Quotatious wrote:I think that 2001 as his peak is a popular choice because of the MVP that he won, and team success. I'd take 2006 (and maybe also 2005) over 2001 though, because I think that hand-checking being disallowed since the 2004-05 season really made Iverson more efficient. If there's one player who really had it easier to play because of that rule change, it's Iverson - his style of play and small statute seems tailor made for more wide-open basketball. Him finally getting some help (Webber, and even Korver or Iggy), certainly also had something to do with his efficiency being higher than ever before that, but having more freedom in terms of attacking off the dribble and getting to the rim, definitely helped.
Well, that's part of the difference in our analysis because while I'd agree that the rule changes and even just overall stylistic and philosophical differences in the game aided Iverson's efficiency and offensive numbers, I'm not crediting him with becoming a better player because of that.
While Iverson himself called 2005 his best season at the time, I definitely think he played better in 2001. One big difference was that Iverson moved to point guard in 2005, but I thought he was more effective at the 2 with Snow and even McKie doing a lot of the ball-handling in 2001 because AI was really tough for anyone to deal with cutting and curling off screens. I also thought this was a more effective way to balance the offense a bit more while still having Iverson take a ton of shots while in 2005, I just thought he was too ball-dominant. Yes, he averaged nearly 31/8, but taking over 24 FGA and 10.5 FTA along with 4.6 TO per game itself suggests extreme ball-dominance, much less when you watch him play and he's not only handling the ball as much as a point guard like CP3, but instead of being a pass-first point guard, he's still shooting like early 2000s Iverson. Iverson also had the benefit of playing in O'Brien's more up-tempo system and having the ball in his hands more allowed him to take the shot he wanted more often rather than having to take more jumpers because he was playing off the ball more in 2001. In addition to this, Iverson's jump shot was better throughout the 2001 season than 2005, I'd say he was a bit quicker and more athletic and his energy level in 2001 was amazing. Plus, young Iverson was a remarkable finisher for his size. This is evident in his 68.6 FG% at the rim in 2001 vs 54.6% in 2005. I also think he was better defensively in 2001.
So 2001 is an easy choice for me over 2005. Granted, the on/off difference was greater offensively in 2005, but this came on an '05 Sixer team with the 7th worst offense in the league and was -2.6 below league average, while in 2001, Philly had the 13th best offense and were +0.6 over league average. Truthfully, both Sixer teams won more on defense, with the difference being that the '01 Sixer defense was dominant defensively while the '05 team was merely pretty good, but the '01 Sixers were also a respectable offensive team while the '05 Sixers were terrible.
Given everything and the fact that I think '05 Iverson was playing in a way that you couldn't win much beyond .500 and a 1st round appearance with it, this isn't too close, imo. I'll address 2001 vs 2006 below since that's the closer, more interesting comparison, imo.
In addition, I like that fact that he was able to significantly raise his APG numbers (7.4, compared to just 4.6 in 2001),while also not turning the ball over any more than he did in '01 (both seasons he had about 10% TOV, and in '06 he had 34.9% AST, compared to just 23.0% in '01) - honestly, for a guy with such a high usage like AI (basically the same both years, about 36%, and both rank in the top 10 highest of all-time...), the fact that he turned the ball over so rarely, and was able to create so much for himself and his teammates, is pretty amazing, and I imagine that it's one of just a few positive things you can say about Iverson based on statistical analysis. Sixers offense was about league-average in both 2001 and 2006, so I don't think it matters.
Good point about turnovers, though the raise in assists doesn't mean too much to me since '01 Iverson was playing off the ball much more at the 2, while '06 Iverson was playing point guard, and even if it was basically because of Korver, Philly was still a more respectable 3 point shooting team in 2006 and it was easier to get to the basket in 2006 than 2001, especially with Iverson able to get the shot he wanted more often in his new role.
As with 2005, Iverson's 54.9 FG% at the rim in 2006 was a far cry from his 68.6% in 2001. Iverson's outside shooting was also much better in 2001 with all of those 20 footers he was hitting and his streaky 3 point shooting, though his inbetween and mid-range game in 2006 was better, though I'd say his defense was better in 2001 than 2006. Iverson was a better passer by 2006 than he had been in 2001, but AI had already been a gifted playmaker for years. We saw this in the 2001 playoffs when he was still able to make an impact in games even when his shot was way off such as game 7 vs Toronto when he had just 21 points on 8/27 shooting, but also had 16 assists. And as streaky as his shooting was at 38.9% for the 2001 playoffs, Iverson still took 30 FGA per game, averaged 9.5 FTA and 6.1 apg, but only 2.9 TO per game, which was good for a remarkable TO% of just 7.7%.
