Where do you rank AI in 2001?

Moderators: Doctor MJ, penbeast0, PaulieWal, Quotatious, Clyde Frazier, trex_8063

colts18
Head Coach
Posts: 6,916
And1: 2,584
Joined: Jun 29, 2009

Where do you rank AI in 2001? 

Post#1 » by colts18 » Wed Nov 18, 2020 2:49 am

I'm curious to hear you guys thoughts on where AI should have been ranked in 2001. I was comparing Iverson to Stockton that year in another thread and came to the conclusion that I had Stockton ranked ahead of Iverson that year. I am of the belief that AI's 2001 season is the most overrated in history. He gets overrated due to making the finals in one of the worst eastern conference's history while his teammate's defense was carrying him while he was shooting 5-27, 10-35 FG in the playoffs.

Here are the players I have ranked over AI that year:
Shaq
Kobe
Duncan
KG
Dirk
Webber
Stockton
T-Mac


Here is the post I had about Stockton vs AI and how close that comparison was:

Spoiler:
I don't think it's awful that Stockton is rated ahead of Iverson. In fact, I believe there is a good argument to be made that Stockton was better than AI, at least on a per-possession basis.

Let's start off with team results:
Jazz: 53-29, 5.00 SRS (3rd)
76ers: 56-26, 3.63 SRS (7th)

AI's main argument stems from the 76ers playoff success. In reality, that was a byproduct of playing in a historically bad eastern conference.The East was so bad that its head to head record vs the West (38.3 win%) is the 2nd worst since the NBA merger, only behind 2004. It comes as no surprise that the 76ers record was padded vs the East, 40-14 (.741), in comparison to the West, 16-12 (.571). The Jazz were simply a better team that had to play in a tough conference.

It's also historical revisionism to say that AI's teammates were awful. He had the 6th Man of the year, Coach of the year, and Defensive Player of the Year. The 76ers went 6-5 in the 11 games AI missed. AI was carrying them offensively, but the team was winning on the backs of their 5th ranked defense

AI's best argument comes from his team making the finals. The only reason they made it was the atrocious Eastern Conference competition they faced.

Playoff opponents:
76ers:
Indiana: 41-41, -0.77 SRS
Toronto: 47-35, 1.69 SRS
Milwaukee: 52-30, 3.14 SRS


Jazz:
Dallas: 53-29, 4.61 SRS

If Utah played the 76ers opponents, they would have the made the finals too. If the 76ers were in the West, they would have lost in the 1st round.

On Court Play

We established that the jazz were on the same level if not better than the 76ers. How did those teams do with their star on the court?

Stockton: +12.2, +18.5 On/Off
Iverson: +5.7, +4.1 On/Off

With Stockton on the court, The Jazz outscored opponents by over twice the amount of Iverson. The Jazz played like a significantly better team with Stockton. When you adjust for the tougher competition, the gap widens.


Offense

We already know that Stockton was on another level defensively compared to AI. Stockton was an All-NBA level defender while AI was a liability. AI's best argument comes from Offense. I'm not convinced that AI was better offensively.

Jazz: 107.6 O rating (3rd)
76ers: 103.6 O rating (13th)

On court:
Stockton: 112.8 O rating, +14.3 On/Off
Iverson: 104.1 O rating, +3.9 On/Off

It's not outrageous to say that Stockton was better offensive player than Iverson. Stockton dominates AI at his best traits (shooting and passing). Stockton's 61 TS%,+9.2% rTS (Best in the NBA) is noticeably higher than AI's 51.8 TS%, +0.0% rTS. If you look at B-R's Points added because of True Shooting, Stockton is at 114 points above average compared to Iverson's 1 point. That's 113 Points (1.4 PPG) alone that Stockton is adding over AI based on efficiency.

Iverson made up for that with the playmaking created by all of the attention he received. Unfortunately for AI, playmaking is Stockton's best trait. Stockton had a 10.7 Assists per 36 average (best in the NBA), while AI only had a 3.9 Assists per 36 average. Their turnover numbers were comparable too. There is nothing in the stats that showed AI as a better offensive player.

