PDA

View Full Version : Where Would Allen Iverson Rank In The League Right Now? Numbers May Surprise You



Clippersfan86
07-22-2014, 02:59 AM
I'm sure these types of topics have come up time and time again. Thing is in this day and age where we have advanced stats, he doesn't seem to stack up very well vs the best players in today's game. The volume stats and base stats show a legend to be sure, but when you dig deeper, you may be surprised how he stacks up today.

Some metrics to look at and weigh when ranking Iverson.

Career:

PER 20.9
52% TS
WS/48 of .126
Ortg of 105
Drtg of 106


Best year of each stat (doing this to show peak comparisons):

PER 25.9
56.7% TS
WS/48 of .190
Ortg of 115
Drtg of 99


Now mind you literally all of these bests came in different seasons.

Let's list some top players in this league for comparison. I'll try to stick to guards.


Westbrook:

Career

PER 21.1
52.3% TS
.136 WS/48
Ortg 107
Drtg 106


Best year of each stat

PER 24.7
54.5% TS
.195 WS/48
Ortg 111
Drtg 103


Derrick Rose

Career

PER 19.6
53.2% TS
WS/48 .135
Ortg 109
Drtg 107


Best year of each stat


PER 23.5
55% TS
WS/48 .211
Ortg 113
Drtg 101


Chris Paul


Career

PER 25.6
57.5% TS
WS/48 .246
Ortg 122
Drtg 104


Best year of each stat

PER 30.0
59.9% TS
WS/48 .292
Ortg 127
Drtg 102


Tony Parker


Career

PER 19.1
55% TS
WS/48 .150
Ortg 109
Drtg 104


Best year of each stat

PER 23.4
58.8% TS
WS/48 .206
Ortg 116
Drtg 99


Steph Curry


Career

PER 20.3
59.2% TS
WS/48 .153
Ortg 113
Drtg 108


Best year of each stat


PER 24.1
61.0% TS
WS/48 .225
Ortg 117
Drtg 104


James Harden


Career


PER 20.2
60.7% TS
WS/48 .192
Ortg 118
Drtg 106


Best year of each stat


PER 23.5
66.6% TS
WS/48 .230
Ortg 125
Drtg 105





Would Iverson be better than any of these guards today? I know around the time when hand checking was banned he had a career year in efficiency and exploded in Denver. Even then he wasn't as efficient as these guards. I tried to only add some of the elite guards in the league but if we throw in Lebron, Durant, Griffin, Davis, Love, Dirk, Noah... where would you rank Iverson?

So essentially rank him overall and rank him among guards as well.

goingfor28
07-22-2014, 07:13 AM
Idk but man do I miss AI :(

MonroeFAN
07-22-2014, 08:26 AM
2nd best player in the league behind Lebron.

JasonJohnHorn
07-22-2014, 09:01 AM
Iverson only scored a lot because he SHOT a lot. Look at his FG% throughout his career. One year he led the league in scoring shooting 38% from the floor just by taking 27 shots a game.


He steals are worthless because he took too many gambles to get them and let guys past, he was awful on defense (mostly because he gave up so much size, not due to lack of effort), his shooting was AWFUL.

Iverson was lucky that he was on a team that had literally NO other scorers and the coach had no choice but to let him chuck up shots.

What coach today would let a guy who shoots .400 take 25+ shots a game?

Put this in context, Kevin Durant has averaged 27 points per game on his career taking an average of 19 shots a game.

Iverson averages 26 on his career taking almost 22 shots per game. That is one less point on three more shots, and the only reason it looks that close, it because Iverson shot a truck load of free throws (he was great at getting to the line).


In all honestly, Iverson is a glorified Stephan Marbury.

mightybosstone
07-22-2014, 09:10 AM
Iverson was a fun player to watch and was a guy I respected growing up. But if I'm ranking my top 50 all-time players, he's probably not getting in. He might even struggle to crack my top 75. Offensively, he was just one of the most inefficient stars in the history of the game, and he wasn't remotely good enough defensively to make up for that. I'm not exactly sure where I would rank prime Iverson among guards today, but I'd rather have a prime Paul, Westbrook, Harden and Curry for sure. Rose is debatable because of the injuries and I'd really have to study Parker's prime stats to make a decent judgment in that argument.

JLynn943
07-22-2014, 09:12 AM
The offenses that Iverson played in need to be seriously considered when evaluating his numbers. Iverson never had another great offensive player around him in Philly that could take the defensive attention and pressure to score off of him like so many of the guards you listed (except maybe Rose). Most of those guards aren't even the primary scoring option like Iverson had to be.

I think it's very important to keep in mind how his numbers improved during the tail end of his career when he was finally playing with another scoring threat in Melo. Had he had that sort of help in his prime, I'm positive his numbers would be better.

JLynn943
07-22-2014, 09:17 AM
Iverson only scored a lot because he SHOT a lot. Look at his FG% throughout his career. One year he led the league in scoring shooting 38% from the floor just by taking 27 shots a game.


He steals are worthless because he took too many gambles to get them and let guys past, he was awful on defense (mostly because he gave up so much size, not due to lack of effort), his shooting was AWFUL.

Iverson was lucky that he was on a team that had literally NO other scorers and the coach had no choice but to let him chuck up shots.

What coach today would let a guy who shoots .400 take 25+ shots a game?

Put this in context, Kevin Durant has averaged 27 points per game on his career taking an average of 19 shots a game.

Iverson averages 26 on his career taking almost 22 shots per game. That is one less point on three more shots, and the only reason it looks that close, it because Iverson shot a truck load of free throws (he was great at getting to the line).


In all honestly, Iverson is a glorified Stephan Marbury.

Not even sort of correct. Look at how he played in Denver. His numbers improved dramatically when he got to play with another great scoring threat like almost all of these other guards listed have gotten to do. He was consistently the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd best option on those Philly teams. Put any point guard in the league on those teams and their non-volume numbers take a dive.

bmanjones
07-22-2014, 09:26 AM
Better than every guard you listed. Obviously behind Lebron and maybe Durant. Whats the point in comparing him to Griffin, Davis, Love, Dirk, Noah?

ManRam
07-22-2014, 09:31 AM
I think time will continue to be unkind on Iverson, fair or not. I do think some people have gotten a little carried away.

I think prime Paul is clearly a superior player. The rest of those guys, outside of Parker, probably haven't hit their technical prime, however. The year you cite as Iverson's best was when he was 30. Clearly Harden, Steph, Russ and Derrick haven't gotten their yet. And some of them have already had better seasons than Iverson's best pre-30.

bmanjones
07-22-2014, 09:55 AM
I think time will continue to be unkind on Iverson, fair or not. I do think some people have gotten a little carried away.

I think prime Paul is clearly a superior player. The rest of those guys, outside of Parker, probably haven't hit their technical prime, however. The year you cite as Iverson's best was when he was 30. Clearly Harden, Steph, Russ and Derrick haven't gotten their yet. And some of them have already had better seasons than Iverson's best pre-30.

Most people would consider the 2000-2001 season an okay season for Iverson when he was 25 and turned 26. Averaged 31.1 ppg, Led a team starting Dikembe Mutombo, Tyrone Hill, George Lynch and Eric Snow to the best record in the east, won another scoring title and the MVP. Averaged 33 ppg, 2.4 spg, 6.1 apg, 4.7 rpg in the playoffs and scored 48 in game one against LA. If he had any kind of help they would of actually competed for the title one player can only do so much. You act like when Iverson was thirty thats when he hit his prime, when actually thats about when he started to decline.

JasonJohnHorn
07-22-2014, 09:56 AM
Not even sort of correct. Look at how he played in Denver. His numbers improved dramatically when he got to play with another great scoring threat like almost all of these other guards listed have gotten to do. He was consistently the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd best option on those Philly teams. Put any point guard in the league on those teams and their non-volume numbers take a dive.

This is a fair point. I was of course speaking to the Philly days when Larry Brown let him throw up as many bricks as he liked. If you want to talk about the Denver days, let’s do that. George Karl didn’t let Iverson do whatever he wanted because he had other options, and Iversons’s FG% went up to a career-high 45%. If 45% is your career high… WOW! If this was the 60's, ok.... but today? There is a higher expectation.

Now, you might argue that Iverson’s offensive woes were the result of playing on a team that had no options, but I’ve seen many other players in similar situations shoot the ball much more efficiently. Iverson loved to shoot and he wanted to be in control of the ball all the time. He was not a TEAM player, he was a street baller that tried showing up everybody on the court, and it seemed clear that he was the kind of guy who honestly didn’t care if his team won so long as at the end of the game he could say he outscored everybody. I don’t know that, but I know the type, and Iverson fits it to a tea. Watching him play, all he seemed to care about was himself. There was a reason he was out of the league so early and a team like Detroit wouldn't play him.

Now, if Iverson was SO good… why is it that when he was traded for Chauncey Billups, Denver got to the conference finals where as they got knocked out of the first round twice with Iverson and Melo? Billups go to the conference finals with Detoit, Billups goes to the conference finals with Denver. Iverson gets knocked out in the first round with Denver? Detroit gets knocked out of the first round (in which Iverson didn't even play).

Anybody in this league can score 30 points a game if you give them enough shots. Iverson is proof.

And nobody seems to want to touch the fact that he was a gross liability on defense, ESPECIALLY when he was playing shooting guard.


Iverson is a great talent and a hard worker, one of the hardest, but he simply did not have a team mentality, and there is a REASON why NO tea, wanted him when he was still only 34 and willing to play.

If Iverson were transplanted back to his 'prime' (whatever that was), I would honestly be surprised is any GM that was in a winning situation would want him on their team.

I frankly would rather have Nate Robinson coming off the bench than Iverson.

ManRam
07-22-2014, 09:59 AM
Most people would consider the 2000-2001 season an okay season for Iverson when he was 25 and turned 26. Averaged 31.1 ppg, Led a team starting Dikembe Mutombo, Tyrone Hill, George Lynch and Eric Snow to the best record in the east, won another scoring title and the MVP. Averaged 33 ppg, 2.4 spg, 6.1 apg, 4.7 rpg in the playoffs and scored 48 in game one against LA. If he had any kind of help they would of actually competed for the title one player can only do so much. You act like when Iverson was thirty thats when he hit his prime, when actually thats about when he started to decline.

That's fair. Prime is usually around 26, with the best sustaining it until ~30 and other showing slow decline.


My point stands more or less. Yes, team success and counting stats say 26 was his best year. The more advanced individual numbers suggest it was 30. Either way, Harden, Curry, Westbrook and Rose are all in their mid-20s. And I think they're all (sans Rose) getting better. We'll see what they eventually become.

