K_chile22 wrote:I'm on the "Iverson is very overrated" bandwagon, but that last part is a stretch even for me lol
Ok, first I'm going to give you what I was going to write, then I'm going to give you my WTF moment I just had while digging through team data.
Basically, my train of thought goes, "Iverson couldn't shoot worth a crap, but was more than happy to do it, and it was indeed very impressive to watch (for as much crap as I talk about him, I really enjoyed watching him play). The reason that team worked was (basically the inverse of how the Rockets work) because they had one indefatigable scorer who wasn't actually very good at scoring, and who was fairly pesky on defense, and 4 very good rebounder/defenders who created extra shot attempts and possessions while reducing the other team's efficiency."
(the Rockets work by getting ridiculously high usage on 3 point shooting, super efficient 2 point shooting, spacing from a respectable lob-threat mobile center, decent defense, and passable rebounding)
I'll grant that the team doesn't work without *A* scorer, but Deke made that team tough, and the other defender/rebounders as a whole were the actual engine.
Take, say, a Dominique Wilkins, or DeMar DeRozan, Russell Westbrook, or Kyrie Irving (anachronistic, I know), or from the time, Ray Allen, Gary Payton, or Vince Carter on that team instead, and I suspect it'd have been a lot more potent. The only real question imo is whether they could have kept up with Iverson's usage rate.
After writing how the Rockets work, I was going through Sixers team stats and ...
Scored at average. Rebounded a bit better than average. Blocks and Steals about .3 difference total, for maybe about 2.6 extra possessions. Fouled about 10% less than opponents. Outscored opponents by 4.3ppg, which makes sense.
https://www.boxscoregeeks.com/teams/phi/2000Ok, wtf. I have no idea.