RealGM Top 100 List #49

[Joao Saraiva]

My vote goes to Allen Iverson.
...

Iverson was entertaining, as was Pete Maravich. Neither get my vote until better scorers like Alex English go in. If Iverson's size was a problem, that's part of his game . . . Shaq doesn't get in if he's only 6-6. In addition to being an extremely inefficient scorer (on that "iconic run to the finals," Iverson's true shooting percentage was .480 as he jacked up 30 SHOTS A GAME while his team was shooting over .500ts% (still not impressive but clearly superior). What that team did well was play defense keyed by Dikembe Mutombo (who should be in before Iverson), they used that defensive ability to beat 3 mediocre playoff teams out of a weak East then get destroyed by LA.

If you want guys who were great FOR THEIR SIZE, Muggsy Bogues also super entertaining and was better for his size than Iverson for his. Muggsy, at 5'3, still holds the NBA records for assist to turnover ratio (the two best seasons even) and was the guy Kenny Smith said he hated to play the most defensively because he was always pressuring his man and got a lot of on ball steals leading to fast breaks. Iverson would leave his man gambling and didn't make smart decisions about when -- just as he made bad decisions about shooting poor percentage shots and just as he made bad decisions about skipping practice. And remember that Iverson was about as much taller (within an inch) than Bogues as Magic Johnson was than Iverson.

I never said anything about size.

I said the reason why Iverson's ts% was low with the Sixers is because he was the only great shot creator and he was the major offensive weapon.

In that run to the finals, Iverson's teammates shot horrible ts% on much easier shots. Iverson played 46 minutes per game, so it's natural at some point he'll get tired and miss a lot more.

I also mentioned Iverson's time with Denver, and he was more effective there and still had good volume. I think Iverson wasn't a very efficient player, but his ts% really needs some context.

In that run to the finals he shot 48ts%, that's true. But that has more to do with him not being consistent every game. Still, going game by game:
Indiana game 1 - Loss - 16 points on 39.4ts% - that's really bad production
Game 2 - Win - 45 points on 67.9ts%
Game 3 - Win 32 points, 7 rebounds, 6 ast, 2 TO - 46.8ts% - but from his teammates, Mutombo included, only Lynch scored above 50%ts for 10 points. I think Iverson's volume with that cast even shooting bad is a big reason for the win, and the shots were justified.
Game 4 - Win - 33 points on 45.5ts%. His teammates shot well, so in this particular game, I'd understand the criticism.

Still on 2 out of 3 wins I believe he was the most important player on his team.

Semi finals vs Toronto:
Game 1 - Loss - 36 points, 7 steals, 4 assists, 6 rebounds on 44.3ts%. That's a great all arround game. He shot bad - true - but it still was a great game.
Game 2 - Win - 54 points on on 62.8ts% and with 47 minutes played. That's GOAT level in scoring right here.
Game 3 - Loss - 23 points on 40.2ts%. That was a bad game for Iverson, but Mutombo for example had 6 points and 4 TO. I'm not saying Mutombo wasn't important for Philadelphia's campaign, he was a mjor factor, but that doesn't mean Iverson wasn't more important.

Game 4 - Win 30 points on 44.7ts%. Not a great game scoring, but he had 4 steals, 5 ast, 4 rebounds and only 2 TO. Mutombo was actually the most important player that night.
Game 5 - Win - 52 points, 7 ast, 1 TO. 79.1ts%! That's amazing, right? That's a performance for the ages!
Game 6 - Loss - 20 points on 35.8ts%. Another bad game for him.
Game 7 - Won - 21 points on 36.5ts%. BUT he had 16 assists. So for me it was a good game for Iverson. His playmaking was what really got his team going.

vs Bucks - ECF
Game 1 - Win - 34 points, 4 rebs, 6 ast on 44.6ts%. Allen's scoring was important, but in this game his cast was important too for the W, with Mutombo leading the supporting cast with 18 rebounds and 4 blocks.
Game 2 - Loss - 16 points on 27.1ts%. Horrible game by Allen Iverson.
Game 3 - Loss - Iverson didn't play and everyone was terrible from the field. This is a good example on how Iverson had to do everything on offense. Mutombo scored 12 points on 47ts%, and no other player from the starting 5 shot above 40%FG. How terrible is that? This is the context Iverson's ts% needs to be seen with.
Game 4 - Win - 28 points, 8 ast and 5 rebs - on 37.6ts%. Not a great scoring game, but it was a solid all arround game.
Game 5 - win - 15 points, 8 ast, 9 rebs and 4 steals. On 25.3ts%. Yet again, Iverson scoring was terrible but his all arround game was fine. Still the most important player was, once more, Dikembe.
Gamme 6 - loss - 46 points on 58.1ts%. Can't blame Iverson here, he was actually the reason why Philadelphia was still in the game.
Game 7 - win - 44 points and 7 assists on 61ts%. Another truly great game.

vs Lakers - NBA finals
Game 1 - 48 points, 5 rebs, 6 ast, 5 steals on 53.4ts%. This was against a team that swept the West, and had Shaquille at his peak powers defending the rim. This, for me, is one of the most amazing individual performances EVER in the NBA finals. And he played 52 minutes, so of course his ts% shouldn't be at legendary levels. He had to carry that team on offense at extreme level.
Game 2 - 23 points on 37.4ts% - bad game for Allen Iverson.
Game 3 - 35 points, 12 rebs, 4 ast and 1 TO. 49%ts, but overall I'd say he had a good game here. Again he played 47 minutes, so I can accept 12-30 from FG and 10-13 from FT.
Game 4 - 35 points, 4 rebs and 4 ast. On 49%ts and 46 minutes... Not an excellent performance, but that's too much of a burden to carry once more. 12-30FG and 10-14FT... With his ammount of minutes I don't see as a really bad shooting night.
Game 5 - 37 points on 52.1ts%. 14-32FG and 6-8FT... seems good to me.

Iverson wasn't efficient in some games, but he was spectacular in others. In the wins we usually see him rising his ts% and having great all arround games on a brutal ammount of minutes.
Game 3 vs Bucks is a good example on what that team could produce without him. It was just terrible.
In the finals Iverson wasn't exactly effecient, but taking into account the kind of opposition he had, I'd say he had 2 great games, and 1 legendary game.