JasonJohnHorn
07-22-2014, 10:01 AM
Most people would consider the 2000-2001 season an okay season for Iverson when he was 25 and turned 26. Averaged 31.1 ppg, Led a team starting Dikembe Mutombo, Tyrone Hill, George Lynch and Eric Snow to the best record in the east, won another scoring title and the MVP. Averaged 33 ppg, 2.4 spg, 6.1 apg, 4.7 rpg in the playoffs and scored 48 in game one against LA. If he had any kind of help they would of actually competed for the title one player can only do so much. You act like when Iverson was thirty thats when he hit his prime, when actually thats about when he started to decline.

That Philly team made the finals DESPITE Iverson, not because of him.

In Denver, he actually had higher percentages. George Karl didn't let him go all crazy. He might have been quicker at 25 or 26, but I don't care if a guy is quicker when he isn't even shooting .400 from the floor and gambles on steals so often that the guy who has been shooting over his head all night also gets a clear path the the basket. In Denver Karl reigned that stuff in a little bit.

Iverson was more effective in Denver than in Philly.

And people go on about the 'help' in Philly. He had help. He had Stackhouse, and he chased him the fawk out of Philly because he wanted all the shots for himself.

People say 'if Iverson had help'.. Iverson didn't WANT helped... he wanted the carry the entire load and thought he could. That was his flaw, because he frankly was NOWHERE NEAR good enough to do that.

JasonJohnHorn
07-22-2014, 10:11 AM
If you really want a sense of Iverson's impact/style, ask yourselves two questions.

1: What PLAYOFF team would he actually make BETTER right now?

2: What elite player do you think would actually WANT Iverson on his team?

My answer to both is none.

TheNumber37
07-22-2014, 10:12 AM
So much Ai bashing..

This is left out, how would Ai fair in head to head match ups with the guys of today. I remember Iverson torching Kobe who was an elite defender... Yea, Kd takes less shots, he also shoots and makes more 3s. He also plays on a team with Westbrook who will regularly out shoot KD...

WADE is nothing more than a bigger stronger Iverson with a better team, coach and owner.
Prime Iverson on the heat these past 4 years and they are 4-O.

Maybe they lose to SA, but considering LeBron had no secondary scorer and with the pace of that game Iverson would Average 30. They'd compete.

When Iverson played in All Star games he was always good for 20 plus points and double digit assists, cause he actually played with talent...

I think if he had his own big three coming up like..

IVERSON, KG. And mutumbo
Or Ai, KG and kidd

I think playing with a PG, his shooting improves and with more scorers his assists go up

ManRam
07-22-2014, 10:15 AM
That Philly team made the finals DESPITE Iverson, not because of him.

See, I think this is were valid criticism crosses the line to just foolish hate.

Without Iverson that team is not going to the Finals, period. But the same can be said about a lot of those players. Theo Ratliff was an All-Star, and for good reason, for example. Dikembe was an All-Star too. I do think people get carried away when talking about how bad the team was. It was a great team. It just didn't have a dynamic second scoring option, which is fine. Defense is what got them to the Finals more than anything else, including Iverson's offensive game...but still, without that offense they aren't making it there.

He was a 12 WS player that year. He did post a 24 PER season. Yes, he was pretty darn inefficient, but in some circumstances that's fine, especially on a team like Philly. His ball dominating play took pressure off the rest of them. Ratliff had probably his best offensive season that year. McKie had his best offensive year ever that season. Eric Snow had his best season to date that year. Dikembe's play increased tremendously when he got to Philly that year. There are times when ball-dominant/low-efficiency players help those around them. Yes, efficiency is better than inefficiency, but on some teams exerting the constant pressure is really what matters most. I think those Iverson teams fit that billing.


Now, I don't think much if anything separates him from the guys in the OP, but still.


Again, I think time will continue to be unkind to him. We don't like gunners or high volume/low efficiency players, mostly for good reason. But I think it's gotten to be a little bit overkill.

ManRam
07-22-2014, 10:19 AM
So much Ai bashing..

This is left out, how would Ai fair in head to head match ups with the guys of today. I remember Iverson torching Kobe who was an elite defender... Yea, Kd takes less shots, he also shoots and makes more 3s. He also plays on a team with Westbrook who will regularly out shoot KD...

WADE is nothing more than a bigger stronger Iverson with a better team, coach and owner.
Prime Iverson on the heat these past 4 years and they are 4-O.

And this is precisely the problem.

You have guys who think Philly made it to the Finals DESPITE Iverson.

And you have guys who think Iverson is the second coming.


There's such little middle ground. He's too damn polarizing for a lot of productive discussion to ever occur.

AIMelo=KillaDUO
07-22-2014, 10:35 AM
Lol @JasonJohnHorn...

Bro, all I'ma tell you is this. When Iverson was traded his legs were shot. Could he still play? Absolutley, but he was a shell of his former self. You bring up his shooting percentage, but fail to mention he was 5'11" 165 pounds with his uniform and shoes on, while playing against these giants. AI did gamble a lot on defense, because he could. He was the best I've personally ever seen @ reading passing lanes. Yeah KD averages more points with less shots, Kevin Durant is also a foot tallerand 80 pounds heavier. LOL @ your glorified Marbury comment. LOL @ mightybostone saying Iverson wouldn't crack the top 75. or even top 50.

Back to JJH, yes AI shot a lot, because he had to. Who would you recommend he pass the ball to to help him score? Keith Van Horn? A 80 year old Glen Robinson? Chris Webber who had no knees. Kyle Korver? Jermaine Jones? Kevin Ollie? Look @ his stats when he finally got to play with a serious offensive threat when he got to Denver. Some of the stuff you said is pretty outlandish, so I really wonder how much you watched AI.

Some people hate on AI so much, and I think it's a cultural thing, that stems to the basketball. I'm personally affected by this with Kobe, I didn't like him off the floor, so I was so critical of what he did on the floor. The Nate Robinson thing you brought up might be the craziest thing I've ever heard. AI was only 2 inches taller, and saying you'd rather have Nate comin off the bench then a prime AI? Lol.. FOH.

You bring up Iverson's selfishness a number of times, check his assist numbers, and show me a coach, or ex-teammate, who said they didn't enjoy playing with him. Allen Iverson wanted to win so bad, to this day I haven't seen that desire in any player since he's walked away from the game. And the best chance in Philly was for him shooting 30 times a game, he dragged his team to the Finals in a stacked eastern conference.

bringbackfredex
07-22-2014, 10:35 AM
As if Iverson could have been any more efficient while playing with that pathetic offense for so many years. He had guys like Eric Snow and Aaron McKie playing next to him during his prime....

He led the 2000-2001 Sixers to the best record in the Eastern Conference and got them to the finals with basically only the defensive help of Mutombo. I don't know what more you wanted out of the guy, especially considering the fact that he finished his career with about 25,000 points and 2,000 steals.

rhymeratic
07-22-2014, 10:35 AM
I don't need stats to tell me anything. This is all you need to know...

http://gifpinner.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/starring-allen-iverson-featuring-michael-jordan-a-gif-story-1392417305g8k4n.gif

Jarvo
07-22-2014, 10:36 AM
If you really want a sense of Iverson's impact/style, ask yourselves two questions.

1: What PLAYOFF team would he actually make BETTER right now?

2: What elite player do you think would actually WANT Iverson on his team?

My answer to both is none.


Lebron everyone knows he loves him and Atlanta, Indy, Heat, Grizz

bringbackfredex
07-22-2014, 10:40 AM
That Philly team made the finals DESPITE Iverson, not because of him.

In Denver, he actually had higher percentages. George Karl didn't let him go all crazy. He might have been quicker at 25 or 26, but I don't care if a guy is quicker when he isn't even shooting .400 from the floor and gambles on steals so often that the guy who has been shooting over his head all night also gets a clear path the the basket. In Denver Karl reigned that stuff in a little bit.

Iverson was more effective in Denver than in Philly.

And people go on about the 'help' in Philly. He had help. He had Stackhouse, and he chased him the fawk out of Philly because he wanted all the shots for himself.

People say 'if Iverson had help'.. Iverson didn't WANT helped... he wanted the carry the entire load and thought he could. That was his flaw, because he frankly was NOWHERE NEAR good enough to do that.

This may be one of the worst posts I've ever seen on here. Can you even name anyone on that finals team without looking it up? I doubt it, so I'll tell you that they were starting guys like Tyrone Hill and George Lynch.

You think that team would have won 56 games without Iverson? Get real kid.

Jarvo
07-22-2014, 10:48 AM
Lol @JasonJohnHorn...

Bro, all I'ma tell you is this. When Iverson was traded his legs were shot. Could he still play? Absolutley, but he was a shell of his former self. You bring up his shooting percentage, but fail to mention he was 5'11" 165 pounds with his uniform and shoes on, while playing against these giants. AI did gamble a lot on defense, because he could. He was the best I've personally ever seen @ reading passing lanes. Yeah KD averages more points with less shots, Kevin Durant is also a foot tallerand 80 pounds heavier. LOL @ your glorified Marbury comment. LOL @ mightybostone saying Iverson wouldn't crack the top 75. or even top 50.

Back to JJH, yes AI shot a lot, because he had to. Who would you recommend he pass the ball to to help him score? Keith Van Horn? A 80 year old Glen Robinson? Chris Webber who had no knees. Kyle Korver? Jermaine Jones? Kevin Ollie? Look @ his stats when he finally got to play with a serious offensive threat when he got to Denver. Some of the stuff you said is pretty outlandish, so I really wonder how much you watched AI.

Some people hate on AI so much, and I think it's a cultural thing, that stems to the basketball. I'm personally affected by this with Kobe, I didn't like him off the floor, so I was so critical of what he did on the floor. The Nate Robinson thing you brought up might be the craziest thing I've ever heard. AI was only 2 inches taller, and saying you'd rather have Nate comin off the bench then a prime AI? Lol.. FOH.


Nate Robinson over AI :laugh: that dude tripping, I try to stay away from Iverson threads on here because all people do is bash and **** on him but I just always gotta put my 2cents in because he is my favorite basketball ever with along with Duncan. But seeing someone say that just makes me want to puke!

AIMelo=KillaDUO
07-22-2014, 10:52 AM
Nate Robinson over AI :laugh: that dude tripping, I try to stay away from Iverson threads on here because all people do is bash and **** on him but I just always gotta put my 2cents in because he is my favorite basketball ever with along with Duncan. But seeing someone say that just makes me want to puke!

I don't blame you, bro. I try to stay away because I know exactly what is being discussed. AI hater's all say the same thing, it's all routine, and sounds like ESPN talkin. Nothing original, all the things homeboy's talkin about is all stuff I was listening to his critics say in 2003. I tried hard not to comment, but I couldn't help myself. Not everyone will appreciate AI.

MinnesotaFtw
07-22-2014, 11:00 AM
AI is my favorite player of all time

bmanjones
07-22-2014, 11:11 AM
That Philly team made the finals DESPITE Iverson, not because of him.

In Denver, he actually had higher percentages. George Karl didn't let him go all crazy. He might have been quicker at 25 or 26, but I don't care if a guy is quicker when he isn't even shooting .400 from the floor and gambles on steals so often that the guy who has been shooting over his head all night also gets a clear path to the basket. In Denver Karl reigned that stuff in a little bit.

