RealGM Top 100 List #49

[Clyde Frazier]

Runoff vote - Iverson

Going to throw in a vote for iverson. I was thinking about staying out of the runoff completely, but i think iverson has a lot going for him if you don’t focus solely on his lackluster efficiency. Here’s a comparison of the 2 players until their last “prime” season:

http://bkref.com/tiny/bYMoK

Iverson’s TS% in his 01 MVP season (51.8%) matched the league average exactly. It was a crowded MVP race that season, but when you include narrative, I think he had a good case (if i had a vote back then, it would’ve gone to shaq). Iverson would finish top 10 in MVP voting 6 other times, whereas mutombo had 1 MVP finish at 13th.

The fact that iverson finished top 3 in MPG in 10 seasons (7 of which he was #1) is astounding and at least partially a comment on the makeup of his teams over the years. I’m not going to completely ignore his attitude towards being “the man” in his sixers days, but there were never major reports on him clashing with carmelo. Under a better management situation, maybe he gets a complementary scorer that gives him some rest and his efficiency increases.

I also never considered him a “selfish” stat padder when he would rack up steals and assists. The guy was just relentless and had boundless energy at times. He finished top 5 in SPG 7 times, leading the league in 3 straight seasons. He was also top 6 in STL% 5 times. His overall AST% from 97-08 at 29.3% barely dropped in the playoffs to 28.6%. I find that rather impressive for a guy still putting up ~28-30 PPG.

I definitely respect mutombo’s ability as an elite defender as well as being adequate offensively at lower volume. I just don’t see him as a top 50 player all time. When you look at what he and iverson were able to do in 1 season together, that may have been a great match to build on if they teamed up earlier in their careers.

[E-Balla]

So, Iverson paired with another top 100 player (Carmelo) can produce an offense rated 9th or 11th in the league. English is appreciably more efficient, a class act, works harder on defense, and produces 5 straight top 5 offenses and 2 straight #1 in the league offenses and Iverson fans will start considering them after Iverson is in. I don't see it.

So, paired with 2 other top 50 players (Nash and Dwight) Kobe can produce an offense rated 9th and win 47 games.

So, great defender who also rebounded and scored a bit on reasonably good efficiency v. low percentage gunner who notoriously blew off practice and played poor defense. VOTE Dikembe Mutombo Mpolondo Mukamba Jean-Jacques Wamutombo

So, great volume ball handler who also dragged some terrible offenses to respectable levels or offensively limited big man who never recieved a single RPOY vote.

See how easy it is to dismiss the other side when using fallacious arguments.

That was an answer to the comment that Iverson when paired with Anthony had more efficient years than his Philly years and offenses ranked 9th and 11th . . . compare that to English's accomplishments.

8th and 11th. And that's completely ignoring everything around them. Outside of a pre prime Melo and a post prime Iverson they had 2 other offensive players (A Pimp Named Stepback and Linas Kleiza), they were a defensive team by build that was full of constantly injured bigs (Martin and Nene practically missed full seasons), and they still ranked around 10th on defense with all those injuries. Alex English and his teammates probably couldn't spell defense if you spotted them "efense". The best team he was on (the 88 Nuggets) won 54 games which and was 8th out of 23 in SRS. The 08 Nuggets were 11th out of 30 in SRS and went 50-32 (same expected win loss as the 88 Nuggets too).

Then compare English's individual numbers to Iverson . . . then compare durability

From 81-89 English averaged 26.9/5.7/4.6 which looks great until you adjust for pace. Iverson averaged 29.6/4.0/5.9 which looks amazing before adjusting for him playing 42 minutes a night. Still Iverson's average pp100 in Philly (35.0 pp100) is higher than all but one of English's seasons. English's average TS was 55.7 (around +1.5 in his prime). Iverson was 51.0 (around -1.5) but with way higher usage, non offensive systems, and basically no offensive help. I'll give you durability but remember Iverson was a small guy playing 42 minutes a night in a do it all role during the toughest modern defensive era for perimeter players. That definitely wore him down.

. . . then compare English's reputation for being a team guy and generally class act to Iverson. I don't see any way that Iverson comes out on top in anything except (as always his only argument when compared to a legitimate top 50 player) he had a higher scoring average. That he scored those points inefficiently, that he required an offense that was Iverson isolates while everyone else stands around for a possible kickout, that he was frequently burned on defense both because of his gambling and because he felt that as a scorer he could take defensive possessions off, that he blew off practices with regularity . . . none of it matters because he had a high points per game average and was fun to watch. That's not my criteria for greatness; mine is helping a team win and being able to help a team win championships.

