Thinking Basketball Offensive Legends, Allen Iverson

[Masigond]

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.

And why did the Sixers so bad in other years when the East was equally weak as in 2001? Why couldn't he drag them to success when he was such a winner? Either his teammates were rather capable in 2001 (as they showed as the Sixers had a record of 6-5 without him. So by no means a great team, but not abysmal either. Somehow they managed to lose only by 6, when Iverson missed a game against the Bucks in the playoffs), or that argument is quite flawed.

[hardenASG13]

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.

And why did the Sixers so bad in other years when the East was equally weak as in 2001? Why couldn't he drag them to success when he was such a winner? Either his teammates were rather capable in 2001 (as they showed as the Sixers had a record of 6-5 without him. So by no means a great team, but not abysmal either. Somehow they managed to lose only by 6, when Iverson missed a game against the Bucks in the playoffs), or that argument is quite flawed.

They scored in the 70s in that game vs Milwaukee haha. They had no chance without him. Im not sure who they played in those 11 games, are you? They were certainly better with him.

There were teams better than Philly in the East throughout most of his tenure. He was drafted in 96, made the finals in 2001. That isn't bad. They simply didn't have the talent to compete, even in the East. There were much better rosters, just like KGs Minnesota teams, Tmacs Orlando teams, Kobe Lakers after Shaq/before Gasol. Even LeBron only got out of the East once before joining Miami. It's tough to do as a solo act.

[tsherkin]

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".

3P% is irrelevant to my point. Denver is irrelevant to my point. He didn't join Denver until midway through 06-07.

In 04-05 and 05-06, while shooting 24.2 and 25.3 FGA/g (invalidating your remark about shooting volume), he shot 45.1% and 46.5% 2FG, the 2nd- and 3rd-best marks of his whole career and the first time in his career he'd done so in consecutive seasons and the first time on 20+ FGA/g.

So, no; that's wrong.

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)

Now look at 2FG%, which is what I have been discussing, and Philly's pace.

01: 44.1%, 90.6
02: 41.9%, 88.9
03: 44.0%, 91.4
04: 40.8%, 88.0

05: 45.1%, 94.9
06: 46.5%, 92.7

So... when the physicality dropped and the pace rose, so too did his 2FG%.

If you look at his finishing percentage from 0-3 feet, you see it slowly going down as we move into the grinder 03, 04 era, and then rising again as he moved away from it (even into his 30s).

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.

Honestly, his mid-range shooting was reasonably good, just represented too high a proportion of his insane volume.

97-03, he shot 42.0% from 16-23 feet on 5.7 FGA/g, which isn't actually bad. It surely isn't elite, but 40%+ is a baseline reasonable marker for the era. It did drop off a cliff thereafter, though. His shot from 10-16 feet was a trouble spot prior to 05, but improved thereafter.

[Masigond]

They scored in the 70s in that game vs Milwaukee haha. They had no chance without him. Im not sure who they played in those 11 games, are you? They were certainly better with him.

There were teams better than Philly in the East throughout most of his tenure. He was drafted in 96, made the finals in 2001. That isn't bad. They simply didn't have the talent to compete, even in the East. There were much better rosters, just like KGs Minnesota teams, Tmacs Orlando teams, Kobe Lakers after Shaq/before Gasol. Even LeBron only got out of the East once before joining Miami. It's tough to do as a solo act.

Oh, so a team is better with their franchise player? Duh... I didn't say that he made them worse, I implied that his team was not so bad as Iverson stans always seem to claim. And so what that they couldn't score. They held their opponents to a level that they weren't far from a win against them. That's the point.

And funny that you make the excuse for the Sixers that other teams might have been better, but when it comes to the 2001 Western Conference, the Lakers don't seem to be that all-time great team that managed to crush all other teams despite those being quite good. Then your argument is that these teams must have been bad because the Lakers swept all of them? Cherrypicking of convenient arguments at its best.

[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.

Yet you praise KG for same thing.

I don't judge players on team results...

[TheGeneral99]

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.

A bit of a hyperbole considering that Mutumbo was already considered arguably the best defensive player in the league and joined the Sixers in 2001 at the age of 34.