Iverson was more effective in Denver than in Philly.

And people go on about the 'help' in Philly. He had help. He had Stackhouse, and he chased him the fawk out of Philly because he wanted all the shots for himself.

People say 'if Iverson had help'.. Iverson didn't WANT helped... he wanted the carry the entire load and thought he could. That was his flaw, because he frankly was NOWHERE NEAR good enough to do that.


Your biased hate for Iverson is seeping through my monitor. Clearly you don’t like him at a player for whatever reason, which is great, you don’t have to many people didn’t like his attitude playing and the number of shots he took. But really, saying “That Philly team made the finals DESPITE Iverson, not because of him.” That team wouldn’t have won 30 games without him let alone make the playoffs. And Iverson didn’t chase Stackhouse “the fawk out of Philly”. If you actually watched them play together that year, it was pretty obvious their styles of play didn’t mesh at all and didn’t look like it would work out. If THEY felt they could only build around one of the guards and ship off the other, I think it’s pretty obvious they picked the better player.
And yes in Denver his FG% was higher. His career in Philly he shot 28.4 ppg and 42.2% and 23.3 ppg and 45.4% in Denver. When you play with Carmelo Anthony you are going to shoot less and have a higher FG%. Also when the ball is in your hands less you are going to have more assists and less t/o per game as well. So because of this you are not only saying he had plenty of help in Philly and the 2000-2001 sixers made the finals in spite of Iverson, but he was a better player in Denver? The points you made are ridiculous. When you play with Dikembe Mutombo, Tyrone Hill, George Lynch and Eric Snow and Aaron Mckie, players who cannot score and wouldn’t start on most teams, if you want to win you are not only going to have to take more shots to score but also gamble on steals, which he won most of those gambles and I actually remember specific games where he literally won the game by stealing the ball and scoring. He was small and beat up when he went to Denver and out of his prime. If only he had a great complimentary player who was a great facilitator in his prime he would have been “more efficient” and would give you the stats you want. Maybe your next point will be that speedy Claxton was a better all around player and more efficient.

slashsnake
07-22-2014, 11:25 AM
So much Ai bashing..



I think playing with a PG, his shooting improves and with more scorers his assists go up


Good point. When Dikembe Mutombo is your teams 2nd leading scorer (or Theo Ratliff the first 3rd of the year before he was traded for Dikembe), you have issues. They had a GREAT D. But its hard to find a team where the #2 option was a 12 point a game guy with no real offensive skill set.

Jarvo
07-22-2014, 11:35 AM
I don't blame you, bro. I try to stay away because I know exactly what is being discussed. AI hater's all say the same thing, it's all routine, and sounds like ESPN talkin. Nothing original, all the things homeboy's talkin about is all stuff I was listening to his critics say in 2003. I tried hard not to comment, but I couldn't help myself. Not everyone will appreciate AI.

Dude also said he couldn't make no recent playoff team better and no elite talent would want him on their team which is pure ********.

Chronz
07-22-2014, 11:41 AM
Most people would consider the 2000-2001 season an okay season for Iverson when he was 25 and turned 26. Averaged 31.1 ppg, Led a team starting Dikembe Mutombo, Tyrone Hill, George Lynch and Eric Snow to the best record in the east, won another scoring title and the MVP. Averaged 33 ppg, 2.4 spg, 6.1 apg, 4.7 rpg in the playoffs and scored 48 in game one against LA. If he had any kind of help they would of actually competed for the title one player can only do so much. You act like when Iverson was thirty thats when he hit his prime, when actually thats about when he started to decline.

So you really think AI stopped improving as a player at age 25 after 4 seasons in the league?

bmanjones
07-22-2014, 11:42 AM
That's fair. Prime is usually around 26, with the best sustaining it until ~30 and other showing slow decline.


My point stands more or less. Yes, team success and counting stats say 26 was his best year. The more advanced individual numbers suggest it was 30. Either way, Harden, Curry, Westbrook and Rose are all in their mid-20s. And I think they're all (sans Rose) getting better. We'll see what they eventually become.


Okay fair points. But when Iverson was 30, (2005-2006) he had a good year, played 72 games 43.1 mpg, 33 ppg shot and 44.7%, aside from exceeding his FG% twice, he never reached those numbers again. When you watched him play from his rookie year on, you had to think that the beating he took on a daily basis he wasn’t going to last long in the league. He was out of his prime sooner than other great players because of this.

I think Paul is the best argument against Iverson, I think Iverson is better but I wouldn’t say you were wrong in an opinionated argument if you say Paul is better. But although Rose is a great player and fairly similar, I think he has glass bones and unfortunately doesn’t look like he will be able to stay healthy and he is only getting older. AI was a SG in a PG body, Westbrook is just as fast maybe faster while being bigger. Both had/have great handling skills, and are two of the fastest players in NBA history. I think Westbrook is very similar to AI but a slightly worse version of him (IN MY OPINION). Iverson took a lot of shots, had turnovers and went for many steals but played on teams with very poor talent. Westbrook seems to do this and tries to do too much at time with great talent around him.

bmanjones
07-22-2014, 11:46 AM
So you really think AI stopped improving as a player at age 25 after 4 seasons in the league?

No I'm saying he started to decline when he was about 31, when he went to Denver. Which is understandable considering how he took a beating literally every game for about 10 years.

Chronz
07-22-2014, 11:55 AM
No I'm saying he started to decline when he was about 31, when he went to Denver. Which is understandable considering how he took a beating literally every game for about 10 years.

ManRam was talking about his peak season. I dont think he was at his best that "Finals run" year. That was just the year he had the best team built around him. Its obviously a great season by his standards but I felt like AI was a better player later on. Even in Denver I felt he played better than some of his Philly years.

He didn't decline significantly until he hit Detroit IMO.

Clippersfan86
07-22-2014, 12:00 PM
ManRam I agree that most of these players haven't played long enough for a direct comparison, which is why I tried to take peak numbers from all of them for now. Since most of these guys are in their prime or almost in their prime, I wanted to show how prime Iverson would stack up. I left off guys like Damien Lillard for example because they only had two season samples.

Chronz
07-22-2014, 12:22 PM
If AI had the chance to spend his entire career under the no handcheck rules, he would have produced the best out of everyone not named CP3

JasonJohnHorn
07-22-2014, 12:24 PM
So much Ai bashing..

This is left out, how would Ai fair in head to head match ups with the guys of today. I remember Iverson torching Kobe who was an elite defender... Yea, Kd takes less shots, he also shoots and makes more 3s. He also plays on a team with Westbrook who will regularly out shoot KD...

WADE is nothing more than a bigger stronger Iverson with a better team, coach and owner.
Prime Iverson on the heat these past 4 years and they are 4-O.

Maybe they lose to SA, but considering LeBron had no secondary scorer and with the pace of that game Iverson would Average 30. They'd compete.

When Iverson played in All Star games he was always good for 20 plus points and double digit assists, cause he actually played with talent...

I think if he had his own big three coming up like..

IVERSON, KG. And mutumbo
Or Ai, KG and kidd

I think playing with a PG, his shooting improves and with more scorers his assists go up

Are you comparing Iverson to Wade? They both play shooting guard. That is where it end. They have entirely different styles, and frankly, if Iverson were in Miami, Riley would have trade him years ago (likely wouldn't have drafted him) and NO WAY does LBJ go there to play with him.

JasonJohnHorn
07-22-2014, 12:29 PM
Lol @JasonJohnHorn...

Bro, all I'ma tell you is this. When Iverson was traded his legs were shot. Could he still play? Absolutley, but he was a shell of his former self. You bring up his shooting percentage, but fail to mention he was 5'11" 165 pounds with his uniform and shoes on, while playing against these giants. AI did gamble a lot on defense, because he could. He was the best I've personally ever seen @ reading passing lanes. Yeah KD averages more points with less shots, Kevin Durant is also a foot tallerand 80 pounds heavier. LOL @ your glorified Marbury comment. LOL @ mightybostone saying Iverson wouldn't crack the top 75. or even top 50.

Back to JJH, yes AI shot a lot, because he had to. Who would you recommend he pass the ball to to help him score? Keith Van Horn? A 80 year old Glen Robinson? Chris Webber who had no knees. Kyle Korver? Jermaine Jones? Kevin Ollie? Look @ his stats when he finally got to play with a serious offensive threat when he got to Denver. Some of the stuff you said is pretty outlandish, so I really wonder how much you watched AI.

Some people hate on AI so much, and I think it's a cultural thing, that stems to the basketball. I'm personally affected by this with Kobe, I didn't like him off the floor, so I was so critical of what he did on the floor. The Nate Robinson thing you brought up might be the craziest thing I've ever heard. AI was only 2 inches taller, and saying you'd rather have Nate comin off the bench then a prime AI? Lol.. FOH.

You bring up Iverson's selfishness a number of times, check his assist numbers, and show me a coach, or ex-teammate, who said they didn't enjoy playing with him. Allen Iverson wanted to win so bad, to this day I haven't seen that desire in any player since he's walked away from the game. And the best chance in Philly was for him shooting 30 times a game, he dragged his team to the Finals in a stacked eastern conference.

What does being 5'11 have to do with FG%?


First, Iverson is 6'0

Stockton was 6'0 and 170 and he shot over .500

Second, just because you get assists doesn't mean you aren't selfish. Who got more assists: Duncan and Iverson? Who is less selfish? If you want a point guard comparison, say the same thing about Calderon or Billups alongside Iverson.

He had to have the ball every possession and had to determine who was going to shoot. That is selfish.

JasonJohnHorn
07-22-2014, 12:34 PM
This may be one of the worst posts I've ever seen on here. Can you even name anyone on that finals team without looking it up? I doubt it, so I'll tell you that they were starting guys like Tyrone Hill and George Lynch.

You think that team would have won 56 games without Iverson? Get real kid.

They got 56 wins with Iverson... how many MORE would they get with Wade? Or Kobe. Or KD? Or Westy?

And look what he did in Denver? He gets traded for Chauncey, and Chauncey leads them to the conference finals after Iverson got knocked out of the first round back-to-back.

JasonJohnHorn
07-22-2014, 12:37 PM
Nate Robinson over AI :laugh: that dude tripping, I try to stay away from Iverson threads on here because all people do is bash and **** on him but I just always gotta put my 2cents in because he is my favorite basketball ever with along with Duncan. But seeing someone say that just makes me want to puke!

Robinson is cheaper, and less arrogant, and he's not going to be a problem in the locker room. He has hot nights where you can ride him, and other nights you can sit him on the bench when he's cold. Yeah. I'd take that over Iverson's big contract and use the money on save on a player that won't tank the team's efficiency.

Tony_Starks
07-22-2014, 12:37 PM
I'm so glad AI played in the era he did so his greatness could be recognized and he had his time as one of, if not the most popular players in the game. To play in today's spreadsheet fan era would be a complete waste of his talent. Not to mention the social media aspect where the typical fan would probably be more concerned with off the court stuff/ comments instead of his game.....