English did that better than Iverson, Mutombo did that better than Iverson, it's way too early for someone with Iverson's resume.

Seems to me that you just don't like Iverson which is cool but don't make it seem like its insane to vote in an MVP that has led a better team than anyone else left on the board and single handedly beat the GOAT team in the NBA Finals.

English has never proved he could help a team win a ring more than Iverson. Stick Iverson on a team like the Bulls this year and you have a ring.

[john248]

Spoiler:

A little more on Iverson's context in Philadelphia....

When Iverson missed games in his prime:
’00
11/24/99: 93 pts, .510 TS%, 96.9 ORtg (L)
11/26/99: 106 pts (OT), .530 TS%, 114.5 ORtg (W)
11/27/99: 82 pts, .420 TS%, 92.3 ORtg (W)
11/30/99: 74 pts, .424 TS%, 82.8 ORtg (W)
12/1/99: 83 pts, .469 TS%, 97.5 ORtg (L)
12/3/99: 102 pts, .504 TS%, 98.6 ORtg (W)
12/4/99: 77 pts, .503 TS%, 95.3 ORtg (W)
12/6/99: 77 pts, .410 TS%, 81.2 ORtg (L)
12/8/99: 83 pts, .458 TS%, 91.2 ORtg (W)
12/10/99: 78 pts, .406 TS%, 90.3 ORtg (L)
3/16/00: 77 pts, .470 TS%, 91.0 ORtg (L)
4/18/00: 93 pts, .521 TS%, 105.1 ORtg (W)
Avg: 85.4 ppg, ~.469 TS%, 94.7 ORtg (7-5 (.583) w/o, 42-28 (.600) with)
Where that would rank in league: 28th of 29 in ppg, 29th of 29 in TS%, 28th of 29 in ORtg.

’01
12/26/00: 97 pts, .615 TS%, 113.7 ORtg (W)
01/19/01: 97 pts, .610 TS%, 110.8 ORtg (W)
03/14/01: 85 pts, .546 TS%, 107.7 ORtg (W)
03/17/01: 78 pts, .529 TS%, 95.7 ORtg (L)
03/19/01: 89 pts, .551 TS%, 106.8 ORtg (L)
03/20/01: 77 pts, .447 TS%, 98.8 ORtg (L)
03/23/01: 71 pts, .435 TS%, 83.6 ORtg (L)
04/04/01: 90 pts, .424 TS%, 97.1 ORtg (W)
04/06/01: 96 pts, .495 TS%, 114.2 ORtg (W)
04/17/01: 111 pts (OT), .522 TS%, 106.3 ORtg (W)
04/18/01: 86 pts, .498 TS%, 100.7 ORtg (L---to worst team in league)
Avg: 88.8 pts, ~.516 TS%, 103.2 ORtg (6-5 (.545) w/o, 50-21 (.704) with)
Where that would rank in league: 27th of 29 in ppg, 14th of 29 in TS%, tied for 13th of 29 in ORtg (couple flukey >.600 TS% game in this sample, though)

’02
10/30/01: 74 pts, .451 TS%, 92.0 ORtg (L)
11/01/01: 92 pts, .535 TS%, 101.6 ORtg (L)
11/03/01: 76 pts, .479 TS%, 89.1 ORtg (L)
11/06/01: 77 pts, .479 TS%, 96.6 ORtg (L)
11/08/01: 72 pts, .463 TS%, 89.2 ORtg (L)
12/07/01: 76 pts, .426 TS%, 91.0 ORtg (L)
12/08/01: 83 pts, .501 TS%, 95.1 ORtg (L)
02/17/02: 76 pts, .395 TS%, 86.6 ORtg (L)
03/24/02: 90 pts, .532 TS%, 112.9 ORtg (W)
03/27/02: 80 pts, .448 TS%, 88.1 ORtg (L)
03/28/02: 99 pts, .548 TS%, 110.0 ORtg (W)
03/30/02: 92 pts, .491 TS%, 108.9 ORtg (L)
03/31/02: 70 pts, .451 TS%, 85.8 ORtg (L)
04/03/02: 89 pts, .486 TS%, 96.1 ORtg (W)
04/05/02: 88 pts, .504 TS%, 111.8 ORtg (L)
04/07/02: 89 pts, .535 TS%, 110.7 ORtg (W)
04/09/02: 92 pts, .516 TS%, 114.5 ORtg (W)
04/10/02: 77 pts, .452 TS%, 91.8 ORtg (L)
04/12/02: 100 pts, .563 TS%, 115.5 ORtg (W)
04/14/02: 95 pts, .556 TS%, 114.2 ORtg (W)
04/15/02: 96 pts, .501 TS%, 108.1 ORtg (L)
04/17/02: 80 pts, .481 TS%, 94.3 ORtg (L)
Avg: 84.7 pts, .491 TS%, 100.2 ORtg (7-15 (.318) w/o, 36-24 (.600) with)
Where that would rank in league: 29th of 29 in ppg, 29th of 29 in TS%, 26th of 29 in ORtg

