Pierce vs Carter vs Iverson vs Allen

[mikejames23]

How do you guys rank these 4 greats on your all time lists? All of them played at the same time, and were regularly seen as top 10 players.

Paul Pierce
Allen Iverson
Vince Carter
Ray Allen

[penbeast0]

Pierce > Allen > Carter > Iverson

Pierce is the best defender of the bunch and has the most versatile game though not as explosive as the others.

Allen probably peaked the highest, but didn't maintain it as consistently as Pierce

Carter is the most athletic but never really seemed to dedicate himself to being the best.

Iverson scored the most and was the most iconic in terms of marketing but was the most inefficient and the most issue with maturity in terms of working to create a winning team.

[tsherkin]

How do you guys rank these 4 greats on your all time lists? All of them played at the same time, and were regularly seen as top 10 players.

Paul Pierce
Allen Iverson
Vince Carter
Ray Allen

All-time?

Ray, (small gap) Pierce (TBF, I routinely flip and flop on these two, so I am not firm in this order)
(larger gap)
Vince
(smaller gap)
Iverson

[Triple M]

AI had the best peak and was a mvp candidate and all nba first team talent. VCs 3rd year and 2nd half of 04 were up there as well as Rays 05-06 season. Pierce had more longevity and was probably the better playoff performer.

I think AI had the talent to be an all time great and probably is around 30 to 35

I have Pierce and Ray in between 45 to 55

VC is probably just outside my 75

TLDR;

AI waa a tier 1 super star or close to it

Pierce and Ray were the next tier down

And VC probably the tier below them

[penbeast0]

AI had the best peak and was a mvp candidate and all nba first team talent. VCs 3rd year and 2nd half of 04 were up there as well as Rays 05-06 season. Pierce had more longevity and was probably the better playoff performer.

I think AI had the talent to be an all time great and probably is around 30 to 35

I have Pierce and Ray in between 45 to 55

VC is probably just outside my 75

TLDR;

AI waa a tier 1 super star or close to it

Pierce and Ray were the next tier down

And VC probably the tier below them

What year do you consider AI's peak? The one where he "led" his team to the final with a usage of 35.9/36.8 playoffs while shooting a miserable .518TS%/.480ts% (not a typo) in the playoffs? If not, which.

Iverson was the modern equivalent of Pete Maravich. A flashy, fun to watch, low efficiency but low turnover gunner who probably hurt his team as much as he helped it, maybe more. He had the talent to be more but was encouraged and chose to be the player he was. Better than Maravich, but nowhere near a legit MVP or tier 1 super star. Ever.

[SlimShady83]

Favorites
Iverson
Carter
Pierce
Allen

All time
Pierce, Carter, Iverson, Allen.

[Triple M]

AI had the best peak and was a mvp candidate and all nba first team talent. VCs 3rd year and 2nd half of 04 were up there as well as Rays 05-06 season. Pierce had more longevity and was probably the better playoff performer.

I think AI had the talent to be an all time great and probably is around 30 to 35

I have Pierce and Ray in between 45 to 55

VC is probably just outside my 75

TLDR;

AI waa a tier 1 super star or close to it

Pierce and Ray were the next tier down

And VC probably the tier below them

What year do you consider AI's peak? The one where he "led" his team to the final with a usage of 35.9/36.8 playoffs while shooting a miserable .518TS%/.480ts% (not a typo) in the playoffs? If not, which.

Iverson was the modern equivalent of Pete Maravich. A flashy, fun to watch, low efficiency but low turnover gunner who probably hurt his team as much as he helped it, maybe more. He had the talent to be more but was encouraged and chose to be the player he was. Better than Maravich, but nowhere near a legit MVP or tier 1 super star. Ever.

Im a Pierce fan btw. And for a lot of years i argued Pierce over AI especially because of the 46 point game in a decisive game in 02., but in terms of Talent AI was up there for sure. I wouldn’t use efficiency standards of today against AI because ive seen Pierce efficiency drop just as bad when he was carrying bums in 03 and 04 in particular. I actually credit Doc Rivers a lot for getting Pierce to buy into playing more efficient. Back to AI i think his efficiency makes sense in the context of not playing with another 15 ppg. Ray, pierce and Carter never had to carry such a load

[penbeast0]

I don't think there's any excuse for that degree of inefficiency given his talent. It's like Jordan Poole in Washington last year; if that's the best you can do, try passing the ball, they couldn't do that much worse.