Chronz
07-22-2014, 12:48 PM
I'm so glad AI played in the era he did so his greatness could be recognized and he had his time as one of, if not the most popular players in the game. To play in today's spreadsheet fan era would be a complete waste of his talent. Not to mention the social media aspect where the typical fan would probably be more concerned with off the court stuff/ comments instead of his game.....

It could be the opposite, his numbers would look even better in todays game IMO. Besides, you didn't need APBR Metrics to label AI a chucker, and many of these numbers were around btw. I think he would still be popular regardless of when he played, he was that charismatic/interesting, but yes, his off court antics would probably hurt him more today.

Its funny how you mention typical fans blowing up off court stuff and also complain about fans who assess the game as in depth as they can. So what kind of fan base are you left with without those 2 anyways? Its not just the fans who quantify player performance either.


What Im wondering is if the Throwback Jersey era ever kicks off without AI.

JasonJohnHorn
07-22-2014, 12:49 PM
There is a reason Iverson only had one legit run at a title his entire career.

He was inefficient on offense, and he was a liability on defense. What else is there to say? Was he entertaining to watch? Yes. Was he a hard worker? Yes. But just because he lit up Kobe one knight and took Jordan to the hole once, doesn't mean his style of play helps a TEAM win.

The year they made it to the finals, he shot .389 in the playoffs. He playmaking was solid (6 assists a game to 3 turnovers), but anybody who thinks they made it to the finals because of his .389 shooting is smoking rocks.


Iverson did two things well: passed the ball, and drew fouls.

The reason that the 76ers were able to get into the finals was based on several things:

1: A VERY WEAK EAST (they beat the Bucks and the Raptors to get to the finals).
2: Great rebounding (thank you to Mutombo and Hill; though McKie and Iverson both rebounded well for their positions).
3: GREAT DEFENSE (this was Mutombo first, and then Hill, McKie, Snow and Lynch who were all solid team defenders; Iverson was and has always been a liability on defense).
4: VERY friendly officiating (especially in the Toronto series).


You put that 76ers team in the East now, or the West then, and they don't even win 40 games let alone 50.

People try putting this on context saying Iverson's % was low because he played with $#!T players and then boast that he made the finals and won 56 game... 56 games is good, not great, but people fail to mention how utterly horrid the east was that year.


Garnett played on a $#!T team for a decade and he never turned shot 38% from the field. how is having average players on your team a defense for a low %?

I'm not saying he didn't have talent, but he had the wrong mindset. If you put Chris Paul into Iverson's body, you'd have one of the greatest PG's ever. You put Iverson into Chris Paul's body, and you have Stephan Marbury.

valade16
07-22-2014, 01:00 PM
ManRam was talking about his peak season. I dont think he was at his best that "Finals run" year. That was just the year he had the best team built around him. Its obviously a great season by his standards but I felt like AI was a better player later on. Even in Denver I felt he played better than some of his Philly years.

He didn't decline significantly until he hit Detroit IMO.

I think that shows people how little talent AI had to work with in Philly. Nobody aspires to build a team of Aaron McKie, Eric Snow and George Lynch. That's called making the best of a bad situation.

Also, this idea that Iverson's inefficient ball hogging somehow hurt those 76er teams is ridiculous; he was the only player on that team capable of creating their own offense and none of the other players were even good complementary offensive pieces.

TS% 01 76ers:

Dikembe .580
McKie .549
Kukoc .523
Iverson .518
Hill .515
Lynch .496
Snow .488

Should they have run the offense through Mutombo?

That team had no offensive capability outside Iverson.

valade16
07-22-2014, 01:09 PM
There is a reason Iverson only had one legit run at a title his entire career.

Garnett played on a $#!T team for a decade and he never turned shot 38% from the field. how is having average players on your team a defense for a low %?

I'm not saying he didn't have talent, but he had the wrong mindset. If you put Chris Paul into Iverson's body, you'd have one of the greatest PG's ever. You put Iverson into Chris Paul's body, and you have Stephan Marbury.

Perhaps you should have used better examples of comparative players because although Garnett put up #'s on bad teams he never led them to a finals appearance and Iverson did (and many will say a big reason for that was Garnett not being able to handle the pressure of being the man in the playoffs).

And we're still waiting for Paul's finals appearance too.

And again, talking smack about Iverson's scoring efficiency without putting that i to context shows how biased you are, here is the playoff TS% for the 76ers that year:

Iverson .480
Mutombo .584
McKie .503
Hill .455
Snow .457
Jones .473
Lynch .507

So please tell me which of those guys you'd have wanted Iverson giving up shots for?

Here's how bad that 76ers teams was on offense, Iverson was one of their MOST EFFICIENT offensive players. Let that sink in...

Chronz
07-22-2014, 01:15 PM
There is a reason Iverson only had one legit run at a title his entire career.

He was inefficient on offense, and he was a liability on defense. What else is there to say? Was he entertaining to watch? Yes. Was he a hard worker? Yes. But just because he lit up Kobe one knight and took Jordan to the hole once, doesn't mean his style of play helps a TEAM win.
It might not be the way you want to win but a team CAN win with him at the helm. I think you should focus on just how meaningless of a fact that is. We've seen Richard Hamilton lead his teams offense to a title, havent we? RIP was not an efficient player in any way, AI was easily a superior offensive force to him.


The reason that the 76ers were able to get into the finals was based on several things:

1: A VERY WEAK EAST (they beat the Bucks and the Raptors to get to the finals).
2: Great rebounding (thank you to Mutombo and Hill; though McKie and Iverson both rebounded well for their positions).
3: GREAT DEFENSE (this was Mutombo first, and then Hill, McKie, Snow and Lynch who were all solid team defenders; Iverson was and has always been a liability on defense).
4: VERY friendly officiating (especially in the Toronto series).

The Toronto series does not stand out to me the way the Milwaukee series did. Even then, if theres one thing I give to AI, it was his performances in those G7's. I dont exactly remember the numbers but I remember him walking away victorious. Still, you're right about him having all the advantages in his favor, given the state of the league at the time. AI did what he was suppose to, that in itself should be commended, without that season, nobody looks at AI the same. To not choke is in itself a great trait in a player.

Chronz
07-22-2014, 01:24 PM
Perhaps you should have used better examples of comparative players because although Garnett put up #'s on bad teams he never led them to a finals appearance and Iverson did (and many will say a big reason for that was Garnett not being able to handle the pressure of being the man in the playoffs).
Let them say that. We can simply point to the fact that KG was NEVER in a position to do so the way AI was. AI SHOULD HAVE made the Finals given his cast/situation/competition. Show me just when KG was suppose to make the Finals? KG won a title in more impressive fashion so whats the point here?


And we're still waiting for Paul's finals appearance too.
Let me know when Paul has the best defense in his conference backing him.


And again, talking smack about Iverson's scoring efficiency without putting that i to context shows how biased you are, here is the playoff TS% for the 76ers that year:

Iverson .480
Mutombo .584
McKie .503
Hill .455
Snow .457
Jones .473
Lynch .507

So please tell me which of those guys you'd have wanted Iverson giving up shots for?

Here's how bad that 76ers teams was on offense, Iverson was one of their MOST EFFICIENT offensive players. Let that sink in...

True, AI played brilliantly with that cast. I think the argument is that he was forced to play with those kind of players because it was the best way to optimize his ball hoggery. I do think young AI was too selfish to thrive alongside great players, he pissed off his most talented teammate pretty quickly didn't he. Older, mature AI however was a phenomenal player. He was just on some truly bad teams that couldn't defend.

Tony_Starks
07-22-2014, 01:29 PM
It could be the opposite, his numbers would look even better in todays game IMO. Besides, you didn't need APBR Metrics to label AI a chucker, and many of these numbers were around btw. I think he would still be popular regardless of when he played, he was that charismatic/interesting, but yes, his off court antics would probably hurt him more today.

Its funny how you mention typical fans blowing up off court stuff and also complain about fans who assess the game as in depth as they can. So what kind of fan base are you left with without those 2 anyways? Its not just the fans who quantify player performance either.


What Im wondering is if the Throwback Jersey era ever kicks off without AI.


He would still be popular among just straight up hoop fans, but volume scoring is so incredibly frowned upon these days I doubt he would get much recognition from the "experts." He for damn sure would never get a MVP.

He played in the perfect era for him IMO. If he were playing now we'd probably have a weekly thread about how Iverson represents everything that's wrong with the NBA....

And yes indeed those throwbacks were dope, I still have my Wilt Chamberlain hanging in the closet!

mrblisterdundee
07-22-2014, 01:31 PM
Iverson only scored a lot because he SHOT a lot. Look at his FG% throughout his career. One year he led the league in scoring shooting 38% from the floor just by taking 27 shots a game.

Put this in context, Kevin Durant has averaged 27 points per game on his career taking an average of 19 shots a game.

Iverson averages 26 on his career taking almost 22 shots per game. That is one less point on three more shots, and the only reason it looks that close, it because Iverson shot a truck load of free throws (he was great at getting to the line).


In all honestly, Iverson is a glorified Stephan Marbury.

Allen Iverson's shooting percentage was low, but he was top-10 in free throw attempts and makes for 10 seasons out of his 14-season career. He has 6,375 made free throws, 12th all-time in the NBA. More than a quarter of his overall points came from the free throw line, which he was one of the best at getting to.
There's also the same argument that Kevin Durant has Russell Westbrook. We saw how things fell apart the year before last in the playoffs when Westbrook got injured. Meanwhile, a 6-foot, 165-pound mighty mouse named Iverson drug an offensive dead zone '76ers team to the finals.

THE MTL
07-22-2014, 01:36 PM
But he was so exciting to watch growing up! AI is my all time favorite basketball player. I dont care what yall say about him lol

Spanklin
07-22-2014, 02:00 PM
You haters are funny. Most those players listed in the OP aren't serious MVP candidates. Iverson was an perennial MVP candidate, and won the All Star MVP over McGrady, Kobe, Duncan, Garnett, Shaq, Yao, Nash, Dirk, Carter, James, Hill, Wade, & Pierce.

hugepatsfan
07-22-2014, 02:12 PM
You haters are funny. Most those players listed in the OP aren't serious MVP candidates. Iverson was an perennial MVP candidate, and won the All Star MVP over McGrady, Kobe, Duncan, Garnett, Shaq, Yao, Nash, Dirk, Carter, James, Hill, Wade, & Pierce.

Oh well is he won an AS game MVP.... GOAT

mightybosstone
07-22-2014, 02:36 PM
LOL @ mightybostone saying Iverson wouldn't crack the top 75. or even top 50.
I never said he wouldn't crack the top 75. I said I don't know that he would crack my top 75. I don't think he would crack my top 50, and I don't know why that's laughable. Iverson is 48th in all-time career PER, 80th in all-time WS and an underwhelming 207th in career WS/48. Why is it ridiculous to think I could come up with 50 players that are arguably better than Iverson?