He was a winner for 1 year when he had an all-time great coach in Larry Brown and Mutumbo at the end of his prime. Other then that 1 season, Philly was very mediocore or bad. He played with guys like Webber, Stackhouse, Igoudala etc. and benefited from playing in a weaker eastern conference.

But just look at this. With Iverson on Denver, they were a good team but could never get passed the first round. As soon as he's traded for Billups, the Nuggets become a legitimate contender and reach the Western Conference Finals in 2009. At the same time, the Pistons go from a contender to a bottom of the barrel team.

In 2006 you had Steve Nash, who had lost his 2nd best player in Amare to an ACL injury, lead a depleted Suns to 54 wins and the western conference finals.

This is not to say that I hate Iverson or think he wasn't a great player, but he wasn't as amazing as you are making him out to be. Amazing talent, lethal scorer, but not a very high IQ, not efficient, took many ill-advised shots, didn't make his teammates better.

[tsherkin]

A bit of a hyperbole considering that Mutumbo was already considered arguably the best defensive player in the league and joined the Sixers in 2001 at the age of 34.

He was a winner for 1 year when he had an all-time great coach in Larry Brown and Mutumbo at the end of his prime. Other then that 1 season, Philly was very mediocore or bad. He played with guys like Webber, Stackhouse, Igoudala etc. and benefited from playing in a weaker eastern conference.

49, 56, 43 and 48 wins from 01-04. 99 to 03, they went Semis, Semis, Finals, 1st round, Semis. They did pretty well, all told. He had no real offensive help. Like, literally the best offensive player he had in that stretch was Keith Van Horn.

But just look at this. With Iverson on Denver, they were a good team but could never get passed the first round. As soon as he's traded for Billups, the Nuggets become a legitimate contender and reach the Western Conference Finals in 2009. At the same time, the Pistons go from a contender to a bottom of the barrel team.

Mmmm... mildly disingenuous. They faced the title Spurs in the first round in 07. Then the Lakers (who made the Finals and lost to Boston) in the first round the year after. Then lost to the eventual-champ Lakers in 09 the year after. They hit competition that was too rough early on for those Nuggets teams to be successful. Melo also vanished in the Lakers series. He was as bad in that series as Iverson had been against the Spurs, just absolute garbage. You need both your guys clicking if you want to beat a high-end team like those title-era Kobe-led Lakers.

In 2006 you had Steve Nash, who had lost his 2nd best player in Amare to an ACL injury, lead a depleted Suns to 54 wins and the western conference finals.

Yes, with Shawn Marion, Raja Bell, Boris Diaw playing the best basketball of his entire career, Leandro Barbosa, Kurt Thomas, Tim Thomas, James Jones and Eddie House. They had a ton of shooting talent on that team, and Diaw was an excellent pivot playmaker.

Also, Nash was better than Iverson, fair enough. But like the team context differences are LARGE. Comparing any of those Philly teams to the 06 Suns doesn't make sense. Yeah, Iverson wasn't as good as Nash, but that doesn't mean he wasn't a good player. Philly literally surrounded him with trash and hoped everything would just work out, and that isn't what happens. They tried to lean on him as a volume scoring threat and that didn't really work well. They didn't do a good job of getting him a big with offensive skills, they didn't do a good job of getting him even an Allan Houston-level off-ball threat, they didn't get a coach who was going to push the tempo to open up his threat as a speedy guy in transition. They got a grinder defensive coach who took away easy buckets and leveraged defense. So they were attacking a set defense most of the time, didn't have any other dynamic threats... and leaned heavily on one guy to shoulder the load. That isn't a recipe for high-end efficiency. Yeah, Iverson took a lot of crap shots, but especially in-era and within team context, what did you expect from the 5'11 little dude?

[hardenASG13]

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.

A bit of a hyperbole considering that Mutumbo was already considered arguably the best defensive player in the league and joined the Sixers in 2001 at the age of 34.

He was a winner for 1 year when he had an all-time great coach in Larry Brown and Mutumbo at the end of his prime. Other then that 1 season, Philly was very mediocore or bad. He played with guys like Webber, Stackhouse, Igoudala etc. and benefited from playing in a weaker eastern conference.

But just look at this. With Iverson on Denver, they were a good team but could never get passed the first round. As soon as he's traded for Billups, the Nuggets become a legitimate contender and reach the Western Conference Finals in 2009. At the same time, the Pistons go from a contender to a bottom of the barrel team.

