PDA

View Full Version : Came across an amazing read explaining exactly how Allen Iverson made people better.



Alayla
03-11-2016, 02:29 PM
http://www.fullcourtpest.com/2011/03/in-defence-of-allen-iverson.html

This counter argues the narrative that is so common and so tired about him and the out of context misused and represented advanced stat metrics that paint him as a cautionary tale. I have no problem with advanced or basic stats but its all about context and this read proves it.

IndyRealist
03-11-2016, 02:54 PM
This doesn't seem to say anything new. At all.

Alayla
03-11-2016, 02:57 PM
This doesn't seem to say anything new. At all.

That's the saddest part really these are arguments I've been making since the advanced stats discussion started but it never really manages to sink in with the public this is the most comprehensive post I've seen on the subject and put all at once on a silver platter like this it would surprise me if this doesn't change anyone's mind.

FOXHOUND
03-11-2016, 03:37 PM
I think the problem still comes from the fact that he was dumped multiple times, and for good reason. About that Finals team, they were not bad at all. At least, as far as the eastern conference was concerned at the time. Larry Brown was the Coach of the Year, Dikembe Mutombo was the Defensive Player of the Year, Aaron McKie was the 6th Man of the Year and, yes, Allen Iverson was the MVP. They were 56-26 and the 1 seed in the east. Offensively challenged? Sure. Bad team? No way.

This is further enhanced by their postseason and just how much they relied on their true strength, their defense. Did he have some monster games? Absolutely, but he had far more crappy games. He went 11-28 and 10-31 against Indiana, they won both games. He went 10-30 and 8-27 against Toronto, they won both games and the 2nd one being game 7. He went 13-35, 10-32 and 5-27 against Milwaukee, they won all 3 games.

Those are just the games they won despite him shooting horrible. He went 7-19 against Indiana in game 1, they lost. He went 11-34 in game 1, 7-22 in game 3 and 6-24 in game 6 against Toronto, they lost all 3 games. He went 5-26 in game 2 and 14-33 in game 5 against Milwaukee, they lost both games. He went 10-29, 12-30, 12-30 and 14-32 in games 2-5 against Los Angeles, they lost all 4.

All in all, that's 17 games out of 22 that postseason where he shot horrible, and they went 7-10 in them. That's an astronomical rate of shooting horrible.

I have always considered, and will always consider, Tracy McGrady the MVP of that season. He only didn't get it because he was on an 8th seed team, one that was actually horrible. Iverson was more at the right place at the right time and he never achieved much team success after for that reason.

Chronz
03-11-2016, 04:00 PM
Interesting read just because this is something I've been wanting an AI homer to do for years, check the before and after effect of AI.

But it's a long read and skimming through it revealed some obvious bias. Most stars make their teammates better, I'm not convinced AI was miles "better" than Jordan at it given his flawed analysis ( read the bs on Chauncey), only they don't have to make the excuses for poor efficiency on both ends.

AI is top60, wish that were good enough for his fan boys

Alayla
03-11-2016, 04:25 PM
Interesting read just because this is something I've been wanting an AI homer to do for years, check the before and after effect of AI.

But it's a long read and skimming through it revealed some obvious bias. Most stars make their teammates better, I'm not convinced AI was miles "better" than Jordan at it given his flawed analysis ( read the bs on Chauncey), only they don't have to make the excuses for poor efficiency on both ends.

AI is top60, wish that were good enough for his fan boys

the read on Chauncey was in no way BS i followed the nuggets intensively around that time because of Iverson and Camby being 2 of my favorite players ever and continued to follow them for a few years after that team DID NOT operate more smoothly with Miller or Billups than it did with Iverson that's simply not true in any sense at all

Also he never once said AI was BETTER at it than Jordan as much as using Jordan as a barometer and making a point.
Is the writer a bit biased? Of course you can gather that from the title let alone the article but the points he raises are factual in nature and very difficult to refute. As for where Iverson stands overall that's really tricky my gut tells me top 60 is a touch unfair and its more 45 to 50 but then again I'm sure if i sat down and looked into it my perspective might turn out different but that's beside the point. This isn't an issue of proving how great he was to people who already respect him.
This is more of a response to the people who ignorantly call him a locker room cancer who doesn't make teams any better and doesn't care about winning.

Alayla
03-11-2016, 04:41 PM
I think the problem still comes from the fact that he was dumped multiple times, and for good reason. About that Finals team, they were not bad at all. At least, as far as the eastern conference was concerned at the time. Larry Brown was the Coach of the Year, Dikembe Mutombo was the Defensive Player of the Year, Aaron McKie was the 6th Man of the Year and, yes, Allen Iverson was the MVP. They were 56-26 and the 1 seed in the east. Offensively challenged? Sure. Bad team? No way.

This is further enhanced by their postseason and just how much they relied on their true strength, their defense. Did he have some monster games? Absolutely, but he had far more crappy games. He went 11-28 and 10-31 against Indiana, they won both games. He went 10-30 and 8-27 against Toronto, they won both games and the 2nd one being game 7. He went 13-35, 10-32 and 5-27 against Milwaukee, they won all 3 games.

Those are just the games they won despite him shooting horrible. He went 7-19 against Indiana in game 1, they lost. He went 11-34 in game 1, 7-22 in game 3 and 6-24 in game 6 against Toronto, they lost all 3 games. He went 5-26 in game 2 and 14-33 in game 5 against Milwaukee, they lost both games. He went 10-29, 12-30, 12-30 and 14-32 in games 2-5 against Los Angeles, they lost all 4.