The most compelling case I see for 2006 Iverson is that their offense was almost as good at 15th best and -0.2 below league average, yet Iverson's on/off offensive impact was much greater at +10.6 in 2006 compared to just +3.9 in 2001. On that basis, you could say the real difference is that AI went from a top 5 defense in 2001 with an argument for best defense in the league to nearly a bottom 5 defense in 2006, and while I thought Iverson was better defensively in 2001, he'd account for VERY little, if any of that difference.
I like how AI played better in 2001 and how he was used, but based on that I can see a good argument for 2006 as his peak, though for me personally, I don't think the improvement in his passing and inbetween short-mid game is enough to make up for the aforementioned advantages 2001 AI had.
Let's take a look at Iverson's non-prior informed RAPM, year-by-year:
1999 +1.91 offense, +0.61 defense, +2.52 overall (28th in the NBA)
2000 +2.44 offense, -1.95 defense, +0.49 overall (115th in the NBA)
2001 +1.9 offense, +0.3 defense, +2.1 overall (38th in the NBA)
2002 +1 offense, +1.8 defense, +2.8 overall (21th in the NBA)
2003 +0.4 offense, -0.6 defense, -0.2 overall (163rd in the NBA)
2004 +0.3 offense, -0.6 defense, -0.3 overall (181st in the NBA, though he played just 48 games that season)
2005 0 offense, -0.5 defense, -0.5 overall (203rd in the NBA)
2006 +2.1 offense, -0.4 defense, +1.7 overall (48th in the NBA)
Obviously it's hard to accept these numbers at face value, seeing how big the discrepancies between each year usually are (and it's hard to believe that AI had such strong defensive impact in 2002), that's why I'm skeptical of RAPM, but it's some food for thought, and both 2001 and 2006 are among the seasons that stand out as one of the best. With his impact being so close, I think his superior production and efficiency in '06 might be the deciding factor.
Interesting, thanks for posting. A few things are hard to see, but the numbers make a good amount of sense. Iverson's impact being close in '01 and '06 makes sense, especially with a bit of an offensive advantage in '06, but a defensive decline. But I'll go the other way on this, since his added production and efficiency was more a product of changes in the league and AI's role than anything, and I don't think AI's 2001 role was easier to win with, so if there's a tiebreaker, I'd go with Iverson doing it in important games and on a winning team in 2001 as opposed to a lottery team.
I've mentioned C-Webb as the guy who finally provided some good offensive support to AI, but if we look at it from statistical standpoint, it doesn't look as nice anymore...2006 RAPM indicates that C-Webb was a player with a largely negative impact (-1.2 offense, -2 defense, -3.2 overall, which has him ranked 445th of 458 players who played in the NBA that year...) his raw boxscore numbers, like 20.2 ppg, 9.9 rpg and 3.4 apg look nice at first glance, but his more advanced boxscore-based numbers are really poor - just 18.4 PER, 48.2% TS, and 7.4 WS/48. So basically his RAPM supports what you could think based on these metrics. Well, even the eyetest tells me that it's pretty obvious that hobbled Webber wasn't a good defender in 2006 (to put it nicely), but his offense being so poor is actually quite surprising, at least to that extent.
I really don't want to act like Webber was some scrub, no, I really don't have anything against the guy, but these stats speak for themselves...It would also explain why the Sixers won just 38 games and missed the playoffs, despite Iverson's and Iggy's largely positive impact (Iguodala was 17th in the NBA in RAPM in '06, at +3 overall, and Iverson 48th at +1.7, as I've mentioned before). Korver was largely negative, too, which is far more baffling that Webber's poor impact - Korver's shooting efficiency was very good, yet he was still a negative offensively, at -0.9).
Actually, I'd say this makes perfect sense. I was a big fan of pre-injury C-Webb in the early 00's, but I've said for a long time that Philly C-Webb may have been as empty of a 20/10 guy as I've seen. At that point, I'm not sure I'd want him on my team at all with his great passing really being his only desirable asset at that point, but if he's in a really big role like he was in 2006, there's absolutely no question, he's detrimental to your team.
This post is much longer than I initially intended, but that's because I thought it might be an interesting observation. Like I've said many times before - I'm skeptical of RAPM, but at the same time, I feel like it oftentimes leads to pretty surprising and interesting conclusions.
Don't worry about the length, I found your post interesting and have found this discussion interesting and enjoyable. I still have 2001 as his peak, but I'll agree that it's not clear.