He didn't miss any games in '03; am still working on '04 thru '06; will try to post it later.

It's nice to see the numbers, but I don't think anyone is disputing this anyways. Philly was roughly a .500 team without Iverson. With AI's offense, it raised their offensive rating while maintaining their defensive rating which produced winning basketball. I think most of us understand that on those Larry Brown Sixers teams that while AI's usage was indeed high, it was better for the team as you don't want the likes of Snow, McKie, Lynch, Hill, and Mutombo to have more possessions than they had. I think we all also know that with AI, the Sixers were able to get to the line more and get more 3pt shots. He did have impact on that end.

But the issue with AI still remains that his offense was still not at a level that was truly impressive. He was mainly a 101-106 ORTG player during those Sixers runs which is rather mediocre. I also agree with tsherkin in the comparison to the 11 Bulls and that the Sixers won largely on the back of the defense. If in 2001 the Sixers couldn't trade for Mutombo after Ratliff got injured, they might not be able to maintain that 98-99 defensive rating at which point Iverson's offense becomes far less valuable and even replaceable.

I don't feel he's a better offensive player than say Nique, KJ, Pau, or a better player to build around than some of the guys voted for. I do feel he's a top 60 guy.

[Owly]

Firstly I note you don't address the optimal rules point.

Which is what exactly? If I didn't address something it's because I missed it or it wasn't at all substantive.

And given you're an AI advocate and feel that rules went against him, this might be the nub of the issue. If you believe rules shackled him then go and make that case and appeal to voters whose criteria have more leeway in that area.

I don’t need to “go and make that case” to anyone. It’s a fact, it isn’t some nebulous opinion. He demonstrates a TS% of 4 points higher (a bigger jump than any of his contemporaries saw after the rule change) in a period where his efficacy at attacking the basket was actually LOWER than it was in his lesser-efficiency period. Nothing really needs to be said or argued beyond that, the data (and the tape) makes this abundantly clear.

TBH it feels like you're just picking an argument, because as I say you're picking at little bits of fractions of what I'm saying, in an attempt to "win" an argument and make those not pro-Iverson look unreasonable.

I’m not trying to “win” anything, this is realgm, I have no doubt whatsoever anything pro-Iverson is probably not even going to be considered, but I’d at least rather have some debunking of common fallacious stances regarding him on record. I’m not “pro-Iverson” in a comparison to Deke. I’m pro-accuracy and while I feel like Deke should have gone around 5 spots ago, Iverson should have gone around 10-12 spots ago, so yeah, I feel slightly stronger about his drop than I do Mutombo’s.

One last time, I'm not arguing Allen Iverson made Chris Webber inefficient (my only comment on him specifically is that him being inefficient with Allen Iverson is a bizzare argument for countering a suggestion that AI doesn't pair well with other scorers).

Then I see absolutely no point in referencing synergy. Synergy implies Iverson did a poor job of elevating Webber or was actively inhibiting his success. No real analysis of Philly's gameplan could actually would yield such a result, so that is "bizarre" to me. And again, lol at calling Webber at that point a "scorer" (unless you simply use the term interchangeably with "guy who took a lot of shots").

I'm suggesting AI peaked, both individually and a team level, with a defensive minded team, his spells with higher usage players generally tended to make him, them and the team less effective. Correlation isn't causation, so maybe there's a better explanation;

Yes the "better explanation" is that Post-Knee Webber and Jerry Stackhouse are not actually good offensive players. I don’t know why you are trying to do intellectual hoola-hoops around a very basic and readily apparent point. I never understood why him doing better on a team with elite defensive support was an indictment of him (or Kidd, or Isiah). If he's able to entirely bootstrap an offense himself while allowing a GM to collect defensive talents it is no different than an all-time defensive anchor allowing a GM to pursue offensive talent at the expense of defense. It's a benefit, not a detractor. If you want to say "well he doesn't scale as well as other guys" fine, but most or all of guys who could bootstrap an offense just as well while also scaling their offenses to better teams have been voted in.