He was terrible in some losses, but his game in a ton of the wins of his team was really brutal. People can talk about his ts%, but taking that supporting cast to the NBA finals is a win the way I see it. I'll always remember Iverson as a positive for his team in that particular year and run.

[Joao Saraiva]

My vote goes to Allen Iverson.
...

Iverson was entertaining, as was Pete Maravich. Neither get my vote until better scorers like Alex English go in. If Iverson's size was a problem, that's part of his game . . . Shaq doesn't get in if he's only 6-6. In addition to being an extremely inefficient scorer (on that "iconic run to the finals," Iverson's true shooting percentage was .480 as he jacked up 30 SHOTS A GAME while his team was shooting over .500ts% (still not impressive but clearly superior). What that team did well was play defense keyed by Dikembe Mutombo (who should be in before Iverson), they used that defensive ability to beat 3 mediocre playoff teams out of a weak East then get destroyed by LA.

If you want guys who were great FOR THEIR SIZE, Muggsy Bogues also super entertaining and was better for his size than Iverson for his. Muggsy, at 5'3, still holds the NBA records for assist to turnover ratio (the two best seasons even) and was the guy Kenny Smith said he hated to play the most defensively because he was always pressuring his man and got a lot of on ball steals leading to fast breaks. Iverson would leave his man gambling and didn't make smart decisions about when -- just as he made bad decisions about shooting poor percentage shots and just as he made bad decisions about skipping practice. And remember that Iverson was about as much taller (within an inch) than Bogues as Magic Johnson was than Iverson.

I never said anything about size.

I said the reason why Iverson's ts% was low with the Sixers is because he was the only great shot creator and he was the major offensive weapon.

In that run to the finals, Iverson's teammates shot horrible ts% on much easier shots. Iverson played 46 minutes per game, so it's natural at some point he'll get tired and miss a lot more.

I also mentioned Iverson's time with Denver, and he was more effective there and still had good volume. I think Iverson wasn't a very efficient player, but his ts% really needs some context.

In that run to the finals he shot 48ts%, that's true. But that has more to do with him not being consistent every game. Still, going game by game:
Indiana game 1 - Loss - 16 points on 39.4ts% - that's really bad production
Game 2 - Win - 45 points on 67.9ts%
Game 3 - Win 32 points, 7 rebounds, 6 ast, 2 TO - 46.8ts% - but from his teammates, Mutombo included, only Lynch scored above 50%ts for 10 points. I think Iverson's volume with that cast even shooting bad is a big reason for the win, and the shots were justified.
Game 4 - Win - 33 points on 45.5ts%. His teammates shot well, so in this particular game, I'd understand the criticism.

Still on 2 out of 3 wins I believe he was the most important player on his team.

Semi finals vs Toronto:
Game 1 - Loss - 36 points, 7 steals, 4 assists, 6 rebounds on 44.3ts%. That's a great all arround game. He shot bad - true - but it still was a great game.
Game 2 - Win - 54 points on on 62.8ts% and with 47 minutes played. That's GOAT level in scoring right here.
Game 3 - Loss - 23 points on 40.2ts%. That was a bad game for Iverson, but Mutombo for example had 6 points and 4 TO. I'm not saying Mutombo wasn't important for Philadelphia's campaign, he was a mjor factor, but that doesn't mean Iverson wasn't more important.

Game 4 - Win 30 points on 44.7ts%. Not a great game scoring, but he had 4 steals, 5 ast, 4 rebounds and only 2 TO. Mutombo was actually the most important player that night.
Game 5 - Win - 52 points, 7 ast, 1 TO. 79.1ts%! That's amazing, right? That's a performance for the ages!
Game 6 - Loss - 20 points on 35.8ts%. Another bad game for him.
Game 7 - Won - 21 points on 36.5ts%. BUT he had 16 assists. So for me it was a good game for Iverson. His playmaking was what really got his team going.

vs Bucks - ECF
Game 1 - Win - 34 points, 4 rebs, 6 ast on 44.6ts%. Allen's scoring was important, but in this game his cast was important too for the W, with Mutombo leading the supporting cast with 18 rebounds and 4 blocks.
Game 2 - Loss - 16 points on 27.1ts%. Horrible game by Allen Iverson.
Game 3 - Loss - Iverson didn't play and everyone was terrible from the field. This is a good example on how Iverson had to do everything on offense. Mutombo scored 12 points on 47ts%, and no other player from the starting 5 shot above 40%FG. How terrible is that? This is the context Iverson's ts% needs to be seen with.
Game 4 - Win - 28 points, 8 ast and 5 rebs - on 37.6ts%. Not a great scoring game, but it was a solid all arround game.
Game 5 - win - 15 points, 8 ast, 9 rebs and 4 steals. On 25.3ts%. Yet again, Iverson scoring was terrible but his all arround game was fine. Still the most important player was, once more, Dikembe.
Gamme 6 - loss - 46 points on 58.1ts%. Can't blame Iverson here, he was actually the reason why Philadelphia was still in the game.
Game 7 - win - 44 points and 7 assists on 61ts%. Another truly great game.

vs Lakers - NBA finals
Game 1 - 48 points, 5 rebs, 6 ast, 5 steals on 53.4ts%. This was against a team that swept the West, and had Shaquille at his peak powers defending the rim. This, for me, is one of the most amazing individual performances EVER in the NBA finals. And he played 52 minutes, so of course his ts% shouldn't be at legendary levels. He had to carry that team on offense at extreme level.
Game 2 - 23 points on 37.4ts% - bad game for Allen Iverson.
Game 3 - 35 points, 12 rebs, 4 ast and 1 TO. 49%ts, but overall I'd say he had a good game here. Again he played 47 minutes, so I can accept 12-30 from FG and 10-13 from FT.
Game 4 - 35 points, 4 rebs and 4 ast. On 49%ts and 46 minutes... Not an excellent performance, but that's too much of a burden to carry once more. 12-30FG and 10-14FT... With his ammount of minutes I don't see as a really bad shooting night.
Game 5 - 37 points on 52.1ts%. 14-32FG and 6-8FT... seems good to me.

Iverson wasn't efficient in some games, but he was spectacular in others. In the wins we usually see him rising his ts% and having great all arround games on a brutal ammount of minutes.
Game 3 vs Bucks is a good example on what that team could produce without him. It was just terrible.
In the finals Iverson wasn't exactly effecient, but taking into account the kind of opposition he had, I'd say he had 2 great games, and 1 legendary game.

