Thinking Basketball Offensive Legends, Allen Iverson

[tsherkin]

Well no, that's incorrect.

I said 2FG%. That's field goal percentage on 2pt shots only.

[tsherkin]

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.

I mean he also dunked over 30 times in each of his first two seasons, and then only had two more seasons the rest of his career with 10+ dunks. Things started to really tighten up in terms of physicality, and slowing pace, at that point in the league, so it certainly wasn't an ideal time for his style of play.

As far as FT shooting, he hit the league as a 70% FT shooter, so I thought it pretty reasonable that he became an 80%+ FT shooter. 01-08, he was at 80.3% on 9.9 FTA/g, with volume also helping to impact that number.

Today, he would look different. With his foot speed and today's pace and so forth, he'd probably have a field day.

[TheGeneral99]

Well no, that's incorrect.

I said 2FG%. That's field goal percentage on 2pt shots only.

Right, but it's not like his 3FG% was any good apart from the 2008 season.

[tsherkin]

Right, but it's not like his 3FG% was any good apart from the 2008 season.

Right, but you tried to correct me with raw FG%, and that was inaccurate, so I was reminding you that the numbers I quoted were indeed accurate

[hardenASG13]

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?

I can't tell you that I vividly remember the 2001 spurs, Jazz, or Mavs. But that's the point, Philly was better than them all, and was the top team most of 2001 until the Lakers went nuclear in the second half of the season. The Bucks were very good that year with 3 very good scorers, but AI led Philly past them. I'm sure the bucks were on par with those west teams that were swept by LA.

[dhsilv2]

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?

I can't tell you that I vividly remember the 2001 spurs, Jazz, or Mavs. But that's the point, Philly was better than them all, and was the top team most of 2001 until the Lakers went nuclear in the second half of the season. The Bucks were very good that year with 3 very good scorers, but AI led Philly past them. I'm sure the bucks were on par with those west teams that were swept by LA.

2001 bucks were the 8th best team in SRS. Trying to claim they were better than all those teams is pretty dishonest or you really don't remember the rest of the league that year. The bucks had an absolutely trash defense by playoff standards, they weren't stopping anyone.

[hardenASG13]

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?

I can't tell you that I vividly remember the 2001 spurs, Jazz, or Mavs. But that's the point, Philly was better than them all, and was the top team most of 2001 until the Lakers went nuclear in the second half of the season. The Bucks were very good that year with 3 very good scorers, but AI led Philly past them. I'm sure the bucks were on par with those west teams that were swept by LA.

2001 bucks were the 8th best team in SRS. Trying to claim they were better than all those teams is pretty dishonest or you really don't remember the rest of the league that year. The bucks had an absolutely trash defense by playoff standards, they weren't stopping anyone.

I'm not claiming they were better. I said they were on par with them, as in could give them a series. I'm not looking to discuss it with you honestly, as you've claimed numerous times that Mutumbo was more valuable than AI on the 01 sixers lol.

[TheGeneral99]

I can't tell you that I vividly remember the 2001 spurs, Jazz, or Mavs. But that's the point, Philly was better than them all, and was the top team most of 2001 until the Lakers went nuclear in the second half of the season. The Bucks were very good that year with 3 very good scorers, but AI led Philly past them. I'm sure the bucks were on par with those west teams that were swept by LA.

2001 bucks were the 8th best team in SRS. Trying to claim they were better than all those teams is pretty dishonest or you really don't remember the rest of the league that year. The bucks had an absolutely trash defense by playoff standards, they weren't stopping anyone.

I'm not claiming they were better. I said they were on par with them, as in could give them a series. I'm not looking to discuss it with you honestly, as you've claimed numerous times that Mutumbo was more valuable than AI on the 01 sixers lol.

I don't think you can disagree though that the West was far better than the East in 2001.

The West had seven 50+ win teams. The Kings, Lakers and the Spurs all won over 55 games. Moreover, ten teams won over 45 games.

The East had three 50+ win teams. The Sixers were the only team to win over 55 games. Only six teams won over 45 games.

As noted the Raptors were a 5th seed with 47 wins and had a fairly weak supporting cast around VC and still managed to push the Sixers to a game 7 that came down to the finals shot.

[dhsilv2]

I can't tell you that I vividly remember the 2001 spurs, Jazz, or Mavs. But that's the point, Philly was better than them all, and was the top team most of 2001 until the Lakers went nuclear in the second half of the season. The Bucks were very good that year with 3 very good scorers, but AI led Philly past them. I'm sure the bucks were on par with those west teams that were swept by LA.

2001 bucks were the 8th best team in SRS. Trying to claim they were better than all those teams is pretty dishonest or you really don't remember the rest of the league that year. The bucks had an absolutely trash defense by playoff standards, they weren't stopping anyone.

I'm not claiming they were better. I said they were on par with them, as in could give them a series. I'm not looking to discuss it with you honestly, as you've claimed numerous times that Mutumbo was more valuable than AI on the 01 sixers lol.

The bucks that year were not a good team. But this does follow your mode of only following offense lol.

