Thinking Basketball Offensive Legends, Allen Iverson

[ComeFlyWithMe]

This comment on the video is great:

Yeah, this is where I'm at, too - naturally enough, as someone who loves and relies on analytics but is always willing to trust my eyes and intuition.

Kobe is a similar case to Iverson. These kinds of players will never be my favorites, but I tend to think they impact the game in ways that analytics maybe underrate, even as their raw numbers lead to an overvaluation of their impact.

Except Kobe was vastly more efficient, a vastly better defender, and far greater ceiling raiser. They're nothing alike.

I don't like Kobe, but he crushes Iverson! Iverson is like a 6' dollar store Kobe. He is not a winner. Kobe was a winner albeit with stacked teams.

[JustBuzzin]

West played with the Shaq of his generation in Wilt Chamberlain and only got 1 championship.

Imagine the championships Iverson would have if he played with Shaq.

That is why I put AI over West. You can't have West and Chamberlain on the same team and only have 1 championship to show for it.

Oh boy...

Smh. That's all I can say! Wilt was NOT Shaq, especially when he was on the Lakers. He was not allowed to be as physical as Shaq was back then. Wilt was a monster no doubt, but with the Lakers he played more as a defensive player, rebounder and passer. He could still dominate offensively when he wanted to. Those teams were also facing the juggernaut Celtics teams if that era. Those teams were almost unstoppable. Iverson is not in the same sentence as The Logo. Folks don't realize how spectacular Jerry West was.

People have been trying to get "The logo" changed for years now.


AI would torch him 1 on 1.

Real 1z know AI was HIM!

[ComeFlyWithMe]

Oh boy...

Smh. That's all I can say! Wilt was NOT Shaq, especially when he was on the Lakers. He was not allowed to be as physical as Shaq was back then. Wilt was a monster no doubt, but with the Lakers he played more as a defensive player, rebounder and passer. He could still dominate offensively when he wanted to. Those teams were also facing the juggernaut Celtics teams if that era. Those teams were almost unstoppable. Iverson is not in the same sentence as The Logo. Folks don't realize how spectacular Jerry West was.

People have been trying to get "The logo" changed for years now.


AI would torch him 1 on 1.

Real 1z know AI was HIM!

I see you have no real argument here. No reason to discuss further with you!

[JustBuzzin]

Smh. That's all I can say! Wilt was NOT Shaq, especially when he was on the Lakers. He was not allowed to be as physical as Shaq was back then. Wilt was a monster no doubt, but with the Lakers he played more as a defensive player, rebounder and passer. He could still dominate offensively when he wanted to. Those teams were also facing the juggernaut Celtics teams if that era. Those teams were almost unstoppable. Iverson is not in the same sentence as The Logo. Folks don't realize how spectacular Jerry West was.

People have been trying to get "The logo" changed for years now.


AI would torch him 1 on 1.

Real 1z know AI was HIM!

I see you have no real argument here. No reason to discuss further with you!

Yeah there is no argument for think Jerry West was better than Allen Iverson.

Give AI a teammate like Wilt in his prime and those Lakers 3 peats are no longer a reality. AI got 1 by himself vs Shaq/Kobe.]


You think West would have got that Sixers team to the Finals?

[dhsilv2]

And we've seen that prior to 2001. Stackhouse, Larry Hughes, Jim Jackson - all of them capable scorers who should have been at least a good second option next to AI, but they could not co-exist with Iverson as they were on-ball scorers themselves. All of them were traded away or ran away from the Sixers as soon as possible.

I don't get the narrative that the Sixers failed to surround AI with good enough offensive players. It did not work, so they made the best out of it and surrounded him with players who didn't need the ball in their hands, thus having the most successful AI-led teams.
Sure, a good scoring big would arguably have been a good fit, but Derrick Coleman was too often injured and then washed up, and those were the times when it wasn't easy to trade for the coveted great big men. Duncan, Garnett or Shaq were way out of reach. Anyhow, the Sixers at least got Mutombo (who wasn't a good scorer but an excellent defensive anchor.

AI imo was hurt by that era. That was a low point imo for skilled shooters in the NBA and that was what AI really needed. But that is what it is.