In 2006 you had Steve Nash, who had lost his 2nd best player in Amare to an ACL injury, lead a depleted Suns to 54 wins and the western conference finals.

This is not to say that I hate Iverson or think he wasn't a great player, but he wasn't as amazing as you are making him out to be. Amazing talent, lethal scorer, but not a very high IQ, not efficient, took many ill-advised shots, didn't make his teammates better.

Webber was past his prime, by alot. Stackhouse and Iverson were extremely young when they played together. Iguodala was very young as well.

AI was past his prime in Denver, and quite clearly in Detroit. He was still good in Denver, but wasn't the same.

What did Mutumbos defense do to Shaq, besides nothing. He was a very good defender, but it meant nothing when he went up against Shaq.

[hardenASG13]

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.

I don't judge players on team results...

You literally are quoted here saying Iverson only had one finals run and was out in the first or second round otherwise (just like KG in Minnesota). I know he had Melo in Denver, unfortunately he had lost half a step which was a big deal for a guy like him.

[TheGeneral99]

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.

A bit of a hyperbole considering that Mutumbo was already considered arguably the best defensive player in the league and joined the Sixers in 2001 at the age of 34.

He was a winner for 1 year when he had an all-time great coach in Larry Brown and Mutumbo at the end of his prime. Other then that 1 season, Philly was very mediocore or bad. He played with guys like Webber, Stackhouse, Igoudala etc. and benefited from playing in a weaker eastern conference.

But just look at this. With Iverson on Denver, they were a good team but could never get passed the first round. As soon as he's traded for Billups, the Nuggets become a legitimate contender and reach the Western Conference Finals in 2009. At the same time, the Pistons go from a contender to a bottom of the barrel team.

In 2006 you had Steve Nash, who had lost his 2nd best player in Amare to an ACL injury, lead a depleted Suns to 54 wins and the western conference finals.

This is not to say that I hate Iverson or think he wasn't a great player, but he wasn't as amazing as you are making him out to be. Amazing talent, lethal scorer, but not a very high IQ, not efficient, took many ill-advised shots, didn't make his teammates better.

Webber was past his prime, by alot. Stackhouse and Iverson were extremely young when they played together. Iguodala was very young as well.

AI was past his prime in Denver, and quite clearly in Detroit. He was still good in Denver, but wasn't the same.

What did Mutumbos defense do to Shaq, besides nothing. He was a very good defender, but it meant nothing when he went up against Shaq.

I'm really not even sure what you are arguing.

Iverson was 31 and 32 when he was in Denver.

I never said Mutumbo was able to stop Shaq.

My point is that Iverson, while a great player, had some major flaws. As I stated early in this thread I have Iverson in my top 50 of all time, not I wouldn't be able to put him in my top 30.

This is also verified by advanced stats as well.

Go look at RPM and WS.

2002 - Iverson was 19 in RPM and 17 in WS.
2003 - Iverson was 34 in RPM and 11 in WS
2004 - Outside of the top 50.
2005 - Outside of top 50 in RPM and 24 in WS.
2006 - 39 in RPM and 21 in WS.
2007 - Outside of top 50.
2008 - 36 in RPM and 13 in WS.
2009 - Outside of top 50.

While he posted amazing stats, his efficiency wasn't great, he wasn't great defensively, he didn't make his teammates better and the advanced stats validate this. Great player, but doesn't qualify in my opinion to be in the top 30 of all time.

[hardenASG13]

They scored in the 70s in that game vs Milwaukee haha. They had no chance without him. Im not sure who they played in those 11 games, are you? They were certainly better with him.

There were teams better than Philly in the East throughout most of his tenure. He was drafted in 96, made the finals in 2001. That isn't bad. They simply didn't have the talent to compete, even in the East. There were much better rosters, just like KGs Minnesota teams, Tmacs Orlando teams, Kobe Lakers after Shaq/before Gasol. Even LeBron only got out of the East once before joining Miami. It's tough to do as a solo act.

Oh, so a team is better with their franchise player? Duh... I didn't say that he made them worse, I implied that his team was not so bad as Iverson stans always seem to claim. And so what that they couldn't score. They held their opponents to a level that they weren't far from a win against them. That's the point.