All in all, that's 17 games out of 22 that postseason where he shot horrible, and they went 7-10 in them. That's an astronomical rate of shooting horrible.

I have always considered, and will always consider, Tracy McGrady the MVP of that season. He only didn't get it because he was on an 8th seed team, one that was actually horrible. Iverson was more at the right place at the right time and he never achieved much team success after for that reason.

@#1 that tends to happen to guards at the wrong side of 30 who depend on athleticism regardless of reputation but with a bad one it just adds another layer

@#2 I argee they where not bad what i disagree with is why they where not bad people act as though you could plug and play any decent scorer onto that team and have equal success and that's a fallacy there defense was very nice yes but offensively none of those guys no not even Mckee where remotely good offensively. Do i consider T Mac a drastically better overall player than Iverson? Yup Do i think even T Mac would have made that team any better than it was? Hell no. Iversons Gravity had a nearly incomprehensible level of impact on that team and the players ability to get open shots. As for AI shooting poorly yes that's what happens when a guy is the sole focus of a defense and admittedly it took him awhile to learn HOW to use his gravity in a productive manner but you cant sit there and say with a straight face he was just in the right place at the right time and that's why he never had success afterwards.

Take a moment to look at the teams he had from that point onward in his career THEY MANAGED TO GET EVEN WORSE the only year from that point onward he had a respectable group of guys around him was 05-06 and by that stage he was leaving or arugeably had left his prime yet suddenly had one of the best years of his career followed by another resurgence in Denver. This kind of circular logic is exactly what bothers people about how AI's Career is valued all of 3 arugeably 4 Full seasons Iverson had anything resembling a playoff team around him and in those seasons they where far and away his BEST seasons. The proof and blueprint is already there for what his career would have looked like with more help unfortunately he had Billy King as a GM (did a bang up job with the nets too didn't he?)

Alayla
03-11-2016, 04:45 PM
Also i don't like how people aruge he had help because deke was there ignoring how the team was setting the league on FIRE before Ratliff got hurt in the first place.

Don't get me wrong that team was defensively great but as many people say (normally in the other way around) there is 2 sides to the court. Deke was not exactly setting the world on fire on one side.

Ball_Out
03-11-2016, 04:53 PM
This is the wrong forum for this. People here hate AI no matter what

FOXHOUND
03-11-2016, 05:01 PM
@#1 that tends to happen to guards at the wrong side of 30 who depend on athleticism regardless of reputation but with a bad one it just adds another layer

@#2 I argee they where not bad what i disagree with is why they where not bad people act as though you could plug and play any decent scorer onto that team and have equal success and that's a fallacy there defense was very nice yes but offensively none of those guys no not even Mckee where remotely good offensively. Do i consider T Mac a drastically better overall player than Iverson? Yup Do i think even T Mac would have made that team any better than it was? Hell no. Iversons Gravity had a nearly incomprehensible level of impact on that team and the players ability to get open shots. As for AI shooting poorly yes that's what happens when a guy is the sole focus of a defense and admittedly it took him awhile to learn HOW to use his gravity in a productive manner but you cant sit there and say with a straight face he was just in the right place at the right time and that's why he never had success afterwards.

Take a moment to look at the teams he had from that point onward in his career THEY MANAGED TO GET EVEN WORSE the only year from that point onward he had a respectable group of guys around him was 05-06 and by that stage he was leaving or arugeably had left his prime yet suddenly had one of the best years of his career followed by another resurgence in Denver. This kind of circular logic is exactly what bothers people about how AI's Career is valued all of 3 arugeably 4 Full seasons Iverson had anything resembling a playoff team around him and in those seasons they where far and away his BEST seasons. The proof and blueprint is already there for what his career would have looked like with more help unfortunately he had Billy King as a GM (did a bang up job with the nets too didn't he?)

He got traded after just two years in Denver, despite actually playing efficient ball next to Melo, and they got much better afterwards with Billups. Billups leadership played no small part in that difference.


Also i don't like how people aruge he had help because deke was there ignoring how the team was setting the league on FIRE before Ratliff got hurt in the first place.

Don't get me wrong that team was defensively great but as many people say (normally in the other way around) there is 2 sides to the court. Deke was not exactly setting the world on fire on one side.

Because look at the games they were winning. Milwaukee in the ECF, beat them 93-85, 89-83, 89-88, 108-91. Even the game 3 loss, they lost 80-74 when Iverson wasn't there. They were very much a defensive team, and Iverson wasn't helping them all that much on that end with his constant gamble D. Doesn't mean just anyone could have taken his place, but I don't see why any of the top scoring SGs couldn't have been on that team chucking 5-26 to playoff victory. I think Ray Allen would have done just fine, for example.

Chronz
03-11-2016, 06:44 PM
the read on Chauncey was in no way BS i followed the nuggets intensively around that time because of Iverson and Camby being 2 of my favorite players ever and continued to follow them for a few years after that team DID NOT operate more smoothly with Miller or Billups than it did with Iverson that's simply not true in any sense at all

Also he never once said AI was BETTER at it than Jordan as much as using Jordan as a barometer and making a point.
Is the writer a bit biased? Of course you can gather that from the title let alone the article but the points he raises are factual in nature and very difficult to refute. As for where Iverson stands overall that's really tricky my gut tells me top 60 is a touch unfair and its more 45 to 50 but then again I'm sure if i sat down and looked into it my perspective might turn out different but that's beside the point. This isn't an issue of proving how great he was to people who already respect him.
This is more of a response to the people who ignorantly call him a locker room cancer who doesn't make teams any better and doesn't care about winning.

well I've only skimmed through it so Im sure he hits alot of nails on the head but the piece I saw was blatantly trying to trick me with his facts/stats. Ill explain when I get a chance but Im 99% sure he claims AI was better than MJ at enhancing his teammates.

