscar is quite literately the 2nd best PG in history and Wilt is a center and therefor not worth discussing in this context. If oscar is as far back as you have to go to find an example of an efficient 40 MPG player that has effectively proven my point

You were making a big deal out MPG, so i pulled a few off the top. There are 15 players post 1970, non centers, that played almost as many minutes as AI per game. If we go before 1970, we get West, Oscar, and some forwards as well.

Iverson
LeBron
Sprewell
Bird
Jordan
Durant
Marbury
S. Francis
Wade
Maravich
G. Robinson
Joe Johnson
P. Pierce
Paul
Kobe

Maravich and Sprewell were chuckers for sure along with AI. There is a good sampling of career lengths here, nothing unusual. Nothing to support your contention that AI played too many minutes.


Thats my point he didn't just decline he disappeared players skills dont just vanish like that normally.

Plenty of exceptions to the contrary.

Alayla
02-27-2013, 01:35 PM
Another player that I don't care for at all.

Thats fair but you seem to have missed the point its a high volume scorer AI worked with and both played well.

I've answered that in the past, you and your cronies yucked it up. Sorry, not getting trolled again.

cronies? yea sorry dont lump me tougher with other people i speak for myself.

Wilt is just one name I mentioned. I also mentioned guards and there are forwards as well. Funny you would have selective memory to try and walk away from a straight fact that supports my points and not yours.



I believe I gave that in the past as well. How about produce two non 76'er Stepford Wives fans that are actually interested - then I will. Also I said better before or after playing with AI, not just after.

I belive you have as well didn't it include Larry Hugues and Raja Bell? both well idk ROOKIES when they played with Iverson frankly you have yet to give a logical list that actually supports your point

AI is low efficiency high FGA scorer. I never saw much if any evidence that he was making his team better once his shooting got over the 15 FGA level - which is was constantly. He played some D when he was young.

Okay rationally speaking lets say you take Iverson of every one of the teams he was on and replace him with a league average SG, Do any of those teams barring the sixers in 2010 get any better.
This is the beef i have with your evaluation of Iverson you speak as if you actually believe he held his teams back and that he would be easily replaceable.

All the Coaches that formed my way of looking at the game would also decry AI - if they are still alive and I could find them. I'm talking over 40 years. It's enough as a Celtics fan that I can actually see where Russell fits in the NBA. Speaking of fitting - a few hours ago I thought about the way Celts fans that came after the Bird era overrate Pierce so much most of them on the Celts board here will tell you he was better than Bird. Same thing with Philly fans. It's been a long time since those great 80's teams faded away, and AI is the big man on campus, so since fans have to have someone to root for, that's what you do. If you had KG instead of AI, then KG would be the big favorite.

I actually do agree with you in this sense i doubt i would care nearly as much if he didn't play for the sixers but i also dont buy that being the only reason AI is seen where he is plenty of non sixers fans have i higher veiw of AI then i do and ive argued against him just as many times as ive argued for him many times on this forum as well

I'm not interested in conforming my perceptions and knowledge to the lowest common denominator - it's a waste and a completely false goal. You should wake up about AI, in some ways you're a sharp fellow, but, when it comes to this topic...

Now dont take it the wrong way im not saying we should change our opinions on the player due to what others may think i guess it was an attempt at humer at my own expense. Ironicly (see bolded underline)
That is exactly how i feel when im discussing this with you i can tell your smart but your also rather stubborn about this topic and sometimes i wonder why your so invested in it.

OK. You have to understand I rarely discuss hot button issues with people that go to the mat on players they actually know to be flawed. It's unusual.

Fair enough ill explain it then, Im well aware that he was flawed. but some of your posts seem to have a certain level of ignorance too them you repeat the same things over and over regarding Iverson and when people say things that conflict with your own opinions you seem to either laugh them off or just ignore them entirely and if you feeling generous go back to talking about FG% lol

Kobe hoisted 27.2 FGA in the regular season, with 11.6, 9.5, 7.8, 6.3 FGA's from the next closest 4 guys. However in the playoffs Kobe sunk to: 20.7, and the next 4 guys had: 14.1, 11.9, 10.3, 9.3.

AI's trip to the Finals year, in the regular season, AI had 25.5 FGA per game, next 4: 9.4, 9.1, 8.7, 7.8.

In the playoffs AI went to the unimaginable level of 30.0 FGA per game, next 4: 13.1, 9.1, 9.0, 6.9

Hmmm... the year before Kobe hurt his leg, in '05-'06 I'm not sure if that was in play, or Kobe change. One thing for sure, is AI was more AI in the playoffs - nice against teams with records of: 41-41, 47-35 (7 games), 52-30 (7 games). Outside of the classic OT 1st game the Lakers soundly won the Championship in 5 games. AI hoisted 32.4 FGA per game, and shot horribly in 3 games (all loses), and well in 2 - 40.7% overall.