[GYK]

I do hate this board sometimes. Like why was this person successful in a results based game? Analyst swear this is baseball.
We desperately need era adjusted stats. The hub Star role is new and would through things off a bit but it would help so much.

[dhsilv2]

I do hate this board sometimes. Like why was this person successful in a results based game? Analyst swear this is baseball.
We desperately need era adjusted stats. The hub Star role is new and would through things off a bit but it would help so much.

We do have era adjusted stats. And was AI successful? One finals run along with missing the playoffs or out in the first or second round the rest of his career.

[Masigond]

One finals run along with missing the playoffs or out in the first or second round the rest of his career.

Another argument that I don't get. If Iverson was so good in 2001 that he allegedly carried a bad team to the Finals by himself why were his teams lacking success when he was playing on a very comparable level in other years?

Not to mention all that luck the 2001 Sixers had. One more FG made by Vince Carter instead of missing it (or the NBA not rigging the series against the Bucks like they allegedly did...), and Iverson would never have even seen a conference finals series for his whole career. And one finals game in 2001 less with Kobe making 15 points out of 22 FGAs (did Iverson guard him that well, hm?), and that narrative that Iverson beat the unbeatable Lakers of 2001 by himself (one single game... And noone talks about Reggie Miller's Pacers winning two games one year before against the very same team) would have fallen flat as well.

[ConSarnit]

Iverson was much better shooter than Philly's offense allowed him to be.
Because he shot .456 in his 135 games with Denver.

That isn't quite accurate. He saw an immediate leap in 2FG% as soon as the 04-05 season hit, and it remained consistently that way until his last two seasons. Turns out, if you aren't allowed to be quite as physical with him, it's far more difficult to stay in front of him and he can generate better looks. Weird.

Not really. He had zero seasons where he shot above average from 3 in Denver. He shot about 40% from midrange in Denver (not good). His FG% in Denver went up because he jacked far fewer shots. I suppose you could say he was "better" but that's still not the same as "good".

His efficiency probably took a jump because it would be nearly impossible for him to shoot any worse than he did between '01-'04. Look at his FG% from '01-04

2000/01: .420
2001/02: .398 (league leader in FGA by 5.7fga!)
2002/03: .414
2003/04: .387 (league leader in FGA)

The guy took bad shots AND took the most in the league. Even during his more "efficient" years he was still barely above league average for PG efficiency. Even in his Denver years he had 1 season (barely) above league average TS% for point guards and that's because he cut his shot volume down by 33%. Even next to a great scorer (Melo) Iverson wasn't really efficient at all, it just look that way because of how terrible his efficiency was when it was just the AI show in Philly.

Iverson's saving grace was that he could draw fouls with the best of them. Any other type of shot was somewhere in the below average (mid-range) to bad (3pt) range.

[dhsilv2]

One finals run along with missing the playoffs or out in the first or second round the rest of his career.

Another argument that I don't get. If Iverson was so good in 2001 that he allegedly carried a bad team to the Finals by himself why were his teams lacking success when he was playing on a very comparable level in other years?

Not to mention all that luck the 2001 Sixers had. One more FG made by Vince Carter instead of missing it (or the NBA not rigging the series against the Bucks like they allegedly did...), and Iverson would never have even seen a conference finals series for his whole career. And one finals game in 2001 less with Kobe making 15 points out of 22 FGAs (did Iverson guard him that well, hm?), and that narrative that Iverson beat the unbeatable Lakers of 2001 by himself (one single game... And noone talks about Reggie Miller's Pacers winning two games one year before against the very same team) would have fallen flat as well.

Its hard to not love AI. He was just a warrior who never stopped. But given how weak the east was...I'm with you. I'd want to see more team success before we say stats that paint him as a star, but not an all time one are wrong.

[cam24thomas]

Imagine if Iverson had played his entire career at Denver.... then he'd have a career fg% of about 47%, because the .456 in 135 games at Denver was when he was aged 31 and 32.
Young Iverson playing alongside Melo, or any quality all-star, would be something special.

[og15]

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?

I can't tell you that I vividly remember the 2001 spurs, Jazz, or Mavs. But that's the point, Philly was better than them all, and was the top team most of 2001 until the Lakers went nuclear in the second half of the season. The Bucks were very good that year with 3 very good scorers, but AI led Philly past them. I'm sure the bucks were on par with those west teams that were swept by LA.

If you watched the league during this time (and were old enough to understand what was going on) you would not say this.

Even statistics alone can explain this one. Bucks had the 7th best record, 8th in SRS and had a poor defense.

Saying the Bucks were a good team is wild. Any team that came out of the East that season, Sixers, Bucks, Raptors, Hornets, etc would have been one of the weakest finals teams in NBA history.

I do hate this board sometimes. Like why was this person successful in a results based game? Analyst swear this is baseball.
We desperately need era adjusted stats. The hub Star role is new and would through things off a bit but it would help so much.

That's tough because the first question to ask is how successful he actually was. He has an MVP, so that's a nice one, though many argue against it, he still got it.

