Thinking Basketball Offensive Legends, Allen Iverson

[tsherkin]

"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.

And you think they were open that often? They were standing still with a defender on them most of the time, Philly didn't exactly have a dynamic offense.

[Lockdown504090]

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.

korver and iggy were part of that efficency increase from what i remember. they were better offensive players than what ai was used to from the jump . those teams were overall a little better on offense with more talented size.

[jehosafats]

Iverson was one of those players I loved watching so much I just don't even care about the stats and analytics. Only guy who ever made me root for the Sixers haha.

Ditto

[dhsilv2]

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.

Did you read the context of that message at all? Jesus dude...

[tsherkin]

korver and iggy were part of that efficency increase from what i remember. they were better offensive players than what ai was used to from the jump . those teams were overall a little better on offense with more talented size.

They were still a dreadful offensive team in 05, but yeah, the spacing was a little better, the rules were a little different, etc, etc.

[NBA4Lyfe]

ben taylor just appeals to casuals and uses the most popular nba players to get traffic. Iverson was not one of the best offensive players ever, he was ineffiecent at best. But because doing a video on iverson will get him a ton of views he will make up some theory about why iverson was underrated

[Phreak50]

Anyone claiming Iguodala was a good player next to Iverson simply didn't watch that era and is just looking at a famous name on a roster.

Iggy was horrendous offensively on the 76ers..

Eric Snow, Aaron McKie, Raja Bell, Tyrone Hill, Mutombo, and so on.

Iverson played with some of the absolute worst offense players of all time.

If he passed, they missed.

If he didn't pass, he was shooting over double teams.

He wasn't perfect and certainly did show some selfish and bad shot selection tendencies but we will never know how good he could have been simply because he played with terrible teams.

[DoItALL9]

Starting lineup

Align AI with

Klay Thompson, Stephen Jackson, Al Harrington, and Chris Bosh...and you'd win a championship.

[DimesandKnicks]

"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.

And you think they were open that often? They were standing still with a defender on them most of the time, Philly didn't exactly have a dynamic offense.

Even if they were. Eric snow and Aaron Mckie?

[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.

And you think they were open that often? They were standing still with a defender on them most of the time, Philly didn't exactly have a dynamic offense.

Even if they were. Eric snow and Aaron Mckie?

Sometimes it was Kyle Korver though.

[tsherkin]

Even if they were. Eric snow and Aaron Mckie?

Indeed.

Sometimes it was Kyle Korver though.

For basically 2 seasons. And of course, you're neglecting to mention that he popped back up to 7+ apg from 05-08 (for the first time since his rookie season) when his teammates were better than they were prior. That first year, 04-05, he set his career-high with 7.9 apg.

Worth noting. It really works against your basic narrative regarding Iverson. Sure, of course, he was a fairly simplistic playmaker; we aren't talking about Steve Nash or Stockton or whomever. But he was fast and he could get the D on its heels and break it down with dribble penetration, then make the kick-out pass. But when you grind your offense to a halt and don't have a ton of talent around you, it negatively impacts your ability to score. AI wasn't a top 10 guy who got knocked out just because of his teams, but there IS a lot of complaint around him which lacks context, and that isn't really right either.

[hardenASG13]

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.

Did you read the context of that message at all? Jesus dude...

There wasn't any context, you just made a comment about him not advancing in the playoffs. Which there was a reason for, just like KG.

[hardenASG13]

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.

They were falling apart before brown left, because they didn't have enough good players.

Lynch barely played lol? Check that again, he averaged over 30pmg in his philly career. Jones was starting for then late in the playoffs as well, because lynch was hurt. He was given opportunities to play more after philly, and looking decent next to AI when forced into action in the 01 playoffs. It didn't work out as he was out of the league 6 years later as a 28 year old.

Snow never did anything post Iverson, Same for mckie. Ratliff never averaged in double figures scoring again after leaving philly, and his rebounds went down as well.

To say he didn't elevate players around him is like saying you didn't consistently watch him play, which is a lazy take by many. He often had to shoot late in the shot clock, or take bad shots, because there weren't other shot creators on the floor with him. He was a willing passer but didn't have guys to pass to or covert.

[HMFFL]

AI was incredible given his height and weight. He's probably the best scorer in NBA history pound for pound.

However, he was a relatively poor teammate, took really bad shots, was not as efficient as he should have been, and didn't make his teammates better. This is why I don't think he deserves to be in the same discussion as other PGs like Nash, Kidd and CP3.

I have AI in a much higher status than Chris Paul. People continue to downgrade the AI that played for Philly as of he didn't have to put his team on his back every game.

