How Would Allen Iverson's Style of Play Been Received Today?

[CodyB_]

Iverson was quicker than any contemporary NBA player.

His mixture of quickness, handles and end to end speed was just crazy. I think he would be more efficient in today's guard friendly NBA than he was back in his prime.

[-Sammy-]

also not sure how someone who was always at the top of the league in steals is seen as "a bad defensive player" by a bunch of young bucks looking in the rear view mirror. only thing i can thing of is people associate bad attitude but assumptions like that just make people look foolish.

It's because he got so many of those steals by gambling on defense, which isn't a good defensive policy.

i completely disagree with both assertions
1. that Iverson gambled to get the majority of his steals
2. that gamblins on defense isn't good policy (completely depends on how many times you win your "bet"

Regarding your first point, Iverson was a known steal-gambler defensively. That was a frequent criticism against him from analysts.

Regarding your second point, the best 'gamblers' only average two steals per game in their best seasons; guaranteed they give up more points than that over the course of an entire game. You won't find a good coach who will agree with the statement that gambling is a good defensive approach.

[kodo]

Even back then, how Iverson played was a product of the team around and the necessity to do all the scoring and the archaic strategy of playing your best player every minute possible.

Steph Curry plays 32-33 mpg and puts up extremely efficient #s. Allen Iverson over 12 seasons averaged over 41 mpg. When he hit 30 he played 43 mpg, down from the 44 mpg he played at 26. Allen Iverson started tip-offs exhausted.

It's also notable that once he got on a team with other guys who could score, his %s went up. He was already well past his prime at 31 his first year in Denver but he still shot 45.4%. His next year in Denver he shot 45.8%. For comparison, Kyrie shot 46.8%.

Iverson would be a top PG today, the game is tailor suited to his skillset and analytics & coaching would have guided him to be a more efficient player.

Ironically, AI came into the league as a passable 3 point shooter. He shot 34% on huge volume, 6 attempts per game. But the NBA being what it was, he was evolved to ignore the 3 point shot and shoot closer to the basket on mid range jumpers, and his 3 point shooting got worse with experience instead of better. I don't see that happening with today's coaches & trainers.

[Nazrmohamed]

Iverson was definitely a top 6 player in his prime. With the nba being less physical today and smaller lineups he'd be a lock for 30ppg. Iverson would probably be the 3rd best player in the game.

Also with the way GMs manage cap now his teammates most likely would've been better. What people never account for enough is the level or lack of offense the Sixers had outside of Iverson. It was a team of its day, no apologies. Heavy reliance on a superstar with the rest of the team geared toward defense. The defense is who they are. Iverson is their spearhead. It got as far as it could get as he was in the finals. So I don't feel sorry for Iverson but I defend his style. If you watched that team it was absolutely necessary. The side effect though is that everyone knows where the balls going, there's only one option. It's not like Iverson didn't pass though, the guy played SG throughout most of his prime and averaged like 6 assists.

And another thing. People didn't hate Iverson. He clashed a bit with Brown but Brown loved him like a son almost. Fans loved him. I think this memory that Iverson was cancerous and unliked is revisionist bullcrap. During his day he was well liked, even if he was considered the anti-hero.

[theonlyclutch]

Iverson was definitely a top 6 player in his prime. With the nba being less physical today and smaller lineups he'd be a lock for 30ppg. Iverson would probably be the 3rd best player in the game.

If prime for Iverson is just a codeword for '01, then sure....and at him being better than three of Lebron, Harden, Curry, Davis & Paul....

Iverson in his prime was playing at a Kobe and Shaq level.
I don't see how this is close to justifiable for anywhere other than '01, and Shaq was much better anyway that year...
I don't think Paul or Harden has ever played at that level.
Paul has been playing at 01 Kobe level for the last few years with the Clippers, and Harden is arguably better offensively than 01 Kobe...
Iverson was a ruthless dog, he'd kill Paul in the moments that matter most. You think Paul would be able to match bucket for bucket in a tight 4th quarter? No way.
Would he?
Iverson in clutch stats 05-06, so no handchecking:

(per 48) 36.9pts @ 41.6% eFG%, 34.0pts @ 42.1% eFG%

So...not exactly mindblowing stuff, took a lot of shots, made a bit of them...


