RealGM Top 100 List #49

[Clyde Frazier]

Heh, mutombo vs. iverson is rather fitting...


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

[E-Balla]

So, Iverson paired with another top 100 player (Carmelo) can produce an offense rated 9th or 11th in the league. English is appreciably more efficient, a class act, works harder on defense, and produces 5 straight top 5 offenses and 2 straight #1 in the league offenses and Iverson fans will start considering them after Iverson is in. I don't see it.

So, paired with 2 other top 50 players (Nash and Dwight) Kobe can produce an offense rated 9th and win 47 games.

So, great defender who also rebounded and scored a bit on reasonably good efficiency v. low percentage gunner who notoriously blew off practice and played poor defense. VOTE Dikembe Mutombo Mpolondo Mukamba Jean-Jacques Wamutombo

So, great volume ball handler who also dragged some terrible offenses to respectable levels or offensively limited big man who never recieved a single RPOY vote.

See how easy it is to dismiss the other side when using fallacious arguments.

[ronnymac2]

Vote: Allen Iverson

Hoyas who led Philly to the 2001 NBA Finals, yet have nothing else in common.

I'm going with The Answer. As has been noted, his Philly years are phenomenal given the circumstances. He was a much better off-ball player than given credit for. In 2001, Snow and Mckie both averaged over 5 assists per game with Iverson right behind them at 4.6 IIRC. How do they get those assists if they aren't controlling the ball?

Iverson used the baseline effectively for off-ball cuts — like many great shooting guards do — and had an endless amount of energy to run around screens and knock down jumpers. Now he wasn't Reggie or Ray ito of his efficiency on these jumpers, but a defender had to dedicate himself to running around chasing Iverson, which hurts double-teaming elsewhere on the floor.

Iverson grew up and played most of his athletic prime on crappy offensive teams that forced him to take on bloated USG%. He did this in one of the worst times in the modern era to be a volume scoring wing player. Yet he still took on that load and put up volume only a handful of wings have ever put up. When rules/stylistic changes eased the harshness in the scoring environment, and when Iverson had a little bit more help, his individual efficiency was fine. He never had a problem sharing the ball.

You might also look at the Denver years with Melo, but that version of Melo wasn't as good off-ball as he is now and didn't utilize the 3-point shot. They were surrounded by crap as well. Marcus Camby was a bad offensive player at that point, and Anthony Carter as the PG is atrocious.

It's close. No problem with anybody taking Mutombo, who is a top-10 defensive player in NBA history in my opinion.

[tsherkin]

So, paired with 2 other top 50 players (Nash and Dwight) Kobe can produce an offense rated 9th and win 47 games.

This is a pretty bad argument. Nash played 50 games in his first season with the Lakers en route to the team winning 45 games. Pau played 49. Dwight was coming off of back surgery and played alright, but was over-focused on post isolation, something which had been a problem at the tail-end of his Orlando career. Even their BACKUP point guard was injured and only played 45 games.

C'mon, at least do a perfunctory bbr run before posting this kind of stuff, it cheapens the value of the discussion having to delve into this sort of obvious nonsense.

Anyway...

Iverson grew up and played most of his athletic prime on crappy offensive teams that forced him to take on bloated USG%. He did this in one of the worst times in the modern era to be a volume scoring wing player. Yet he still took on that load and put up volume only a handful of wings have ever put up.

But didn't do it on the level of the other star guards who were handling similar levels of usage during the same period. Basically, he put up a lot of shots, and that led to him posting high scoring volume with limited efficacy and obviously weak efficiency.

When rules/stylistic changes eased the harshness in the scoring environment, and when Iverson had a little bit more help, his individual efficiency was fine.

This actually isn't true. A more accurate phrase would be "less crap," outside of one year. And he was still nothing to write home about in the playoffs. His volume was aided by playing far too many minutes, but really stands out a lot less when you consider that. AI's cardiovascular endurance was perhaps more remarkable than his speed in some ways; he truly was a fantastic physical specimen.