Sent from my SM-N975U using RealGM mobile app

[og15]

Starting lineup

Align AI with

Klay Thompson, Stephen Jackson, Al Harrington, and Chris Bosh...and you'd win a championship.

Who are the opponents? You could win a championship, sure, but it would depend on what teams you have to go through. They won't win going against the KG/Pierce/Allen Celtics or the Lakers from that time. They won't win going against the Kobe/Shaq Lakers, etc.

Winning of course never happens in a vacuum, but ones team only needs to be as good or better than the opponents you face.

Even if they were. Eric snow and Aaron Mckie?

Indeed.

Sometimes it was Kyle Korver though.

For basically 2 seasons. And of course, you're neglecting to mention that he popped back up to 7+ apg from 05-08 (for the first time since his rookie season) when his teammates were better than they were prior. That first year, 04-05, he set his career-high with 7.9 apg.

Worth noting. It really works against your basic narrative regarding Iverson. Sure, of course, he was a fairly simplistic playmaker; we aren't talking about Steve Nash or Stockton or whomever. But he was fast and he could get the D on its heels and break it down with dribble penetration, then make the kick-out pass. But when you grind your offense to a halt and don't have a ton of talent around you, it negatively impacts your ability to score. AI wasn't a top 10 guy who got knocked out just because of his teams, but there IS a lot of complaint around him which lacks context, and that isn't really right either.

His assists also primarily went up because he was being used on ball more. LB had him as mainly a SG with Snow controlling the offense.

With Randy Ayers and Mo Cheeks, Iverson was on the ball more, and Snow was moved after 03-04. Iverson was back to being a PG in 04-05 and we saw his apg increase, though of course also his tpg going up to around 4, but of course all these numbers were also being done in 43 mpg, so we have to be fair to him in terms of something like turnovers since that's 4 tpg in 43 mpg, but also then the scoring rate and assist rate are also lessened when minutes are taken into account, so it's both ways.

[dhsilv2]

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.

Did you read the context of that message at all? Jesus dude...

There wasn't any context, you just made a comment about him not advancing in the playoffs. Which there was a reason for, just like KG.

I just made that statement for no reason, out of the blue?

[dhsilv2]

ben taylor just appeals to casuals and uses the most popular nba players to get traffic. Iverson was not one of the best offensive players ever, he was ineffiecent at best. But because doing a video on iverson will get him a ton of views he will make up some theory about why iverson was underrated

The topic was Offensive Legends. AI without a doubt was a unique and special offensive player. No, he wasn't an all time great, but he absolutely was a meaningful player.

Now that said, of course he's going after more casual viewers when he can. This is how he makes money lol.

[hardenASG13]

Did you read the context of that message at all? Jesus dude...

There wasn't any context, you just made a comment about him not advancing in the playoffs. Which there was a reason for, just like KG.

I just made that statement for no reason, out of the blue?

It appears so. You're statement was "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."

You spent the past week arguing KG was a top 10 player all time but had crappy teammates in Minny, with similar success there. Then he won a title on a super team. This is becoming similar to when you refused to say what players Gobert was better than when I named 40 better than him (still waiting on that).

[dhsilv2]

There wasn't any context, you just made a comment about him not advancing in the playoffs. Which there was a reason for, just like KG.

I just made that statement for no reason, out of the blue?

It appears so. You're statement was "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."

You spent the past week arguing KG was a top 10 player all time but had crappy teammates in Minny, with similar success there. Then he won a title on a super team. This is becoming similar to when you refused to say what players Gobert was better than when I named 40 better than him (still waiting on that).

Are you saying I wasn't responding to someone? Perhaps what THEY said? You know, context?

[og15]

AI was incredible given his height and weight. He's probably the best scorer in NBA history pound for pound.

However, he was a relatively poor teammate, took really bad shots, was not as efficient as he should have been, and didn't make his teammates better. This is why I don't think he deserves to be in the same discussion as other PGs like Nash, Kidd and CP3.

I have AI in a much higher status than Chris Paul. People continue to downgrade the AI that played for Philly as of he didn't have to put his team on his back every game.

Sent from my SM-N975U using RealGM mobile app

Chris Paul has positively impacted winning at a high level in many different situations and has done it for a very long time. Of course teammates always matter, though opponents also matter, the better your opponents, the better teammates you need, the lesser your opponents, the lesser teammates you need to beat them, we can acknowledge that.

Paul has had a positive impact on winning regardless of level of teammates and while his impact ceiling is limited due to size, it's no more than Iversons was, while he's able to impact the game and winning in more ways than AI was able to.