Induction Vote: Allen Iverson Omitted quoting the person direct, as merely using this as a jumping point, because this is common type of argument that comes up with Iverson.....
Obviously he's not the calibre of offensive engine that Steve Nash was.......if he were, we would not be discussing him right now (because he'd have been off the table
dozens of places ago).
Nash is someone this very panel inducted
55 places ago (55!), despite the fact that he's even
worse on defense, and barely has a notable edge in meaningful longevity.
The fact that Iverson doesn't compare very well to HIM is little more than a misdirect (whether that was the intention or not): it
seems like it should function as an argument against considering Iverson here, but in truth it's not.
And this happens a lot on this forum where Allen Iverson is concerned: I was digging through some archived conversations and I found one [where I was again championing Iverson], and when talking about his floor-raising potential the argument thrown at me was that he couldn't lift the floor as well as '06 Kobe or '87 Jordan.
Seriously?If negative counterpoint arguments require referencing players that were inducted 50+ places ago, that should [imo] be a red-flag that one might be struggling for actual sound reasons to NOT support him.
I found an old metric I'd archived Iverson's rank (Estimated Impact by shutupandjam: combines box and +/-, and I think some semblance of team differential)......
Estimated Impact League Rank (remember: this is a rate metric, and Iverson plays more minutes than 95+% of those ahead)'99--->15th
'00--->29th
'01--->8th
'02--->15th
'03--->18th
'04--->30th
'05--->14th
'06--->16th
'07--->34th
'08--->17th
And now I want to talk a bit about '01 (well......and actually the rest of his prime).
It is often said by his critics that he gets too much mileage out of the narrative around that season: the [undeserved] MVP, the "carried a bunch of role players to the Finals", and so on. With the counterpoint being that they didn't have to defeat any notable monster teams to get to the finals, and the "that team won with their defense and Iverson's a weak defender, so...." arguments.
To the first, it's true: he does get way too much mileage from casual fans on the basis of that narrative.......it's why he's often miscast as this top 25 player all-time in the mainstream.
Here on
this forum, he does NOT get too much mileage from that narrative (which is why we're only beginning to discuss him out past #75).
As to the "that team won with their defense and Iverson's a weak defender, so....." arguments: these are only slightly more nuanced [or accurate] than the "he carried a bunch of role players" arguments.
But first----just to show I'm not tunnel-visioned on that one season----I'll share what I found looking at basically his entire prime in Philly:
WOWY (I looked at every single game Iverson missed from '99-'06 [and can share the game-by-game data upon request], noting how the team does without him vs with him)Here's how it looks each year (SUMMARY below, if you don't want to look at year-by-year):
’990-2 record w/o, 28-20 (.583) record with.
Sixer avg 83.0 ppg w/o him, 89.9 ppg with (+6.9 ppg).
47.5 TS% w/o him, 49.5 TS% with (+2.0%).
97.4 ORtg w/o, 100.0 ORtg with (+2.6).
-12.04 SRS w/o, +3.17 SRS with (+15.21).
’007-5 (.583) w/o, 42-28 (.600) with
85.4 ppg without him, 96.4 ppg with him (+11.0 ppg).
46.9 TS% without him, 50.6 TS% with him (+3.7%).
94.7 ORtg w/o him, 102.7 ORtg with him (+8.0).
-1.69 SRS w/o him, +1.48 SRS with him (+3.17).
’016-5 (.545) w/o, 50-21 (.704) with
88.8 ppg w/o him, 95.6 with (+6.8 ppg).
51.6 TS% w/o, 51.8 TS% with (+0.2%).
103.2 ORtg w/o, 103.7 ORtg with (+0.5).
+0.48 SRS w/o, +4.12 SRS with him (+3.63).
’027-15 (.318) w/o, 36-24 (.600) with
84.7 ppg w/o, 93.3 ppg with (+8.6 ppg).
49.1 TS% w/o, 50.7 TS% with (+1.6%).
100.2 ORtg w/o, 102.8 ORtg with (+2.6).
-4.18 SRS w/o, +3.27 SRS with him (+7.45).