For a quick look at AI in the new-rules era:

2005: 42.3 mpg, 24.2 FGA/g, 105 ORTG, 53.2% TS, +0.2% over league average
2006: 43.1 mpg, 25.3 FGA/g, 111 ORTG, 54.3% TS, +0.8% over league average
2007: 42.5 mpg, 20.2 FGA/g, 106 ORTG, 54.0% TS, -0.1% under league average
2008: 41.8 mpg, 19.0 FGA/g, 115 ORTG, 56.7% TS, +2.7% over league average

2008 stands out as a good example of Iverson playing in a role more suited to his talents, and was an excellent year. As a secondary player to Melo, he had his volume down, didn't have the same level of defensive attention, and excelled at attacking the basket, his forte. AI was always better (to the point of being pretty damned good) when he was able to limit his volume below a certain threshold. He still wasn't a stunner in the playoffs at any point in his career (generally sucked a lot of ass in Denver, actually), but as a RS player, he excelled when he had a smaller shooting volume. In short, he was better when he focused a bit more on distributing and shared the ball more. He would have been a really good scoring point if he hadn't tried so hard to be a volume-scoring off-guard, really. He was everything Stephon Marbury wished he could have been.

There are questions to ask about the relationship between Philly management and Iverson's own mentality as far as his stupidly high usage rate, but no matter how you slice it, he comes away with at least some of the blame. His salary wasn't prohibitively large compared to the cap at that point either: in the early 2000s, Iverson was a 10-15 mil player. Certainly not KG or Shaq in contract size. Philly management definitely failed him, but we've seen stars on bad offensive teams before, even in that era, and they performed more capably than did AI. It's noteworthy that in the years which Philly excelled, they did so on the virtue of their defense more than their offense. Much like the 2011 Bulls, the Sixers were a team that thrived on D and used middling offense from their single volume guy to drive the game in a way that ball movement can't really do. Iverson was highly replaceable on those squads, which really sullies the idea of significant value to me. Obviously, you can't slap Tony Delk in there and expect similar results, but you could have done with a lot of borderline star types, I think. AI was not a tier one guard when he played that way. Now, to some extent, you have to give him a bit of a pass, because we've seen more than one player labor through those situations and even Jordan and Kobe didn't quite blow minds with their offensive efficacy when they were dropping huge usage on cruddy teams either, but both had significantly better results and were more capable of tailoring their game to the team they had than was Iverson. At some point, AI chucking up shots leading to a sub-40% FG% isn't as good an option as running some flex offense and hitting shooters in a more conventional half-court style offense.



For clarity's sake... I believe Iverson was a good player. I do acknowledge that team context certainly made life more difficult for him. I think he had a situation that was only a little more advantageous than McGrady's Orlando teams, but was a worse overall player. He also played in a terrifically incompetent conference that was wide open for even fairly middling teams to feast. But at the core of it, he was a great athlete with an unshakeable will to drive, he drew a lot of fouls and played through a lot of pain. He had various flaws, though, and I think these limit his utility here. I think Mutombo was generally a more valuable player and I think Iverson's greatest achievements are overstated because they are volume scoring inflated by minutes and weak efficiency, as well as a Finals run that had more to do with defense and bad competition than his particular performance. I don't think it's really time for him any more than I thought it sensible for McGrady to get in just yet.


I don't know; it's almost time, I suppose, but Iverson represents everything that was wrong about the early 2000s era of basketball. Over-fascination with volume and isolation, with "winning it by yourself" (which was never how it was really done before that), with excessive dribbling at the expense of ball movement and a lot of nonsense, pointless dribble maneuvers thanks to the damned And-1 circuit ruining brains. People over-reacting to Jordan's style without understanding his substance.... AI embodied all of that, and sort of got lost in a wave of foolishness instead of really taking advantage of the opportunities he had to be a properly incredible player.

[colts18]

I don't see how Iverson is better than Chauncey Billups.

For those touting AI, why did the Nuggets get better when they traded AI for Billups while the Pistons collapsed once they got AI?

[john248]

Voting Dikembe long ass name Mutombo. I don't even think Iverson is the best offensive player left on the board which is largely where his value is, so he falls short here. Mutombo is what you want in a big who puts up GOAT level defense which makes it easier to build around. Great rebounder and great at defending the paint who can anchor a top 5 level defense.

If Ai goes as low as 55 that will prove how much the voters dislike him.

Lighten up dude...you seem to think people just hate all the players you like.

Im not even an iverson fan. I just call bias when i see it and there have been several players in this project who went lower or higher than they should have because of it. People can deny it all they want to, but that doesnt make it false. We are humans, therefore we will be biased at times theres no point in trying to deny it.