And Iverson was reported to have trouble playing with Stackhouse, Keith Van Horn, Glen Robinson, Iggy, pretty much every scorer he played with other than Webber and Carmelo and he and Carmelo just traded isos without creating much synergy . . . which is why Denver didn't improve much (nor Philly fall off much) trading an aging Andre Miller for him but did improve dealing him away for Chauncey Billups.

[mikejames23]

Currently I have, in some order...

Pierce - Top 50 all time. Well rounded scorer and Finals MVP, key cog for Boston. Good in the playoffs too though I attribute some of his success to KG.
Iverson - Top 50 all time, I see him as a scoring great, and he's fairly impressive at carrying teams.
Ray Allen - Top 60 all time - Really consistent and all time 3 point shooter, 2 late titles, but still a reliable all timer.
Vince Carter - Top 75 all time, probably the least of the 4 with some questionable playoff runs, but overall his numbers are still good enough to be listed at the top.

But I find all 4 guys to be really impressive overall, it was a great era for them, might have more titles between them if Duncan, Kobe and Shaq weren't in the way.

[tsherkin]

Iverson - Top 50 all time, I see him as a scoring great, and he's fairly impressive at carrying teams.

Is he impressive at carrying teams? What did he do, as far as carry jobs? And again, as a scoring great, what did he achieve outside of highly-inefficient chucking? He was good, but overstated by raw volume. He was far better when he scored LESS, compared to when he scored more.

[trex_8063]

Iverson was the modern equivalent of Pete Maravich. A flashy, fun to watch, low efficiency but low turnover gunner who probably hurt his team as much as he helped it, maybe more. He had the talent to be more but was encouraged and chose to be the player he was. Better than Maravich, but nowhere near a legit MVP or tier 1 super star. Ever.

Once again I find myself in unusual position of rising to Iverson's defense on this forum (unusual because I was not/am not a fan).

But I'm going to push back against a fair bit of the above post. Let's start with the comments I've colour-highlighted.....

They are basically contradicting each other, no? He's the "equivalent"......except that he's "better" (thus: NOT equivalent).
It's as though you recognized that the first comment---which was the first thing that jumped out at me, and which I was going to argue vehemently against---was not at all accurate, and thus pulled back from it by adding the second comment (though this begs the question, why leave the first one in at all?).

There are a number of reasons why Maravich is not a great comparison to him, and one of them relates directly to the sentence in between the two red-highlighted lines:

....who probably hurt his team as much as he helped it, maybe more.

^^^This is not a true statement for Iverson.

I've demonstrated repeatedly in Top 100 Projects that Iverson (despite this narrative that exists on this forum) DID, in fact, have positive impact, and often somewhat substantially so. I realize the knee-jerk overcorrection may be in response to his perception in casual fan circles--->which you even allude to in your last line. You're right there, btw: he never was a legit MVP. His level of impact consistently falls well short of that mark.

But that's a far cry from claiming he "hurts his team as much as he helps it, maybe more".

Looking at his PI RAPM (except '01, which is NPI), for example.....
He has only TWO sub-zero RAPMs (in 14 full or partial seasons); those two negatives were his rookie year and his final [partial] season.
He's got three seasons that were >+2 (one of them >+3), plus another couple years at +1.7 or better. Bear in mind he's often leading or nearly leading the league in mpg most of these years too. A +2.0 RAPM in 42-43 mpg is generally doing more good for your team [on a per game basis] than someone who is +3.0 in 27-28 mpg, or better than someone who is +2.5 in 33 mpg.

And for as much as his low efficiency gunning supposedly MUST be hurting his team's offense, this isn't demonstrated in the data (like, really at all).
His ORAPM is a positive for eleven consecutive years from '98-'08 (never lower than +0.9, in fact). He was top-10 in the league in ORAPM twice, top 16 four times, top 30 in the league seven times (that's most of his career; and was 33rd another year).