He was terrible in some losses, but his game in a ton of the wins of his team was really brutal. People can talk about his ts%, but taking that supporting cast to the NBA finals is a win the way I see it. I'll always remember Iverson as a positive for his team in that particular year and run.

PS: sure, feel free to vote for other guys. That's just my perspective on Allen Iverson, not everyone has to agree and I can be wrong about a lot of things... English is, of course, a nice pick for this spot, or even Parish or some other guys. I just feel like people sometimes just look at Iverson's ts% in an isolated way, without seeing the context within it. I think he's one of those cases where a different organization could have made wonders for him.

[Basketballefan]

My vote goes to Allen Iverson.

Accodales:
- 2001 MVP;
- 3 times top 5 in MVP voting;
- 11 all-star games;
- 2 times all-star MVP;
- 3 times 1st NBA team, 2 times 2nd NBA and 2 times 3rd NBA;
- 4 times scoring champion;
- 3 times steal leader;
- 97 rookie of the year.


His list of accodales can compete and will probably overcome anyone left on the list. That's an amazing career by Allen Iverson.

Scoring ability

Iverson's raw scoring is surely not a problem. 4 seasons above 30 PPG, and 11 above 25 PPG. That is tremendous production. But people usually talk about his efficiency, and there is sure a case to say he wasn't one of the best there: Iverson's average ts% in his career is only 51.8, so it doesn't look good for him. But stats need context...


When Iverson was with Philadelhpia his casts were really bad on offense. In 2001 Iverson had one of the most iconic post season runs ever, and took a cast with Dikembe Mutombo, Lynch, Mckie, Tyrone Hill, Ratliff and Snow to the NBA finals. That cast wasn't efficient, two of them actually had a ts% under 50%, and only one player is above 55% (Ratliff). Iverson took a lot of difficult shots with those rosters, but he HAD to. Iverson's ts% wasn't high for most times, but he had to do a lot and play a lot of minutes for them. Eventually with so many minutes (he lead the league in minutes played twice) he's gonna get tired during games, and it's natural that his efficiency drops.

Did Iverson rise his ts% in better situations? Yes. Iverson was past his prime when he went do Denver, but he was still a great player. He had 25.6 PPG on 55.9ts%. That is great production in volume, and great efficiency. If you look at the best SGs in NBA history stats, they won't get much better than this (some are better for sure, but after 3 or 4 SGs Iverson comes right next).

Overall I think Allen Iverson was a great scorer, and while his volume numbers increased due to his situation, his ts% also went down for it. They should meet somewhere in the middle, but bottom line Allen Iverson was a very good scorer.

Playmaking ability
Iverson is known by some guys as a ballhog. He did take too many shots, that's true. But he also was a great playmaker: he had 5 seasons above 7 APG, and while he had a better cast in Denver, he averaged 7.1 APG. Great numbers right?

I know his ast/to ratio isn't that great, but Iverson took a lot of volume in minutes and scoring in his career. Taking that into consideration I also think his TO numbers aren't elite, but aren't also that high.

Defense
I've seen some people saying Iverson's D was nothing special, and that he was just a gambler. Yes he gambled, but he had to. When you're much smaller than many guys you defend you have to gamble a bit more. And nobody can question Allen Iverson's heart: he was probably one of the guys that fought more while on the court.

Peak play
Iverson had some great seasons. His peak is probably 01:
RS
31.1 PPG 4.6 APG 3.8 RPG 2.5 SPG 24 PER 51.8 ts% 19WS/48
PS
32.9 PPG 6.1 APG 4.7 RPG 2.4 SPG 22.5 PER 48ts% 13 WS/48

Iverson's advanced numbers don't look good in the playoffs, but that's because he alternated great games with very inefficient ones. Overall he more positives than negatives that off season, including two 50 point games against Toronto, a ton of assists in game 7 against them, a spectacular series ending vs Bucks and the epic game 1 vs Lakers. His 1st round was pretty solid too.



Iverson had also solid post season numbers in 2003, the only other season where Iverson got out of the 1st round.

He had some really impressive seasons in his career, and 06 Iverson was his best regular season. Shame they didn't go to the playoffs, but I'm still amazed by that level of play.
Iverson 06
33 PPG 7.4 APG 3.2 RPG 1.9 SPG 25.9 PER 54.3ts% 16.5 WS/48

That's a truly amazing statline for anyone in the NBA.



Sorry for the long post but I just don't think Iverson gets respected in RealGM. When his shot was falling he was one of the most entertaining guys to watch.
If you didn't follow Iverson back then, this is a good way to know him a little better:
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2TCjK4jRDfw[/youtube]

Great documentary that will show all of Iverson's heart!

Do you have a vote though? Just wandering because i think Iverson deserves to be in but i'm not going to bother if he isn't getting traction.

[Texas Chuck]

Enjoying some of the stuff on Chief in the last few threads. His longevity is outstanding and maybe he's a better player than I remember. Would love some more insight from some of his supporters here on what they feel like were the main things he brought to a team.

[Moonbeam]

I'm also feeling quite swayed by the Parish posts. I think I had underrated his scoring before. His Score+ metrics look quite good overall:

Code: Select all

Year  Score+  PosScore+  TeamScore+
1977   1.122    0.398       0.835
1978  -0.743   -1.594      -0.404
1979  -0.050   -0.794       0.371
1980   0.478   -0.429       1.035
1981   2.465    1.521       1.422
1982   1.711    0.671       1.351
1983   2.475    1.690       2.271
1984   1.788    1.045       1.290
1985   1.697    1.155       0.867
1986   1.872    1.454       0.918
1987   1.944    1.684       0.411
1988   2.968    2.826       1.140
1989   2.935    2.862       2.480
1990   3.284    3.302       2.432
1991   3.893    3.845       2.734
1992   1.703    1.642       1.168
1993   1.171    0.971       1.193
1994   0.103   -0.474       0.396
1995  -2.458   -2.630      -3.085
1996  -0.246   -0.149      -0.676
1997  -0.893   -0.819      -1.348


The slight concern is with the dips in the playoffs. I'm working on a Playoff version in which volume and efficiency are compared to the TS% allowed by opponents. Here is the spreadsheet so far, with the 1985, 1986, and 1987 postseasons included (1985 is the first postseason for which we have sufficient data to calculate Score+ for each series). 1987 looks quite good for Parish on this front, but 1985 looks to be a dropoff from his regular season scoring, and 1986 shows him with negative scoring value.