Stockton's team had a legendary 7 year stretch from 95-01 as an elite offensive club.

Rank in O Rating:
95: 4th
96: 2nd
97: 2nd
98: 1st
99: 3rd
00: 6th
01: 3rd

5 Top 3 finishes in 7 years. Stockton, alongside Malone, being the engine of that offense.


How is AI Better?

Based on the above, Stockton was better on both Offense and Defense than AI. His team played better too. So what exactly is AI's argument over Stockton? The only argument he has is minutes played. AI played 42 Minutes Per Game compared to Stockton's 29. On a per-possession basis, Stockton is better than AI. That gap is reduced only when we account for the massive disparity in playing time. Either way it makes sense that this stat which is a per possession stat would rank Stockton well above AI.
Odinn21
Starter
Posts: 2,186
And1: 1,612
Joined: May 19, 2019
   

Re: Where do you rank AI in 2001? 

Post#2 » by Odinn21 » Wed Nov 18, 2020 3:27 am

Stockton has no case over Iverson in 2001. It's incredible that we're at a point motor and play time is not even considered properly and thrown out of the window as if it's not important.
Despite playing in 11 more games compared to Iverson, Stockton played nearly 600 minutes less than Iverson. And considering Stockton averaged 29.2 minutes per game, that's more than 20 games played for Stockton. This is just regular season.

In total, Stockton played 2582 minutes and Iverson played 3999 minutes. 3999/2582 = 155%. And the sheer gap is equivalent of 48 games for Stockton. The gap is just massive.
Stockon's +/- (driven) numbers are always impressive. But he did not have the motor in 2001.

On a per-possession basis, is becoming one of the most ridiculous arguments...
Here;
Iverson had 6.1 VORP in regular season which was 41.5% of team total, over 71 games.
Stockton had 5.3 VORP in regular season which was 33.3% of team total, over 82 games.

With playoffs included;
Iverson 8.2 VORP (42.7%)
Stockton 5.9 VORP (34.2%)

And BPM design loves Stockton far, far more than Iverson.

Also, let's penalize a player trying to carry an offense nearly all by himself. Iverson scored 28.43% (2207/7763) of his team's total points in the season. The closest number was McKie's 878.

It was clear that the team was built around defense and Iverson's scoring. Penalizing Iverson for his team's ORtg doesn't make sense. This is almost as odd as saying Iverson led his team to a top 5 defense.

---

Stockton is on there in that list but not Ray Allen... Interesting.
Anyways. Only O'Neal, Duncan and Bryant were definitely ahead of Iverson. Iverson had good arguments against the rest of the field. I don't know if he'd make my top 5 for the season, but he's around there.
The issue with per75 numbers;
36pts on 27 fga/9 fta in 36 mins, does this mean he'd keep up the efficiency to get 48pts on 36fga/12fta in 48 mins?
The answer; NO. He's human, not a linearly working machine.
Per75 is efficiency rate, not actual production.
Drygon
Starter
Posts: 2,265
And1: 3,956
Joined: Dec 18, 2018

Re: Where do you rank AI in 2001? 

Post#3 » by Drygon » Wed Nov 18, 2020 3:46 am

Even Vince Carter is definitely better than Iverson + some of the guys in your list.

He was a top 5 player a his peak for sure during 2000-01 season. Maybe even top 3 alongside with Shaq & Duncan.

- 2nd place in PER
- 1st place in OBPM
- 2nd place in BPM
- 1st place in VORP
- 3rd place in OWS
- 6th place in WS.

Obviously these numbers are all 100% box-score derived and are hardly gospel, but he was an extremely efficient player due to a ridiculously low turnover rate.