Alayla
03-11-2016, 09:11 PM
He got traded after just two years in Denver, despite actually playing efficient ball next to Melo, and they got much better afterwards with Billups. Billups leadership played no small part in that difference.



Because look at the games they were winning. Milwaukee in the ECF, beat them 93-85, 89-83, 89-88, 108-91. Even the game 3 loss, they lost 80-74 when Iverson wasn't there. They were very much a defensive team, and Iverson wasn't helping them all that much on that end with his constant gamble D. Doesn't mean just anyone could have taken his place, but I don't see why any of the top scoring SGs couldn't have been on that team chucking 5-26 to playoff victory. I think Ray Allen would have done just fine, for example.

Billups played a very small part and the article countered this falacy Injuries mired that team to a major extent before the AI Billups trade espically for Kmart.

As for Ray Allen doing just as well? NO no and about 4 more no's Don't get me wrong building a team i would normally want Ray Allen before Allen Iverson but with that team it would be offensively stagnant.
Alot of the teams points came from open court offense created by there D and Iverson was most deadly in the open court.
In half court situations it devolved into give Allen the ball move out the way and wait till your open due to allens Gravity.
Ray Allen is a really bad example for a player to put in Iverson's role hell mabye the worst you could have come up with as Allen is best as a traditional 2 coming off screens finding himself open etc teams would just deny Ray the catch and it would be done right there he would have 0 breathing room to speak of and if he got the cacth it would be an instantaneous double team.

I think you fail to understand exactly how BAD that team was offensively it was sickening and it was in no way because of Iverson if anything the fact those players looked like they belonged on a playoff team shows exactly how much Gravity Iverson drew i dont joke even for a second when i say last years Sixers team had more talent than the 01 sixers team without Iverson would have.
I don't care how good your defense is with your best offensive threat as Arron McKee your not making the playoffs your just not that team was an ungodly dumpster fire of borderline D league level offensive players across the board.

I wont take anything away from the defensive skills of that team but its just plain wrong to say Ray Allen would have done the same with that team as Iverson did Ray Allen wouldn't be able to be in the least bit effective this coming from a major fan of traditional basketball roles espically at the 2 players like Ray Allen Reggie Miller Steph Curry (idc what anyone says hes a natural 2) Rip Hamilton etc etc etc.

Go wacth that team again i dare you to wacth at least 10 regular season games and 15 playoff games from that team and just sit in awe at the Gravity Allen had the best example being Toronto games 6 and 7 where there entire gameplan was to crowd Allen with TRIPLE TEAMS on the catch.

The fact he was able to put up points at all with Gravity like that drawn to him with no release valve on the offensive end is downright scary.

If that team would have had a legitimate NBA 2nd option (not even a typical contender 2nd option) but a functional one for example if they had kept Stackhouse and made that work. then i would 100% understand the criticisms of Iverson or if the other options he did have could at least sink open jumpers there was not even dedicated shooters on that team as the majority of them where poor jump shooters! No one has done more with less offensively i'm sorry.

Alayla
03-11-2016, 09:15 PM
well I've only skimmed through it so Im sure he hits alot of nails on the head but the piece I saw was blatantly trying to trick me with his facts/stats. Ill explain when I get a chance but Im 99% sure he claims AI was better than MJ at enhancing his teammates.

That wasn't really where he was going with it but i understand how someone would look at it that way. What he was saying is that the perception that AI doesn't make anyone better is silly because its not exactly like hes working with HOFers to begin with. Nearly everyone who did play with Iverson had much better years than without him so with him as the only consistent variable it makes sense to state hes making people better.

Jeffy25
03-11-2016, 09:21 PM
Reads like another AI fanboy drivel.

I only skimmed it, but this doesn't appear to 'prove' anything

Yes, the 76ers didn't have a lot of good offensive players. That doesn't suddenly excuse AI trying to create his own shots on awful attempts from all around the court. He played ISO offense. The 76ers were elite defensively, poor offensively. AI was the best offensive option they had. That doesn't mean he was elite or great at it. Anyone that takes 27 shots per game better get 30 points per game (considering it's been 45 years since someone took that many shots per game and didn't score 30).

There have been 19 seasons in NBA history where a guy took so many shots as 27 per game.

Iverson is far and away the least efficient season of all of these.


This link was excuses by an Iverson fan. He's a safe bet for top 50-75 range. We understand why he shot so much, that doesn't mean he was good at it or even really should have.

Alayla
03-11-2016, 09:44 PM
Reads like another AI fanboy drivel.

I only skimmed it, but this doesn't appear to 'prove' anything

Yes, the 76ers didn't have a lot of good offensive players. That doesn't suddenly excuse AI trying to create his own shots on awful attempts from all around the court. He played ISO offense. The 76ers were elite defensively, poor offensively. AI was the best offensive option they had. That doesn't mean he was elite or great at it. Anyone that takes 27 shots per game better get 30 points per game (considering it's been 45 years since someone took that many shots per game and didn't score 30).

There have been 19 seasons in NBA history where a guy took so many shots as 27 per game.

Iverson is far and away the least efficient season of all of these.


This link was excuses by an Iverson fan. He's a safe bet for top 50-75 range. We understand why he shot so much, that doesn't mean he was good at it or even really should have.