I've multiple times cited extensive WOWY data on Iverson. Looking his prime years of '99-'02 and '05-'06 (excluding '03 because he didn't miss any games, and '04 because it was an injury year where his metrics and impact signals were down [still hardly cherry-picking, as we're looking at SIX years, collectively):
They had a 232-164 [.586] record with him, and were 25-39 [.391] without him. That's an AVERAGE of +16 wins added to a full 82-game season. The average boost to their SRS was about +5. Additionally.....
The team averaged about +8 ppg with him, vs without him.
The team averaged about +1.5% TS with him, vs without him.
The team averaged more than a +3 boost to their ORtg with him, vs without him.

^^^All of his in spite of his detrimental "gunning".

Looking at his raw (game-to-game) WOWY over several seasons, his impact looks fairly close to contemporary Kevin Johnson (which is to say: really good). Comparing to some other guys I've run from slightly earlier era, it looks comparable to Isiah Thomas, and notably better than Sidney Moncrief (though Moncrief has to lift from a higher baseline, having generally better teams around him in his prime).


With Maravich, on the other hand, we have almost NONE of these kinds of positive signals. He appears to hover just above or below neutral impact throughout his career. Even by Ben Taylor's WOWYR (which I've been skeptical of, but will nonetheless show for sake of completeness) shows a small, but clear, separation between the two of them: Iverson with a prime WOWYR of +1.7, Maravich with a +0.4.

That difference might not be coming entirely on the offensive end, either. Although Iverson was not a "good" defender, he did at least generate turnovers (if by gambling sometimes). And at any rate, we're comparing him to Maravich, who, at least in the early career games I've watched he looks like possibly the single-worst defensive player I have ever seen.


We can discuss exactly what Iverson brings to the table besides his "chucking" that could possibly account for notable positive impact, but I don't want to derail any further.
Point being: Maravich is not at all a fair or accurate comparison for him.

[tsherkin]

I've demonstrated repeatedly in Top 100 Projects that Iverson (despite this narrative that exists on this forum) DID, in fact, have positive impact, and often somewhat substantially so.

I think this is pretty well-established, no? He wasn't Jamal Crawford gunning the Clippers out of potential playoff success alongside Chris Paul. And in Denver, he established that when he played with someone he respected, he'd shoot less. He was pretty good at floor-raising. Not an ATG in such, but someone had to take the shots and Philly certainly wasn't riddled with talent during his stay. He did not manage hyper-volume particularly well compared to the ATG guys, but his playmaking was sufficient to assist, and there's truth to the idea that even inefficient volume scoring is, at some point, better than the alternative when the talent around you is trash and no one else can self-generate shots. There were jokes about Iverson Assists, of course, given the proficiency with which Philly hit the O-boards, but that was a better look for them than anything Eric Snow or a young KVH or whomever was going to otherwise produce a lot of the time.

You're right there, btw: he never was a legit MVP. His level impact consistently falls well short of that mark.

This is an appropriate description of AI, with the attached implication that he was better than a net-negative for his squad, for sure. And obviously he started to sort his business in the post-04 era as well, though by that time he was a little older, into his 30s as a small, athleticism-dependent guard. His 06 Philly season was solid, as was his 08 RS with Denver. 08 PS, less so.

[trex_8063]

I've demonstrated repeatedly in Top 100 Projects that Iverson (despite this narrative that exists on this forum) DID, in fact, have positive impact, and often somewhat substantially so.

I think this is pretty well-established, no?

Well, I had hoped so; but still the "hurt as much as he helped" argument found its way into this thread, so I responded to it [again].