And funny that you make the excuse for the Sixers that other teams might have been better, but when it comes to the 2001 Western Conference, the Lakers don't seem to be that all-time great team that managed to crush all other teams despite those being quite good. Then your argument is that these teams must have been bad because the Lakers swept all of them? Cherrypicking of convenient arguments at its best.

It was one game. They scored 74 points. That's kind of a problem whether they were close in that 1 game or not. 6-5 without him proves nothing, who did they beat, what were the circumstances of those games. They were at best a first round out without him.

My argument re the Lakers is there weren't a murderers row of opponents out west. There were a few quality teams, that all got swept. There's nothing to prove those other teams were miles ahead of Milwaukee. Of course the Lakers that year were an all time team. I've never seen a better team in the playoffs.

[TheGeneral99]

They scored in the 70s in that game vs Milwaukee haha. They had no chance without him. Im not sure who they played in those 11 games, are you? They were certainly better with him.

There were teams better than Philly in the East throughout most of his tenure. He was drafted in 96, made the finals in 2001. That isn't bad. They simply didn't have the talent to compete, even in the East. There were much better rosters, just like KGs Minnesota teams, Tmacs Orlando teams, Kobe Lakers after Shaq/before Gasol. Even LeBron only got out of the East once before joining Miami. It's tough to do as a solo act.

Oh, so a team is better with their franchise player? Duh... I didn't say that he made them worse, I implied that his team was not so bad as Iverson stans always seem to claim. And so what that they couldn't score. They held their opponents to a level that they weren't far from a win against them. That's the point.

And funny that you make the excuse for the Sixers that other teams might have been better, but when it comes to the 2001 Western Conference, the Lakers don't seem to be that all-time great team that managed to crush all other teams despite those being quite good. Then your argument is that these teams must have been bad because the Lakers swept all of them? Cherrypicking of convenient arguments at its best.

It was one game. They scored 74 points. That's kind of a problem whether they were close in that 1 game or not. 6-5 without him proves nothing, who did they beat, what were the circumstances of those games. They were at best a first round out without him.

My argument re the Lakers is there weren't a murderers row of opponents out west. There were a few quality teams, that all got swept. There's nothing to prove those other teams were miles ahead of Milwaukee. Of course the Lakers that year were an all time team. I've never seen a better team in the playoffs.

A few quality teams?

Because the Lakers were so dominant that doesn't mean there were few quality teams. Seven teams in the West won 50+ games. Three teams won 55+ games. And there were multiple other teams that won over 45 games.

That's a STACKED conference.

[hardenASG13]

A bit of a hyperbole considering that Mutumbo was already considered arguably the best defensive player in the league and joined the Sixers in 2001 at the age of 34.

He was a winner for 1 year when he had an all-time great coach in Larry Brown and Mutumbo at the end of his prime. Other then that 1 season, Philly was very mediocore or bad. He played with guys like Webber, Stackhouse, Igoudala etc. and benefited from playing in a weaker eastern conference.

But just look at this. With Iverson on Denver, they were a good team but could never get passed the first round. As soon as he's traded for Billups, the Nuggets become a legitimate contender and reach the Western Conference Finals in 2009. At the same time, the Pistons go from a contender to a bottom of the barrel team.

In 2006 you had Steve Nash, who had lost his 2nd best player in Amare to an ACL injury, lead a depleted Suns to 54 wins and the western conference finals.

This is not to say that I hate Iverson or think he wasn't a great player, but he wasn't as amazing as you are making him out to be. Amazing talent, lethal scorer, but not a very high IQ, not efficient, took many ill-advised shots, didn't make his teammates better.

Webber was past his prime, by alot. Stackhouse and Iverson were extremely young when they played together. Iguodala was very young as well.

AI was past his prime in Denver, and quite clearly in Detroit. He was still good in Denver, but wasn't the same.

What did Mutumbos defense do to Shaq, besides nothing. He was a very good defender, but it meant nothing when he went up against Shaq.

I'm really not even sure what you are arguing.

Iverson was 31 and 32 when he was in Denver.

I never said Mutumbo was able to stop Shaq.