[Owly]

PS: sure, feel free to vote for other guys. That's just my perspective on Allen Iverson, not everyone has to agree and I can be wrong about a lot of things... English is, of course, a nice pick for this spot, or even Parish or some other guys. I just feel like people sometimes just look at Iverson's ts% in an isolated way, without seeing the context within it. I think he's one of those cases where a different organization could have made wonders for him.

See this is where I, and I think others go the other way with him. Firstly, in fairness he did trade usage for efficiency quite successfully once, in Denver with Anthony, though he's good but not spectacular (20.9 PER and .163 WS/48) part of which is assisting less.

But in Philly with secondary offensive talent, the likes of Derrick Coleman, Jerry Stackhouse, Joe Smith, Tim Thomas, Larry Hughes, Toni Kukoc, Keith Van Horn, Chris Webber and other scorers like Corliss Williamson, Clarence Weatherspoon even a Matt Geiger, he didn't seem to mesh too well. Now that's not to say that all of those are ideal supporting talent. It isn't. But it's certainly arguable that prime Iverson's ideal team is perhaps a variation on the '01 Sixers. Maybe some better shooters. But the implication is, perhaps, until late in his his prime, he didn't really trade usage for efficiency, so his best value was dragging an offense towards average with a huge burden and allowing to pick up cheaper, defense/hustle minded talent. And if this is the case that probably isn't the the recipe for a contender with any real probability of titles (yes, that 76ers team made the finals but only out the abysmal East). Unless those defenders were having a huge impact. In which case you're looking at crediting them more than AI.

My vote goes to Allen Iverson....

Do you have a vote though? Just wandering because i think Iverson deserves to be in but i'm not going to bother if he isn't getting traction.

viewtopic.php?p=41544364#p41544364

Is it too late to join the project? I'd like to vote from now on! Is it necessary to vote in every round?

You've been a consistent poster for a while. I will add you to the list and your vote will start counting in thread 49. WELCOME!

[trex_8063]

Spoiler:

My vote goes to Allen Iverson.

Accodales:
- 2001 MVP;
- 3 times top 5 in MVP voting;
- 11 all-star games;
- 2 times all-star MVP;
- 3 times 1st NBA team, 2 times 2nd NBA and 2 times 3rd NBA;
- 4 times scoring champion;
- 3 times steal leader;
- 97 rookie of the year.


His list of accodales can compete and will probably overcome anyone left on the list. That's an amazing career by Allen Iverson.

Scoring ability

Iverson's raw scoring is surely not a problem. 4 seasons above 30 PPG, and 11 above 25 PPG. That is tremendous production. But people usually talk about his efficiency, and there is sure a case to say he wasn't one of the best there: Iverson's average ts% in his career is only 51.8, so it doesn't look good for him. But stats need context...


When Iverson was with Philadelhpia his casts were really bad on offense. In 2001 Iverson had one of the most iconic post season runs ever, and took a cast with Dikembe Mutombo, Lynch, Mckie, Tyrone Hill, Ratliff and Snow to the NBA finals. That cast wasn't efficient, two of them actually had a ts% under 50%, and only one player is above 55% (Ratliff). Iverson took a lot of difficult shots with those rosters, but he HAD to. Iverson's ts% wasn't high for most times, but he had to do a lot and play a lot of minutes for them. Eventually with so many minutes (he lead the league in minutes played twice) he's gonna get tired during games, and it's natural that his efficiency drops.

Did Iverson rise his ts% in better situations? Yes. Iverson was past his prime when he went do Denver, but he was still a great player. He had 25.6 PPG on 55.9ts%. That is great production in volume, and great efficiency. If you look at the best SGs in NBA history stats, they won't get much better than this (some are better for sure, but after 3 or 4 SGs Iverson comes right next).

Overall I think Allen Iverson was a great scorer, and while his volume numbers increased due to his situation, his ts% also went down for it. They should meet somewhere in the middle, but bottom line Allen Iverson was a very good scorer.

Playmaking ability
Iverson is known by some guys as a ballhog. He did take too many shots, that's true. But he also was a great playmaker: he had 5 seasons above 7 APG, and while he had a better cast in Denver, he averaged 7.1 APG. Great numbers right?

I know his ast/to ratio isn't that great, but Iverson took a lot of volume in minutes and scoring in his career. Taking that into consideration I also think his TO numbers aren't elite, but aren't also that high.

Defense
I've seen some people saying Iverson's D was nothing special, and that he was just a gambler. Yes he gambled, but he had to. When you're much smaller than many guys you defend you have to gamble a bit more. And nobody can question Allen Iverson's heart: he was probably one of the guys that fought more while on the court.

Peak play
Iverson had some great seasons. His peak is probably 01:
RS
31.1 PPG 4.6 APG 3.8 RPG 2.5 SPG 24 PER 51.8 ts% 19WS/48
PS
32.9 PPG 6.1 APG 4.7 RPG 2.4 SPG 22.5 PER 48ts% 13 WS/48

Iverson's advanced numbers don't look good in the playoffs, but that's because he alternated great games with very inefficient ones. Overall he more positives than negatives that off season, including two 50 point games against Toronto, a ton of assists in game 7 against them, a spectacular series ending vs Bucks and the epic game 1 vs Lakers. His 1st round was pretty solid too.



Iverson had also solid post season numbers in 2003, the only other season where Iverson got out of the 1st round.

He had some really impressive seasons in his career, and 06 Iverson was his best regular season. Shame they didn't go to the playoffs, but I'm still amazed by that level of play.
Iverson 06
33 PPG 7.4 APG 3.2 RPG 1.9 SPG 25.9 PER 54.3ts% 16.5 WS/48

That's a truly amazing statline for anyone in the NBA.



Sorry for the long post but I just don't think Iverson gets respected in RealGM. When his shot was falling he was one of the most entertaining guys to watch.
If you didn't follow Iverson back then, this is a good way to know him a little better:
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2TCjK4jRDfw[/youtube]

Great documentary that will show all of Iverson's heart!