He wasn't Jamal Crawford gunning the Clippers out of potential playoff success alongside Chris Paul. And in Denver, he established that when he played with someone he respected, he'd shoot less. He was pretty good at floor-raising. Not an ATG in such, but someone had to take the shots and Philly certainly wasn't riddled with talent during his stay. He did not manage hyper-volume particularly well compared to the ATG guys, but his playmaking was sufficient to assist, and there's truth to the idea that even inefficient volume scoring is, at some point, better than the alternative when the talent around you is trash and no one else can self-generate shots. There were jokes about Iverson Assists, of course, given the proficiency with which Philly hit the O-boards, but that was a better look for them than anything Eric Snow or a young KVH or whomever was going to otherwise produce a lot of the time.

This is all well said and accurate, imo.

I'll add opinion regarding the "Iverson assist", which is to say I don't think the claim is a big nothing burger. In differentiating from say the "Kobe assist" joke, I want to be clear that whenever I make reference to an "Iverson assist", I'm not referring to any old missed shot; I'm specifically referring to shots where he penetrates, draws the interior defense before getting a close-range shot off.
By drawing the interior defense to him, it leaves a teammate with no one boxing him out (usually). Thus, if he can even get the shot up on the rim (even missing), it's a fairly advantageous spot for his team.
This is not an advantage you see with, for example, a pull-up jumper from 18'.

And Iverson did in fact take more shots close to the rim than Kobe.
From '98-'06, 27.5% of Iversons attempts came at the rim (vs. only 21.9% for '01-'13 Kobe [still only 23.3% for '01-'10 Kobe]); and 40.1% of Iverson's shots came inside 10' (vs only 34.4% for prime Kobe).

I would say that generally the teams defending against Iverson's teams were more likely to leave their man [to help] than they might have been toward Kobe, too. Because there were very very few other perceived offensive threats on the teams Iverson played on in his prime.
This could potentially add to the "Iverson assist" affect I refer to.


And yeah, as you allude: his ability to more or less create something (even a middling to low efficiency "something") from nothing, and with the opposing defense almost lazer-focused on him alone, AND do it with an exceedingly low turnover rate.......it's often better than the alternative(s).

[trex_8063]

To answer OP's question as to how I rank them, I go:

Pierce
(smallish gap)
Allen
(slightly larger gap)
Iverson
(very tiny gap)
Carter

[tsherkin]

I'll add opinion regarding the "Iverson assist", which is to say I don't think the claim is a big nothing burger. In differentiating from say the "Kobe assist" joke, I want to be clear that whenever I make reference to an "Iverson assist", I'm not referring to any old missed shot; I'm specifically referring to shots where he penetrates, draws the interior defense before getting a close-range shot off.
By drawing the interior defense to him, it leaves a teammate with no one boxing him out (usually). Thus, if he can even get the shot up on the rim (even missing), it's a fairly advantageous spot for his team.
This is not an advantage you see with, for example, a pull-up jumper from 18'.

Yeah, that's fair. Iverson was a demon about getting into the paint. It's part of why he was hurt all the time, because he was a fearless little 5'11 wisp who got bodied all game long by the trees.

And Iverson did in fact take more shots close to the rim than Kobe.
From '98-'06, 27.5% of Iversons attempts came at the rim (vs. only 21.9% for '01-'13 Kobe [still only 23.3% for '01-'10 Kobe]); and 40.1% of Iverson's shots came inside 10' (vs only 34.4% for prime Kobe).

B-Ref has him at 28.6% from 0-3 feet in Philly, which is INSANE, given that he was taking 22.9 FGA/g during that time.

And yeah, as you allude: his ability to more or less create something (even a middling to low efficiency "something") from nothing, and with the opposing defense almost lazer-focused on him alone, AND do it with an exceedingly low turnover rate.......it's often better than the alternative(s).

Yeah, his turnover rate would be less impressive because of his volume jump shooting... were it not for nearly 30% of his FGAs actually coming right at the basket, and an additional 12 coming from 10 feet and in. That's just insanity. That like 2/5s of his shots were inside 10 feet in Philly is fairly impressive. Obviously, his ability to FINISH them was a problem, but dude definitely shifted the defense around.

And he was an absolute unit at drawing fouls: raw volume notwithstanding, Philly Iverson posted a .398 FTr. It got a lot higher in Denver, but 23 FGA/g and 40% FTr is, again, INSANITY. He was tiny, and he had the problems you'd expect from a dude his size, but he definitely made do. AI's one of those guys I"ve come to respect a little more over time, as I've parsed out "crazy fan takes" from actual player impact and such.