You'll have to ask yourself...what makes you the authority when it comes to where a player should be ranked? Also why do you feel this group (for this project) has such an overwhelming bias against Iverson?

[Basketballefan]

I don't see how Iverson is better than Chauncey Billups.

For those touting AI, why did the Nuggets get better when they traded AI for Billups while the Pistons collapsed once they got AI?

The pistons were nowhere near what they once were when they got iverson, also ai was well past his prime so thats a bad argument. As for the denver thing that has to do with billups fitting better with melo.

Lets not be revisionists here, billups never was asked to carry the load that ai did, also billups was never considered a top 10 caliber player like iverson.

[SinceGatlingWasARookie]

I don't remember Alex English being a good defender. His teams were amoung the worst in the league at opponents field goal percentage.


Iversion is in my top 10 fun to watch players but his scoring inneficiency makes me not rate Iverson high. Iverson's best years were his young years when he was just plain quicker than most of the quickest players in NBA history.

Larry Brown is known for not trusting young point guards to run his offense. So Larry Brown had Eric Snow be the primary point guard. I have great respect for Eric Snow but Eric Snow was a bad shooter. Iverson's 76er teams were bad shooting teams. These bad shooting teams meant that Iverson was free to shoot a high volume of low percentage shots because who is he supposed to pass the ball to, ( Aaron McKie? ) So Iverson's 76er teams inflate his scoring numbers but deflate his efficiency. The only thing that makes Iverson's shooting inneficiency acceptable is that he got to the foul line a lot.

Eric Snow deflates Iverson's Assists some but Iverson really is a mediocre at best passer. To me Nate Archibald is the most similar player to Iverson stylistically but Nate was a much better passer than Iverson and a better finisher than Iverson. Both Iverson and Nate sliced their way through and around the big NBA bodies to finish with little flips of the ball off the back board but Nate was more accurate. Iverson was quicker.

I thought Iverson played good defense at his peak with the 76ers and played very very hard. His defense may not have been good in years other than the 76ers peak.

Iverson's outside shooting was streaky. Letting Iverson shoot from the outside is like rolling the dice. On a good day Iverson hits outside shots and becomes nearly unguardable. On a bad day Iverson bricks outside shots and can shoot his team out of a game.

I think Iverson and other high volume low percentage go to guy 1st option on offense players should be cut some slack for their shooting inneficiency because these guys have the job of creating the chaos in the opposing team's defense that opens up teammates for easy shots. These high volume low percentage shooters also are the guys who must jack up the impossible shots with 2 seconds left on the shot clock.

I love Iverson but I think Dikembe is a more valuable player. Putting Iverson with Carmelo did not make Carmelo better. A low percentage high volume player becomes a liability when he takes shots away from better shooters. If I surrounded Iverson with three point shooters Iverson would get more space to work in the paint but I don't know how much that improves Iverson's accuracy. I also don't know if Iverson would be able to consistently find the open 3 point shooter if help defenders left 3 point shooters to help clog the paint.

Dikembe makes any defense better.

I can see the argument for Robert Parish in that Parish is better offensively than Dikembe, won some rings and was a very good defender himself though not as good as Dikembe.

If this is Dikembe verses Iverson I think Dikembe is more valuable for most teams. ( not for thoses 76er teams that desperately needed offense even if it was bad offense ). Iverson was much more entertaining than Dikembe but not as good as Dikembe.

[E-Balla]

So, paired with 2 other top 50 players (Nash and Dwight) Kobe can produce an offense rated 9th and win 47 games.

This is a pretty bad argument. Nash played 50 games in his first season with the Lakers en route to the team winning 45 games. Pau played 49. Dwight was coming off of back surgery and played alright, but was over-focused on post isolation, something which had been a problem at the tail-end of his Orlando career. Even their BACKUP point guard was injured and only played 45 games.

C'mon, at least do a perfunctory bbr run before posting this kind of stuff, it cheapens the value of the discussion having to delve into this sort of obvious nonsense.

That was the point I thought the sarcasm was obvious especially when I ended it by saying how any argument can be made for anyone using half truths. Pre prime Melo, post prime AI, and a group of mostly defensive players on a defensive team with a coach who made his place with defensive Sonics teams ranked 8th (in the half year AI was there) and 11th (while winning 51 games in a tough conference and 10th on defense) on offense while having Nene, Melo, and JR miss a quarter of the season and Kenyon miss almost the whole season and Nene missing most of 2008.