These are the parts i have an issue with here what in the world do you expect him to do? his 'inefficiency' raised the effectiveness and efficiency of literally everyone around him basketball isnt played in a vacuum you cant just say if Iverson shot less he and his team would be better if anything they only got as good as they did because he shot so much this isn't a matter of selfish basketball this is a matter of situation he didn't have a choice BUT to Iso endlessly tell me what kind of offense you would run to improve that team BESIDES Iverson isoing?
In what system are you going to be successful with Snow (with a busted Ankle held togther by screws) Iverson Lynch Tyrone Hill Deke at 35 with a broken finger Mckee and a rookie Raja Bell as your offensive options in the playoffs?

ALSO STOP SKIMMING IT PEOPLE IT DEFEATS THE PURPOSE OF THE THREAD READ FULLY OR DON'T COMMENT YOU LEARN NOTHING SKIMMING ESPICALLY IF YOUR GOING INTO IT WITH A DIFFERING OPINION

Alayla
03-11-2016, 09:53 PM
Look i don't even disagree with you guys about the range of Iverson as a player in an all-time sense nor am i entirely condoning his shot selection because some of it was cringe worthy particularly in his early career im more talking about the other narratives.
The he was a locker room cancer or he didn't make his teammates better he didn't care about winning or was not a hard worker.
You can question his shot selection you can question his 3 point jump shot you can even say he was an average or at times below average defender these are all very valid points.
But he was not selfish and he did not hurt his teams that's all the article is saying as well as all im saying.
No body is saying hes a top 20 player or something like that just that the popular narrative on him was unfair and statistically wrong.

JasonJohnHorn
03-12-2016, 12:23 PM
Nash made people better. Kidd made people better. Duncan made people better. Magic. Bird. Jordan.


I don't remember Iverson making anybody better. I remember the Nuggets becoming significantly better after trading Iverson for Billups, and I remember Detroit becoming significantly worse after that trade.

I don't remember any of Iverson's teammates playing 'better' with him than they did without him. Tyrone Hill. Mutombo.

I don't see it on the court, and I don't see it in the stats either. Most importantly, I don't see it in the win column.

Alayla
03-12-2016, 02:29 PM
Nash made people better. Kidd made people better. Duncan made people better. Magic. Bird. Jordan.


I don't remember Iverson making anybody better. I remember the Nuggets becoming significantly better after trading Iverson for Billups, and I remember Detroit becoming significantly worse after that trade.

I don't remember any of Iverson's teammates playing 'better' with him than they did without him. Tyrone Hill. Mutombo.

I don't see it on the court, and I don't see it in the stats either. Most importantly, I don't see it in the win column.

First of all you just proved you didnt read the article at all that team only improved by 4 wins atfer Nene was basically added (Never played with Iverson) Kmart finally got healthy to some extent.
and Chris Andersen came back from suspension. Billups didn't play with the same team he had alot more and there win total hardly budged.
Melo and JR Smith had career years with Iverson as did earl boykins apparently (didn't know that before this article) Camby had the best year offensively that he would the rest of his career when he played with AI.
JR and and Melo got alot worse playing with billups as well as many others on that team played worse.

As for the Pistons AI was an awful fit there from the start that trade didn't make sense to ANYONE even when it first happened im not going to even get into the mess of a situation that was but remember he was being benched for stucky and so was rip at one point they started trying to do some really weird **** mid season and that roster was never given a chance to gel together.

Regarding Mutombo Mckee Snow and the rest of that team look at there numbers before and after that Philly team its the first thing explained in the damn read come on now don't post if your not going to read the damn article just makes you come off as biased

FOXHOUND
03-12-2016, 02:38 PM
Billups played a very small part and the article countered this falacy Injuries mired that team to a major extent before the AI Billups trade espically for Kmart.

As for Ray Allen doing just as well? NO no and about 4 more no's Don't get me wrong building a team i would normally want Ray Allen before Allen Iverson but with that team it would be offensively stagnant.
Alot of the teams points came from open court offense created by there D and Iverson was most deadly in the open court.
In half court situations it devolved into give Allen the ball move out the way and wait till your open due to allens Gravity.
Ray Allen is a really bad example for a player to put in Iverson's role hell mabye the worst you could have come up with as Allen is best as a traditional 2 coming off screens finding himself open etc teams would just deny Ray the catch and it would be done right there he would have 0 breathing room to speak of and if he got the cacth it would be an instantaneous double team.

I think you fail to understand exactly how BAD that team was offensively it was sickening and it was in no way because of Iverson if anything the fact those players looked like they belonged on a playoff team shows exactly how much Gravity Iverson drew i dont joke even for a second when i say last years Sixers team had more talent than the 01 sixers team without Iverson would have.
I don't care how good your defense is with your best offensive threat as Arron McKee your not making the playoffs your just not that team was an ungodly dumpster fire of borderline D league level offensive players across the board.

I wont take anything away from the defensive skills of that team but its just plain wrong to say Ray Allen would have done the same with that team as Iverson did Ray Allen wouldn't be able to be in the least bit effective this coming from a major fan of traditional basketball roles espically at the 2 players like Ray Allen Reggie Miller Steph Curry (idc what anyone says hes a natural 2) Rip Hamilton etc etc etc.

Go wacth that team again i dare you to wacth at least 10 regular season games and 15 playoff games from that team and just sit in awe at the Gravity Allen had the best example being Toronto games 6 and 7 where there entire gameplan was to crowd Allen with TRIPLE TEAMS on the catch.

The fact he was able to put up points at all with Gravity like that drawn to him with no release valve on the offensive end is downright scary.

If that team would have had a legitimate NBA 2nd option (not even a typical contender 2nd option) but a functional one for example if they had kept Stackhouse and made that work. then i would 100% understand the criticisms of Iverson or if the other options he did have could at least sink open jumpers there was not even dedicated shooters on that team as the majority of them where poor jump shooters! No one has done more with less offensively i'm sorry.

