Code: Select all
92.4 OPP. points per game (7th)
.442 FG% defense (12th)
.399 three point defense (13th)You know what that is? That's the Philadelphia 76ers defensive ranks in the playoffs. While they were the best rebounding, and shot blocking team in the league, the Sixers were in fact not this DOMINANT defensive team many people perceive them to be, going as far as saying Iverson was more a detriment to that team, and the defense was the sole reason they made that run in the finals. Yes his efficiency greatly dropped, and yes, he was wildly inconsistent, but the games he did have, only few could have replicated IMO.
Game 2 @ IND: 45 points, 3 rebounds, 9 assists on 15-27
Game 2 vs TOR: 54 points, 4 rebounds, 5 assists on 21-39
Game 5 vs. TOR: 52 points, 2 rebounds, 7 assists on 21-32
(in Game 7 he shot poorly, but he still had 21 points, and 16 ASSISTS)
Game 6 @ MIL: 46 points, 2 rebounds, 3 assists on 14-33
Game 7 v. MIL: 44 points, 6 rebounds, 7 assists on 17-33
Game 1 @ LA: 48 points, 5 rebounds, 6 assists on 18-41
In the regular season Iverson led the league in scoring, over 31 a game, and his TS% was comparable to McGrady's and higher than a guy like Webber (while both aren't the most efficient in their own right, in this particular season, lack of efficiency wouldn't be used to really negate what they've done). The Sixers did go 6-5 without him (.545), but a couple of those wins were against the lowly Cavaliers (30), Pistons (32), Nets (26), and Bulls (15). *Parenthesis indicating how many wins those respective teams finished with.
With Iverson the Sixers went 50-21, which means they won just over 70% of their games with him in the lineup.
I know it's hard to justify that lack of inefficiency in the playoffs, but I'm not sure, I think efficiency is starting to get a little overrated. I think he should be in the Top 5, but the argument with Iverson is what if guys like Kobe, Mac, and Vince were on that team instead, do they possibly go further? Well, I wouldn't be able to say that with a straight face, and honestly speaking, neither McGrady or VC would have won any more games against the Lakers, if they get that far in the first place (which I'd question).
That's the argument I don't get, people claim Iverson's inefficiency hurt that team, but how much more could that team have done? Because at the end of the day, there was no one else aside from AI that could create his own shot, and there wasn't one person on the team that hit one three per game, let alone shoot a respectable percentage from three. Iverson was statistically the best three point shooter on the team, lol (though McKie was very good in the playoffs from distance). But regardless, there's no one else with the ability to create, or hit an open three point shot. That team fully maximized on the talent it was given, and that was because of Iverson, flat out.
He's definitely not better than Kobe, but he has a legitimate, and IMO the right case over guys like McGrady or VC.