Penbeast was trying to discredit AI by using seasons where he wasn't in his prime and his teams were basically Melo, Iverson, and JR as far as offensive talent goes.

[tsherkin]

That was the point I thought the sarcasm was obvious especially when I ended it by saying how any argument can be made for anyone using half truths.

Even that sort of sarcasm doesn't really have a place in this discussion, which is supposed to be a fruitful, productive meeting of minds.

As far as Denver goes, playoffs aside, Iverson did pretty well in the second banana role to Melo. Meantime, you're underselling Denver's talent. In 08, you're forgetting Marcus Camby (DPOY the year before and a significant offensive rebounder who contributed to their ability), as well as Nene, Kenyon Martin and even Linas Kleiza. ANd it is worth mentioning that the Nuggets got better when they traded Iverson for Billups.

Food for thought.

[E-Balla]

That was the point I thought the sarcasm was obvious especially when I ended it by saying how any argument can be made for anyone using half truths.

Even that sort of sarcasm doesn't really have a place in this discussion, which is supposed to be a fruitful, productive meeting of minds.

As far as Denver goes, playoffs aside, Iverson did pretty well in the second banana role to Melo. Meantime, you're underselling Denver's talent. In 08, you're forgetting Marcus Camby (DPOY the year before and a significant offensive rebounder who contributed to their ability), as well as Nene, Kenyon Martin and even Linas Kleiza. ANd it is worth mentioning that the Nuggets got better when they traded Iverson for Billups.

Food for thought.

I know they had Camby but Penbeast specifically focused on the offensive side of the ball (saying 2 top 100 guys could barely lead a top 10 offense) so Camby is pudding. Nene and Kenyon were injured a lot those years and I did completely forget Kleiza who was an above average offensive role player but still nothing special. Now the Billups trade is funny. Outside of Chauncey showing up in the postseason Denver didn't really improve.

Chauncey with a mostly healthy team (Melo and Kenyon were banged up a bit) and about the same level team (Dahntay, Birdman, Carter replaced Camby; Melo improved but I think Chauncey was the reason and JR took major strides forward in 09) helped lead Denver to a 54-28 record. Iverson won 50 in 08.

Slight improvement but nothing major and Chauncey fit the team a lot better.

[trex_8063]

I simply don't think that saying Iverson would be better suited to a lower volume (possibly even secondary or "1B" role) is a credible mode of discrediting him. Don't get me wrong, I more or less agree with that statement......I just don't think it's relevant wrt his time in Philadelphia, where there was never the help to allow him to drop off huge chunks of usage and have it be for the betterment of the team's offense (see comments post #80):

[b]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.

Sans-Iverson the team shot 35.7% from the field (44.2% TS%) and scored a playoff-low 74 points (and this against a team that was ranked 20th of 29 teams defensively). That---in a nut-shell---is the context.

I agree this is not an ideal set-up, giving ~35% usage to a player like Iverson. But those Philly teams were already asking more than was ideal from several mediocre (or even poor) offensive players:
Eric Snow--->his SIX highest ppg averages, his SIX highest apg averages, and 4 of his 5 highest USG% all came during his six full seasons in Philly.
Theo Ratliff--->his 3-year stint in Philly accounts for all THREE of his highest ppg averages, and 3 of his 4 highest USG% (this in a 16-year career).
Aaron McKie--->his TWO highest ppg averages (and 5 of his top 6), his FIVE highest apg averages, as well as his TWO highest USG% (and 3 of his top 4, 6 of his top 8) all came during his 7 full seasons in Philly.
George Lynch--->3 of his top 4 ppg averages and 3 of his top 4 apg averages came during his 3-year stint in Philly.
Dikembe Mutombo--->his usage jumped by 2.8% (to a level he'd not been at in 3 years) and ppg jumped by 2.6 ppg (to level he'd not scored at for two years) IMMEDIATELY upon his arrival in Philly (at age 34).

They were already getting the max offensive amounts reasonable (and in some cases MORE than is reasonable) from guys like Snow, McKie, Ratliff, Lynch, and aging Mutombo.