Do you have a vote though? Just wandering because i think Iverson deserves to be in but i'm not going to bother if he isn't getting traction.

He's been granted eligibility as he's been contributing for some time.
fwiw, while I've not cast my vote for Iverson (am plugging for Parish), I would probably cast a run-off vote for him against most other comers at this point.

[penbeast0]

Joao, you made the comment that Iverson had defensive issues due to his size; he shouldn't have since Snow was guarding the bigger or tougher 2's when needed. That's where I compared him to Muggsy who made himself a pest defensively despite being 9 inches shorter than Iverson.

And, yes, Iverson like most high volume chuckers will shoot you into games you otherwise might have lost; he will also shoot you out of games you should have won. That's his M.O. A unipolar offense tends to be more predictable and less efficient than an offense where the ball moves more. Iverson got the ball, you knew he was driving and either shooting or kicking out only if doubled/tripled. Compare to English who averaged better than 25ppg for a full decade including teams that were #1 offensively in the league and teams that were average offensively and above average defensively while scoring efficiently within the flow of a multipolar offense. English also was a terrific locker room and practice guy who won multiple citizenship awards as well. Again, at some point Iverson may be the best left, but not while there are better scorers out there since that's basically all Iverson really offers.

[trex_8063]

PS: sure, feel free to vote for other guys. That's just my perspective on Allen Iverson, not everyone has to agree and I can be wrong about a lot of things... English is, of course, a nice pick for this spot, or even Parish or some other guys. I just feel like people sometimes just look at Iverson's ts% in an isolated way, without seeing the context within it. I think he's one of those cases where a different organization could have made wonders for him.

See this is where I, and I think others go the other way with him. Firstly, in fairness he did trade usage for efficiency quite successfully once, in Denver with Anthony, though he's good but not spectacular (20.9 PER and .163 WS/48) part of which is assisting less.

But in Philly with secondary offensive talent, the likes of Derrick Coleman, Jerry Stackhouse, Joe Smith, Tim Thomas, Larry Hughes, Toni Kukoc, Keith Van Horn, Chris Webber and other scorers like Corliss Williamson, Clarence Weatherspoon even a Matt Geiger, he didn't seem to mesh too well. Now that's not to say that all of those are ideal supporting talent. It isn't. But it's certainly arguable that prime Iverson's ideal team is perhaps a variation on the '01 Sixers. Maybe some better shooters. But the implication is, perhaps, until late in his his prime, he didn't really trade usage for efficiency, so his best value was dragging an offense towards average with a huge burden and allowing to pick up cheaper, defense/hustle minded talent. And if this is the case that probably isn't the the recipe for a contender with any real probability of titles (yes, that 76ers team made the finals but only out the abysmal East). Unless those defenders were having a huge impact. In which case you're looking at crediting them more than AI.

Crediting THEM (plural) more. i.e. Philly's success in '01 was more due to Mutombo, Ratliff, Snow, Lynch, McKie, Hill (collectively) than it was due to Iverson. And I'd agree with that. But there isn't any ONE single player on that team who contributed more to their success in '01 than Allen Iverson. I'm not sure you can single out any TWO players who (combined) contributed more to it than Iverson.

[tsherkin]

I'm going to vote for Mutombo again.

I maintain that his defensive relevance is superior to what Thurmond brought, particularly because not only was he a better defender, but he was able to stay within a sensible level of shooting volume on the balance of his career. Thurmond was just bad, though a lot of that was likely coaches of his era not understanding how terrible was their strategy for employing him. Needless to say, Mutombo was still the better defender (despite Nate being a fantastic defender even late into his career), so he's got my vote.

English is on my mind, as is Vince. There are a number of guys ahead of AI on my list. Parish isn't too far off, but I'm not ready to vote for him just yet, and his longevity is overstated by several seasons of him doing barely anything at the tail-end of his career. Not sure I'm willing to put any serious stock into those, since he was an afterthought on the roster.

[Owly]

PS: sure, feel free to vote for other guys. That's just my perspective on Allen Iverson, not everyone has to agree and I can be wrong about a lot of things... English is, of course, a nice pick for this spot, or even Parish or some other guys. I just feel like people sometimes just look at Iverson's ts% in an isolated way, without seeing the context within it. I think he's one of those cases where a different organization could have made wonders for him.

See this is where I, and I think others go the other way with him. Firstly, in fairness he did trade usage for efficiency quite successfully once, in Denver with Anthony, though he's good but not spectacular (20.9 PER and .163 WS/48) part of which is assisting less.

But in Philly with secondary offensive talent, the likes of Derrick Coleman, Jerry Stackhouse, Joe Smith, Tim Thomas, Larry Hughes, Toni Kukoc, Keith Van Horn, Chris Webber and other scorers like Corliss Williamson, Clarence Weatherspoon even a Matt Geiger, he didn't seem to mesh too well. Now that's not to say that all of those are ideal supporting talent. It isn't. But it's certainly arguable that prime Iverson's ideal team is perhaps a variation on the '01 Sixers. Maybe some better shooters. But the implication is, perhaps, until late in his his prime, he didn't really trade usage for efficiency, so his best value was dragging an offense towards average with a huge burden and allowing to pick up cheaper, defense/hustle minded talent. And if this is the case that probably isn't the the recipe for a contender with any real probability of titles (yes, that 76ers team made the finals but only out the abysmal East). Unless those defenders were having a huge impact. In which case you're looking at crediting them more than AI.

Crediting THEM (plural) more. i.e. Philly's success in '01 was more due to Mutombo, Ratliff, Snow, Lynch, McKie, Hill (collectively) than it was due to Iverson. And I'd agree with that. But there isn't any ONE single player on that team who contributed more to their success in '01 than Allen Iverson. I'm not sure you can single out any TWO players who (combined) contributed more to it than Iverson.

Well the "in which case" in my sentence is in the hypothetical instance of team that had a serious probability of winning a title. In which case I'd suggest there would probably would be one player with a larger impact than AI. Or if not it would probably require an ensemble cast of a few near equals and everyone bascially above average. And we aren't quite at the point where we're inducting players who might be able able to possibly win with the right ensemble yet (Gus, Sikma or Johnson; Billups, Wallace or Wallace depending on peoples' preferences, for instance did win, and reached another finals and aren't in).