Have you read all my posts. My central thesis was, Iverson's primary value is as a usage/volume sponge, and for the most part could not (or at least might not be able to) exchange volume for efficiency (and that somewhat as a result of this, he wasn't an ideal piece to build around). .

Right, and I find it objectionable you are leaning on post-knee Webber and Young Jerry Stackhouse to make this assertion when they themselves were bottom-of-the-barrel scorers who didn’t really make up for this by being particularly creative offensively (moreso Stack than C-Webb, at least Webber could pass). The one time he was paired with an actually efficacious scorer (Carmelo) they netted the #8 and #11 offense league-wide and were a 50+ win team in an extremely competitive conference. And this is despite the fact both are primarily on-ball scorers, which makes a big difference (although Melo has made strides off the ball since then).

You're taking the one instance of a concession that he might have done that and saying he didn't, which is fair enough, but as I understand it you're pro-Iverson. I'm just not sure where you're going

"Where I'm going" is that the "trade-off" your implying boosted his efficiency is actually much closer to the TS% base-line we should credit him with as an offensive player. If you are going to completely ignore this as fact (or say it's unimportant, which you seem to be saying), then there is really nothing else to discuss.

though given you're also suggesting Iverson can't trade down on usage for efficiency (or can sustain a level of efficiency with increased usage, depending on how you look at it) you seem to be heading down the same path. The primary difference it seems is you suggest rules (artificially?) deflated that effciency, whereas I don't care so much whether they did or not.

And right, even if you "don’t care” that his efficiency was artificially suppressed (which is completely ridiculous from an evaluation standpoint IMO) he clearly was not hurting his team by assuming such volume because he was on teams ill-equipped to generate offense outside of him. His teammates were generally just as inefficient as he was, and would have (likely) been more inefficient without his distortive presence.

One last time ...

On "optimal rules" the points made were (1) assuming no changes is style of play 60s and before is the worst time for AI to play, not early 2000s, (2) that guessing how players play in a league they didn't play in, or projecting better results than a player actually achieved is risky . Though as stated there a case for both sides and consistently active thread members will be aware of the debate around this when Schayes was a candidate and (3) there is no one version of basketball that is real and the rest is artificial, basketball has changed over the years but I don't think that means you can go, "Well the early 2000s championships, awards etc don't count because I don't like how the game was officiated." Which is the implication of your present use of saying his numbers were artificially surpressed.

re: "Then I see absolutely no point in referencing synergy. Synergy implies Iverson did a poor job of elevating Webber or was actively inhibiting his success." This isn't about Chris Webber. It's about AI blending poorly with more or less every scorer he played with. Apart from Melo, though from what you've said you don't seem to think he personally did that well out teaming up with Melo as you consider his high efficiency that year primarily a result of rule changes.

re: Stackhouse and Webber. It's not just Stackhouse and Webber. Webber's injured fine, he played better later and if you want to put that down to bad strategy fine, I'll defer but it's worth asking why Webber was being used in such a role (to keep bodies away from the paint, for AI to attack?). It's Weatherspoon's usage falling 4.6% on AI's arrival and his TS% falling slightly. then his first 3 full seasons away from AI his efficiency is way up and his usage typically up. For Coleman there's injuries clouding the picture (with AI), but similar trend on AI's arrival versus his last healthy year, and an uptick when healthy without AI (mainly the 2nd Charlotte year but you can take the average of those versus his averages in Philly, and that he seems better on O despite a rep as lazy and the aging process ...), though given his injuries in Philly this is fairly level of O by itself. Joe Smith in his brief spell in Philly posts poor numbers, ditto Jimmy Jackson, at least compared with previous full season though in these instances it's more a turnover issue, whether that's AI related is debateable, in each case a small sample. Thomas's numbers are all over the place year-to-year. Within the season of his trade he's much better in Milwaukee, but comparing the full year before to the full year after, little difference. Geiger's numbers are down on arrival, though from a career year. Kukoc gains efficiency on arrival but with a very large loss in usage, in the season he leaves usage and efficiency are substantially better in Milwaukee though in a very small sample, injuries thereafter render later numbers volatile. Hughes, has no "prior to AI" numbers but does well in Philly in his first year where he is clearly used in the 2nd unit (less so when spliting time between started and bench role the next year). When he leaves, within the season he looks better away from AI, but regresses the next year. Nazr Mohammed hugely inconsistent year to year but, within the season, much more efficient without AI, with little trade off in usage. Todd Maculloch regresses when leaving Philly, but also after rejoining them. KVH improves in Philly (substantial increase in efficiency for small usage drop) but is arguably only reaching a similar value to earlier in his career (though with less usage and more efficiency) and achieves similar (slightly superior) levels the next year on two different teams. Stackhouse fwiw regresses very slightly (as a young player) on Iverson's arrival. In the season he's traded he does better outside Philly. His next full year falls back to Philly levels (worse in raw terms by TS%, but not much different by the metrics, suuggesting the lockout is deflating efficiency numbers that year) and then goes on to show substantially increased usage at better than or equal to those in Philly. None of this is damning by itself. But there's very little to falsify a claim that AI blended poorly with supporting scorers. There are cases where the evidence is mixed and cases where it's generally against AI, often a combination of the two - negative, but not strong - but there's very little in his favour. Maybe KVH?