Look, that stuff with Billups all sounds like convenient excuses to dispel the facts of the situation. The simple fact is, if he was so good in Denver and viewed so highly he would not have been traded after only two seasons there. The Nuggets wouldn't have gotten way better after moving him for Billups, who is a proven champion and winner, and Detroit wouldn't have gotten much worse.

That Philly team had one of the best coaches of all time and one of the best defensive centers of all time, both who won COY and DPOY that season, while having the 6MoY. Yeah, their offense sucked, but when you're winning games in the ECF 89-83 and Iverson is going 5-27, who cares? You don't think Ray Allen could go 5-27 and lead his team to 89 points?

Also, Ray Allen at that time wasn't just a Reggie Miller like SG like he was in Boston. He was quite good at that age and you know he was on that ECF Milwaukee team, right? That postseason, he averaged 25 PPG, 6 APG and 4 REB while shooting .477/.479/.919. In that ECF, Ray Allen averaged 27.1 PPG, 5.4 APG, 3.3 REB and 2.1 turnovers while shooting .468/.509/.968. Iverson averaged 30.5 PPG, 6.8 APG, 4.8 REB and 3.1 turnovers while shooting .344/.333/.782.

Ray Allen thoroughly whooped Allen Iverson's *** in that ECF, while Iverson chucked himself to 30 PPG. The 76ers team was just much better. That's just the simple truth. Iverson shot bad in all but one game of that series and the 76ers only lost by 6 points in the game he didn't play.

Sorry, you'll never convince me that Iverson wasn't overrated. I would have taken Ray Allen that season without hesitation.

Alayla
03-12-2016, 03:06 PM
Look, that stuff with Billups all sounds like convenient excuses to dispel the facts of the situation. The simple fact is, if he was so good in Denver and viewed so highly he would not have been traded after only two seasons there. The Nuggets wouldn't have gotten way better after moving him for Billups, who is a proven champion and winner, and Detroit wouldn't have gotten much worse.

That Philly team had one of the best coaches of all time and one of the best defensive centers of all time, both who won COY and DPOY that season, while having the 6MoY. Yeah, their offense sucked, but when you're winning games in the ECF 89-83 and Iverson is going 5-27, who cares? You don't think Ray Allen could go 5-27 and lead his team to 89 points?

Also, Ray Allen at that time wasn't just a Reggie Miller like SG like he was in Boston. He was quite good at that age and you know he was on that ECF Milwaukee team, right? That postseason, he averaged 25 PPG, 6 APG and 4 REB while shooting .477/.479/.919. In that ECF, Ray Allen averaged 27.1 PPG, 5.4 APG, 3.3 REB and 2.1 turnovers while shooting .468/.509/.968. Iverson averaged 30.5 PPG, 6.8 APG, 4.8 REB and 3.1 turnovers while shooting .344/.333/.782.

Ray Allen thoroughly whooped Allen Iverson's *** in that ECF, while Iverson chucked himself to 30 PPG. The 76ers team was just much better. That's just the simple truth. Iverson shot bad in all but one game of that series and the 76ers only lost by 6 points in the game he didn't play.

Sorry, you'll never convince me that Iverson wasn't overrated. I would have taken Ray Allen that season without hesitation.

They didn't get way better they got literally a few wins better now injuries don't mean anything to a teams record?
The Pistons where plain out an awful fit and Iverson was physically done anyway by that stage.

Tell me with a straight face you believe Aron Mckee was a legitimate threat in his career and would have won 6 man of the year on another team show me one other season where he was nearly as effective?
As for the Ray Allen situation im not saying he was strictly a miller type but he could be shut down alot easier than Iverson because he was not as athletically gifted as Iverson if you honestly believe Allen could create his own shot on the same level as Iverson your simply a lost cause and your right that i can never convince you because your refusing to take consideration into there skill sets.

This is basic basketball the more possessions you use the more the defense is going to hone in on you it was Iverson's gravity that was his biggest weapon of all because it gave easy shots to his teammates i don't understand how people can deny something so basic there is no stat for gravity (although if there was Iverson would be right there with Curry Kobe Jordan Shaq etc in that stat) its something you have to watch.

But there are stats showing how Iversons teammates performed with him compared to without him and most of his more relevant teammates had career years or nearly career years playing with him.

sheesh
03-12-2016, 03:38 PM
No, just no.

FOXHOUND
03-12-2016, 03:48 PM
They didn't get way better they got literally a few wins better now injuries don't mean anything to a teams record?
The Pistons where plain out an awful fit and Iverson was physically done anyway by that stage.

Tell me with a straight face you believe Aron Mckee was a legitimate threat in his career and would have won 6 man of the year on another team show me one other season where he was nearly as effective?
As for the Ray Allen situation im not saying he was strictly a miller type but he could be shut down alot easier than Iverson because he was not as athletically gifted as Iverson if you honestly believe Allen could create his own shot on the same level as Iverson your simply a lost cause and your right that i can never convince you because your refusing to take consideration into there skill sets.

This is basic basketball the more possessions you use the more the defense is going to hone in on you it was Iverson's gravity that was his biggest weapon of all because it gave easy shots to his teammates i don't understand how people can deny something so basic there is no stat for gravity (although if there was Iverson would be right there with Curry Kobe Jordan Shaq etc in that stat) its something you have to watch.

But there are stats showing how Iversons teammates performed with him compared to without him and most of his more relevant teammates had career years or nearly career years playing with him.