[penbeast0]

You are right, I overstated my case (again!) in response to an overstatement the other way.

Iverson/Maravich on the other hand I think is a reasonable comp overall. Both were big scorers, inefficient, poor defenders who were the flashiest player and arguably the biggest cultural icon of their day. Iverson was better because he didn't try to be a flashy playmaker; his turnover rate was very low for his usage while Maravich added being turnover prone to his other issues which is probably a big part of why his value is overall positive while Maravich's is often not. They aren't identical, but I can't think of any other players who are closer comps than Maravich in both the on and the off court areas. Kobe is the next closest I can think of.

[Owly]

AI had the best peak and was a mvp candidate and all nba first team talent. VCs 3rd year and 2nd half of 04 were up there as well as Rays 05-06 season. Pierce had more longevity and was probably the better playoff performer.

I think AI had the talent to be an all time great and probably is around 30 to 35

I have Pierce and Ray in between 45 to 55

VC is probably just outside my 75

TLDR;

AI waa a tier 1 super star or close to it

Pierce and Ray were the next tier down

And VC probably the tier below them

What year do you consider AI's peak? The one where he "led" his team to the final with a usage of 35.9/36.8 playoffs while shooting a miserable .518TS%/.480ts% (not a typo) in the playoffs? If not, which.

Iverson was the modern equivalent of Pete Maravich. A flashy, fun to watch, low efficiency but low turnover gunner who probably hurt his team as much as he helped it, maybe more. He had the talent to be more but was encouraged and chose to be the player he was. Better than Maravich, but nowhere near a legit MVP or tier 1 super star. Ever.

Im a Pierce fan btw. And for a lot of years i argued Pierce over AI especially because of the 46 point game in a decisive game in 02., but in terms of Talent AI was up there for sure. I wouldn’t use efficiency standards of today against AI because ive seen Pierce efficiency drop just as bad when he was carrying bums in 03 and 04 in particular. I actually credit Doc Rivers a lot for getting Pierce to buy into playing more efficient. Back to AI i think his efficiency makes sense in the context of not playing with another 15 ppg. Ray, pierce and Carter never had to carry such a load

Yes in the years the league is in it's efficiency nadir ('04 being the worst TS% of a non-lockout year since 1978) and two outlier bad TS+ years for his prime Pierce is in the vicinity of (though over the two years a little better than) Iverson's career norms and still with some lead over Iverson (.525 to .491) ... Pierce is at 1771.8 career TS add, Iverson -425.9. Iverson playing to Reference age 34, Pierce to 39 (both minimally in that last season). In short the efficiency gap is ... not small.

Usage does differ and we should take it into account. How much one values circa league average, mildly positive efficiency ('01, '05, '06, '07) or a little bit below on big volume can vary depending on perspective, context, what you make of his playmaking. At the same time if he's credited ofr the big volume maybe you look at why the not great players but ... guys who could be 15ppg scorers Coleman, Van Horn, Kukoc, Weatherspoon, Stackhouse, Larry Hughes, Corliss Williamson and some of the other names Penbeast mentioned mostly weren't optimized or didn't stick around or weren't chosen to keep around with Iverson

"Talent" is fuzzy enough and far enough from value or goodness that you can argue it whichever way ... for me I don't really care about that in and of itself.

So far as I can tell the impact signal is that he simply wasn't as good. And fwiw I think it's possible at the margins impact stats will overrate big minute outlier types (here usage) because you build your team around them and most of the first unit and core rotation guys won't provide that skillset so much on average, maybe you can manage it by rigidly platooning, maybe you can get a poor man's facsimilie as a reserve).


I've offered some thoughts on the

someone had to take the shots

This is all well said and accurate, imo.

in terms of whether he meshed, whether teams felt that optimized both players in terms of other scorers.