His 8.2% TOV rate was the 3rd lowest in the ENTIRE NBA & strong scoring efficiency (55.1% TS against a league average of 51.8%). His +3.3 rTS would be equivalent to a 59.8 TS today (except he'd be taking more threes so that's probably understating things). He had a 114 ORTG against a league average of 103 (+11).

His impact metrics are quite excellent, too. +11.6 on/off, and #12 in the league in RAPM (with many of the guys ahead of him either playing far few minutes, playing a much smaller role, or both).
Pelly24
Veteran
Posts: 2,635
And1: 1,697
Joined: Aug 02, 2016
     

Re: Where do you rank AI in 2001? 

Post#4 » by Pelly24 » Wed Nov 18, 2020 5:09 am

i feel like AI is just a very hard player to truly contextualize and properly evaluate. In my opinion, he was better than Ray Allen and Vince Carter and people like that. He dropped 50 on peak Lakers. Being able to get that many buckets at that rate in *that* era is just insane, even if the efficiency was only so-so. If you look at it this way: could the 76ers have reasonably been expected to perform better with anyone else in AI's position? If this was a test he got an A+. They got to the finals and took a game from two top 3 players at their peak in a lot of ways. Maybe if it's a weaker team AI is a champion. I think the idea that AI maximized the situation is overlooked.

I'd say Shaq, Kobe, KG, TD and probably dirk over AI for that season.

Some things can't be measured by pure stats. And for what it's worth I'm pretty sure peak AI could average 33/7 on 60 TS%. Nobody in the whole world could keep him away from the basket, and he'd dunk on small centers, honestly.
User avatar
feyki
Bench Warmer
Posts: 1,354
And1: 195
Joined: Aug 08, 2016
     

Re: Where do you rank AI in 2001? 

Post#5 » by feyki » Wed Nov 18, 2020 5:50 am

Top 10, to me. Stockton has no case for top 10, too. Duncan,Shaq,KG,Webber,Kobe and T-Mac were better than him, significantly. About the 7-9 range, I would say.
Image
“The idea is not to block every shot. The idea is to make your opponent believe that you might block every shot.”
User avatar
KobesScarf
Starter
Posts: 2,466
And1: 507
Joined: Jul 17, 2016
 

Re: Where do you rank AI in 2001? 

Post#6 » by KobesScarf » Wed Nov 18, 2020 6:31 am

Regular season only #1

Overall #3 behind Kobe and Shaq
User avatar
homecourtloss
Head Coach
Posts: 6,562
And1: 10,453
Joined: Dec 29, 2012

Re: Where do you rank AI in 2001? 

Post#7 » by homecourtloss » Wed Nov 18, 2020 6:52 am

Odinn21 wrote:Stockton has no case over Iverson in 2001. It's incredible that we're at a point motor and play time is not even considered properly and thrown out of the window as if it's not important.
Despite playing in 11 more games compared to Iverson, Stockton played nearly 600 minutes less than Iverson. And considering Stockton averaged 29.2 minutes per game, that's more than 20 games played for Stockton. This is just regular season.

In total, Stockton played 2582 minutes and Iverson played 3999 minutes. 3999/2582 = 155%. And the sheer gap is equivalent of 48 games for Stockton. The gap is just massive.
Stockon's +/- (driven) numbers are always impressive. But he did not have the motor in 2001.

On a per-possession basis, is becoming one of the most ridiculous arguments...
Here;
Iverson had 6.1 VORP in regular season which was 41.5% of team total, over 71 games.
Stockton had 5.3 VORP in regular season which was 33.3% of team total, over 82 games.

With playoffs included;
Iverson 8.2 VORP (42.7%)
Stockton 5.9 VORP (34.2%)

And BPM design loves Stockton far, far more than Iverson.

Also, let's penalize a player trying to carry an offense nearly all by himself. Iverson scored 28.43% (2207/7763) of his team's total points in the season. The closest number was McKie's 878.

It was clear that the team was built around Iverson's scoring and defense. Penalizing Iverson for his team's ORtg doesn't make sense. This is almost as odd as saying Iverson led his team to a top 5 defense.