At the same time, AI was also taking in an incredible 25-27 shots a game in his prime, which is an insane amount of volume.

His 2002 season he took 27.4 shots per game, led the league averaging 31ppg while shooting an horrendous 39% from the field and 29% from 3.

Compare that to Steph Curry who takes 20 shots a game, Morant who takes 20 shots a game, or Tatum that takes 21 shots a game.

I don't know what any of this means or tells me...

[scrabbarista]

This comment on the video is great:

Yeah, this is where I'm at, too - naturally enough, as someone who loves and relies on analytics but is always willing to trust my eyes and intuition.

Kobe is a similar case to Iverson. These kinds of players will never be my favorites, but I tend to think they impact the game in ways that analytics maybe underrate, even as their raw numbers lead to an overvaluation of their impact.

Except Kobe was vastly more efficient, a vastly better defender, and far greater ceiling raiser. They're nothing alike.

They're tiers apart for good reason, but within their respective tiers, there are parallels.

[og15]

And we've seen that prior to 2001. Stackhouse, Larry Hughes, Jim Jackson - all of them capable scorers who should have been at least a good second option next to AI, but they could not co-exist with Iverson as they were on-ball scorers themselves. All of them were traded away or ran away from the Sixers as soon as possible.

I don't get the narrative that the Sixers failed to surround AI with good enough offensive players. It did not work, so they made the best out of it and surrounded him with players who didn't need the ball in their hands, thus having the most successful AI-led teams.
Sure, a good scoring big would arguably have been a good fit, but Derrick Coleman was too often injured and then washed up, and those were the times when it wasn't easy to trade for the coveted great big men. Duncan, Garnett or Shaq were way out of reach. Anyhow, the Sixers at least got Mutombo (who wasn't a good scorer but an excellent defensive anchor.

AI imo was hurt by that era. That was a low point imo for skilled shooters in the NBA and that was what AI really needed. But that is what it is.

At the same time, AI was also taking in an incredible 25-27 shots a game in his prime, which is an insane amount of volume.

His 2002 season he took 27.4 shots per game, led the league averaging 31ppg while shooting an horrendous 39% from the field and 29% from 3.

Compare that to Steph Curry who takes 20 shots a game, Morant who takes 20 shots a game, or Tatum that takes 21 shots a game.

While his raw attempts were very high, his mpg also has to be taken into account since that was while playing 44 mpg. On one hand it is a testament to his stamina which he was naturally gifted with lung capacity that allowed him to play so much, but on the other hand, it's also fair to compare rate of production.

While his 34.4 FGA/100 was still a lot, but the gap looks a little less large taking minutes into account.

[scrabbarista]

Yeah, this is where I'm at, too - naturally enough, as someone who loves and relies on analytics but is always willing to trust my eyes and intuition.

Kobe is a similar case to Iverson. These kinds of players will never be my favorites, but I tend to think they impact the game in ways that analytics maybe underrate, even as their raw numbers lead to an overvaluation of their impact.

Except Kobe was vastly more efficient, a vastly better defender, and far greater ceiling raiser. They're nothing alike.

I don't like Kobe, but he crushes Iverson! Iverson is like a 6' dollar store Kobe. He is not a winner. Kobe was a winner albeit with stacked teams.

"Iverson is a 6 dollar store Kobe" is kind of what I was trying to say. Maybe I phrased it wrongly.

[dhsilv2]

Except Kobe was vastly more efficient, a vastly better defender, and far greater ceiling raiser. They're nothing alike.

I don't like Kobe, but he crushes Iverson! Iverson is like a 6' dollar store Kobe. He is not a winner. Kobe was a winner albeit with stacked teams.

"Iverson is a 6 dollar store Kobe" is kind of what I was trying to say. Maybe I phrased it wrongly.

There's a lot of similarities in the two. Kobe and AI were tough shot takers in the best and worst of ways. But they were so different.

[NZB2323]

Because I have him ranked 4th behind MJ/Kobe/Wade.

Jerry West and Harden are not better than AI.

Iverson played with bums. These 2 had other stars around them.