As for Harden you got a guy putting up 25ppg in a smaller less physical spread offense nba compared to Iverson putting up 30ppg in a monstrous no spread nba where they wanted 6-10 guys to play sf.
You mean 05-06, when he was still not blowing the world away efficiency wise without any handchecking...

On topic, his shaky jumper and ball dominance is going to turn alot of guys off given the emphasis on ball movement and outside shooting, otoh, casual fans who watch highlights are going to love him (as they do now anyways).

[KnicksDynasty]

I think most of the people dissing Iverson's game didn't really watch him or were just too young to understand the times. The guy was well liked and respected by most, he was a rebel in his day and I respected him for being a very brave little guard who played with heart. He influenced tons of fans and current NBA players.

The guy would tear defenses apart the way the floor is well spaced in todays game, no defenses would be would be able to stop him at all. Would definitely be a top 3 player today if he was in his prime and make the other superstars look silly

[og15]

AI was very good and would still be very good now, being very good though doesn't mean he was Kobe and Shaq level like someone else suggested of that he would be better than every single guard in the league now. He'd be a very good player and I believe more efficient than his career, but that depends on his team.

In terms of people referencing his finals team, unless you actually didn't watch the league then, or if you didn't understand, AI's supporting cast was not super impressive offensively compared to some great teams, but compared to the competition in the East it was one of the best. Those are the teams he needed to beat to get to the finals, soo...

[BigBennett2013]

The rules and defenses today would make it VERY easy for the little man. No doubt he would putting up massive points AND be more efficient because if the floor is spaced there is no defense that would stop him

[sixerswillrule]

Ironically, AI came into the league as a passable 3 point shooter. He shot 34% on huge volume, 6 attempts per game. But the NBA being what it was, he was evolved to ignore the 3 point shot and shoot closer to the basket on mid range jumpers, and his 3 point shooting got worse with experience instead of better. I don't see that happening with today's coaches & trainers.

The three point line was shorter in his rookie season, that's why it got worse afterwards.

[TommyTBolt]

AI was very good and would still be very good now, being very good though doesn't mean he was Kobe and Shaq level like someone else suggested of that he would be better than every single guard in the league now. He'd be a very good player and I believe more efficient than his career, but that depends on his team.

In terms of people referencing his finals team, unless you actually didn't watch the league then, or if you didn't understand, AI's supporting cast was not super impressive offensively compared to some great teams, but compared to the competition in the East it was one of the best. Those are the teams he needed to beat to get to the finals, soo...

you say the East was weak but lets not gloss over the fact his team (backed by a 48 pt game by him) was the only team at all to beat LAL that year. It's not like any of the Western Power fared better against the Lakers, in fact they fared worse

also he was imo on Kobes level but not Shaq. Shaq was on another level entirely at the time. Outside of Shaq no doubt though AI was in the convo for best player in the game (right there with Kobe and a couple others)

[TommyTBolt]

AI was very good and would still be very good now, being very good though doesn't mean he was Kobe and Shaq level like someone else suggested of that he would be better than every single guard in the league now. He'd be a very good player and I believe more efficient than his career, but that depends on his team.

In terms of people referencing his finals team, unless you actually didn't watch the league then, or if you didn't understand, AI's supporting cast was not super impressive offensively compared to some great teams, but compared to the competition in the East it was one of the best. Those are the teams he needed to beat to get to the finals, soo...

2nd leading score on the 00-01 Sixers was
Theo Ratliff at 12.4 PPG

First Round versus Indiana
leading scorer was Jalen Rose (20.5 PPG)
2nd leading scorer was Reggie Miller at 17.9 PPG
Jermaine O'Neal (12.9) also averaged more PPG than Ratliff as well

Second Round versus Toronto
leading scorer was Vince Carter (27.6 ppg)
2nd leading scorer Antonio Davis averaged 13.7 PPG

Third Round versus Milwaukee
leading scorer was Ray Allen (22.0 ppg)
2nd leading scorer was Glen Robinson at 22.0 ppg (actually tied with Allen)
Sam Cassell (18.2), Tim Thomas (12.6) averaged more PPG than Ratliff as well

Only Toronto could be argued had equal or less offensive talent around their star as Philly. Both Indiana and Milwaukee easily had more offensive talent than Philly.

other East playoff teams
New York Knicks
leading scorer Allen Houston (18.7)
2nd leading scorer Latrell Spreewell 17.7 ppg