---

Stockton is on there in that list but not Ray Allen... Interesting.
Anyways. Only O'Neal, Duncan and Bryant were definitely ahead of Iverson. Iverson had good arguments against the rest of the field. I don't know if he'd make my top 5 for the season, but he's around there.


The team wasn’t built around his defense. As for offense, yes, it’s incredible what he burdened volume wise at his size, but in the end, he was a high usage player who had the most impact on the offense the team generated and it was a mediocre one.

As for Stockton vs. Iverson, Stockton still provided more winning impact than Iverson did and by a large degree, so that gives him an argument, even at age 38.
OdomFan wrote:I'd rather have Ray Allen on my team [over Curry].


Hal14 wrote:Not saying I put McHale over Duncan, but the argument can be made.
User avatar
Jaivl
Lead Assistant
Posts: 4,779
And1: 4,139
Joined: Jan 28, 2014
Location: A Coruña, Spain
Contact:
   

Re: Where do you rank AI in 2001? 

Post#8 » by Jaivl » Wed Nov 18, 2020 7:48 am

Top 10 but not top 5. And better than Stockton, lol.
Maf wrote:I'd undestand if anyone had KG outside top ten PF's. Having him top five all-time? Often I jokingly rank Kyle Korver as the GOAT but I never try to fake serious discussion about it.

ShawnKemp96 wrote:Infact he made a lot more steals than the statisticians think.
Odinn21
Starter
Posts: 2,186
And1: 1,612
Joined: May 19, 2019
   

Re: Where do you rank AI in 2001? 

Post#9 » by Odinn21 » Wed Nov 18, 2020 7:53 am

homecourtloss wrote:
Odinn21 wrote:Stockton has no case over Iverson in 2001. It's incredible that we're at a point motor and play time is not even considered properly and thrown out of the window as if it's not important.
Despite playing in 11 more games compared to Iverson, Stockton played nearly 600 minutes less than Iverson. And considering Stockton averaged 29.2 minutes per game, that's more than 20 games played for Stockton. This is just regular season.

In total, Stockton played 2582 minutes and Iverson played 3999 minutes. 3999/2582 = 155%. And the sheer gap is equivalent of 48 games for Stockton. The gap is just massive.
Stockon's +/- (driven) numbers are always impressive. But he did not have the motor in 2001.

On a per-possession basis, is becoming one of the most ridiculous arguments...
Here;
Iverson had 6.1 VORP in regular season which was 41.5% of team total, over 71 games.
Stockton had 5.3 VORP in regular season which was 33.3% of team total, over 82 games.

With playoffs included;
Iverson 8.2 VORP (42.7%)
Stockton 5.9 VORP (34.2%)

And BPM design loves Stockton far, far more than Iverson.

Also, let's penalize a player trying to carry an offense nearly all by himself. Iverson scored 28.43% (2207/7763) of his team's total points in the season. The closest number was McKie's 878.

It was clear that the team was built around Iverson's scoring and defense. Penalizing Iverson for his team's ORtg doesn't make sense. This is almost as odd as saying Iverson led his team to a top 5 defense.

---

Stockton is on there in that list but not Ray Allen... Interesting.
Anyways. Only O'Neal, Duncan and Bryant were definitely ahead of Iverson. Iverson had good arguments against the rest of the field. I don't know if he'd make my top 5 for the season, but he's around there.


The team wasn’t built around his defense. As for offense, yes, it’s incredible what he burdened volume wise at his size, but in the end, he was a high usage player who had the most impact on the offense the team generated and it was a mediocre one.

As for Stockton vs. Iverson, Stockton still provided more winning impact than Iverson did and by a large degree, so that gives him an argument, even at age 38.

I guess English not being my native language is the issue here. I was saying Iverson's scoring + defense. Not Iverson's scoring + Iverson's defense. Probably should've written defense and Iverson's scoring.