re: "bottom-of-the-barrel scorers who didn’t really make up for this by being particularly creative". How many uncreative, bottom-of-the-barrel scorers led the league in ppg. I'm by no means a Stackhouse fan (I'm not a huge fan of high volume low efficiency scorers) but this seems a bit OTT.

re:"they netted the #8 and #11 offense league-wide" Wow, that's the bar. Play with another offensive "star" (it has been suggested top 100 here) and be around the 67th percentile. Hovering on the edge of the top third. 2.5 and 1.1 above league average. Penbeast has covered it but ...

re: "And right, even if you "don’t care” that his efficiency was artificially suppressed (which is completely ridiculous from an evaluation standpoint IMO)" It wasn't artificially suppressed. Assuming it was lower by the one set of rules than the other, what makes one interpretation more right than the other. As I've said what matters to me is contribution to winning in context of the rules of the day. It's already been covered by me here within the post and the prior threads discussed it thoroughly and if you want to discuss it there's separate threads or meta threads. But for me, saying "how helpful he was in the rules he played in matters little, I believe he'd do better under other rules" and putting a large weighting on that gets dangerously close to just picking your favourite players. Hey Maravich had crazy handles, what if he'd had the three point line, been allowed to carry like AI and had decent teammates.

re: "he clearly was not hurting his team by assuming such volume because he was on teams ill-equipped to generate offense outside of him. His teammates were generally just as inefficient as he was, and would have (likely) been more inefficient without his distortive presence." No one has contended that his ability to handle a high shot creation burden wasn't useful (at least not here, maybe over the Wages of Wins network). Just that it wasn't so valuable that he warrants this spot.

[penbeast0]

I didn't used to dislike Iverson, I rooted for him at Georgetown and enjoyed watching him play. I liked watching Pete Maravich, World B Free, and Nate Archibald a lot too (expecially World B Free who was one of my favorite players); I just don't think any of them are as good as an Alex English.

You put English on those Philly teams with Larry Brown as his coach instead of Doug Moe (and Iverson on those Doug Moe teams) and I think you improve the chance of the Philly team going further in the playoffs (still don't think they beat Shaq, Kobe, and the 01 Lakers). I think the scoring is still similar, possibly a little better, I think the ball movement improves, I think the team attitude improves (though Larry Brown deserved his COY awards for keeping everyone working as a team despite Iverson's issues), and I think Philly's records and postseason success approve . . . a little bit. It was a team built around Iverson's strengths but English's strengths are similar (great scorer, good ballhandler and passer, able to run all day).

I think you add Iverson to Denver and they are appreciably worse. I don't think Iverson is versatile enough to be a high post hub with Issel and Vandeweghe, I think he and Calvin Natt's personalities clash . . . to say nothing of the loud and volatile Doug Moe, I don't think Iverson can change his game and be the kickout catch and shoot player that English often was when playing with Fat Lever and Michael Adams, and I don't think Denver has the depth to cover the way Philly did (on that 01 team, there were little used players like Raja Bell, Tony Kukoc, Tm McCormick, etc. that were pretty solid players elsewhere and could have stepped up their roles).

[Joao Saraiva]

Do I need to vote again in the run off or since I voted Iverson it still counts? If there is a need, I'm voting for Iverson.

[Owly]

That's actually a myth. Nuggets in 2009 had worse SRS than in 2008, their offense also regressed and they improved on defense - not because of Bullups, but because of better frontcourt rotation (mainly because Nene was finally healthy).

They got better in 2009.

They didn't. Nuggets SRS WAS WORSE IN 2009. Their offense also was worse. Explain that if Billups was really so better fit and so on.