My point is that Iverson, while a great player, had some major flaws. As I stated early in this thread I have Iverson in my top 50 of all time, not I wouldn't be able to put him in my top 30.

This is also verified by advanced stats as well.

Go look at RPM and WS.

2002 - Iverson was 19 in RPM and 17 in WS.
2003 - Iverson was 34 in RPM and 11 in WS
2004 - Outside of the top 50.
2005 - Outside of top 50 in RPM and 24 in WS.
2006 - 39 in RPM and 21 in WS.
2007 - Outside of top 50.
2008 - 36 in RPM and 13 in WS.
2009 - Outside of top 50.

While he posted amazing stats, his efficiency wasn't great, he wasn't great defensively, he didn't make his teammates better and the advanced stats validate this. Great player, but doesn't qualify in my opinion to be in the top 30 of all time.

He didn't make guys like Eric snow, Aaron Mckie, jumaine jones, theo ratliff, tyrone hill, raja bell, George lynch and Matt Geiger better? They all fell off considerably after playing with AI, and all (with maybe lynch as the exception) had their best years playing with AI.

[TheGeneral99]

Webber was past his prime, by alot. Stackhouse and Iverson were extremely young when they played together. Iguodala was very young as well.

AI was past his prime in Denver, and quite clearly in Detroit. He was still good in Denver, but wasn't the same.

What did Mutumbos defense do to Shaq, besides nothing. He was a very good defender, but it meant nothing when he went up against Shaq.

I'm really not even sure what you are arguing.

Iverson was 31 and 32 when he was in Denver.

I never said Mutumbo was able to stop Shaq.

My point is that Iverson, while a great player, had some major flaws. As I stated early in this thread I have Iverson in my top 50 of all time, not I wouldn't be able to put him in my top 30.

This is also verified by advanced stats as well.

Go look at RPM and WS.

2002 - Iverson was 19 in RPM and 17 in WS.
2003 - Iverson was 34 in RPM and 11 in WS
2004 - Outside of the top 50.
2005 - Outside of top 50 in RPM and 24 in WS.
2006 - 39 in RPM and 21 in WS.
2007 - Outside of top 50.
2008 - 36 in RPM and 13 in WS.
2009 - Outside of top 50.

While he posted amazing stats, his efficiency wasn't great, he wasn't great defensively, he didn't make his teammates better and the advanced stats validate this. Great player, but doesn't qualify in my opinion to be in the top 30 of all time.

He didn't make guys like Eric snow, Aaron Mckie, jumaine jones, theo ratliff, tyrone hill, raja bell, George lynch and Matt Geiger better? They all fell off considerably after playing with AI, and all (with maybe lynch as the exception) had their best years playing with AI.

No he didn't.

They were good role players next to him that did there job, were excellent defensively, and allowed Iverson to dominate the ball and take 25+ shots a game. He also had an amazing coach in Larry Brown which coincided with the Sixers becoming a very good team. As soon as Brown departed, the Sixers fell apart while Brown led the Pistons to a title a year later in 2004.

Are you trying to tell me Iverson was someone that elevated the players around him? That he was a good facilitator?

You also realize that Raja Bell barely played at all on the Sixers and only became a good player next to Nash on the Suns right?

Also Tyrone Hill had his best years before Philly.

George Lynch? Jumaine Jones? Both barely played and Jones had his best years after Philly, lol.

Ratliff was a defensive specialist shot blocker who continued to average nearly 4 blocks a game (led the league twice ) on Atlanta.

Matt Geiger??? The same Geiger who had his best years before Philly and barely played in 2000 and 2001?

Sheesh, Iverson was really good, but to say he made the players around him better is just so devoid of reality.

[nikster]

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.

A bit of a hyperbole considering that Mutumbo was already considered arguably the best defensive player in the league and joined the Sixers in 2001 at the age of 34.

He was a winner for 1 year when he had an all-time great coach in Larry Brown and Mutumbo at the end of his prime. Other then that 1 season, Philly was very mediocore or bad. He played with guys like Webber, Stackhouse, Igoudala etc. and benefited from playing in a weaker eastern conference.

But just look at this. With Iverson on Denver, they were a good team but could never get passed the first round. As soon as he's traded for Billups, the Nuggets become a legitimate contender and reach the Western Conference Finals in 2009. At the same time, the Pistons go from a contender to a bottom of the barrel team.