Also, very hard to agree with Stockton providing more winning impact. He didn't. Iverson's overall / combined impact was far greater than Stockton's. Again with favouring per possession approach...
The issue with per75 numbers;
36pts on 27 fga/9 fta in 36 mins, does this mean he'd keep up the efficiency to get 48pts on 36fga/12fta in 48 mins?
The answer; NO. He's human, not a linearly working machine.
Per75 is efficiency rate, not actual production.
User avatar
kendogg
Sixth Man
Posts: 1,980
And1: 330
Joined: Apr 08, 2001
Location: Cincinnati

Re: Where do you rank AI in 2001? 

Post#10 » by kendogg » Wed Nov 18, 2020 8:34 am

LMAO stockton wasn't even better at defense at that point in his career compared to iverson. AI was a very good on-ball defender and led the league in steals a few times, including in 2001. obviously AI struggled at times with slowing down bigger guards but so did stockton. and all-time, you can count on 1 hand the number of nba players who were better slashers than iverson despite him being under 6 foot. his speed and handle combination was devastating to defenses, he just didn't have anyone to kick it to on that team and he was too tiny to consistently finish inside, so he was forced to take pull up jumpers far too often. give him a good team built around him like lebron and the like get, and AI is a huge contender in any era.

I think AI's only mistake was not leaving philly until he was past his prime, what a **** org that has no idea how to build a team.
70sFan
RealGM
Posts: 14,850
And1: 10,560
Joined: Aug 11, 2015
 

Re: Where do you rank AI in 2001? 

Post#11 » by 70sFan » Wed Nov 18, 2020 8:48 am

Jaivl wrote:Top 10 but not top 5. And better than Stockton, lol.

Yeah, I agree with that. He's definitely below Shaq, Duncan, Kobe, Dirk and KG. I'd have him below Allen, Carter and maybe McGrady as well. Not sure between him vs Mutombo, but he looks top 10 to me.

I also disagree that old Stockton was better - at some point, production matters and Iverson played so much more.
70sFan
RealGM
Posts: 14,850
And1: 10,560
Joined: Aug 11, 2015
 

Re: Where do you rank AI in 2001? 

Post#12 » by 70sFan » Wed Nov 18, 2020 8:49 am

kendogg wrote:LMAO stockton wasn't even better at defense at that point in his career compared to iverson. AI was a very good on-ball defender and led the league in steals a few times, including in 2001.

Iverson was never good on-ball defender, let alone "very good". I don't think Stockton was ever as weak defender as Iverson.

As I said, it doesn't matter though. By 2001, AI was clearly better than 40 years old Stockton.
70sFan
RealGM
Posts: 14,850
And1: 10,560
Joined: Aug 11, 2015
 

Re: Where do you rank AI in 2001? 

Post#13 » by 70sFan » Wed Nov 18, 2020 8:49 am

KobesScarf wrote:Regular season only #1

Overall #3 behind Kobe and Shaq

So you actually have him over Duncan? :lol: :lol:
User avatar
KobesScarf
Starter
Posts: 2,466
And1: 507
Joined: Jul 17, 2016
 

Re: Where do you rank AI in 2001? 

Post#14 » by KobesScarf » Wed Nov 18, 2020 3:09 pm

70sFan wrote:
KobesScarf wrote:Regular season only #1

Overall #3 behind Kobe and Shaq

So you actually have him over Duncan?
Regular season

1.Iverson
2.Duncan
3.Shaq/Kobe

Playoffs

1.Shaq/Kobe
2.Iverson
3.Duncan
70sFan
RealGM
Posts: 14,850
And1: 10,560
Joined: Aug 11, 2015
 

Re: Where do you rank AI in 2001? 