They made the WCF because Billups was more suited as a playoff player than AI.

They made WCF, because of better seed, what was result of several more lucky wins in RS. But at the end effect was the same - they lost to further finalist.

I'm not hugely on one side here but some questions / hypotheses/ throwing stuff out there

- Why does Billups being better on D (I would suggest) not matter?

- Denver's pace slowed down quite a bit. If you are just focusing on O, fast teams tend to do better at that end. The other thing would be so far as I'm aware SRS doesn't account for pace. If you're 2 points above average per hundred possessions then a playing at a higher pace will enhance your SRS. Maybe this is marginal, but I think at least worth noting.

- Are the teams sufficiently the same to make a comparison (or at least to assume differences come from AI/Billups swap). To me this is the main point.
'08 team by minutes played
Iverson
Anthony
Camby
Martin
Carter
Kleiza
Najera
Smith

'09
Billups
Nene
Anthony
Smith
Martin
Kleiza
Carter
Andersen
Dahntay Jones

Billups is playing less then AI did (how people interpret that is up to them), Nene is back but Camby is gone. Anthony plays 529 less minutes (11 less games). Smith leaps up the rotation. Najera is gone, Andersen and Jones arrive.

I think there's sufficient differencce to suggest that you can't isolate the AI/Billups impact at the team level, at least not just by looking at team level differences.

Anyhow ...
Vote: Mutombo. He’s a little higher on my career added value (faux/modified PER-EWA and WS pythag rankings; fwiw career WARP is super close Mutombo on 141, Iverson 139) and I think he’s easier to build a winner around because I don’t think there’s any issue such as AI arguably has with how much he helps an already good offensive team or how he combines with offensive talent.

[Owly]

I didn't used to dislike Iverson, I rooted for him at Georgetown and enjoyed watching him play. I liked watching Pete Maravich, World B Free, and Nate Archibald a lot too (expecially World B Free who was one of my favorite players); I just don't think any of them are as good as an Alex English.

You put English on those Philly teams with Larry Brown as his coach instead of Doug Moe (and Iverson on those Doug Moe teams) and I think you improve the chance of the Philly team going further in the playoffs (still don't think they beat Shaq, Kobe, and the 01 Lakers). I think the scoring is still similar, possibly a little better, I think the ball movement improves, I think the team attitude improves (though Larry Brown deserved his COY awards for keeping everyone working as a team despite Iverson's issues), and I think Philly's records and postseason success approve . . . a little bit. It was a team built around Iverson's strengths but English's strengths are similar (great scorer, good ballhandler and passer, able to run all day).

I think you add Iverson to Denver and they are appreciably worse. I don't think Iverson is versatile enough to be a high post hub with Issel and Vandeweghe, I think he and Calvin Natt's personalities clash . . . to say nothing of the loud and volatile Doug Moe, I don't think Iverson can change his game and be the kickout catch and shoot player that English often was when playing with Fat Lever and Michael Adams, and I don't think Denver has the depth to cover the way Philly did (on that 01 team, there were little used players like Raja Bell, Tony Kukoc, Tm McCormick, etc. that were pretty solid players elsewhere and could have stepped up their roles).

[colts18]

They didn't. Nuggets SRS WAS WORSE IN 2009. Their offense also was worse. Explain that if Billups was really so better fit and so on.

The offense went from 11th to 7th.

They made WCF, because of better seed, what was result of several more lucky wins in RS. But at the end effect was the same - they lost to further finalist.

They made the WCF because of Billups. In the first 2 rounds, he averaged 22-7-4, .716 TS%, 144 O rating and shut down Chris Paul. Iverson was not capable of having a playoff run like that.

[ronnymac2]

Yeah Chauncey's offense in the 2009 playoffs was insane. One of the GOAT PG playoff runs in the modern era. Basically perfect PG play. Denver was looking like a GOAT playoff offense (albeit against meh defenses).

[Texas Chuck]

Do I need to vote again in the run off or since I voted Iverson it still counts? If there is a need, I'm voting for Iverson.

Unless you were changing your vote for some reason you don't have to do anything--your original vote for Iverson will stand.

[Doctor MJ]

Ah, interesting Mutombo vs Iverson. Fitting given they played together.

So look, the mantra basically all through Iverson's prime was "but they wouldn't win a game if he wasn't there", despite the fact that whenever he missed time, his team did okay.

He was one of the key guys we all wanted to look at when we got enough +/- data, and the trend has been very constant:

He never impacted the game up there with his reputation. As you know I have my RAPM spreadsheet. In it I typically have players sorted based on averaging their top 5 seasons.