Re "Iverson assists" data is limited because of incomplete prime from this source but it seems to suggest his offensive impact was through team turnover economy and not offensive rebounding. I'd point back to the tentative point on ... how do you replace an outlier as perhaps a marginal (artificial) boost here, though his best years are in Denver where he isn't the alpha and omega everything between of Denver's offense. Peeked at '01 to see if the rebounding thing was true of his MVP year ... offensive rebounding better with him off there too (https://www.basketball-reference.com/players/i/iversal01/on-off/2001). This isn't comprehensive. You could have different strategies with different lineups ... at a glance I'm not seeing strong (positive) evidence of impact on team offensive glass performance.

Got to go so can't check as much as I'd like. Apologies on any errors or imprecision or lack of tact or anything otherwise amiss in language choices.

[trex_8063]

I've offered some thoughts on the

someone had to take the shots

This is all well said and accurate, imo.

in terms of whether he meshed, whether teams felt that optimized both players in terms of other scorers.

Re "Iverson assists" data is limited because of incomplete prime from this source but it seems to suggest his offensive impact was through team turnover economy and not offensive rebounding. I'd point back to the tentative point on ... how do you replace an outlier as perhaps a marginal (artificial) boost here, though his best years are in Denver where he isn't the alpha and omega everything between of Denver's offense. Peeked at '01 to see if the rebounding thing was true of his MVP year ... offensive rebounding better with him off there too (https://www.basketball-reference.com/players/i/iversal01/on-off/2001). This isn't comprehensive. You could have different strategies with different lineups ... at a glance I'm not seeing strong (positive) evidence of impact on team offensive glass performance.

Got to go so can't check as much as I'd like. Apologies on any errors or imprecision or lack of tact or anything otherwise amiss in language choices.

To be clear, I'm not suggesting the lion's share of his positive impact comes from "Iverson Assists"/offensive rebounding boost. I'm merely suggesting it's a small morsel in the full casserole (above or outside of that which may be found in his individual box).

As to some data on offensive rebounding, there may be some mud in the water, based on contextual or strategy factors I don't know. For example, in addition to their notably worse TOV% when Iverson was OFF the court, the Sixers fairly consistently shot WORSE from the field when Iverson was OFF the court, as well:

Iverson effect of Sixer team eFG%
'98: -3.5% when Iverson is OFF
'99: -1.8% when Iverson is OFF
'00: -2.7% when Iverson is OFF
'01: -0.9% when Iverson is OFF
'02: -0.5% when Iverson is OFF
'03: -1.2% when Iverson is OFF
'04 [injury year]: +0.1% when Iverson is OFF
'05: -3.7% when Iverson is OFF
'06: -3.4% when Iverson is OFF

I mean, wow. In spite of his shot-volume ("gunning" or "chucking") at what is usually seemingly sub-par eFG%, the team VERY consistently does better with him on the court. The ONLY year [out of NINE] where they didn't was an injury year where his individual numbers are way down. Every other year, they shoot significantly better with him on (doing better by ~3-4% in four of the years in this sample).

Is it possible that to bridge the offensive gap created by these factors, that they took more of an "all hands on deck" approach to offensive rebounding when Iverson went to the bench?
idk, I'm truly asking. I merely bring it up because that would be a factor that could [falsely] deflate his imprint upon offensive rebounding.

Additionally, I'd note that not all offensive rebounds are created equal: a shot missed at the rim rebounded by a teammate that had no one boxing him out generally carries a MUCH higher possibility of high-% put-back than say.....a long rebound on a missed jump shot.


Anyway, as to actual signals on team offensive rebounding, it's a bit of a mixed bag; nothing really conclusive.

fwiw (just one before/after tidbit), the Sixers were 19th of 29 teams in OREB% in '96 (before Iverson arrived). In '97 [rookie AI] they jumped to 3rd with some of the same frontcourt and supporting cast.