Post#15 » by 70sFan » Wed Nov 18, 2020 3:47 pm

KobesScarf wrote:
70sFan wrote:
KobesScarf wrote:Regular season only #1

Overall #3 behind Kobe and Shaq

So you actually have him over Duncan?
Regular season

1.Iverson
2.Duncan
3.Shaq/Kobe

Playoffs

1.Shaq/Kobe
2.Iverson
3.Duncan

So you think that Iverson was better than prime Duncan? Seriously?
User avatar
KobesScarf
Starter
Posts: 2,466
And1: 507
Joined: Jul 17, 2016
 

Re: Where do you rank AI in 2001? 

Post#16 » by KobesScarf » Wed Nov 18, 2020 4:28 pm

70sFan wrote:
KobesScarf wrote:
70sFan wrote:So you actually have him over Duncan?
Regular season

1.Iverson
2.Duncan
3.Shaq/Kobe

Playoffs

1.Shaq/Kobe
2.Iverson
3.Duncan

So you think that Iverson was better than prime Duncan? Seriously?


That season yes. Duncan is better every other year though.
70sFan
RealGM
Posts: 14,850
And1: 10,560
Joined: Aug 11, 2015
 

Re: Where do you rank AI in 2001? 

Post#17 » by 70sFan » Wed Nov 18, 2020 4:38 pm

KobesScarf wrote:
70sFan wrote:
KobesScarf wrote:Regular season

1.Iverson
2.Duncan
3.Shaq/Kobe

Playoffs

1.Shaq/Kobe
2.Iverson
3.Duncan

So you think that Iverson was better than prime Duncan? Seriously?


That season yes. Duncan is better every other year though.

But why? What makes Iverson so much better in 2001 compared to the rest of his career? Would you have Iverson over Duncan in 2001 had Sixers not advanced to the finals.
McBubbles
Freshman
Posts: 77
And1: 76
Joined: Jun 16, 2020

Re: Where do you rank AI in 2001? 

Post#18 » by McBubbles » Thu Nov 19, 2020 9:22 am

Pelly24 wrote:i feel like AI is just a very hard player to truly contextualize and properly evaluate. In my opinion, he was better than Ray Allen and Vince Carter and people like that. He dropped 50 on peak Lakers. Being able to get that many buckets at that rate in *that* era is just insane, even if the efficiency was only so-so. If you look at it this way: could the 76ers have reasonably been expected to perform better with anyone else in AI's position? If this was a test he got an A+. They got to the finals and took a game from two top 3 players at their peak in a lot of ways. Maybe if it's a weaker team AI is a champion. I think the idea that AI maximized the situation is overlooked.

I'd say Shaq, Kobe, KG, TD and probably dirk over AI for that season.

Some things can't be measured by pure stats. And for what it's worth I'm pretty sure peak AI could average 33/7 on 60 TS%. Nobody in the whole world could keep him away from the basket, and he'd dunk on small centers, honestly.


How is dropping 48 points on 41 shots impressive? You're essentially just giving him props for attempting shots with little regard for whether or not he made them.

I do think he was a top 5-8 player for the season for what it's worth, just an oddly specific event to praise him for.
70sFan
RealGM
Posts: 14,850
And1: 10,560
Joined: Aug 11, 2015
 

Re: Where do you rank AI in 2001? 

Post#19 » by 70sFan » Thu Nov 19, 2020 9:46 am

How do you view Iverson vs Mutombo? I don't think they were far apart in that season and we're talking about past-peak Mutombo.
HeartBreakKid
RealGM
Posts: 17,603
And1: 13,395
Joined: Mar 08, 2012
     

Re: Where do you rank AI in 2001? 

Post#20 » by HeartBreakKid » Thu Nov 19, 2020 10:01 am

Barely top ten. Vince Carter for example was better than him and Vince was not a top 5/superstar guy.

kendogg wrote:LMAO stockton wasn't even better at defense at that point in his career compared to iverson.

Leading the league in steals has nothing to do with being a good on ball defender. Iverson was not a "good" defender, nor was he a good on ball defender. He is 5'11, 160 pounds, skinny and didn't have a good b-ball IQ. That doesn't scream good defender to me, nor have I seen him play good defense since he was in college.

Return to Player Comparisons