In the 7-year span of '00-'06, Iverson was averaging 29.9 ppg and 6.0 apg, from 24.9 FGA @ .510 TS% (which is actually only -1.3% from league average over that span); the 76'ers' average team ORtg was 103 (which is just -1.4 to league over that span).
I get that there is a high degree of focus on shooting efficiency (not just here, but among NBA coaching/strategists)......but I suspect this forum would think more highly of Iverson if he's played fewer minutes and deferred more to his offensively weak teammates while on the court, averaging ~25 ppg (on 20 FGA/g) and 7 apg with .530 TS% (+0.7%), even if the result was that the average team ORtg over that span FELL by ~0.5 to avg 102.5 (maybe marginally fewer wins, too). Because hey, at least his shooting efficiency is OK there.

[E-Balla]

I don't see how Iverson is better than Chauncey Billups.

For those touting AI, why did the Nuggets get better when they traded AI for Billups while the Pistons collapsed once they got AI?

Prime Chauncey (2003-2010): 613 games (21210 minutes) 34.6 mpg, 17.4/3.2/6.3, 121 ORTG, 59.3 TS (56.5 TS pre handcheck), 12.9 TOV%, 20.6 PER, +5.1 on/off (+7.1 on).

Prime Iverson (1999-2006): 526 games - there's a lockout in there (22246 minutes) 42.3 mpg, 29.6/4.0/5.9, 104 ORTG, 51.0 TS (49.9 TS pre hand check), 11.4 TOV%, 22.3 PER, +4.5 on/off (+2.0 on).

Postseason prime Chauncey: 37.7 mpg, 18.1/3.4/6.0, 19.7 PER, 58.3 TS (54.7 TS pre hand check), 12.7 TOV%, 19.7 PER.

Postseason prime Iverson: 45.1 mpg, 30.6/4.2/6.1, 105 ORTG (yes an increase and he played over 90% of games prior to hand checking rule changes), 49.1 TS% (48.6 TS pre hand check), 9.3 TOV% (explains why his ORTG didn't drop), 22.0 PER.

I think his playoff struggles are overstated a bit and statistically Chauncey isn't well over Iverson despite having way better teammates. Iverson led the 01 Sixers to 56 wins and the 13th ranked offense with crap surrounding him. The best Chauncey did as the best offensive player on a team was 64 wins with the 4th ranked offense in 06 while having 3 offensive players (Tay, Rip, and Sheed) better than AI's best (McKie).

These guys also played head to head in the playoffs twice and Iverson dominated Chauncey. In the 8 games they've played against each other Iverson averaged 32.1/2.8/9.8, 54.5 TS, 13.0 TOV% while Chauncey averaged 18.6/4.9/5.8, 64.0 TS, 12.6 TOV%. Iverson was playing the 03 and 05 Pistons defense which was well over the average level of the Sixers defense.

[penbeast0]

So, Iverson paired with another top 100 player (Carmelo) can produce an offense rated 9th or 11th in the league. English is appreciably more efficient, a class act, works harder on defense, and produces 5 straight top 5 offenses and 2 straight #1 in the league offenses and Iverson fans will start considering them after Iverson is in. I don't see it.

So, paired with 2 other top 50 players (Nash and Dwight) Kobe can produce an offense rated 9th and win 47 games.

So, great defender who also rebounded and scored a bit on reasonably good efficiency v. low percentage gunner who notoriously blew off practice and played poor defense. VOTE Dikembe Mutombo Mpolondo Mukamba Jean-Jacques Wamutombo

So, great volume ball handler who also dragged some terrible offenses to respectable levels or offensively limited big man who never recieved a single RPOY vote.

See how easy it is to dismiss the other side when using fallacious arguments.

That was an answer to the comment that Iverson when paired with Anthony had more efficient years than his Philly years and offenses ranked 9th and 11th . . . compare that to English's accomplishments. Then compare English's individual numbers to Iverson . . . then compare durability . . . then compare English's reputation for being a team guy and generally class act to Iverson. I don't see any way that Iverson comes out on top in anything except (as always his only argument when compared to a legitimate top 50 player) he had a higher scoring average. That he scored those points inefficiently, that he required an offense that was Iverson isolates while everyone else stands around for a possible kickout, that he was frequently burned on defense both because of his gambling and because he felt that as a scorer he could take defensive possessions off, that he blew off practices with regularity . . . none of it matters because he had a high points per game average and was fun to watch. That's not my criteria for greatness; mine is helping a team win and being able to help a team win championships.