'03: no missed games
’04---banged up much of year, missed 34 games; outlier bad year when he did play
14-20 (.412) w/o, 19-29 (.396) with
85.1 ppg w/o, 90.0 ppg with (+4.9 ppg).
50.8 TS% w/o, 50.3 TS% with (-0.5%)
100.3 ORtg w/o, 98.3 ORtg with (-2.0).
-2.54 SRS w/o, -3.24 with him (-0.70).
’052-5 (.286) w/o, 41-34 (.547) with
95.9 ppg w/o, 99.4 ppg with (+3.5 ppg).
52.6 TS% w/o, 52.8 TS% with (+0.2%).
101.6 ORtg w/o, 103.7 ORtg with (+2.1).
-0.60 SRS w/o, -1.11 with him (-0.51).
’063-7 (.300) w/o, 35-37 (.486) with
90.9 ppg w/o, 100.5 ppg with (+9.6 ppg).
53.1 TS% w/o, 53.9 TS% with (+0.8%).
103.9 ORtg w/o, 106.3 ORtg with (+2.4).
-5.59 SRS w/o, -1.62 with him (+3.97).
SUMMARYAVERAGE effect of having Iverson vs. not having him over these years:
NOT weighted for games played/missed+7.3 ppg
+1.1% TS%
+2.3 ORtg
+4.61 SRS
Weighted for games PLAYED+7.4 ppg
+1.2% TS%
+2.5 ORtg
+4.21 SRS
Weighted for games MISSED (the outlier bad year in '04 drags this weighted group down)
+7.1 ppg
+0.8% TS%
+1.4 ORtg
+2.90 SRS
Overall with/without during prime in Philly: 39-59 record (.398) without, 251-193 record (.565) with him (avg of +13.7 wins per 82-game season [and roughly +4 SRS boost]).
And again: '04 was a definitive outlier within this time period; he was playing banged up and performing well below his usual standard. If I can cherry-pick a little and remove that year from consideration.....
AVERAGE effect of having Iverson vs. not having him during '99-'02, '05 and '06: (that's still a 6-YEAR sample)
NOT weighted for # of games played in each season+7.8 ppg
+1.4% TS%
+3.0 ORtg
+5.49 SRS
WEIGHTED for games played+7.7 ppg
+1.4% TS%
+3.0 ORtg
+4.81 SRS
WEIGHTED for games missed+8.3 ppg
+1.5% TS%
+3.2 ORtg
+4.82 SRS
25-39 record (.391) without, 232-164 record (.586) with:
avg of +16 wins per 82-game season (and roughly +5 boost on SRS).So actually it looks like he's providing pretty substantial [even "super-star"] lift straight through his prime, with the exception of '04.
Circling back to '01.....
It's been vaguely stated that he should have "passed more" or "shot less". Looking at that roster, specifically WHO is he supposed to defer to [more often]? Who's he going to allow to shoulder some of the creation on this roster? Who is going to make shots if they're found open?
Even with all the gravity he possesses (as OhayoKD illustrated previously), this team was still only 28th [of 29] in 3PA, and making only 32.6% [26th of 29]. The rest of the team [outside of Iverson] took just 5.5 3PA/game, and made just 33.0% (despite ~94% of them being assisted).
He didn't even have shooters/shot-makers/floor-spreaders, much less other creators.
And regarding them "winning with their defense": that's true only to an extent (more on that in a moment). But first, again looking at their roster make-up, we really should
expect a good defense, no?
The other starting guard is Eric Snow: an extremely limited offensive PG, but very good defensively (sort of what his career was built around).
The starting forwards were George Lynch and Tyrone Hill: good offensive rebounders, but otherwise fairly poor [to terrible??] offensive players. Their entire careers were built around defense and rebounding.
Then at C they had either Ratliff or Mutombo: an ELITE level rim-protector.
They had some capable defensive guards off the bench, too, in Aaron McKie and Kevin Ollie [I mean, Kevin Ollie only had a career AT ALL because he was sort of decent defensively].
So being good defensively is sort of a ldo, isn't it?