Charlotte Hornets
leading scorer Jamal Mashburn (20.1)
2nd leading scorer David Wesley 17.2 ppg
also Baron Davis (13.8), Elden Campbell (13.1)

Miami Heat
leading scorer Eddie Jones (17.4)
2nd leading scorer Anthony Mason 16.1 ppg
also Brian Grant (15.2), Tim Hardaway (14.9), Alonzo Morning (13.6)

Orlando Magic
leading scorer Tracy McGrady (26.8)
2nd leading scorer Darrell Armstrong 15.9 ppg
also Grant Hill (13.8)

All 7 of the 7 other playoff teams 2nd scorer averaged more PPG than Ratliff
6 of 7 average significantly more (only Toronto is close)
5 of 7 teams had a 3rd scorer who averaged more than Philly's 2nd scorer


there goes that argument.

[Jakay]

The hand checking point I get, but I don't see how allowing teams to play zone hampers team's ability to stop iso scoring. If anything ISO scoring is down since the rule changes. I think he scores less and assist more in today's game. Would still be an all star, IMO.

It doesn't hamper it, but it opens up different spots for shooters, which Iverson could catch and shoot on the move with the best of them. I think it would have helped him get more points that way, but iso's... it did slow down iso since the rules for switching make it much easier to send help on time now. I think, previously, you had to wait until the defender caught the ball before you sent help. I don't really remember the specifics of the rule anymore, tbh.

Clearly doesnt know Iversons game

Clearly doesn't know skillset vs footage.

He just never got passed to, for obvious reasons.

[SkyHookFTW]

He would be the 2nd or 3rd best SG in the game but far from dominant. He lacks a 3 point shot and his mid-range game would be brutal against this eras defense. He is not nearly athletic as Westbrook in terms of speed and strength, but certainly is more crafty. However, defenses will have a much easier time checking him with all these well-developed zone defenses.

Been watching the NBA since 1962, and I never saw a player quicker than A.I. Westy is stronger, but not faster.

[Effercon]

He had to play that way. If he hadn't, Philadelphia wouldn't have made the Finals.

[og15]

AI was very good and would still be very good now, being very good though doesn't mean he was Kobe and Shaq level like someone else suggested of that he would be better than every single guard in the league now. He'd be a very good player and I believe more efficient than his career, but that depends on his team.

In terms of people referencing his finals team, unless you actually didn't watch the league then, or if you didn't understand, AI's supporting cast was not super impressive offensively compared to some great teams, but compared to the competition in the East it was one of the best. Those are the teams he needed to beat to get to the finals, soo...

you say the East was weak but lets not gloss over the fact his team (backed by a 48 pt game by him) was the only team at all to beat LAL that year. It's not like any of the Western Power fared better against the Lakers, in fact they fared worse

also he was imo on Kobes level but not Shaq. Shaq was on another level entirely at the time. Outside of Shaq no doubt though AI was in the convo for best player in the game (right there with Kobe and a couple others)

I don't just say the East was weak, the East WAS weak. Philly was not amazing offensively, but they were elite on defense and good enough on offense. It was a great win, but Philly losing 4-1 vs the Lakers doesn't mean that Philly would've beat or were better than the Western teams that the Lakers swept, that's not how it works.

In regards to your second post, my point wasn't that Philly was better offensively than all other East opponents, I should have structured the sentence better, but my point was that despite their average offense, Philly's overall team ability was better than the overall make-up of other East teams. Secondly, like I said, if you watched the East then it would make a difference in understanding. Theo Ratliff got traded for Mutombo, he wasn't playing for Philly in the playoffs, and Mutombo's ability on the glass was huge for them. There are many things that go into the teams offensive output in the end. Single player PPG isn't what specifically determines the teams offensive talent. Philly did not shoot well as a team, and they did not limit their turnovers. Their best offensive asset as a team...great offensive rebounding, and that was one of Mutombo's best attributes as well as Hill's. In the playoffs, Mutombo, Hill and Lynch combined for 9 OREB. Their second best offensive skill was getting to the line which Iverson was great at, but guess who was also good at it? Mutombo. Iverson averaged 9.5 FTA / 77.4 FT% in the playoffs, Mutombo 6.4 FTA / 77.7 FT%. Compared to Ratliff, Dikembe also turned it over less.