It's a bit arbitrary but in my book a serious contender will have an SRS superior to 4. '01 was clearly the best for Iverson's Sixer but it still was only 3.63. The previous para was a touch oversimplified but put it this way. Iverson's peak, on a team that is built on what might be the ideal blueprint for him (not the perfect talent level but style wise with strong defense and a pg that doesn't need the ball but can cover 2s well, and low usage guys) gets an SRS of 3.63.

It just seems hard to build an excellent, serious title contention team around him. Would go into this deep but haven't the time and tbh, might not be necessary.

fwiw I'm not sure you can split credit for the '01 Sixers. As has been suggested here the value of the parts is contingent on the context. And here Iverson is given freedom on O, which maximises his value contribution (through ability to sustain okay efficiency with huge usage) and his teammates have him which allows them to shoot efficiently, not have to create shots and focus on D. There's synergy and I don't think you credit that to one person.

[Doctor MJ]

Vote: Mutombo

Same reasons as before. I respect bigs with great defensive impact and I don't pick other guys over them lightly.

Mutombo is quite possibly the best defensive player of the past 40 years, and yet people feel it's too early for him. Frankly seems like something people should see the other way around: Can we really justify that he wasn't in a while ago?

[ceiling raiser]

Vote: Mutombo

Same reasons as before. I respect bigs with great defensive impact and I don't pick other guys over them lightly.

Mutombo is quite possibly the best defensive player of the past 40 years, and yet people feel it's too early for him. Frankly seems like something people should see the other way around: Can we really justify that he wasn't in a while ago?

Just wondering, where do you slot peak Mutombo? At least +5 defensively? How many other guys in the span you mentioned (past 40 years) also equal/surpass that threshold?

[Doctor MJ]

Vote: Mutombo

Same reasons as before. I respect bigs with great defensive impact and I don't pick other guys over them lightly.

Mutombo is quite possibly the best defensive player of the past 40 years, and yet people feel it's too early for him. Frankly seems like something people should see the other way around: Can we really justify that he wasn't in a while ago?

Just wondering, where do you slot peak Mutombo? At least +5 defensively? How many other guys in the span you mentioned (past 40 years) also equal/surpass that threshold?

Pretty clear record of him having a +8 defensive RAPM with normal starter minutes that meant he played about 3/4ths of his team's total, so I'd rate him a +6 defender, and I probably wouldn't rate anyone else at that level.

+5 guys? I'd say Garnett gets there, and Ben & Duncan might get there from the databall era.

Earlier guys? Olajuwon & Robinson seemed the most likely. Ewing maybe too. Eaton may have if he could have kept it up for more minutes. I think Walton probably got there ever so briefly.

[ceiling raiser]

Vote: Mutombo

Same reasons as before. I respect bigs with great defensive impact and I don't pick other guys over them lightly.

Mutombo is quite possibly the best defensive player of the past 40 years, and yet people feel it's too early for him. Frankly seems like something people should see the other way around: Can we really justify that he wasn't in a while ago?

Just wondering, where do you slot peak Mutombo? At least +5 defensively? How many other guys in the span you mentioned (past 40 years) also equal/surpass that threshold?

Pretty clear record of him having a +8 defensive RAPM with normal starter minutes that meant he played about 3/4ths of his team's total, so I'd rate him a +6 defender, and I probably wouldn't rate anyone else at that level.

+5 guys? I'd say Garnett gets there, and Ben & Duncan might get there from the databall era.

Earlier guys? Olajuwon & Robinson seemed the most likely. Ewing maybe too. Eaton may have if he could have kept it up for more minutes. I think Walton probably got there ever so briefly.

Thanks. Follow-up (apologies if this is derailing the thread): In the present era (01-02 to present), particularly since since the first season of Thibs/KG (07-08 to present), do any additional guys join that group? Do any drop out?

[Doctor MJ]

Just wondering, where do you slot peak Mutombo? At least +5 defensively? How many other guys in the span you mentioned (past 40 years) also equal/surpass that threshold?

Pretty clear record of him having a +8 defensive RAPM with normal starter minutes that meant he played about 3/4ths of his team's total, so I'd rate him a +6 defender, and I probably wouldn't rate anyone else at that level.

+5 guys? I'd say Garnett gets there, and Ben & Duncan might get there from the databall era.

Earlier guys? Olajuwon & Robinson seemed the most likely. Ewing maybe too. Eaton may have if he could have kept it up for more minutes. I think Walton probably got there ever so briefly.

Thanks. Follow-up (apologies if this is derailing the thread): In the present era (01-02 to present), particularly since since the first season of Thibs/KG (07-08 to present), do any additional guys join that group? Do any drop out?

If I'm understanding you, you're asking who could do what in the current age.

It's a great question and not one that I've taken any great stand on. Perhaps it's time I do? Open to the thoughts of others.

What is the case in the new era is that with the ability for teammates to proactively cover for each other, the value of man defense goes down, while the value of help defense might go up but not necessarily for the guys who are the biggest outliers.

That our biggest impactor of this era is a guy known for extreme agility and excellent floor generalship doesn't seem like it would be a coincidence, and hence guys unlikely to have those traits may well go down in value in this era.

Mutombo clearly would be one of those guys to tumble.
Robinson & Olajuwon might be guys who held even or went up.

I'd be curious to know what comes to mind for guys with huge BBIQs among bigs. They'd be worth pondering.

I think analysis of Walton would be very interesting. I could see his impact being even bigger potentially. Thing is: Walton had a huge motor to go along with his massive brain, but I've never seen anyone argue that he was the kind of extremely agile player that a Garnett (or Russ or Hakeem, etc) were. I could see an argument that it's not so much the quickness of Garnett that let's him do his thing so much as that he's willing to play with extreme intensity. Quickness helps, but it might be less necessary in this age where players can close ranks behind you.

But perhaps that's naive. Obviously every time you challenge a shot you don't block, there's a window of some sort being opened up for them, and certainly the sooner you close it the better.

[Moonbeam]

I'm very close to voting for Parish here, and I agree that Mutombo is another very strong candidate, but I'll vote for Adrian Dantley for now.