No, the Nuggets went to the WCF after back to back 1st round exits with Iverson. They were the 2nd seed instead of the 8th seed, which makes a hell of a difference come playoff time. They were also the 2nd seed the following year until George Karl got cancer and they fell to 4 with Dantley filling in as they fell apart. Yes, they were clearly a better basketball team with Billups, not even debatable.

The lack of offense benefitted Mckie in the same way as Iverson. As in, he had the volume green light to put up numbers he normally wouldn't regardless of efficiency. Matt Barnes just had a triple double for Memphis, and it's not because he just suddenly became a better basketball player.

Was Iverson better at getting his shot off vs many other players? Sure, but who cares when you're shooting 34% in a series? If you don't think Ray Allen couldn't have gotten shots off and shot 34%, you're dead wrong. Allen was also a far superior off the ball player, so there's real value in the simple fact that he wasn't so reliant on tough ISO jumpers like Iverson was. Do you think Eric Snow can hit a wide open Ray Allen running around? I do, he wouldn't have shot 34%. He was far too efficient a player to drop that low. That's a special Iverson range of high volume chucking.

EDIT: And as far as Melo getting better because of Iverson, and not simply because at age 24 he was getting better, here are Melo's stats that season they traded for Iverson.

With Andre Miller

31.6 PPG, 5.6 REB, 4.1 AST, 3.8 TO, .503/.265/.801 shooting in 22 games

With Allen Iverson

27.6 PPG, 6.2 REB, 3.7 AST, 3.5 TO, .460/.270/.812 shooting in 43 games

ewing
03-12-2016, 04:33 PM
Why do people have no idea who Reggie Miller was?

Jamiecballer
03-12-2016, 10:00 PM
http://www.fullcourtpest.com/2011/03/in-defence-of-allen-iverson.html

This counter argues the narrative that is so common and so tired about him and the out of context misused and represented advanced stat metrics that paint him as a cautionary tale. I have no problem with advanced or basic stats but its all about context and this read proves it.
Same rehashed garbage we always hear in defense of his play. This amazed you?

Alayla
03-12-2016, 11:05 PM
No, the Nuggets went to the WCF after back to back 1st round exits with Iverson. They were the 2nd seed instead of the 8th seed, which makes a hell of a difference come playoff time. They were also the 2nd seed the following year until George Karl got cancer and they fell to 4 with Dantley filling in as they fell apart. Yes, they were clearly a better basketball team with Billups, not even debatable.

The lack of offense benefitted Mckie in the same way as Iverson. As in, he had the volume green light to put up numbers he normally wouldn't regardless of efficiency. Matt Barnes just had a triple double for Memphis, and it's not because he just suddenly became a better basketball player.

Was Iverson better at getting his shot off vs many other players? Sure, but who cares when you're shooting 34% in a series? If you don't think Ray Allen couldn't have gotten shots off and shot 34%, you're dead wrong. Allen was also a far superior off the ball player, so there's real value in the simple fact that he wasn't so reliant on tough ISO jumpers like Iverson was. Do you think Eric Snow can hit a wide open Ray Allen running around? I do, he wouldn't have shot 34%. He was far too efficient a player to drop that low. That's a special Iverson range of high volume chucking.

EDIT: And as far as Melo getting better because of Iverson, and not simply because at age 24 he was getting better, here are Melo's stats that season they traded for Iverson.

With Andre Miller

31.6 PPG, 5.6 REB, 4.1 AST, 3.8 TO, .503/.265/.801 shooting in 22 games

With Allen Iverson

27.6 PPG, 6.2 REB, 3.7 AST, 3.5 TO, .460/.270/.812 shooting in 43 games

Basketball is not played in a vacuum how many times do I need to say that before it sinks in there is no way at all that Ray Allen has the same numbers on that Philly team as on that bucks team he would become a lot less efficient or score in less volume one of the 2 is almost guaranteed.
Once again good players have gravity when you draw the attention of the defense you will get more out of it as another player on the court this is true if your also a star or if your a nobody.

On Billups effect on the nuggets yeah ignore everything I said in its entirety as well as everything the article said regarding player injures many players (including melo) doing better with Iverson's presence and all information that disagrees with your stance nice work!

On your 3rd point about McKee your right about why he scored more but you simply cant have it both ways you cant refer to him as 6th man of the year Arron McKee when you want to prop up what Iverson had to work with and then talk about his green light and lack of actual improvement or skill the next inconsistent stances like that make it look like your saying whatever you think is convenient for your argument.

Your stats regarding Miller and Iverson that season are actually interesting I will give you that do you have them for the rest of that cast that had positive seasons the year Iverson was there where you can effectively separate Iverson's impact from there numbers?

All and all I see making this thread was not worth it not because of you in particular your at least discussing it with factual information and adding something to the discussion but most are not even reading the article let alone adding anything to the discussion clearly set in there ways about how they view him.

I'm not arguing Iverson is way better than hes seen or anything and I even agree with the 45 to 65 range most discuss him in around here all time but its simply wrong that he was a team cancer that one lingering view of him just isn't the truth at all a lot of it shows in a stat sheet whether people accept that or they don't but a lot of it doesn't. A lot of it you can just tell by seeing the way he talks about his teammates and his coach seeing his reactions in wins and losses and more than anything his heart on the basketball court.
Say what you want but he wanted to win and he did everything in his power for his teams to get as far as he could take them. I shared an article with an interesting perspective on the subject but most of you just are not interested in hearing that that's cool and I respect that.

More-Than-Most
03-13-2016, 12:34 AM
They didn't get way better they got literally a few wins better now injuries don't mean anything to a teams record?
The Pistons where plain out an awful fit and Iverson was physically done anyway by that stage.