English did that better than Iverson, Mutombo did that better than Iverson, it's way too early for someone with Iverson's resume.

[penbeast0]

I don't remember Alex English being a good defender. His teams were amount the worst in the league at opponents field goal percentage.

.....

As I said earlier, check the post-Issel Nuggets. With still pretty mediocre but not disastrous bigs defensively (the biggest 2 were Danny Schayes and Wayne Cooper), the Nuggs were a top 10 defense 4 of the last 5 years of the 80s while English was still their best offensive player. It's just disguised a bit by the Nuggets continuing to play at a very fast pace. As for the first 5 years, they were great offensively (top 5 every year, 1st twice) but Scottie Pippen couldn't carry a C/F combination of Dan Issel and Kiki Vandeweghe to a decent defensive rating.

[lorak]

I don't see how Iverson is better than Chauncey Billups.

For those touting AI, why did the Nuggets get better when they traded AI for Billups

That's actually a myth. Nuggets in 2009 had worse SRS than in 2008, their offense also regressed and they improved on defense - not because of Bullups, but because of better frontcourt rotation (mainly because Nene was finally healthy).

[colts18]

I don't see how Iverson is better than Chauncey Billups.

For those touting AI, why did the Nuggets get better when they traded AI for Billups

That's actually a myth. Nuggets in 2009 had worse SRS than in 2008, their offense also regressed and they improved on defense - not because of Bullups, but because of better frontcourt rotation (mainly because Nene was finally healthy).

They got better in 2009. They made the WCF because Billups was more suited as a playoff player than AI. Billups killed it in the playoffs that year. AI never had a playoff run like that before.

The Nuggets got better in 2010 and 2011 too. Look at how their offense took off in the 3 years Billups was there and compare it to AI's tenure as a Nugget.

AI Nuggets:
07: 8th
08: 11th

Billups Nuggets:
09: 7th
10: 8th
11: 1st

[trex_8063]

A little more on Iverson's context in Philadelphia....

When Iverson missed games in his prime:
’00
11/24/99: 93 pts, .510 TS%, 96.9 ORtg (L)
11/26/99: 106 pts (OT), .530 TS%, 114.5 ORtg (W)
11/27/99: 82 pts, .420 TS%, 92.3 ORtg (W)
11/30/99: 74 pts, .424 TS%, 82.8 ORtg (W)
12/1/99: 83 pts, .469 TS%, 97.5 ORtg (L)
12/3/99: 102 pts, .504 TS%, 98.6 ORtg (W)
12/4/99: 77 pts, .503 TS%, 95.3 ORtg (W)
12/6/99: 77 pts, .410 TS%, 81.2 ORtg (L)
12/8/99: 83 pts, .458 TS%, 91.2 ORtg (W)
12/10/99: 78 pts, .406 TS%, 90.3 ORtg (L)
3/16/00: 77 pts, .470 TS%, 91.0 ORtg (L)
4/18/00: 93 pts, .521 TS%, 105.1 ORtg (W)
Avg: 85.4 ppg, ~.469 TS%, 94.7 ORtg (7-5 (.583) w/o, 42-28 (.600) with)
Where that would rank in league: 28th of 29 in ppg, 29th of 29 in TS%, 28th of 29 in ORtg.

’01
12/26/00: 97 pts, .615 TS%, 113.7 ORtg (W)
01/19/01: 97 pts, .610 TS%, 110.8 ORtg (W)
03/14/01: 85 pts, .546 TS%, 107.7 ORtg (W)
03/17/01: 78 pts, .529 TS%, 95.7 ORtg (L)
03/19/01: 89 pts, .551 TS%, 106.8 ORtg (L)
03/20/01: 77 pts, .447 TS%, 98.8 ORtg (L)
03/23/01: 71 pts, .435 TS%, 83.6 ORtg (L)
04/04/01: 90 pts, .424 TS%, 97.1 ORtg (W)
04/06/01: 96 pts, .495 TS%, 114.2 ORtg (W)
04/17/01: 111 pts (OT), .522 TS%, 106.3 ORtg (W)
04/18/01: 86 pts, .498 TS%, 100.7 ORtg (L---to worst team in league)
Avg: 88.8 pts, ~.516 TS%, 103.2 ORtg (6-5 (.545) w/o, 50-21 (.704) with)
Where that would rank in league: 27th of 29 in ppg, 14th of 29 in TS%, tied for 13th of 29 in ORtg (couple flukey >.600 TS% game in this sample, though)