AIMelo=KillaDUO
07-22-2014, 02:41 PM
What does being 5'11 have to do with FG%?


First, Iverson is 6'0

Stockton was 6'0 and 170 and he shot over .500

Second, just because you get assists doesn't mean you aren't selfish. Who got more assists: Duncan and Iverson? Who is less selfish? If you want a point guard comparison, say the same thing about Calderon or Billups alongside Iverson.

He had to have the ball every possession and had to determine who was going to shoot. That is selfish.

Trust me, he's not 6'0", but you're right, he is listed at 6'0"

What do you mean what does height have to do with FG%? Have you ever played basketball? Let me know your shooting percentage when you got a 6'6" guy guarding you and your only 6'0" tall. The offense ran through Iverson... by Iverson. I'm wish you would respond to more of my 3 paragraphs I wrote you, rather then one sentence. Have a seat, bro. Just stop, you didn't watch AI play and the things you say are evident. I don't mind discussing this, but you really have no idea what your talkin about.

mightybosstone
07-22-2014, 02:41 PM
You haters are funny. Most those players listed in the OP aren't serious MVP candidates. Iverson was an perennial MVP candidate, and won the All Star MVP over McGrady, Kobe, Duncan, Garnett, Shaq, Yao, Nash, Dirk, Carter, James, Hill, Wade, & Pierce.

Why would you bring up his All-Star MVP and not his 00-01 MVP? That's a far, far better starting point in favor of Iverson. All-Star MVPs mean practically nothing in the grand scheme of a player's career. Although you called ihim a perennial MVP candidate and I'm not sure that's totally accurate. Other than the MVP in 00-01, he finished fourth in 98-99 and fifth in 04-05. Those were his only top five finishes. Paul, Harden and Parker all have top five finishes in MVP voting. So why is Iverson a "perennial MVP candidate," but those guys "aren't serious MVP candidates?"

Spanklin
07-22-2014, 03:52 PM
I never said he wouldn't crack the top 75. I said I don't know that he would crack my top 75. I don't think he would crack my top 50, and I don't know why that's laughable. Iverson is 48th in all-time career PER, 80th in all-time WS and an underwhelming 207th in career WS/48. Why is it ridiculous to think I could come up with 50 players that are arguably better than Iverson?

How many other players on these lists had to play over 40 minutes per game on the reg? Iverson's numbers are skewed badly because he had to play through exhaustion every single game. At least 1/2 the players in the top 75 didn't have the stamina or mental fortitude to tough it out for those 2-3 extra minutes per half, and padded their stats by sitting on the bench for rest. Not Iverson, he left it all on the court like a true role model.

diu9leilomo
07-22-2014, 04:28 PM
i dun care if hes glorified stephon marbury or not, without iverson, half of us wont even be talking about basketball at this point

SILVER SEAVER
07-22-2014, 06:04 PM
Iverson was ahead of his time. Right now, in a scoring point guard driven league in his prime he'd be #1 no doubt with Westbrook and Rose right behind him.

JasonJohnHorn
07-22-2014, 06:14 PM
Perhaps you should have used better examples of comparative players because although Garnett put up #'s on bad teams he never led them to a finals appearance and Iverson did (and many will say a big reason for that was Garnett not being able to handle the pressure of being the man in the playoffs).

And we're still waiting for Paul's finals appearance too.

And again, talking smack about Iverson's scoring efficiency without putting that i to context shows how biased you are, here is the playoff TS% for the 76ers that year:

Iverson .480
Mutombo .584
McKie .503
Hill .455
Snow .457
Jones .473
Lynch .507

So please tell me which of those guys you'd have wanted Iverson giving up shots for?

Here's how bad that 76ers teams was on offense, Iverson was one of their MOST EFFICIENT offensive players. Let that sink in...

Firstly, you just listed percentages that were all higher than Iverson's

Secondly, even if his % was good in the context of the team he played for, which it wasn't, that doesn't mean that it was good enough to to be a top-ten player.

You want to compare him to Eric Snow, Lynch and McKie... great, that is exactly who you SHOULD be comparing him to, because he is NOT in the conversation with Chris Paul.

JasonJohnHorn
07-22-2014, 06:18 PM
Trust me, he's not 6'0", but you're right, he is listed at 6'0"

What do you mean what does height have to do with FG%? Have you ever played basketball? Let me know your shooting percentage when you got a 6'6" guy guarding you and your only 6'0" tall. The offense ran through Iverson... by Iverson. I'm wish you would respond to more of my 3 paragraphs I wrote you, rather then one sentence. Have a seat, bro. Just stop, you didn't watch AI play and the things you say are evident. I don't mind discussing this, but you really have no idea what your talkin about.

I did watch AI play... a lot... wasn't impressed.

My point about height is that there are a LOT of 6 foot players who ARE good shooters. being 6 feet doesn't give Iverson a reason to shoot 38% while jacking up 27 shots a game.

You are a good shooter or you aren't.
Muggsy Bogues, Earl Boykins, Spud Webb, and Nate Robinson. Let's throw in Isaiah Thomas.

Why aren't they all shooting lowers than AI?

kingkenny01
07-22-2014, 06:38 PM
Iverson didn't deserve the finals he got to, bucks got robbed by the refs, but he is still amazing only point guards in nba today I'm taking over him is Chris paul, derrick rose, and russell Westbrook. He is one of the fastest nba players ever and had some of the best handles ever too.

mightybosstone
07-22-2014, 07:03 PM
How many other players on these lists had to play over 40 minutes per game on the reg? Iverson's numbers are skewed badly because he had to play through exhaustion every single game. At least 1/2 the players in the top 75 didn't have the stamina or mental fortitude to tough it out for those 2-3 extra minutes per half, and padded their stats by sitting on the bench for rest. Not Iverson, he left it all on the court like a true role model.
Just because he played 3-4 more minutes per game than the average superstar does not justify the massive difference in inefficiency between he and the players ahead of him. Him playing 40+ minutes every night has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that he took 3,383 3-pointers in his career and made 31.3% of them. Or the fact that he shot 42% or worse from the floor in seven seasons. And if anything, the only person Iverson has to blame for playing all of those minutes is himself. If he wanted a rest, he could ask for one. And if he felt like he was playing too many minutes, he could player fewer.

The guy was a warrior, which is why I respected his game so much. But let's not use his minutes played to delude ourselves into believing that he was a better player than he really was.

bootypants
07-22-2014, 07:34 PM
If you really want a sense of Iverson's impact/style, ask yourselves two questions.

1: What PLAYOFF team would he actually make BETTER right now?

2: What elite player do you think would actually WANT Iverson on his team?

My answer to both is none.

Pacers.... without a doubt in my mind. I would have actually taken the Pacers over the Heat this past playoffs if AI started instead of Hill. Hands down.

meloman1592
07-22-2014, 07:43 PM
The disrespect. The blasphemy. The nerve. AI would be second to lebron right now. FOH

bootypants
07-22-2014, 07:50 PM
This whole thread is disrespectful.

When AI was in the league all i ever heard was his name being tossed back and forth with Kobe for best guard in the game.

Now he isn't making some peoples top 50?!

Come on now.

Let me ask you something, did anyone watch the Thunder in the playoffs without Westbrook? Please tell me how much Durant had to shoulder. How much he had to shoot, how many of those shots were actually pretty poor looks and still forced. Oh and tell me his FG%.

And whomever stated that 45% shooting from the field is horrific for a score first PG... what are you saying? Look at the stats of all Score first PG's and get back to everyone before you spew BS.

Jamiecballer
07-22-2014, 07:57 PM
I doubt he would exist in the current game. He would be forced to adapt and he would rather do it his way than be told how to play imo

mightybosstone
07-22-2014, 08:49 PM
The disrespect. The blasphemy. The nerve. AI would be second to lebron right now. FOH


This whole thread is disrespectful.

When AI was in the league all i ever heard was his name being tossed back and forth with Kobe for best guard in the game.

Now he isn't making some peoples top 50?!

Come on now.

Let me ask you something, did anyone watch the Thunder in the playoffs without Westbrook? Please tell me how much Durant had to shoulder. How much he had to shoot, how many of those shots were actually pretty poor looks and still forced. Oh and tell me his FG%.

And whomever stated that 45% shooting from the field is horrific for a score first PG... what are you saying? Look at the stats of all Score first PG's and get back to everyone before you spew BS.

I think you guys have no clue what "disrespectful" means. Just because other NBA fans suggest that a player you like isn't as good as you think he is based on solid factual data doesn't mean they're disrespecting him. It means they have a difference of opinion and they're basing that opinion on logic and evidence.

Alayla
07-22-2014, 09:20 PM
I'm sure these types of topics have come up time and time again. Thing is in this day and age where we have advanced stats, he doesn't seem to stack up very well vs the best players in today's game. The volume stats and base stats show a legend to be sure, but when you dig deeper, you may be surprised how he stacks up today.

Some metrics to look at and weigh when ranking Iverson.

Career:

PER 20.9
52% TS
WS/48 of .126
Ortg of 105
Drtg of 106


Best year of each stat (doing this to show peak comparisons):

PER 25.9
56.7% TS
WS/48 of .190
Ortg of 115
Drtg of 99


Now mind you literally all of these bests came in different seasons.

Let's list some top players in this league for comparison. I'll try to stick to guards.


Westbrook:

Career

PER 21.1
52.3% TS
.136 WS/48
Ortg 107
Drtg 106


Best year of each stat

PER 24.7
54.5% TS
.195 WS/48
Ortg 111
Drtg 103


Derrick Rose

Career

PER 19.6
53.2% TS
WS/48 .135
Ortg 109
Drtg 107


Best year of each stat


PER 23.5
55% TS
WS/48 .211
Ortg 113
Drtg 101


Chris Paul


Career

PER 25.6
57.5% TS
WS/48 .246
Ortg 122
Drtg 104


Best year of each stat

PER 30.0
59.9% TS
WS/48 .292
Ortg 127
Drtg 102


Tony Parker


Career

PER 19.1
55% TS
WS/48 .150
Ortg 109
Drtg 104


Best year of each stat

PER 23.4
58.8% TS
WS/48 .206
Ortg 116
Drtg 99


Steph Curry


Career

PER 20.3
59.2% TS
WS/48 .153
Ortg 113
Drtg 108


Best year of each stat


PER 24.1
61.0% TS
WS/48 .225
Ortg 117
Drtg 104


James Harden


Career


PER 20.2
60.7% TS
WS/48 .192
Ortg 118
Drtg 106


Best year of each stat


PER 23.5
66.6% TS
WS/48 .230
Ortg 125
Drtg 105





Would Iverson be better than any of these guards today? I know around the time when hand checking was banned he had a career year in efficiency and exploded in Denver. Even then he wasn't as efficient as these guards. I tried to only add some of the elite guards in the league but if we throw in Lebron, Durant, Griffin, Davis, Love, Dirk, Noah... where would you rank Iverson?