Then in his prime in Philly it ran like this:
'98: the Sixers were 8th (of 29) teams in OREB%, and were +0.3% better [32.6% vs 32.3%] with him on the court.
'99: Sixers were 2nd in OREB%, though were -1.3% worse with Iverson on the court.
'00: Sixers were 4th in the league in OREB%, and +1.0% better with Iverson on the court.
'01: Sixers were again 2nd in OREB%, though -2.3% worse with Iverson on the court.
'02: Sixers were 4th in OREB%, and +0.1% better with Iverson on the court.
'03: Sixers were 7th in OREB%, and neither better nor worse with Iverson on the court.
'04 [note: an injury year for Iverson, he misses nearly half the season; also a coaching change]: Sixers fall to 15th in OREB%, and are +0.1% better with Iverson on the court.
'05 [first year of changes to hand-check rule, fwiw; and another coaching change]: Sixers fall further to 29th of 30 teams in OREB%, though are +0.9% better with Iverson on the court.
'06: Sixers are 22nd in OREB%, and -0.7% worse with Iverson on the court.

But again, I'd posit that not all offensive rebounds are created equal.

[Owly]

I've offered some thoughts on the

This is all well said and accurate, imo.

in terms of whether he meshed, whether teams felt that optimized both players in terms of other scorers.

Re "Iverson assists" data is limited because of incomplete prime from this source but it seems to suggest his offensive impact was through team turnover economy and not offensive rebounding. I'd point back to the tentative point on ... how do you replace an outlier as perhaps a marginal (artificial) boost here, though his best years are in Denver where he isn't the alpha and omega everything between of Denver's offense. Peeked at '01 to see if the rebounding thing was true of his MVP year ... offensive rebounding better with him off there too (https://www.basketball-reference.com/players/i/iversal01/on-off/2001). This isn't comprehensive. You could have different strategies with different lineups ... at a glance I'm not seeing strong (positive) evidence of impact on team offensive glass performance.

Got to go so can't check as much as I'd like. Apologies on any errors or imprecision or lack of tact or anything otherwise amiss in language choices.

To be clear, I'm not suggesting the lion's share of his positive impact comes from "Iverson Assists"/offensive rebounding boost. I'm merely suggesting it's a small morsel in the full casserole (above or outside of that which may be found in his individual box).

As to some data on offensive rebounding, there may be some mud in the water, based on contextual or strategy factors I don't know. For example, in addition to their notably worse TOV% when Iverson was OFF the court, the Sixers fairly consistently shot WORSE from the field when Iverson was OFF the court, as well:

[u]Iverson effect of Sixer team eFG%[/b]
'98: -3.5% when Iverson is OFF
'99: -1.8% when Iverson is OFF
'00: -2.7% when Iverson is OFF
'01: -0.9% when Iverson is OFF
'02: -0.5% when Iverson is OFF
'03: -1.2% when Iverson is OFF
'04 [injury year]: +0.1% when Iverson is OFF
'05: -3.7% when Iverson is OFF
'06: -3.4% when Iverson is OFF

I mean, wow. In spite of his shot-volume ("gunning" or "chucking") at what is usually seemingly sub-par eFG%, the team VERY consistently does better with him on the court. The ONLY year [out of NINE] where they didn't was an injury year where his individual numbers are way down. Every other year, they shoot significantly better with him on (doing better by ~3-4% in four of the years in this sample).

Is it possible that to bridge the offensive gap created by these factors, that they took more of an "all hands on deck" approach to offensive rebounding when Iverson went to the bench?
idk, I'm truly asking. I merely bring it up because that would be a factor that could [falsely] deflate his imprint upon offensive rebounding.

Additionally, I'd note that not all offensive rebounds are created equal: a shot missed at the rim rebounded by a teammate that had no one boxing him out generally carries a MUCH higher possibility of high-% put-back than say.....a long rebound on a missed jump shot.


Anyway, as to actual signals on team offensive rebounding, it's a bit of a mixed bag; nothing really conclusive.

fwiw (just one before/after tidbit), the Sixers were 19th of 29 teams in OREB% in '96 (before Iverson arrived). In '97 [rookie AI] they jumped to 3rd with some of the same frontcourt and supporting cast.