As mentioned in previous threads, I think Dantley has a very strong case to be considered one of the top 10 scorers ever, if not top 5. He is the all-time leader for players with at least 5000 MP in Score+, PosScore+, and TeamScore+. By these metrics, he has the GOAT combination of volume and efficiency.

He generally got the better of English in head-to-head matchups, although Wilkins may have an edge. Compared to all top SFs of the 80s, he had the highest PPG and efficiency margin, so the suggestion that he'd score 30 and give up 30 seems off the mark. Granted, he had great defensive support in the last few years in Utah as well as in Detroit, but even when Utah was a poor defensive team in 1980, 1981, and 1982, he still had a huge edge over his high-flying SF opponents.

Another strong case for Dantley is that his scoring prowess held up in the postseason. Outside of his very last NBA games with Milwaukee, Dantley had a TS north of .600 in every postseason appearance! I want to focus on his time with Detroit. I've seen a few people suggest that Dantley actually hurt those Piston teams or held them back from reaching their full potential, based on the fact that they went on to the title in 1989 in dominating fashion after trading Dantley mid-season, and the fact that he had a negative WOWY score in 1988. The biggest argument for this notion is the suggestion that the Pistons won because of defense, and Dantley started over Dennis Rodman, who was a defensive wunderkind.

While I think it is important to acknowledge the Pistons' defense, I think it's equally important to acknowledge that Dantley was a huge support for them on offense. We all know that teams win by scoring more than their opponents. Whatever type of play helps to increase the margin for a team should be given an appropriate amount of credit, I feel, and Dantley deserves a lot of credit for Detroit's offense staying afloat in the postseason.

I'm working on a playoff Score+ metric which compares volume and efficiency to opponents. So just how much did Dantley's efficiency and volume mean to Detroit in the postseason? Well, in 1987, he added more than twice as many additional points above expectations than any other Piston player:

Code: Select all

Player          Score+  TotScore+
Adrian Dantley   4.457   44.415
Joe Dumars       2.266   21.348
Rick Mahorn      1.791   17.217
Dennis Rodman    1.377    6.719
John Salley      0.922    5.711
Bill Laimbeer    0.407    4.403
Sidney Green     4.556    3.859
Tony Campbell    7.028    1.868
Isiah Thomas     0.148    1.660
Chuck Nevitt   -10.431   -2.124
Kurt Nimphius   -5.223   -3.210
Vinnie Johnson  -1.242   -9.606


In 1988, Dantley's offense was even more important to keep Detroit afloat:

Code: Select all

Player          Score+  TotScore+
Adrian Dantley   3.593   54.472
John Salley      1.612   18.938
James Edwards    0.599    3.476
Chuck Nevitt    -1.306   -0.099
Walker Russell  -0.905   -0.172
Ralph Lewis     -7.200   -2.318
Dennis Rodman   -0.518   -4.629
Joe Dumars      -0.435   -6.588
Isiah Thomas    -0.549   -9.433
Bill Laimbeer   -0.822  -12.080
Rick Mahorn     -3.758  -28.950
Vinnie Johnson  -4.414  -39.732


When Dantley was knocked out in 1987 due to a concussion in Game 7 of the ECF, Laimbeer added this:

Laimbeer, on the loss of Adrian Dantley: "When he went off, they didn't have to double team us anymore. We couldn't get the open jump shots like we normally would."

But Dantley's contributions were not just on offense - he put in significant effort on defense in both 1987 and 1988.

Source: http://archives.chicagotribune.com/1988 ... he-celtics

Larry Bird, meanwhile, who has shot just 37 percent in five games, continues to say his rhythm is off, but he did offer this assessment: "The officiating has been different in the playoffs and I don't think it's fair to anybody. You prepare during an 82-game season and then it's completely different. It's a tough adjustment."

But also giving Bird trouble, and for the second consecutive year and equally unnoticed by most, is noted scorer Adrian Dantley.

"I've never seen him player harder on defense in my life," said Laimbeer. "He's working so hard. He just wants it so bad."

Source: http://mitchalbom.com/d/journalism/535/ ... ge-updated

Whatever the change, he was in for most of the crucial minutes Sunday, spinning, driving, bumping, and playing a defense that went unnoticed by many. Except Larry Bird, the guy he was covering. "Dantley did as good a job on Bird as Michael Cooper or Paul Pressey does," Celtics coach K.C. Jones said. "He was very tough."

And at times, even obstinate. Once in the first half when the Celtics brought in Darren Daye, Pistons coach Chuck Daly screamed to Dantley: "YOU GOT DAYE! LET SALLEY TAKE BIRD!"

And Dantley turned, scowl intact, and mouthed back, "I got Bird." And five seconds later, Daly signaled, never mind, you got Bird.

Source: http://articles.latimes.com/1988-06-08/ ... it-pistons

Dantley, a two-time NBA scoring champion, has always been known for his offense, but the Pistons say that he has concentrated on defense this season.

And Dantley's work ethic on defense was a key as the Pistons held the Lakers to 39.8% shooting from the floor.

"I've always played defense, but when people talk about me, they talk about my offense," Dantley said. "The last time I played this hard on defense was in the 1976 Olympics. Defense is how we've been winning all our games this year. We don't even think about offense."

Opponent Michael Cooper during the 1988 Finals: http://articles.philly.com/1988-06-12/s ... rs-defense

"His defense shocked me," said Cooper, who was an L.A. teammate of Dantley's for the 1978-79 season.

"He was never one to get his sneakers dirty on defense. Before, A.D. was about A.D. He was out to score his points. Now he's a team player. He's willing to sacrifice. He sees that the more you put into a team, the more you get out of it."

Dantley bought into Detroit's system and was very pivotal to their playoff success.

[ceiling raiser]

If I'm understanding you, you're asking who could do what in the current age.

Correct (particularly due to the elimination of illegal defense).

I'd be curious to know what comes to mind for guys with huge BBIQs among bigs. They'd be worth pondering.

Good question, and I'm not 100% sure of the answer. There is a pretty fair overlap between the guys you mentioned (I think both lists are solid, haven't given my own much thought, thinking more conceptually at the moment), but how about Ewing, Bogut, Gasol, possibly Sheed?