’02
10/30/01: 74 pts, .451 TS%, 92.0 ORtg (L)
11/01/01: 92 pts, .535 TS%, 101.6 ORtg (L)
11/03/01: 76 pts, .479 TS%, 89.1 ORtg (L)
11/06/01: 77 pts, .479 TS%, 96.6 ORtg (L)
11/08/01: 72 pts, .463 TS%, 89.2 ORtg (L)
12/07/01: 76 pts, .426 TS%, 91.0 ORtg (L)
12/08/01: 83 pts, .501 TS%, 95.1 ORtg (L)
02/17/02: 76 pts, .395 TS%, 86.6 ORtg (L)
03/24/02: 90 pts, .532 TS%, 112.9 ORtg (W)
03/27/02: 80 pts, .448 TS%, 88.1 ORtg (L)
03/28/02: 99 pts, .548 TS%, 110.0 ORtg (W)
03/30/02: 92 pts, .491 TS%, 108.9 ORtg (L)
03/31/02: 70 pts, .451 TS%, 85.8 ORtg (L)
04/03/02: 89 pts, .486 TS%, 96.1 ORtg (W)
04/05/02: 88 pts, .504 TS%, 111.8 ORtg (L)
04/07/02: 89 pts, .535 TS%, 110.7 ORtg (W)
04/09/02: 92 pts, .516 TS%, 114.5 ORtg (W)
04/10/02: 77 pts, .452 TS%, 91.8 ORtg (L)
04/12/02: 100 pts, .563 TS%, 115.5 ORtg (W)
04/14/02: 95 pts, .556 TS%, 114.2 ORtg (W)
04/15/02: 96 pts, .501 TS%, 108.1 ORtg (L)
04/17/02: 80 pts, .481 TS%, 94.3 ORtg (L)
Avg: 84.7 pts, .491 TS%, 100.2 ORtg (7-15 (.318) w/o, 36-24 (.600) with)
Where that would rank in league: 29th of 29 in ppg, 29th of 29 in TS%, 26th of 29 in ORtg

He didn't miss any games in '03; am still working on '04 thru '06; will try to post it later.

[trex_8063]

I don't see how Iverson is better than Chauncey Billups.

For those touting AI, why did the Nuggets get better when they traded AI for Billups

That's actually a myth. Nuggets in 2009 had worse SRS than in 2008, their offense also regressed and they improved on defense - not because of Bullups, but because of better frontcourt rotation (mainly because Nene was finally healthy).

They got better in 2009. They made the WCF because Billups was more suited as a playoff player than AI.

No (or at least not only due to Billups playing well). They got to the WCF in part because they didn't find themselves matched up against a 7.34 SRS eventual WC Champ in the first round. In part because the WC was a little weaker that year: by improving by a mere 4 games from '08, their seeding improved from #8 to #2.
But as E-Balla said, they were actually -0.61 in SRS relative to '08.

The Nuggets got better in 2010 and 2011 too. Look at how their offense took off in the 3 years Billups was there and compare it to AI's tenure as a Nugget.

AI Nuggets:
07: 8th
08: 11th

Billups Nuggets:
09: 7th
10: 8th
11: 1st

I think the additions of Arron Afflalo and Ty Lawson, as well as the maturation of Nene, helped too.

[lorak]

I don't see how Iverson is better than Chauncey Billups.

For those touting AI, why did the Nuggets get better when they traded AI for Billups

That's actually a myth. Nuggets in 2009 had worse SRS than in 2008, their offense also regressed and they improved on defense - not because of Bullups, but because of better frontcourt rotation (mainly because Nene was finally healthy).

They got better in 2009.

They didn't. Nuggets SRS WAS WORSE IN 2009. Their offense also was worse. Explain that if Billups was really so better fit and so on.

They made the WCF because Billups was more suited as a playoff player than AI.

They made WCF, because of better seed, what was result of several more lucky wins in RS. But at the end effect was the same - they lost to further finalist.