Thirdly, I also don't just characterize a teams offensive ability by the PPG of their second best scorer, or even characterize players actual offensive impact solely by PPG. Indiana who you cited is an example of that. First of a lot more guys were playing big minutes then, so some PPG averages need to take that into account when comparing to averages now at lower minutes. Jermaine O'neal was not anything close to a good offensive player then. He averaged 14.2 pts/36 on 50% TS, Aaron Mckie was a far better and higher impact offensive player with 13.2 pts/36 on .549 TS% while also being a shot creator and averging 5.7 apg. That's why you can't just cite PPG. Indiana was a 41 win team, there was a reason why.

Think of the 13-14 Kings with 3 players scoring 20 PPG, yet they were just 20th in Ortg. The Pistons didn't have any player scoring over 16.4 PPG and they had the same Ortg. That's because more than just individual players PPG goes into the final efficacy of a teams offensive production. That simplistic way of seeing things would imply that someone like Tony Wroten (16.9 ppg last season) has better offensive impact on a team than someone like DeAndre Jordan (11.5 ppg). This is contrary to the reality that D.Jordan is a far superior offensive player not just because he's far more efficient and turns it over less, but because he also averaged 4.8 OREB, and offensive rebounding is a nice positive impact on a teams offense because it extends a possession and gives them a second chance to score in that possession.

The team might not have been great offensively compared to some "great teams" you might think of, but compared to their competition, their offense was good enough, but it was their defense that was the determining factor. So still, compared to the competition in the East, the supporting cast was good, and they met the right competition for their strenghts. Indiana, Toronto and Milwaukee ranked 11th, 14th and 20th in Drtg. Milwaukee was the typical great offense, terrible defense team while Philly was basically the exact opposite.

[aviewfromspace]

the a.i. bashers will say what they will, but there will never be another iverson in the nba. completely revolutionized the league. extremely influential - in sports, in fashion, in music. in fact, most superstars today molded and shaped their game after iverson's.

glad i got to witness this dude live a few times. always left me speechless during his games. tv is one thing, but seeing his games in person was just amazing - his blurring speed, his incredible handles making defenders look silly like they were ice skating on the hardwood, his tenacity going hard and driving against nba centers night in and night out for a decade and not complaining once. can't wait till the day he gets inducted in the HOF.

[nikster]

It doesn't hamper it, but it opens up different spots for shooters, which Iverson could catch and shoot on the move with the best of them. I think it would have helped him get more points that way, but iso's... it did slow down iso since the rules for switching make it much easier to send help on time now. I think, previously, you had to wait until the defender caught the ball before you sent help. I don't really remember the specifics of the rule anymore, tbh.

Clearly doesnt know Iversons game

Clearly doesn't know skillset vs footage.

He just never got passed to, for obvious reasons.

Iverson was a poor 3 point shooter and never played off the ball. To say he could catch and shoot with the best of them is a joke.

[C3H6N6O6]

Nostalgia....nostalgia clouding your judgment. AI would only win a ring if he played for Pop which means he would only average 23-24 ppg.
Some people here think that ISO scoring is up in the league compared to 2000s which is false. His type of players would be the easiest star level player to deal with in playoffs now a days.

Also those saying that AI changed the league are right. He changed it for the worse.

[mateo82]

I wish there was a better way to quantity players who are net-negatives despite being good in some aspect of the game. I consider Allen Iverson to be that kind of player, his impact was a negative for his teams. Carmelo is the same way. No wonder their team-up didn't amount to anything.

It usually corresponds to scorers with high usage rates. Having a high usage rate is not a good thing. It means your teammates can never get into a rhythm and stop moving without the ball. Even LeBron has this problem but he's a great enough passer that he can compensate a bit for the negatives (though it still surfaces occasionally, such as many of his playoff losses).

I worry about Russell Westbrook adopting this style of play, he started to at the end of last year and as we saw it didn't help his team much.

[The_ref]

Nostalgia....nostalgia clouding your judgment. AI would only win a ring if he played for Pop which means he would only average 23-24 ppg.
Some people here think that ISO scoring is up in the league compared to 2000s which is false. His type of players would be the easiest star level player to deal with in playoffs now a days.

Also those saying that AI changed the league are right. He changed it for the worse.

And you don´t know what the **** you´re talking about. If you were around when AI was blowing up the NBA you´d know the impact he had. On AND off the court. People can criticize him all they want and try to scrutinize his game but I´m guessing more people tried to model their game after AI then any current player.