So essentially rank him overall and rank him among guards as well.

*Sigh* its THIS thread again
Look Iverson Arugeably dominated the ball too much in his career however
He had very little help on the offensive end until he got to Denver where as you stated things changed drastically for him despite being well past his prime.

Another Argument is as time progresses the game changes alot.
Take a look at how many more bigs there where in Iversons Peak years and how much more physical the game was Today its mostly based on speed and quickness things Iverson had in spades and i do feel he would have done well and had a longer Carrer in todays game

However i dont belive it would have been a better one lets breakdown Iverson as a player the way i did for Turner in another thread

Pros
+Possibly the quickest player for his era.
+Lighting fast.
+Elite almost street-ball type of handles.
+Fearless competitor with that go to mindset
+CRAZY Stamina (This guy clocked 40 minutes of high energy high hussle basketball a night even as the primary focus of the defense)
+Good mid to long ranged shooter later in his Carrer
+Resilient Injuried or Healthy this guy is like the energizer bunny he just doesn't have give in him
+Surprisingly Strong and Athletic
+BRUTAL open court player i dont think anyone out side of LBJ in today's game would scare me the way he does in transition
+Underrated Passer (not great but more than capable)

Cons
- Gives up too much on Defense (Alot of Reaching Not much Sliding his Feet)
- HISTORICALLY undersized for his primary position we are talking about a 6.0 SG
- Difficult to coach the game almost needs to run through him in order for it to function offensively
he has also been known to be very headstrong and want to do things HIS way (at least early on)
-Ball Dominate, People go way overboard calling him selfish but he NEEDs the ball in his hands to play at a high level we saw what happens when he gets away from that late in his carrer and it doesn't work
- Not Really a system player or an intelligent basketball player (very intelligent person however)

Overall that sounds like A LOT of players in today's game wicth is why even in a league more tailored to his type i dont believe he would have done any better the reason Iverson worked was because there was nothing like him physically at the time a guard that moved like that was unheard of even shocking but today we are so spoiled with people in this generation who trained every night to be just like him that his skillet seems almost normal looking back.

I still feel he would have some nice seasons and some pretty stats in the right situation today but i dont think he would be as loved or appreciated and NOT just because of the awakening of advanced stats they do have merit but they really dont tell the whole story and definitely not when comparing players of difference era's people forget Iversons MVP season was 13 years ago THIRTEEN YEARS! and he was 26 at that time time really goes by quickly and how quickly people forget.

In conclusion if Iverson came into this era assuming basketball ended up the same way even without him he would most likely be another Westbrook rather than the player we know him as today. But the idea itself isn't fair its like saying how would Wilt deal with Shaq sure wilt doesn't compare favorably but with the advances in human body's medicine tape and the like it only makes sense that he wouldn't. At least assuming the players as they where in there era where magically teliported here and didn't get to benefit from these new advances anyways.

Alayla
07-22-2014, 09:30 PM
Trust me, he's not 6'0", but you're right, he is listed at 6'0"

What do you mean what does height have to do with FG%? Have you ever played basketball? Let me know your shooting percentage when you got a 6'6" guy guarding you and your only 6'0" tall. The offense ran through Iverson... by Iverson. I'm wish you would respond to more of my 3 paragraphs I wrote you, rather then one sentence. Have a seat, bro. Just stop, you didn't watch AI play and the things you say are evident. I don't mind discussing this, but you really have no idea what your talkin about.

This is the core reason for Iverson's poor stats more than lack of teammates and much more than his *selfish* decision making.
People forget that at the time even playing SG under 6'3 or 6'4 sounded impossible to begin with.

Alayla
07-22-2014, 09:36 PM
Why would you bring up his All-Star MVP and not his 00-01 MVP? That's a far, far better starting point in favor of Iverson. All-Star MVPs mean practically nothing in the grand scheme of a player's career. Although you called ihim a perennial MVP candidate and I'm not sure that's totally accurate. Other than the MVP in 00-01, he finished fourth in 98-99 and fifth in 04-05. Those were his only top five finishes. Paul, Harden and Parker all have top five finishes in MVP voting. So why is Iverson a "perennial MVP candidate," but those guys "aren't serious MVP candidates?"

Lets get this out of the way Comparing Iverson to Paul is downright MEAN to Iverson
Paul has an honest chance of finishing his career has a top 2 point guard and clearly plays at a higher level than AI on both ends of the court

its also mean because Chris is a typical modern PG and doesn't depend on athleticism in any way.

This for me is like comparing John Stockon to Stephon Marbury its Apples to Oranges, there is no point.

Hellcrooner
07-22-2014, 09:41 PM
Rubio gets a 0.381 fg% = gets called a bust

Iverson gets a 0.387 fg% ( 2003-04) = makes the asg and people dubs him a top 3 player.



I guess Rubes should just start taking 30 shots a game? :shrug:

JEDean89
07-22-2014, 09:45 PM
If you really want a sense of Iverson's impact/style, ask yourselves two questions.

1: What PLAYOFF team would he actually make BETTER right now?

2: What elite player do you think would actually WANT Iverson on his team?

My answer to both is none.

hmmm, indiana pacers, miami heat... there are definitely teams that could use scoring from the PG spot.

Sandman
07-22-2014, 09:48 PM
Based on the numbers, I would say the only player clearly better than he was is Chris Paul.

Iverson's peak numbers (granted, in different seasons), are higher than everyone else's

Career averages help the players that haven't gotten old yet, I don't think any of those guys are older than 26 other than Tony Parker and Chris Paul.

AI has become very underrated over the years.

I think the conclusion here is CP3 is THAT good.

Alayla
07-22-2014, 10:12 PM
Rubio gets a 0.381 fg% = gets called a bust

Iverson gets a 0.387 fg% ( 2003-04) = makes the asg and people dubs him a top 3 player.


I guess Rubes should just start taking 30 shots a game? :shrug:

Yes lets use the ONE season when the man was so hurt he couldn't play and the clear cut worst season in his career
Lets also pretend like that was his best season really mature argument.

Alayla
07-22-2014, 10:14 PM
Yup People forget when Iverson was playing for the nuggets his Carrer Average 30 PPG behind only Jordan and Wilt among other things.

Sandman
07-22-2014, 10:34 PM
Rubio gets a 0.381 fg% = gets called a bust

Iverson gets a 0.387 fg% ( 2003-04) = makes the asg and people dubs him a top 3 player.



I guess Rubes should just start taking 30 shots a game? :shrug:
I'd like to see Rubio triple his shots per game and maintain the same shooting percentage

as if the defense is the NBA 2K14 computer and can't adjust to that

like somebody else said, you are also taking his worst season

AI and Carmelo posted their best or 2nd best field goal percentages when they played with each other and both still scored 24+. But they are selfish ball hogs.

You can't take field goal percentage at face value as if it is a dice roll or coin flip. The outcomes are not mutually exclusive nor are they anywhere close to random.

Players don't maintain the same field goal percentage with the more shots they take, there are diminishing returns. Like somebody else said, this can drive the offense in some cases even if the player in question doesn't directly get assists.

Alayla
07-22-2014, 10:50 PM
There is a reason Iverson only had one legit run at a title his entire career.

He was inefficient on offense, and he was a liability on defense. What else is there to say? Was he entertaining to watch? Yes. Was he a hard worker? Yes. But just because he lit up Kobe one knight and took Jordan to the hole once, doesn't mean his style of play helps a TEAM win.

The year they made it to the finals, he shot .389 in the playoffs. He playmaking was solid (6 assists a game to 3 turnovers), but anybody who thinks they made it to the finals because of his .389 shooting is smoking rocks.


Iverson did two things well: passed the ball, and drew fouls.

The reason that the 76ers were able to get into the finals was based on several things:

1: A VERY WEAK EAST (they beat the Bucks and the Raptors to get to the finals).
2: Great rebounding (thank you to Mutombo and Hill; though McKie and Iverson both rebounded well for their positions).
3: GREAT DEFENSE (this was Mutombo first, and then Hill, McKie, Snow and Lynch who were all solid team defenders; Iverson was and has always been a liability on defense).
4: VERY friendly officiating (especially in the Toronto series).


You put that 76ers team in the East now, or the West then, and they don't even win 40 games let alone 50.

People try putting this on context saying Iverson's % was low because he played with $#!T players and then boast that he made the finals and won 56 game... 56 games is good, not great, but people fail to mention how utterly horrid the east was that year.


Garnett played on a $#!T team for a decade and he never turned shot 38% from the field. how is having average players on your team a defense for a low %?

I'm not saying he didn't have talent, but he had the wrong mindset. If you put Chris Paul into Iverson's body, you'd have one of the greatest PG's ever. You put Iverson into Chris Paul's body, and you have Stephan Marbury.

Lets Compare a 6.0 SG on a back injury amoung others to a 7.0 PF sounds fun~! this totally going to be a fair comparison even more so in terms of FG %
And Regarding the weak east Tell that too the 2001 Lakers whos only playoff loss that season was given to them by none other than the 76ers

Alayla
07-22-2014, 10:54 PM
Iverson only scored a lot because he SHOT a lot. Look at his FG% throughout his career. One year he led the league in scoring shooting 38% from the floor just by taking 27 shots a game.


He steals are worthless because he took too many gambles to get them and let guys past, he was awful on defense (mostly because he gave up so much size, not due to lack of effort), his shooting was AWFUL.

Iverson was lucky that he was on a team that had literally NO other scorers and the coach had no choice but to let him chuck up shots.

What coach today would let a guy who shoots .400 take 25+ shots a game?

Put this in context, Kevin Durant has averaged 27 points per game on his career taking an average of 19 shots a game.

Iverson averages 26 on his career taking almost 22 shots per game. That is one less point on three more shots, and the only reason it looks that close, it because Iverson shot a truck load of free throws (he was great at getting to the line).


In all honestly, Iverson is a glorified Stephan Marbury.

Lets Ignore the fact once again Durant is about 6,11 With a drastically stronger supporting cast and isnt past his prime yet Remmber when Iverson was still on the nuggets that number was 30 PPG

Alayla
07-22-2014, 10:57 PM
Iverson was a fun player to watch and was a guy I respected growing up. But if I'm ranking my top 50 all-time players, he's probably not getting in. He might even struggle to crack my top 75. Offensively, he was just one of the most inefficient stars in the history of the game, and he wasn't remotely good enough defensively to make up for that. I'm not exactly sure where I would rank prime Iverson among guards today, but I'd rather have a prime Paul, Westbrook, Harden and Curry for sure. Rose is debatable because of the injuries and I'd really have to study Parker's prime stats to make a decent judgment in that argument.