Tell me with a straight face you believe Aron Mckee was a legitimate threat in his career and would have won 6 man of the year on another team show me one other season where he was nearly as effective?
As for the Ray Allen situation im not saying he was strictly a miller type but he could be shut down alot easier than Iverson because he was not as athletically gifted as Iverson if you honestly believe Allen could create his own shot on the same level as Iverson your simply a lost cause and your right that i can never convince you because your refusing to take consideration into there skill sets.

This is basic basketball the more possessions you use the more the defense is going to hone in on you it was Iverson's gravity that was his biggest weapon of all because it gave easy shots to his teammates i don't understand how people can deny something so basic there is no stat for gravity (although if there was Iverson would be right there with Curry Kobe Jordan Shaq etc in that stat) its something you have to watch.

But there are stats showing how Iversons teammates performed with him compared to without him and most of his more relevant teammates had career years or nearly career years playing with him.

So what is the point of this thread? You post a thread that has nothing of substance and people in here are trying to help you understand why the article is bad and why the points in the article are crap and you continue to just make excuses without actually trying to prove any of what is being said wrong... They just said when trading Iverson for Billups the team got better and the team inverson went too got worse and you respond with only 4 wins better... THEY GOT BETTER... You then say how can he make people better... How about when driving he could dish it out instead of throwing up a prayer then almost never goes in? He scored alot because he shot a ridiculous amount period... On top of that he got every call in the world because of his size which again is ridiculous.... He is a good player but extremely extremely overrated and never deserved the MVP he did get.

Chronz
03-13-2016, 04:46 PM
Why do people have no idea who Reggie Miller was?

Why dont people know who the hell Tracy McGrady was?

Tmac would have made that Sixers defense significantly better and he was more efficient offensively and capable of creating without the ball in his hands as well. He would have most definitely made that team better, Mac has always done more with less, hell the Rockets team without Yao were always crap and he still kept them in contention, and that was an injury riddled Tmac.

Chronz
03-13-2016, 04:58 PM
Basketball is not played in a vacuum

Your stats regarding Miller and Iverson that season are actually interesting I will give you that do you have them for the rest of that cast that had positive seasons the year Iverson was there where you can effectively separate Iverson's impact from there numbers?

Thats the thing about some of this proof, the author can say Melo was having a career year with AI but how do we know that wouldn't have happened with or without him? Dont young prospects tend to progress as they mature? What of the facts that Melo was more productive with Andre Miller the same year he was traded for? Or that when AI left, Iggy also suddenly became more productive. Sometimes just having the ball more will overrate your "improvement" so for someone repeating that mantra above, you should understand why others defending their position doesn't imply that we think the game is played in a vacuum, rather we acknowledge it and disagree with certain conclusions. Cant say which ones but I feel like your giving us a false narrative on AI, I can still think less of him while acknowledging he helped his team. The guy you're responding to would rather have Ray Allen and I would agree, but I wouldn't build around him the same way. The guys AI clashed with (ball dominant/inefficient like minded scorers) are the types that Ray thrived with (Big Dog for example).

Will read the post soon tho.

Alayla
03-13-2016, 05:28 PM
Thats the thing about some of this proof, the author can say Melo was having a career year with AI but how do we know that wouldn't have happened with or without him? Dont young prospects tend to progress as they mature? What of the facts that Melo was more productive with Andre Miller the same year he was traded for? Or that when AI left, Iggy also suddenly became more productive. Sometimes just having the ball more will overrate your "improvement" so for someone repeating that mantra above, you should understand why others defending their position doesn't imply that we think the game is played in a vacuum, rather we acknowledge it and disagree with certain conclusions. Cant say which ones but I feel like your giving us a false narrative on AI, I can still think less of him while acknowledging he helped his team. The guy you're responding to would rather have Ray Allen and I would agree, but I wouldn't build around him the same way. The guys AI clashed with (ball dominant/inefficient like minded scorers) are the types that Ray thrived with (Big Dog for example).

Will read the post soon tho.

Oh I agree with that in most situations hell almost all of them but not on that Philly team.
Thank you for trying to be objective in your posts by the way I definitely understand why someone may not agree with the points this article raises I was just hoping the discussion would remain about proving or disproving that narrative.

europagnpilgrim
03-13-2016, 07:47 PM
If The Answer was so inefficient and is a top 60 ish player to lace the sneakers where does his support cast rank all time?

where do you rank Mutombo all time at 35+ years of age, he may have won DPOY but he was nowhere near Denver or even early Atl type impact version, more like the version that was 45 years old playing for Rockets, also where do you rank his 7 year core duo of A Mckie and E Snow on the all time players list?where do G Lynch and T McCullough rank all time? are they top 60(or 600) or more like the so called DLeaguers Lebron and his fan boys who claim he carried to 07' finals, and why was Lebron performance last postseason so Iversonesque? was it inefficiency or a heavy load since it was Lebron/The Answer or bust on offense? its both because that comes with the territory

Also all you nba experts on here tell me where do you rank Ratliff and Geiger all time, and where does Lynch and Jumaine Jones and Raja Bell rank all time player rankings, and Matt Harpring and T Hill and Marc Jackson and Kenny Thomas all time? don't get a headache trying to figure where they rank, its useless