OF the 14 players on that roster with 375 MPG or more played, AI was 10th in eFG% - .447 (that isn't good).

Im aware

You were making a big deal out MPG, so i pulled a few off the top. There are 15 players post 1970, non centers, that played almost as many minutes as AI per game. If we go before 1970, we get West, Oscar, and some forwards as well.

Iverson
LeBron
Sprewell
Bird
Jordan
Durant
Marbury
S. Francis
Wade
Maravich
G. Robinson
Joe Johnson
P. Pierce
Paul
Kobe

Maravich and Sprewell were chuckers for sure along with AI. There is a good sampling of career lengths here, nothing unusual. Nothing to support your contention that AI played too many minutes.

Good post actually productive and meaningful for once now tell me how many of those players where 6 nothing? GG

Plenty of exceptions to the contrary.

Key Word

farren.louis
02-27-2013, 01:56 PM
Ive been saying this for years. Allen Iverson was on a horrible team! He was the only one that could create shots for himself. He's only 6ftyet averaging 28ppg 6ast 2stl A game. He doesnt get the respect he deserves

Alayla
02-27-2013, 02:50 PM
Ive been saying this for years. Allen Iverson was on a horrible team! He was the only one that could create shots for himself. He's only 6ftyet averaging 28ppg 6ast 2stl A game. He doesnt get the respect he deserves

Actually the problem is some people give him too much respect so it creates a situation where people who know hes somewhat overrated go exerteme and flipping pound him into the ground and try to discredit him at every turn he was once called the most polarizing player in the NBA i cant help but agree with that.

bagwell368
02-27-2013, 10:21 PM
^

I don't give points for Iverson being shorter than most. That's what you do with the circus folk. The NBA is a meritocracy. Either you can, or you can't.

AI isn't an average SG. In his best years he was well above average, in his lesser years well below average. Some guys who have a more normal style of play are easier to replace. Players with an unusual style - say Rodman - are harder to replace. Difficulty in replacement doesn't prove he was good or great. It does tend to prove he was a tough guy to match others with on a team. For instance Wilkins. I hate his game. Talent galore, but, no real interest in being anything but the show. Tough to replace - and frankly I don't want too.

Here's a short list of players I dislike the most due to the way they play:

AI
Wilkins
Carmelo
Maravich
Theus
Antoine Walker
Sprewell
Aguirre
Vandeweghe

Too much shooting at a poor rate and/or lame D or rebounding

Hawkeye15
02-27-2013, 10:22 PM
Wait, we need an explanation for why a diminutive non shooter lost his luster early/quickly?

I thought it was something we all saw coming as he aged

Did anyone actually think Iverson would age well?

Alayla
02-27-2013, 11:01 PM
Did anyone actually think Iverson would age well?

na dont get me wrong i expected a drop but his drop came out of nowhere mabye its just becuase i wasnt mentally ready for it Kinda like when C Webb and jalen rose retired sure they where done but it sucked to see them go.

Hawkeye15
02-27-2013, 11:04 PM
na dont get me wrong i expected a drop but his drop came out of nowhere mabye its just becuase i wasnt mentally ready for it Kinda like when C Webb and jalen rose retired sure they where done but it sucked to see them go.

5'11", not a good shooter. When the elite speed goes in the early 30's, lights out. Its really that simple. I fully expected a fall off the cliff decline from Iverson.

Alayla
02-27-2013, 11:07 PM
^

I don't give points for Iverson being shorter than most. That's what you do with the circus folk. The NBA is a meritocracy. Either you can, or you can't.

AI isn't an average SG. In his best years he was well above average, in his lesser years well below average. Some guys who have a more normal style of play are easier to replace. Players with an unusual style - say Rodman - are harder to replace. Difficulty in replacement doesn't prove he was good or great. It does tend to prove he was a tough guy to match others with on a team. For instance Wilkins. I hate his game. Talent galore, but, no real interest in being anything but the show. Tough to replace - and frankly I don't want too.

Here's a short list of players I dislike the most due to the way they play:

AI
Wilkins
Carmelo
Maravich
Theus
Antoine Walker
Sprewell
Aguirre
Vandeweghe

Too much shooting at a poor rate and/or lame D or rebounding

there you go there is the value he adds to his team you have been painstakingly looking for. In the majority of his career he was well better than most players in the league at the time. Is that fantastic on an all time scale? of course not. but the comments you make about him not improving teams makes it sound like you think his teammates would have been better off without him and replaced him with some random yahoo. I think people would argee with you more and people would take you more seriously if you didn't make your points sound so over the top like you dont understand that in his day he was a star player.