I will be very respectful because nothing your saying is out of line per say but only 2 players in that list have a legitimate argument over Iverson Curry and Paul

Alayla
07-22-2014, 11:08 PM
This is a fair point. I was of course speaking to the Philly days when Larry Brown let him throw up as many bricks as he liked. If you want to talk about the Denver days, let’s do that. George Karl didn’t let Iverson do whatever he wanted because he had other options, and Iversons’s FG% went up to a career-high 45%. If 45% is your career high… WOW! If this was the 60's, ok.... but today? There is a higher expectation.

Now, you might argue that Iverson’s offensive woes were the result of playing on a team that had no options, but I’ve seen many other players in similar situations shoot the ball much more efficiently. Iverson loved to shoot and he wanted to be in control of the ball all the time. He was not a TEAM player, he was a street baller that tried showing up everybody on the court, and it seemed clear that he was the kind of guy who honestly didn’t care if his team won so long as at the end of the game he could say he outscored everybody. I don’t know that, but I know the type, and Iverson fits it to a tea. Watching him play, all he seemed to care about was himself. There was a reason he was out of the league so early and a team like Detroit wouldn't play him.

Now, if Iverson was SO good… why is it that when he was traded for Chauncey Billups, Denver got to the conference finals where as they got knocked out of the first round twice with Iverson and Melo? Billups go to the conference finals with Detoit, Billups goes to the conference finals with Denver. Iverson gets knocked out in the first round with Denver? Detroit gets knocked out of the first round (in which Iverson didn't even play).

Anybody in this league can score 30 points a game if you give them enough shots. Iverson is proof.

And nobody seems to want to touch the fact that he was a gross liability on defense, ESPECIALLY when he was playing shooting guard.


Iverson is a great talent and a hard worker, one of the hardest, but he simply did not have a team mentality, and there is a REASON why NO tea, wanted him when he was still only 34 and willing to play.

If Iverson were transplanted back to his 'prime' (whatever that was), I would honestly be surprised is any GM that was in a winning situation would want him on their team.

I frankly would rather have Nate Robinson coming off the bench than Iverson.

Okay i will Adress these points one at a time
1. NO Iverson on more than one occasion can be seen crying atfer losing games he had a DEEP passion for the game and WANTED to win at any cost and proved that during his time with larry brown he shook up his game ALOT for brown

2. Lets ignore the fact that in round one the nuggets lost to the Lakers and in the WFC with Billups? Lost to the Lakers BIG CHANGE RIGHT? not to mention Billups was a better fit as a player next to mello because Mello was a Volume Scorer himself.

3. Anyone? Really Lets see Austin Rivers Drop 30 PPG tell me how that works out for you.

Alayla
07-22-2014, 11:12 PM
That Philly team made the finals DESPITE Iverson, not because of him.

In Denver, he actually had higher percentages. George Karl didn't let him go all crazy. He might have been quicker at 25 or 26, but I don't care if a guy is quicker when he isn't even shooting .400 from the floor and gambles on steals so often that the guy who has been shooting over his head all night also gets a clear path the the basket. In Denver Karl reigned that stuff in a little bit.

Iverson was more effective in Denver than in Philly.

And people go on about the 'help' in Philly. He had help. He had Stackhouse, and he chased him the fawk out of Philly because he wanted all the shots for himself.

People say 'if Iverson had help'.. Iverson didn't WANT helped... he wanted the carry the entire load and thought he could. That was his flaw, because he frankly was NOWHERE NEAR good enough to do that.

That is by far the most Asinine thing i have EVER read in my life are you honestly sitting here telling me that team makes the NBA Finals and in fact does BETTER as a team if you take Iverson OFF it? What the acutal ****? they wouldn't have won 30 games.

Alayla
07-22-2014, 11:17 PM
If you really want a sense of Iverson's impact/style, ask yourselves two questions.

1: What PLAYOFF team would he actually make BETTER right now?

2: What elite player do you think would actually WANT Iverson on his team?

My answer to both is none.

1.
Mavs
Pacers
Hawks
Hornets
Trailblazers
Nets
Grizzlies
Bulls

2.Kobe and Wade have both been on record asking there teams to pick him up well beyond the point of his decline.

ziglur
07-22-2014, 11:46 PM
If you really want a sense of Iverson's impact/style, ask yourselves two questions.

1: What PLAYOFF team would he actually make BETTER right now?

2: What elite player do you think would actually WANT Iverson on his team?

My answer to both is none.

Iverson is to old to make anybody better right now. Iverson is to old for any elite player to want him on his team right now. But I wouldnt ask myself this question because it means nothing that an elite player wouldnt want him on his team. As far as him helping a playoff team there are a few he could have helped in his prime.

Alayla
07-23-2014, 12:15 PM
Iverson is to old to make anybody better right now. Iverson is to old for any elite player to want him on his team right now. But I wouldnt ask myself this question because it means nothing that an elite player wouldnt want him on his team. As far as him helping a playoff team there are a few he could have helped in his prime.

Im assuming he has enough intelligence to know this and he is talking about his peak but who knows given his other posts.

Dade County
07-23-2014, 12:37 PM
Ai would simple destroy players like Cp3, Harden, Curry, Rose...etc. They wouldn't be able to stay in front of him, he would constantly get into the lane.

Westbrook would hold his own against him because of his athleticism on both sides of the ball.


Cp3 & Parker would be the better floor general's, Curry would be the better shooter, Rose when healthy is the stronger driver and finisher (the same with WestBrook), Harden isn't even in the same class as Ai.

yes Ai jacked up shots, but so does Kobe... If Ai had a better front office, everyone would think differently of him. Replace Kobe with Ai, he has those 3 rings with Shaq in his prime (that can be said with other guards too).

hugepatsfan
07-23-2014, 01:50 PM
Why do people point out that AI is short/small as a justification for being inefficient. It definitely contributes but his height/size is what it is. If that makes him inefficient or unable to defender bigger guards or anything else then that makes him a lesser player. People use it to explain those things like somehow that means they are no longer deficiencies in his game. I respect what he was able to accomplish despite his dimunutive stature (relative to NBA players - at 5'6" I'm in no position to really be calling people dimunitive) but any weaknesses in is game that it created are a part of who he is as a player.

FlashBolt
07-23-2014, 04:51 PM
An inefficient shot jacker who posed as a PG.. His numbers prove he's just a shot jacker. Nothing to it.

AIMelo=KillaDUO
07-23-2014, 06:26 PM
I did watch AI play... a lot... wasn't impressed.

My point about height is that there are a LOT of 6 foot players who ARE good shooters. being 6 feet doesn't give Iverson a reason to shoot 38% while jacking up 27 shots a game.

You are a good shooter or you aren't.
Muggsy Bogues, Earl Boykins, Spud Webb, and Nate Robinson. Let's throw in Isaiah Thomas.

Why aren't they all shooting lowers than AI?

Lol are serious? Your're 5th, 6th, and 7th options on a team... all of them combined don't average what AI averaged. replace AI on that 2001 76er team with those 3 guys you mentioned and what do you think the result is. You're ridiculous.

b@llhog24
07-23-2014, 11:50 PM
I don't need stats to tell me anything. This is all you need to know...

http://gifpinner.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/starring-allen-iverson-featuring-michael-jordan-a-gif-story-1392417305g8k4n.gif

My sig always says all you need to know.

mavwar53
07-24-2014, 12:09 AM
I'm not an Iverson fan but I'd have to put him just a notch above Curry and CP3, Iverson would be better now than then because even though his time was when the league started getting soft the league is 5x softer now especially with the lack of real centers in the game and so many PFs that would rather sit on the perimeter and act like a small guy than bang inside. My memories of Iverson are of him getting knocked to the ground intentional or not, it wouldn't happen nearly as much now as it did then.

Plus even defense at the guard position has dropped dramatically, guys are all about offense, kinda ties in why I wouldn't trade Klay for Love.

Tony_Starks
07-24-2014, 12:10 AM
You know it's a sad state of basketball affairs when you see people say stuff like they used to think AI was great but now with the advent of advanced stats they realize he wasn't very good.

A simple rule of thumb: if you need metrics, graphs, or workflows to determine how good AI was you're probably not qualified to speak on him....

Hellcrooner
07-24-2014, 12:12 AM
Advanced stats dudes have stepped in into the FO of the teams.
Iverson would be a starter in a lottery team averaging 35 a game on awufl % and Advanced metrics and signing back for a max contract to get overpaid in said lottery team.

thats it.

Jamiecballer
07-24-2014, 04:34 PM
You know it's a sad state of basketball affairs when you see people say stuff like they used to think AI was great but now with the advent of advanced stats they realize he wasn't very good.

A simple rule of thumb: if you need metrics, graphs, or workflows to determine how good AI was you're probably not qualified to speak on him....

you think? i think it's great that people are learning to examine what leads to winning instead of cheering for what "feels good".

you are a fan of highlight reels and "skills"? great. i can't blame fans for wanting to be entertained.

but the goal of every organization and every fan who wants to understand the game better should be to look at what leads to winning and learn to properly value what they "see" on the court, as well as what they maybe aren't seeing.

Sandman
07-24-2014, 04:45 PM
you think? i think it's great that people are learning to examine what leads to winning instead of cheering for what "feels good".

you are a fan of highlight reels and "skills"? great. i can't blame fans for wanting to be entertained.

but the goal of every organization and every fan who wants to understand the game better should be to look at what leads to winning and learn to properly value what they "see" on the court, as well as what they maybe aren't seeing.

This is all based on the idea that players will continue to shoot the same percentages if they take more or if they take fewer shots.

It is deeply flawed.

AI and AI's teams were very successful too.

Tony_Starks
07-24-2014, 05:48 PM
you think? i think it's great that people are learning to examine what leads to winning instead of cheering for what "feels good".

you are a fan of highlight reels and "skills"? great. i can't blame fans for wanting to be entertained.

but the goal of every organization and every fan who wants to understand the game better should be to look at what leads to winning and learn to properly value what they "see" on the court, as well as what they maybe aren't seeing.

Question: if you were forced to watch a game in which there were no stats provided, not even ppg rpg apg fg% (which are all apparently "archaic" stats now), how would you determine who the best player on the court was?

Once that determination was made if someone gave you a in depth stat sheet that contradicted what you thought would you change your opinion?

KnicksorBust
07-24-2014, 05:50 PM
Right ahead of Monta Ellis.

Jamiecballer
07-24-2014, 05:54 PM
This is all based on the idea that players will continue to shoot the same percentages if they take more or if they take fewer shots.

It is deeply flawed.

AI and AI's teams were very successful too.
No its got nothing to do with any of that. Its about selfishness and strategy and not being fooled by your eyes.

Its about recognizing that keeping teammates engaged and involved is important and that getting 12 foot gimmes for the likes of Matt Geiger is more productive (even if they are crappy shooters) than shooting 20+ times a game when you shoot a putrid percentage.

TheMightyHumph
07-25-2014, 12:10 AM
I'm sure these types of topics have come up time and time again. Thing is in this day and age where we have advanced stats, he doesn't seem to stack up very well vs the best players in today's game. The volume stats and base stats show a legend to be sure, but when you dig deeper, you may be surprised how he stacks up today.