NO CHANCE IN HELL is Iverson better than the great Jerry West. That is absolute malarkey. Jerry West is a winner. AI is not. PERIOD.

West winning has nothing to do with being a better player. AI is one of the best scorer's in NBA history.

AI was playing on some bad teams during his prime.

West has scored more points in his career, averaged more points per game, and has a higher TS% despite the fact that there was no 3-point line when he played.

West had a playoff run where he averaged over 40 ppg.

[Dangun]

Yeah, this is where I'm at, too - naturally enough, as someone who loves and relies on analytics but is always willing to trust my eyes and intuition.

Kobe is a similar case to Iverson. These kinds of players will never be my favorites, but I tend to think they impact the game in ways that analytics maybe underrate, even as their raw numbers lead to an overvaluation of their impact.

Except Kobe was vastly more efficient, a vastly better defender, and far greater ceiling raiser. They're nothing alike.

I don't like Kobe, but he crushes Iverson! Iverson is like a 6' dollar store Kobe. He is not a winner. Kobe was a winner albeit with stacked teams.

He’s not a winner in what way? If AI in his prime had the likes of shaq, Lebron, Bosh, Malone, pippen etc etc and you make him buy in toning it down just a lil bit he would def have a ring or two.. you’re not gonna win the championship in this league all by yourself … even Jordan wasn’t happening, but to say he’s not a winner is blasphemy

[hardenASG13]

Except Kobe was vastly more efficient, a vastly better defender, and far greater ceiling raiser. They're nothing alike.

I don't like Kobe, but he crushes Iverson! Iverson is like a 6' dollar store Kobe. He is not a winner. Kobe was a winner albeit with stacked teams.

He’s not a winner in what way? If AI in his prime had the likes of shaq, Lebron, Bosh, Malone, pippen etc etc and you make him buy in toning it down just a lil bit he would def have a ring or two.. you’re not gonna win the championship in this league all by yourself … even Jordan wasn’t happening, but to say he’s not a winner is blasphemy

Exactly. He never had a chance to win, but still came close. None of his Philly rosters gave him a chance to compete. He was slightly past his prime in Denver, and those teams were good but didn't win. He had a short prime, and that can be a knock on him. But in his prime, he was absolutely a winner and just never had a team to compete with.

It's a shame that he didn't, because he was such an offensive force during his prime. Philly took the whole surround him with defensive role players thing too far. As we see clearly in today's game, you want guys that can knock down shots and bigs that can rim run surrounding a player like Iverson (Westbrook was handicapped by this in OKC as well), and he never got to play with that or any legit #2 scorers in his prime (first Philly stint). Nobody wins without reliable secondary scorers, really throughout NBA history.

[hardenASG13]

I said AI was a great player but had his limitations.

He also played in a weak Eastern Conference and generally apart from the 2001 season, his Philly teams were very mediocore.

1997 - 22 wins
1998 - 31 wins
1999 - 28 wins
2000 - 49 wins
2001 - 56 wins
2002 - 43 wins
2003 - 48 wins
2004 - 33 wins
2005 - 43 wins
2006 - 38 wins

And even on the Nuggets him and Melo never got past the 1st round.

They were mediocre because they were awful awful teams. That Philly team that Iverson led to the finals would be the worst finals team in the history
of the league without Iverson on it. It might be the worst even with Iverson on it.

The East was also really bad that year.

Sixers nearly lost to a 47 Raptors team who basically had VC and an even worse roster surrounding him.

Meanwhile in the West you had powerhouses like the Lakers, the Spurs, the Jazz, the Mavericks, the Suns, and the Blazers who were all arguably as good or better than the Sixers.

Those "powerhouses" in the west didn't stop the Lakers from sweeping every team they played in the Western Conference playoffs that year.

[tsherkin]

Part of that was also going to Denver and playing with Melo who was becoming one of the most lethal scorers in the game. Another part of that was due to the league changing with the Jordan-iso era coming to an end and the 7 seconds or less Suns dominating the league with amazing ball movement and 3 point shooting.

In 2004-2005 he shot 42%fg and 31%3fg.

Yeah, but you've already messed this up.

In 04-05, he was playing for Philly and shot 45.1% 2FG, which was the second-best of his entire career. It was the lowest he shot until 08-09.