When looking at the OFFENSIVE cast, however.......honestly, the image that pops into my head is that of an intimate theater audience, ALL of whom are very familiar with the players of that era, though weirdly have no knowledge of the assembled teams.
You're on stage, and your act is to get them enthusiastic about how the '01 Sixers were built
for offense, by relating who the BEST offensive players on the team were......
You: "Firstly, they had Allen Iverson."
(some impressed murmurs ripple through the audience, as people kind of look at each other nodding and shrugging as if to say "that's a decent start")
You: "They also had late-prime Toni Kukoc, though only up to the All-Star break."
(few glances about the audience, seeming to say "OK, whatever")
You (unsure who to next mention): "And........Aaron McKie and late-prime Dikembe Mutombo???"
(..........[cough]..........)
You: "And Todd MacCulloch."
(.....[crickets]; audience now appears to regret paying admission to this show......)
There's just no one else on this team where offense is concerned. That they actually managed to be a better than average offense [+0.6 rORTG, 13th of 29 teams] AT ALL with that cast is truly a credit to Iverson.
And harkening back to when I said "won with defense" was only true to an extent, it's worth pointing out that this is only in looking at the rs.
In the playoffs, the paradigm basically flipped.
Here's how the Philly performed on offense and defense in each round, relative to the ORtg/DRtg faced:
1st round (Indiana, won 3-1): +5.6 rORTG, -1.4 rDRTG
ECSF (Toronto, won 4-3): +5.4 rORTG,
+2.1 rDRTG (remember positive is bad in rDRTG)
ECF (Milwaukee, won 4-3): +2.1 rORTG, -2.4 rDRTG
Finals (LAL, lost 4-1): -2.2 rORTG, +1.6 rDRTG
Summary: offense performed better than defense by fairly sizable 4.2 in the first round, by a whopping 7.5 in the second round, only 0.3 worse than the defense in the ECF, and only 0.6 worse than the defense in the Finals.
Their average rORTG was around +2.8 in the playoffs, while their average defense was +/- 0. i.e. NOT winning with their defense.
Anyway, I'll stop there for now.
It's overdue for Iverson, imo. I know he's way overrated in the mainstream, and I know his persona is off-putting to some. I'm not a fan. But it's simply overdue.
Alternate vote: Adrian DantleyMonster scorer whose box-based metrics merit his inclusion a long time ago; the lag on his apparent impact and general lack of team success has held him back, but he nonetheless feels [easily, imo] like a top 80 inclusion at least.
He's an interesting comparison to Cliff Hagan......
Hagan's claim is as an efficient scorer. Yet he's less efficient (even relative to a less efficient league) than Dantley......and on smaller volume.......and in a weaker overall league.......and for a shorter period of time. And he has a coach who publicly criticized his defense.
So why then should I favour him over Dantley?
Oh right: ringz.Basically, he's a short prime in a weak era, nice box-based metrics for a handful of years [with precisely two years where he looks like a playoff riser], though with impact signals that lag well-behind (and an account from a coach expounding on how he's a bad defender......which perhaps explains the phenomenon??). And I note that NO ONE in his own time thought as highly of him as we're trying to elevate him to now, after the fact.
So he still feels like a pretty weak candidate, especially with a similar [but better] player sitting right there on the same ballot.
Walton I simply cannot get behind, simply for having only 2-3 meaningful seasons. He's the ONE player on the ballot I'd actually rank behind Hagan. Moncrief sits in the middle. Not as high on him as I once was; I suspect his DPOY's were undeserved, and that they inflate his actual defensive acumen. However, I'm willing to be convinced, if someone can show me a montage of him blowing up plays in volume, that could certainly sway me to put him ahead of Dantley. But if he's merely a pretty good man defender, idk......he just doesn't have the offensive chops, longevity, and/or team accomplishment for me to put him ahead of my top two here.
Nomination: Tony Parker
Alt Nomination: Larry Nance
"The fact that a proposition is absurd has never hindered those who wish to believe it." -Edward Rutherfurd
"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities." - Voltaire
I think he was a pretty impactful player for 11 seasons. 