On the other hand, the early 00's East was not a very strong time, him and his team got to the finals, kudos to them, great run, but 34 year old Reggie Miller did that too, and that was the only time he got past the second round. He played only 71 playoff games in his career, him and Carmelo who I fully expected to lose those series' only got 1 playoff win in their two seasons together, they barely did more than Paul Gasol and solid complimentary players in Memphis, and he was washed up as an impactful NBA player by 33.

People might differ on how successful they consider him, which would be a big factor in how you are analyzing. I'd say for ATG level players not anything that would stand out success wise.

[hardenASG13]

I do hate this board sometimes. Like why was this person successful in a results based game? Analyst swear this is baseball.
We desperately need era adjusted stats. The hub Star role is new and would through things off a bit but it would help so much.

We do have era adjusted stats. And was AI successful? One finals run along with missing the playoffs or out in the first or second round the rest of his career.

Yet you praise KG for same thing.

[Masigond]

People might differ on how successful they consider him, which would be a big factor in how you are analyzing. I'd say for ATG level players not anything that would stand out success wise.

Remember that "bench" speech?

Watch on YouTube

Franchise player, Olympian, All-Star, MVP, three-time scoring champion, First Team All-NBA. Yes, he was all that (he did that interview back in 2004). Being one of the top icons of NBA history and making truckloads of money on top of that? Oh, yes, he was that and did that, too. So from an individual point of view, he was one of the most successful players ever.

But basketball is team sports, and his teams were quite lackluster, and the reason for that might be that Iverson was not a top echelon NBA player impact-wise. In terms of making his teams win. How could he when his forte was scoring, but when his scoring was barely above league average efficiency? I'd say that he was a true All-Star caliber player (mostly due to the gravity created and his playmaking as depicted in the analysis in the OP). All-NBA depending on his contemporaries. But one of the best ever to lace it up? Not when the point is winning NBA games as a team and winning championships.

[hardenASG13]

2001 bucks were the 8th best team in SRS. Trying to claim they were better than all those teams is pretty dishonest or you really don't remember the rest of the league that year. The bucks had an absolutely trash defense by playoff standards, they weren't stopping anyone.

I'm not claiming they were better. I said they were on par with them, as in could give them a series. I'm not looking to discuss it with you honestly, as you've claimed numerous times that Mutumbo was more valuable than AI on the 01 sixers lol.

I don't think you can disagree though that the West was far better than the East in 2001.

The West had seven 50+ win teams. The Kings, Lakers and the Spurs all won over 55 games. Moreover, ten teams won over 45 games.

The East had three 50+ win teams. The Sixers were the only team to win over 55 games. Only six teams won over 45 games.

As noted the Raptors were a 5th seed with 47 wins and had a fairly weak supporting cast around VC and still managed to push the Sixers to a game 7 that came down to the finals shot.

Yes the West was stronger. Their rosters were better constructed than AIs too, as their secondary and third scorers were better than Aaron mckie. Name me a teammate of Iversons from his Philly era that did anything after playing alongside him (snow, mckie, lynch, raja bell, Geiger, ratliff, jumaine jones). Him leading them to the finals shows he was a winner, which I think was the main point here. If he was on one of those talented west teams, I think he would've contended alot more than he did. He was absolutely capable as a number 1 guy.

[hardenASG13]

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?

I can't tell you that I vividly remember the 2001 spurs, Jazz, or Mavs. But that's the point, Philly was better than them all, and was the top team most of 2001 until the Lakers went nuclear in the second half of the season. The Bucks were very good that year with 3 very good scorers, but AI led Philly past them. I'm sure the bucks were on par with those west teams that were swept by LA.

If you watched the league during this time (and were old enough to understand what was going on) you would not say this.

Even statistics alone can explain this one. Bucks had the 7th best record, 8th in SRS and had a poor defense.

Saying the Bucks were a good team is wild. Any team that came out of the East that season, Sixers, Bucks, Raptors, Hornets, etc would have been one of the weakest finals teams in NBA history.

I do hate this board sometimes. Like why was this person successful in a results based game? Analyst swear this is baseball.
We desperately need era adjusted stats. The hub Star role is new and would through things off a bit but it would help so much.

That's tough because the first question to ask is how successful he actually was. He has an MVP, so that's a nice one, though many argue against it, he still got it.

On the other hand, the early 00's East was not a very strong time, him and his team got to the finals, kudos to them, great run, but 34 year old Reggie Miller did that too, and that was the only time he got past the second round. He played only 71 playoff games in his career, him and Carmelo who I fully expected to lose those series' only got 1 playoff win in their two seasons together, they barely did more than Paul Gasol and solid complimentary players in Memphis, and he was washed up as an impactful NBA player by 33.

People might differ on how successful they consider him, which would be a big factor in how you are analyzing. I'd say for ATG level players not anything that would stand out success wise.

I watched it. You think the cited utah Jazz or Dallas roll over Milwaukee that year, because they won a few more regular season games? What was Miamis SRS this year? None of the teams out west were anything special that year (neither was Milwaukee), they all got swept by LA.