[GreatWhiteStiff]

Part of that was also going to Denver and playing with Melo who was becoming one of the most lethal scorers in the game. Another part of that was due to the league changing with the Jordan-iso era coming to an end and the 7 seconds or less Suns dominating the league with amazing ball movement and 3 point shooting.

In 2004-2005 he shot 42%fg and 31%3fg.

Yeah, but you've already messed this up.

In 04-05, he was playing for Philly and shot 45.1% 2FG, which was the second-best of his entire career. It was the lowest he shot until 08-09.

It's crazy he shot 50% from 2 in his second year in the league, scoring 22 ppg on ridiculous minutes per game...things went down him from therre.

It sucks he couldn't get above 80ish % as a free throw shooter in his prime too.

[Ryoga Hibiki]

I said AI was a great player but had his limitations.

He also played in a weak Eastern Conference and generally apart from the 2001 season, his Philly teams were very mediocore.

1997 - 22 wins
1998 - 31 wins
1999 - 28 wins
2000 - 49 wins
2001 - 56 wins
2002 - 43 wins
2003 - 48 wins
2004 - 33 wins
2005 - 43 wins
2006 - 38 wins

And even on the Nuggets him and Melo never got past the 1st round.

They were mediocre because they were awful awful teams. That Philly team that Iverson led to the finals would be the worst finals team in the history
of the league without Iverson on it. It might be the worst even with Iverson on it.

If you take a top 2 player from nearly any finals team it would be among the worst finals teams...

what if you take Caron Butler from the 2011 Mavs?

[TheGeneral99]

Part of that was also going to Denver and playing with Melo who was becoming one of the most lethal scorers in the game. Another part of that was due to the league changing with the Jordan-iso era coming to an end and the 7 seconds or less Suns dominating the league with amazing ball movement and 3 point shooting.

In 2004-2005 he shot 42%fg and 31%3fg.

Yeah, but you've already messed this up.

In 04-05, he was playing for Philly and shot 45.1% 2FG, which was the second-best of his entire career. It was the lowest he shot until 08-09.

Well no, that's incorrect.

He shot 44% in 2006-2007 (however, it was 42% while in Philly for the first part of the season and 45% while with Denver).

He shot 46% in 2007-2008.

Then back down to 42% in 2008-2009 (on Detroit).

Notably during this span his 3 point shooting was still not great - 32% in 2006, 32% in 2007, 35% in 2008 and 28% in 2009.

It appears that playing alongside another lethal scorer who commanded double teams like Melo helped Iverson raise his efficiency ever so slightly - which is expected. Melo was the primary offensive option. Once he played with a bad Pistons team in 2009, his efficiency again went back to the low 40s.

Which all supports my premise - Iverson was an insanely talented player and offensive weapon who could score at will from anywhere on the floor, but his efficiency and shot-selection was quite poor.

[TheGeneral99]

They were mediocre because they were awful awful teams. That Philly team that Iverson led to the finals would be the worst finals team in the history
of the league without Iverson on it. It might be the worst even with Iverson on it.

The East was also really bad that year.

Sixers nearly lost to a 47 Raptors team who basically had VC and an even worse roster surrounding him.

Meanwhile in the West you had powerhouses like the Lakers, the Spurs, the Jazz, the Mavericks, the Suns, and the Blazers who were all arguably as good or better than the Sixers.

Those "powerhouses" in the west didn't stop the Lakers from sweeping every team they played in the Western Conference playoffs that year.

Okay, but apart from the Sixers...was there any other team in the East that was better than the Spurs, the Jazz, and the Mavs?

[dhsilv2]

They were mediocre because they were awful awful teams. That Philly team that Iverson led to the finals would be the worst finals team in the history
of the league without Iverson on it. It might be the worst even with Iverson on it.

If you take a top 2 player from nearly any finals team it would be among the worst finals teams...

what if you take Caron Butler from the 2011 Mavs?

They'd still be pretty good. But I don't think he was a top 4 player on that team.

[ShulaDon92]

He addressed Iversons inefficient chucking problem. That's what made iverson not so great

-SARGE