Then in his prime in Philly it ran like this:
'98: the Sixers were 8th (of 29) teams in OREB%, and were +0.3% better [32.6% vs 32.3%] with him on the court.
'99: Sixers were 2nd in OREB%, though were -1.3% worse with Iverson on the court.
'00: Sixers were 4th in the league in OREB%, and +1.0% better with Iverson on the court.
'01: Sixers were again 2nd in OREB%, though -2.3% worse with Iverson on the court.
'02: Sixers were 4th in OREB%, and +0.1% better with Iverson on the court.
'03: Sixers were 7th in OREB%, and neither better nor worse with Iverson on the court.
'04 [note: an injury year for Iverson, he misses nearly half the season; also a coaching change]: Sixers fall to 15th in OREB%, and are +0.1% better with Iverson on the court.
'05 [first year of changes to hand-check rule, fwiw; and another coaching change]: Sixers fall further to 29th of 30 teams in OREB%, though are +0.9% better with Iverson on the court.
'06: Sixers are 22nd in OREB%, and -0.7% worse with Iverson on the court.

But again, I'd posit that not all offensive rebounds are created equal.

Breiefly as time limited again ...
I've granted strategy can differ though that could go either way.
Not all rebounds being equal is true ... but part of that is who gets it and unless and until it's tracked ... that too could go either way.
Not sure if "in his prime in Philly" means his prime ends there, if not why not include Denver?

Do they go to the offensive glass more because shooting worse ... that assumes
a) that they know this
and
b) that they decide that missing more makes it more worthwhile to crass the offensive glass (or similar) and ... there are more opportunities but I'd guess the costs scale about as much. You could I suppose do it with rotations and have better rebounders on ... but then we could do that with every number in terms of "it could be because of who's on court with and who without". It seems rather speculative at this point.

In '97 [rookie AI] they jumped to 3rd with some of the same frontcourt

As far as minutes continuity I'd guess they rank very low
Fs and Cs above 500 minutes in 96 (minutes given for those above 1000)

Weatherspoon 3096
D Alston 1614
Wright 1136
S Higgins
Massenburg
L Thompson
R Dumas
Pinckney

same for '97
Weatherspoon 2949
Coleman 2102
M Davis 1705
S Williams 1317
Cage 1247
MaClean

I don't know for sure my mental calibration is right but as I said that looks very low.

And as before the Cleaning the Glass era stuff looks bad (and as before I think Denver is relevant too). My '01 sample for earlier seems to have been a negative outlier but it doesn't look like he's driving anything. Subject to something new I'd say you can grant that he's not really an impediment to good offensive rebounding, he's been part of those good (in that respect) teams.

Anyway not really looking to go further. His impact is what it is. He' a good player. He's substantially mainstream overrated. He comes with a bit of baggage (alcohol and at the margins at probably related to the former "practice", don't know how much of the early chirping with Brown was him and how much was Brown). I might guess his impact doesn't easily scale on high-end teams. I was surprised to see anyone venture him top on here. Non-box side his 97-14 RAPM is circa half Allen's and less than that of the other two. One measure limitations apply. Obviously you haven't got him there but you're still probably higher than me I'd guess. Haven't looked closely but I'd guess he'd be last.

Again not checked this closely, sorry for any errors.

[JLei]

Career list
1. Pierce
2. Allen
3. Carter
4. Iverson

I actually think that's pretty easy in terms of career value. Pierce has like 13 quality "all-star" seasons Allen and Carter about 10 and Allen had a better "starter/ role player" career. Iverson similar but career doesn't have a role player part his career straight up just kind of ends in that part.

Peak/ 3 yearish Prime (how good they were)
1. Toronto Vince Carter 00-02
2. Philly Allen Iverson 99-02
3. Boston Paul Pierce (early 2000s or late 2000s are similar quality)
4. Milwaukee Ray Allen 00-02 or Seattle (similar quality)

Early Vince and Iverson where clear Top 10 players bordering on Top 5 at points. Agreed with the point that Iverson was never really a true MVP nor do I think he was really an clear All-NBA first team guy either. I prefer Carter's game over Iverson's.

I don't think Pierce or Allen were ever clear top 10 players in the league by reputation or statistical signal but I think Pierce is relatively close to Carter or Iverson.