When I do this Iverson is on the 121st row. By contrast Mutombo is on the 21st row.

Now 2 things:
1) We happen to be lacking 2001 data, which was of course Iverson's most glamorous year
2) As mentioned before, 1998 data is problematic.

But yeah, Iverson is WAY down the list. Like a guy who gets trounced by quality role players, but here's a list of other all-stars from his own era ahead of him:

Manu Ginobili
Rasheed Wallace
Ron Artest
Brad Miller
Chris Bosh
Andri Kirilenko
Grant Hill
Baron Davis
Eddie Jones
Lol Deng
Vince Carter
Ben Wallace
Sam Cassell
Tony Parker
Chris Webber
Elton Brand
Shawn Marion
Yao Ming
Rashard Lewis
Josh Howard
Jermaine O'Neal
Chauncey Billups
Pau Gasol

...and I'm only half way down the gap between Mutombo & Iverson there.

The bottom line is that guy just wasn't that great at actually helping his team, and you all know the reasons why:

1) He was an inefficient scorer.
2) He wasn't much good at anything else.
3) He undermined his coaches at every step along the way.

You can argue toward the end he seemed like he was figuring stuff out, but of course if he'd truly figured it out, he'd have been able to keep playing.

[Doctor MJ]

I didn't used to dislike Iverson, I rooted for him at Georgetown and enjoyed watching him play.

Similar thoughts from me.

Back around 2000 when I was a casual fan, he was my favorite player. Loved how he was completely unable to be daunted. He'd attack no matter what, with no thought to the pain that would come.

But then I started analyzing the game more methodically and my perception changed. That shot where a guy hits with a man draped over him is something the casual fan loves, "...and you STILL can't stop me!", but as someone who has seen the data I know full well that most of the time that shot means a blown possession and that a smart defender merely shrugs off when it goes in every once in a while.

Once you stop seeing good luck as evidence of unstoppability, certain guys' bubbles burst. Iverson's probably the main one of this age.

[SinceGatlingWasARookie]

I don't remember Alex English being a good defender. His teams were amount the worst in the league at opponents field goal percentage.

.....

As I said earlier, check the post-Issel Nuggets. With still pretty mediocre but not disastrous bigs defensively (the biggest 2 were Danny Schayes and Wayne Cooper), the Nuggs were a top 10 defense 4 of the last 5 years of the 80s while English was still their best offensive player. It's just disguised a bit by the Nuggets continuing to play at a very fast pace. As for the first 5 years, they were great offensively (top 5 every year, 1st twice) but Scottie Pippen couldn't carry a C/F combination of Dan Issel and Kiki Vandeweghe to a decent defensive rating.

Rplacing Kiki with Cooper, Natt and Lever changed the Nuggets. I think Cooper is underrated. Cooper is not one of those Giants who dominates the paint but Cooper has impressive blocks per minutes numbers. Natt was probably a significant upgrade over Kiki defensively. Lever did good things and forced turnovers.





Denver became an elite turnover forcing team with Cooper, Lever and Natt and they defended 3s well but they still were near the bottom of the NBA at opponents 2 point ft percentage.


I am ambivalent about English vs Iverson. I think Iverson is a better fit for the 76ers because while Iverson can't be as efficient as English I feel that defenses can't reduce Iverson's shooting percentage much by focussing on him. English always had decent scorers on the team with him. Issel may have been a bad defender but he helped create floor spacing on offense. If English was on a team where the defense could focus on him he might have had his efficiency severely reduced.

[lorak]

They got better in 2009.

They didn't. Nuggets SRS WAS WORSE IN 2009. Their offense also was worse. Explain that if Billups was really so better fit and so on.

They made the WCF because Billups was more suited as a playoff player than AI.

They made WCF, because of better seed, what was result of several more lucky wins in RS. But at the end effect was the same - they lost to further finalist.

I'm not hugely on one side here but some questions / hypotheses/ throwing stuff out there

- Why does Billups being better on D (I would suggest) not matter?

Maybe it mattered, but explain how Billups helped improve Nuggets D? Because what I see are additions of Nene and Birdman as main reason of Denver's improved defense.

BTW, according to both multiyear RAPM studies ('02-'11 and '01-'14) Billups was WORSE defender than Iverson. Chauncey also looks significantly worse on defense in both 2008 and 2009...

- Denver's pace slowed down quite a bit. If you are just focusing on O, fast teams tend to do better at that end.