I wont count Webber since he retired basically a year later after Detroit stint and was coming off two micro surgeries before joining Philly and Big Dog since he retired after winning a ring 2003 but not playing a single game with the Spurs(barely played with Philly) nor will I count Melo since 1 full season barely scratches the surface but those are the best players he played with entire career(Iggy and Korver also,where do they rank all time?), but more so im talking E Snow and A Mckie since they played together like 7 full seasons(out of 10+ in Philly) , that was his core go to guys

go look at those two players effectiveness(efficiency) before they joined The Answer and come back with some basketball common sense and educate me and the rest of this forum and not advanced stats to try and soup up those at best average players

Wilt Chamberlain was the only other player who could have done what The Answer could have done with this super D league of defenders, and to think none of those guys made all defense first team and probably not second or third team but they were such an elite Defensive team which is another agenda to knock The Answer impact as a whole, Mutumbo did make a all nba D team off of reputation and he was pushing 40 years of age and the next year became non existent due to the 3 second in the lane rule

Nash nor Stockton nor Duncan made teammates better, David Robinson was aged but proven nba mvp and all nba caliber before Duncan, Manu was international all star baller and Parker only had to improve a jumper but that has nothing to do with Duncan, that's on him since he already had blazing quickness and speed, nor has Duncan made Leonard or Aldridge better, but drink the soup that makes you feel better

Stockton didn't make K Malone a better player nor did he make Hornacek a better pure shooter nor did he make Eaton a better defender, Eisley or S Anderson wasn't improved because of Stockton, they are who they are, same with B Russell and the rest

just like Nash didn't make Amare or J Johnson or The Matrix better, neither did The Answer make Korver a better pure shooter, he already was, and Iggy was a defender and high flyer on his own

you nba experts need to step up your analysis eye test, you guys would have a major point had he been this poorly inefficient with a couple or three all stars for 7 years, then I would be like he shot them out the game/contention because they would be ship contenders every year with running mates like a TMac+Big Ticket+L Brown coach, as opposed to Geiger/T McCullough and VanHorn or A Mckie + E Snow tandem

If The Answer is overrated by his fan boys then I'm sure his support cast is travesty overrated by his non fan boys, easily

europagnpilgrim
03-13-2016, 08:38 PM
E Snow averaged a supreme caliber 3.3 ppg before joining Philly and at the time of traded In season to Philly he was averaging a scorching 1.5 ppg and had a career high of 13 ppg with The Answer, of course he played more minutes with Philly but if he was that good prior then he would have not been traded

A Mckie averaged a best 10.7 ppg with Blazers and at time of being traded from Detroit was averaging a scorching hot 4.5 ppg, and went on to win the 6th man of the year averaging 11.6 ppg, which for some reason people seem to think that is such a remarkable thing to mention along the lines of L Brown and The Answer winning COY and NBA mvp

now go find any other superstar player to have a duo that poorly and i'll show you how many times they are in the lottery more times than not, I would post the FG % of both of those players but its a waste of time since they hovered around 35-45% from the field before joining Philly, oh wait I just did

4.5 ppg + 1.5 ppg = a whopping 6 ppg

come to think of it they should have been a lottery team annually, what a miracle The Answer was to that team

Vampirate
03-13-2016, 09:46 PM
Even Vince Carter's biggest haters (most in Toronto) would rather have Vince than Allan Iverson.

Jeffy25
03-14-2016, 12:52 PM
E Snow averaged a supreme caliber 3.3 ppg before joining Philly and at the time of traded In season to Philly he was averaging a scorching 1.5 ppg and had a career high of 13 ppg with The Answer, of course he played more minutes with Philly but if he was that good prior then he would have not been traded

A Mckie averaged a best 10.7 ppg with Blazers and at time of being traded from Detroit was averaging a scorching hot 4.5 ppg, and went on to win the 6th man of the year averaging 11.6 ppg, which for some reason people seem to think that is such a remarkable thing to mention along the lines of L Brown and The Answer winning COY and NBA mvp

now go find any other superstar player to have a duo that poorly and i'll show you how many times they are in the lottery more times than not, I would post the FG % of both of those players but its a waste of time since they hovered around 35-45% from the field before joining Philly, oh wait I just did

4.5 ppg + 1.5 ppg = a whopping 6 ppg

come to think of it they should have been a lottery team annually, what a miracle The Answer was to that team

It's pretty convenient to use raw stats and ignore the minutes played, isn't it?

Snow was only 2.5 years into the league still developing and was averaging 10-15 minutes per game off the bench in Seattle.

Then, during his prime, he starts in Philly.

He played his entire prime with AI, and wasn't without him until after his prime.

Of course his best numbers will be from when he was starting and playing during his prime age seasons.

His numbers per 36 minutes as a Sixer rival his numbers per 36 minutes as a Sonic, when he was a kid.

Aaron McKie had better /36 numbers as a Blazer than a Sixer

Hawkeye15
03-14-2016, 01:08 PM
It's pretty convenient to use raw stats and ignore the minutes played, isn't it?

Snow was only 2.5 years into the league still developing and was averaging 10-15 minutes per game off the bench in Seattle.

Then, during his prime, he starts in Philly.

He played his entire prime with AI, and wasn't without him until after his prime.

Of course his best numbers will be from when he was starting and playing during his prime age seasons.

His numbers per 36 minutes as a Sixer rival his numbers per 36 minutes as a Sonic, when he was a kid.

Aaron McKie had better /36 numbers as a Blazer than a Sixer

it goes further than that. The Sixers knew they had to build a defensive force to go along with Iverson in his prime, one that would also allow them to hide him defensively. That team was built for AI. Could they have used a little floor spreading? Sure. But AI, in his Sixers days, wasn't going to co-exist with another high volume scorer.

KnicksorBust
03-14-2016, 01:18 PM
Interesting debate. I will have to skim the article later.