In 2006 you had Steve Nash, who had lost his 2nd best player in Amare to an ACL injury, lead a depleted Suns to 54 wins and the western conference finals.

This is not to say that I hate Iverson or think he wasn't a great player, but he wasn't as amazing as you are making him out to be. Amazing talent, lethal scorer, but not a very high IQ, not efficient, took many ill-advised shots, didn't make his teammates better.

Mutombo was instrumental to that run. He was insanely impactful in the ECF. 6.5 offensive rebounds per game....He absolutely dominated the paint in that series.

Those Bucks averaged 100 pts per game in the regular season and led the league in offensive efficiency. They averaged just under 90 pts during the 76ers series.

[SSUBluesman]

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".

3P% is irrelevant to my point. Denver is irrelevant to my point. He didn't join Denver until midway through 06-07.

In 04-05 and 05-06, while shooting 24.2 and 25.3 FGA/g (invalidating your remark about shooting volume), he shot 45.1% and 46.5% 2FG, the 2nd- and 3rd-best marks of his whole career and the first time in his career he'd done so in consecutive seasons and the first time on 20+ FGA/g.

So, no; that's wrong.

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)

Now look at 2FG%, which is what I have been discussing, and Philly's pace.

01: 44.1%, 90.6
02: 41.9%, 88.9
03: 44.0%, 91.4
04: 40.8%, 88.0

05: 45.1%, 94.9
06: 46.5%, 92.7

So... when the physicality dropped and the pace rose, so too did his 2FG%.

If you look at his finishing percentage from 0-3 feet, you see it slowly going down as we move into the grinder 03, 04 era, and then rising again as he moved away from it (even into his 30s).

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.

Honestly, his mid-range shooting was reasonably good, just represented too high a proportion of his insane volume.

97-03, he shot 42.0% from 16-23 feet on 5.7 FGA/g, which isn't actually bad. It surely isn't elite, but 40%+ is a baseline reasonable marker for the era. It did drop off a cliff thereafter, though. His shot from 10-16 feet was a trouble spot prior to 05, but improved thereafter.

What was the cause of his increased efficiency in his 2nd year relative to his 1st and 3rd? I suspect part of it is your earlier point about the number of dunks/lessened paint physicality in that season, but I'm wondering if there was a decreased # of attempts in one of his poorer shooting areas, an outlier shooting % in an area, etc.

[GreatWhiteStiff]

"Yeah, Iverson took a lot of crap shots, but especially in-era and within team context, what did you expect from the 5'11 little dude?"

Instead of taking a 33% two point shot he could've passed to a teammate for a 33% three point shot. In a lot of circumstances.

[JJ_PR]

This comment from the video sums up my thoughts on Iverson.

I think if AI played in today's spaced out game, where you can't touch guys on the drive, he'd be a much more efficient player. He would draw more fouls, and he would be almost impossible to keep away from the hoop with shooters all around the floor. He would be coached to kick the ball to shooters, and he'd take fewer bad twos himself.

And I never thought about how his stamina and low turnovers contributed to his value, but when you're best offensive player can play at full speed for the whole game, it's a big plus.

[GreatWhiteStiff]

Yeah I dunno if AI could be coached out of bad shots, gambling or alcohol or bad decisions. You think he wasn't getting coached back then?

[tsherkin]

What was the cause of his increased efficiency in his 2nd year relative to his 1st and 3rd? I suspect part of it is your earlier point about the number of dunks/lessened paint physicality in that season, but I'm wondering if there was a decreased # of attempts in one of his poorer shooting areas, an outlier shooting % in an area, etc.

His second overall season? He shot his career-best 49.4% 2FG that year. He had 33 dunks, compared to 34 in his 1st year and 3 in his 3rd season. He shot 47.2% from 16-23 feet and what was a career-best until 04-05 38.7% from 10-16 feet, plus he shot 59.9% from 0-3 feet after shooting 47.4% as a rookie.

In his third season, he dunked less, his 16-23 foot J went to 42.3%, 10-16 went to 32.3%. 0-3 went to 64.4%, but he also only took 25.6% of his shots from there, after 41.8% and 33.5% over his first two seasons.