Not true. That myth was discussed many times on realGM and there's no correlation between pace and ortg.

- Are the teams sufficiently the same to make a comparison (or at least to assume differences come from AI/Billups swap). To me this is the main point.
'08 team by minutes played
Iverson
Anthony
Camby
Martin
Carter
Kleiza
Najera
Smith

'09
Billups
Nene
Anthony
Smith
Martin
Kleiza
Carter
Andersen
Dahntay Jones

Billups is playing less then AI did (how people interpret that is up to them), Nene is back but Camby is gone. Anthony plays 529 less minutes (11 less games). Smith leaps up the rotation. Najera is gone, Andersen and Jones arrive.

I think there's sufficient differencce to suggest that you can't isolate the AI/Billups impact at the team level, at least not just by looking at team level differences.

If so, then Billups supprters also can't do it...

Anyway, I think 2009 team minus Billups was better than 2008 minus Iverson.

[lorak]

They didn't. Nuggets SRS WAS WORSE IN 2009. Their offense also was worse. Explain that if Billups was really so better fit and so on.

The offense went from 11th to 7th.

+2.5 in 2008, +2.1 in 2009...

And what with SRS? Do you admit 2009 team was worse or at least not better? If no, then why?

As for 2009 playoff run - please, explain why they lost to eventual finalist, exactly the same as 2008 Nuggets...

[penbeast0]

I don't remember Alex English being a good defender. His teams were amount the worst in the league at opponents field goal percentage.

.....

As I said earlier, check the post-Issel Nuggets. With still pretty mediocre but not disastrous bigs defensively (the biggest 2 were Danny Schayes and Wayne Cooper), the Nuggs were a top 10 defense 4 of the last 5 years of the 80s while English was still their best offensive player. It's just disguised a bit by the Nuggets continuing to play at a very fast pace. As for the first 5 years, they were great offensively (top 5 every year, 1st twice) but Scottie Pippen couldn't carry a C/F combination of Dan Issel and Kiki Vandeweghe to a decent defensive rating.

Rplacing Kiki with Cooper, Natt and Lever changed the Nuggets. I think Cooper is underrated. Cooper is not one of those Giants who dominates the paint but Cooper has impressive blocks per minutes numbers. Natt was probably a significant upgrade over Kiki defensively. Lever did amazing things and forced turnovers.

Denver became an elite turnover forcing team with Cooper, Lever and Natt and they defended 3s well but they still were near the bottom of the NBA at opponents 2 point ft percentage.

Okay, but then does English get credit for being a key component of that defensive improvement? After all, creating turnovers and guarding 3's is more the job of the wing than the big men where 2 pt fg percentage tends to be more affected by big man d. And yeah, Wayne Cooper was solid, but he wasn't a Dikembe Mutombo or even Theo Ratliff. He was a solid NBA rotation big or marginal starter. Natt didn't last long physically and was replaced by Danny Schayes who was average offensively and defensively with Cooper shifting to reserve or sometimes PF.

[Moonbeam]

Very interesting discussion about Iverson!

I've looked at a method of deconstructing Offensive Win Shares to have a look at players' performances against expectations. From these plots, we can attempt to infer which seasons a player outperformed expectations vs. which seasons he underperformed. I've also looked at effects on teammates. With Iverson, it looks largely like his presence did not either help or hurt his teammates overall. Take it for what it's worth:



So, in seasons where he played at least 28 MPG, Iverson had a weighted OWS of 4.851, which comprised 22.9% of his teams' totals, on average. His presence correlated with his teammates having a weighted OWS difference of -0.120 (so basically no difference), performing to 99.2% of expectations.

Anyway, my runoff vote is for Mutombo. I generally agree that Iverson is a very good player and that his efficiency issues can undermine his overall impact, I think Mutombo on average had a greater overall impact on his teams. Iverson may have peaked a bit higher, but Mutombo was an excellent player for longer.

[penbeast0]

Dikembe Mutombo - Chuck Texas, tsherkin, Doctor MJ, SactoKingsFan, penbeast0, john 248, Moonbeam

Allen Iverson - Joao Saraiva, Basketballefan, E-Balla, DQuinn1575, trex_8063, ronnymac2, Clyde Frazier

[Moonbeam]

Dikembe Mutombo - Chuck Texas, tsherkin, Doctor MJ, SactoKingsFan, penbeast0, john 248

Allen Iverson - Joao Saraiva, Basketballefan, E-Balla, DQuinn1575, trex_8063, ronnymac2, Clyde Frazier

I just voted for Dikembe.