Some metrics to look at and weigh when ranking Iverson.

Career:

PER 20.9
52% TS
WS/48 of .126
Ortg of 105
Drtg of 106


Best year of each stat (doing this to show peak comparisons):

PER 25.9
56.7% TS
WS/48 of .190
Ortg of 115
Drtg of 99


Now mind you literally all of these bests came in different seasons.

Let's list some top players in this league for comparison. I'll try to stick to guards.


Westbrook:

Career

PER 21.1
52.3% TS
.136 WS/48
Ortg 107
Drtg 106


Best year of each stat

PER 24.7
54.5% TS
.195 WS/48
Ortg 111
Drtg 103


Derrick Rose

Career

PER 19.6
53.2% TS
WS/48 .135
Ortg 109
Drtg 107


Best year of each stat


PER 23.5
55% TS
WS/48 .211
Ortg 113
Drtg 101


Chris Paul


Career

PER 25.6
57.5% TS
WS/48 .246
Ortg 122
Drtg 104


Best year of each stat

PER 30.0
59.9% TS
WS/48 .292
Ortg 127
Drtg 102


Tony Parker


Career

PER 19.1
55% TS
WS/48 .150
Ortg 109
Drtg 104


Best year of each stat

PER 23.4
58.8% TS
WS/48 .206
Ortg 116
Drtg 99


Steph Curry


Career

PER 20.3
59.2% TS
WS/48 .153
Ortg 113
Drtg 108


Best year of each stat


PER 24.1
61.0% TS
WS/48 .225
Ortg 117
Drtg 104


James Harden


Career


PER 20.2
60.7% TS
WS/48 .192
Ortg 118
Drtg 106


Best year of each stat


PER 23.5
66.6% TS
WS/48 .230
Ortg 125
Drtg 105





Would Iverson be better than any of these guards today? I know around the time when hand checking was banned he had a career year in efficiency and exploded in Denver. Even then he wasn't as efficient as these guards. I tried to only add some of the elite guards in the league but if we throw in Lebron, Durant, Griffin, Davis, Love, Dirk, Noah... where would you rank Iverson?

So essentially rank him overall and rank him among guards as well.

If the NBA was played on paper, Iverson would look much as a player then he was.

vangrumpy
07-25-2014, 12:48 AM
I just remember what I saw on the court. Iverson was explosive and so darn talented. You take any of those guards and Iverson would light them up. No one mentions how luck plays a major part of defining a career. If you happen to be lucky enough to get coached by Phil Jackson, Popovich or any of those organizations that have the right system, collection of talent and mentoring early on, you would be in a position to really succeed. Prime Iverson could flat out score. They gave him the shots because he had the talent to do it. I guess some people do not like Iverson's image. He gets flack for his practice comment...but I think he was just being defensive. That guy played all out on the court...you didn't see him fade under pressure like some players. The guy would still dominate in today's game because he was super athletic and one of the fastest guys in the league. You can get too carried away with stats....try to actually guard Iverson one on one and see what happens.

Sandman
07-25-2014, 10:00 AM
No its got nothing to do with any of that. Its about selfishness and strategy and not being fooled by your eyes.

Its about recognizing that keeping teammates engaged and involved is important and that getting 12 foot gimmes for the likes of Matt Geiger is more productive (even if they are crappy shooters) than shooting 20+ times a game when you shoot a putrid percentage.
Its not just the eyes, until Iguodola came around there was nobody on that team able to carry any type of load
next to him. You can see that in the numbers too.

AI's most efficient season came with Carmelo, that is no surprise

How do you suppose the 12 foot gimmies for Matt Geiger materialize?

Its not like AI is corrupting the Spurs

Jamiecballer
07-25-2014, 11:43 AM
Its not just the eyes, until Iguodola came around there was nobody on that team able to carry any type of load
next to him. You can see that in the numbers too.

AI's most efficient season came with Carmelo, that is no surprise

How do you suppose the 12 foot gimmies for Matt Geiger materialize?

Its not like AI is corrupting the Spurs
They don't materialize and that was the point. The guy had an unreal ability to get to the basket and draw defenders but he failed to use that skill to its full benefit I'd say.

Sandman
07-25-2014, 02:36 PM
They don't materialize and that was the point. The guy had an unreal ability to get to the basket and draw defenders but he failed to use that skill to its full benefit I'd say.
They do materialize. I'm not trying to say every chucker is the same, but there are some that are great players on bad teams. Individual numbers can be inefficient even if the team itself is running its most efficient offense.

We're talking about Matt freaking Geiger for crying out loud, this is part of the problem. He has similar assist numbers to Westbrook and DRose too.

Why does AI post a career high TS% playing with Carmelo Anthony? Its not like he peaked on the court @ 32.

The "poor Eastern Conference" angle doesn't really work either. That still makes them #1 out of 14 or 15 teams largely on the back of AI. What of the players on the other teams if AI is a scrub?

Who else on that team is supposed to carry even a small scoring load?

In an era where LeBron went to South Beach to win titles, how many more games or playoff series does AI win with another all-star? I think at the very least they would have had a run of EC Titles.

Give him C-Webb in 98 when he went to Sacramento, are you telling me AI holds the team DOWN?

Jamiecballer
07-25-2014, 06:55 PM
They do materialize. I'm not trying to say every chucker is the same, but there are some that are great players on bad teams. Individual numbers can be inefficient even if the team itself is running its most efficient offense.

We're talking about Matt freaking Geiger for crying out loud, this is part of the problem. He has similar assist numbers to Westbrook and DRose too.

Why does AI post a career high TS% playing with Carmelo Anthony? Its not like he peaked on the court @ 32.

The "poor Eastern Conference" angle doesn't really work either. That still makes them #1 out of 14 or 15 teams largely on the back of AI. What of the players on the other teams if AI is a scrub?

Who else on that team is supposed to carry even a small scoring load?

In an era where LeBron went to South Beach to win titles, how many more games or playoff series does AI win with another all-star? I think at the very least they would have had a run of EC Titles.

Give him C-Webb in 98 when he went to Sacramento, are you telling me AI holds the team DOWN?
Let's stick to Iverson since that is the thread topic.

I'm not sure if you are just glossing over my point or purposely being obtuse. Those who defend Iverson's chucking ways always bring up the blue collar guys that Sixer's management purposely surrounded Iverson with. Geiger was just an example. The point was, if Iverson ever cared to put his unreal ability to draw and break down the defense to generate opportunities for his teammates his teams would have been better. If he sacrificed 1 out of every 4 shot attempts and put that effort into creating an open look for a teammate he would have been a legend instead of a cautionary tale.

All we need to do is look at James. He accomplished more with less early on in Cleveland by recognizing that his unstoppable ability on offense was even more potent when he looked for others first.

But Iverson always wanted to take on the other team by himself. In fact, Iverson IMO was basically Kobe without the benefit of being tall.

Sandman
07-25-2014, 07:38 PM
Let's stick to Iverson since that is the thread topic.

I'm not sure if you are just glossing over my point or purposely being obtuse. Those who defend Iverson's chucking ways always bring up the blue collar guys that Sixer's management purposely surrounded Iverson with. Geiger was just an example. The point was, if Iverson ever cared to put his unreal ability to draw and break down the defense to generate opportunities for his teammates his teams would have been better. If he sacrificed 1 out of every 4 shot attempts and put that effort into creating an open look for a teammate he would have been a legend instead of a cautionary tale.

All we need to do is look at James. He accomplished more with less early on in Cleveland by recognizing that his unstoppable ability on offense was even more potent when he looked for others first.

But Iverson always wanted to take on the other team by himself. In fact, Iverson IMO was basically Kobe without the benefit of being tall.
I'm not sure where I deviated from Iverson, but you went straight into LeBron James here... no need to be a prick.

It has been my general observation that a player will be more efficient with more talent around them because of double teams and the focus of the defense.

I also think that there reaches a point of diminishing returns with FG-FGA, and some players would shoot a higher percentage just by shooting less.

You wouldn't need AI to change the type of player he is for these two things to happen. AI's possessions go down because there is another player to create or get the ball before he does. His possessions also get better because there are other players on the floor for the defense to worry about, we're talking about a guy that needed an inch to blow by somebody.

It's not like he never looked for his teammates either. Like I said, he has about the same assist numbers as RWB and D-Rose (is this deviating from the topic?) and he played a lot of 2 guard.

James is a great example too. His field goal percentages have gone up year after year despite shooting more 3s. He also hasn't matched the same assist numbers from his last year in Cleveland even though he clearly has better teammates and has been less selfish.

Jamiecballer
07-25-2014, 10:01 PM
I'm not sure where I deviated from Iverson, but you went straight into LeBron James here... no need to be a prick.

It has been my general observation that a player will be more efficient with more talent around them because of double teams and the focus of the defense.

I also think that there reaches a point of diminishing returns with FG-FGA, and some players would shoot a higher percentage just by shooting less.

You wouldn't need AI to change the type of player he is for these two things to happen. AI's possessions go down because there is another player to create or get the ball before he does. His possessions also get better because there are other players on the floor for the defense to worry about, we're talking about a guy that needed an inch to blow by somebody.

It's not like he never looked for his teammates either. Like I said, he has about the same assist numbers as RWB and D-Rose (is this deviating from the topic?) and he played a lot of 2 guard.

James is a great example too. His field goal percentages have gone up year after year despite shooting more 3s. He also hasn't matched the same assist numbers from his last year in Cleveland even though he clearly has better teammates and has been less selfish.
I wasn't meaning to offend, I am sorry if I did.

As for your post I agree with everything you are saying, at least in theory. The one element you are missing, IMO, is that a player needs to have a willingness or inclination to work with others as a unit, something Iverson never gave any indication of IMO.

Guys like Iverson seem to see the NBA as the ultimate game of one on one rather than the highest level of team basketball in the world.

Chronz
07-26-2014, 02:06 AM
You know it's a sad state of basketball affairs when you see people say stuff like they used to think AI was great but now with the advent of advanced stats they realize he wasn't very good.

A simple rule of thumb: if you need metrics, graphs, or workflows to determine how good AI was you're probably not qualified to speak on him....
Hmm... maybe you should be running teams instead of the guys who are open to being wrong based on heavy doses of objective reasoning. At least thats what it sounds like ur saying

Sandman
07-26-2014, 10:57 AM
I wasn't meaning to offend, I am sorry if I did.

As for your post I agree with everything you are saying, at least in theory. The one element you are missing, IMO, is that a player needs to have a willingness or inclination to work with others as a unit, something Iverson never gave any indication of IMO.

Guys like Iverson seem to see the NBA as the ultimate game of one on one rather than the highest level of team basketball in the world.

no worries

AI definitely had an all-time attitude I'll give you that. He never had anyone to support him but after seeing how he left the league, who is to say he would not have just chased them out of town.