I think analysis of Walton would be very interesting. I could see his impact being even bigger potentially. Thing is: Walton had a huge motor to go along with his massive brain, but I've never seen anyone argue that he was the kind of extremely agile player that a Garnett (or Russ or Hakeem, etc) were. I could see an argument that it's not so much the quickness of Garnett that let's him do his thing so much as that he's willing to play with extreme intensity. Quickness helps, but it might be less necessary in this age where players can close ranks behind you.

But perhaps that's naive. Obviously every time you challenge a shot you don't block, there's a window of some sort being opened up for them, and certainly the sooner you close it the better.

I'm not sure if I've heard him placed in that category, but I have seen in a couple of places Kareem hyped as the most agile/mobile 7 footer when he was coming up/first entering the league, and later I think Walton was placed in the same bucket (I'd need sources for both statements before feeling comfortable putting them out there; should be easy for me to find at least one for the first, perhaps not for the second).

Film analysis would be terrific. There's some footage of Bucks Kareem out there (I'm actually waiting on a couple of new partial games, I PMed Dipper and noted I'd send him the uploaded files once they arrive; there are 9 other full/partial games out there, but this would complete the footage of his Bucks days), and some of Walton (I think there are 10ish games pre-injury?). Kareem barely falls into the window of the last 40 years (at least in his UCLA/Milwaukee days), though I don't think he'd make a +5 cut. Walton might, so it might be worth it to evaluate the footage and get a feel for his quickness/agility (I know we have a few guys excellent at analyzing tape ). I guess when he comes up in future threads (not sure how far off he is from being relevant to the discussion), it'll be more of a hot topic.

[Joao Saraiva]

Joao, you made the comment that Iverson had defensive issues due to his size; he shouldn't have since Snow was guarding the bigger or tougher 2's when needed. That's where I compared him to Muggsy who made himself a pest defensively despite being 9 inches shorter than Iverson.

And, yes, Iverson like most high volume chuckers will shoot you into games you otherwise might have lost; he will also shoot you out of games you should have won. That's his M.O. A unipolar offense tends to be more predictable and less efficient than an offense where the ball moves more. Iverson got the ball, you knew he was driving and either shooting or kicking out only if doubled/tripled. Compare to English who averaged better than 25ppg for a full decade including teams that were #1 offensively in the league and teams that were average offensively and above average defensively while scoring efficiently within the flow of a multipolar offense. English also was a terrific locker room and practice guy who won multiple citizenship awards as well. Again, at some point Iverson may be the best left, but not while there are better scorers out there since that's basically all Iverson really offers.

I said people say Iverson had defensive issues because of his size. My opinion is that he was actually a great defender with a lot of heart. He had amazing full court D, he was a good gambler (I said he had to gamble because sometimes due to his size, but that's not a mistake for him, I think he adapted well) and he moved his feet quickly.

English was a great player too, but I think Iverson has a case for being a top 5 player during some of his years in the NBA, I find it more difficult with English.

They both had great offensive games that were great in a diferent way, I also think English wouldn't take that Philadelphia team to the NBA finals... Tough he'd probably go along better with other systems than Iverson.

I understand voting for English. I know Iverson is a player with flaws, that he's not a player that is loved arround here and I get why, and he has a ton of what ifs in his career... But I still think he deserves this spot. Still thanks for the reading on English, I appreciate it. I wouldn't worry too much, Iverson is probably not getting a ton of votes in this spot anyway... If English goes into a run off with Iverson, I'll probably still vote for Allen Iverson. Against any other guy... I'll do some reading first, but I'm liking English chances.

[Joao Saraiva]

PS: sure, feel free to vote for other guys. That's just my perspective on Allen Iverson, not everyone has to agree and I can be wrong about a lot of things... English is, of course, a nice pick for this spot, or even Parish or some other guys. I just feel like people sometimes just look at Iverson's ts% in an isolated way, without seeing the context within it. I think he's one of those cases where a different organization could have made wonders for him.

See this is where I, and I think others go the other way with him. Firstly, in fairness he did trade usage for efficiency quite successfully once, in Denver with Anthony, though he's good but not spectacular (20.9 PER and .163 WS/48) part of which is assisting less.

But in Philly with secondary offensive talent, the likes of Derrick Coleman, Jerry Stackhouse, Joe Smith, Tim Thomas, Larry Hughes, Toni Kukoc, Keith Van Horn, Chris Webber and other scorers like Corliss Williamson, Clarence Weatherspoon even a Matt Geiger, he didn't seem to mesh too well. Now that's not to say that all of those are ideal supporting talent. It isn't. But it's certainly arguable that prime Iverson's ideal team is perhaps a variation on the '01 Sixers. Maybe some better shooters. But the implication is, perhaps, until late in his his prime, he didn't really trade usage for efficiency, so his best value was dragging an offense towards average with a huge burden and allowing to pick up cheaper, defense/hustle minded talent. And if this is the case that probably isn't the the recipe for a contender with any real probability of titles (yes, that 76ers team made the finals but only out the abysmal East). Unless those defenders were having a huge impact. In which case you're looking at crediting them more than AI.

My vote goes to Allen Iverson....

Do you have a vote though? Just wandering because i think Iverson deserves to be in but i'm not going to bother if he isn't getting traction.

viewtopic.php?p=41544364#p41544364

Is it too late to join the project? I'd like to vote from now on! Is it necessary to vote in every round?

You've been a consistent poster for a while. I will add you to the list and your vote will start counting in thread 49. WELCOME!

About Iverson's PER and WS/48... well, English wasn't exactly flirting a lot with those stats too.

About the guys Iverson played with... I understand the point. Still Iverson is a guy that is not easy to measure, there are a ton of what ifs with him, some flaws in his game, some question marks and his stats can be seen differently depending on the context you put into it. That's the way I see Iverson, but I completely understand people who see him diferently.

From the guys you mentioned "Joe Smith, Tim Thomas, Larry Hughes, Toni Kukoc, Keith Van Horn, Chris Webber and other scorers like Corliss Williamson, Clarence Weatherspoon even a Matt Geiger" how many of them were really great players? I don't hold Larry Hughes very high. Stackhouse seems to embrace a Iverson role at times in his career too with much less success. Corliss Williamson is average at most too.

Webber had a good 05-06 season, he was just old and didn't get wasn't the same guy we used to see in Sacramento. His FG% wasn't very high, but it also wasn't high in his late years with the Kings... I wonder what Iverson could do with a prime Webber.