Is Wall Top 5 PG?

[keynote]

I didn't see this posted elsewhere, but here's some nice national media love for Wall's defense, courtesy of SI:

http://www.si.com/nba/2015/01/15/fundam ... es-forward

[payitforward]

scoring isnt easy, scoring 30pts a game in a season is hard no matter how many shots you take...simply because every shot gets harder

Really? Don't you think that's kind of a silly idea, deneem? Or, do you have some data to prove it? Or even to try to support it just a little bit?

Nah... because there isn't any data that supports it. There are players who score lots of points, and do it at a high rate of efficiency -- Wilt Chamberlain springs to mind. Was every shot he took a little harder than the last one?

If every shot gets harder, then throughout the game players' FG%s would drop. Does that happen? Nah.

Michael Jordan was great, elite. Kobe is a very good player, but not great in that way, not elite.

As to AI, he was a marvel and a wonder -- pound for pound probably the greatest player of his era, maybe ever. But "pound for pound" isn't a competitive measure in basketball. It was amazing that he could do what he did, but what he did wasn't all that amazing. He scored a lot -- a huge lot -- because he took a lot of shots -- a huge lot.

But he shot a low %. So what does that leave you saying -- that he was great *because* he shot a low %?

[deneem4]

scoring isnt easy, scoring 30pts a game in a season is hard no matter how many shots you take...simply because every shot gets harder

Really? Don't you think that's kind of a silly idea, deneem? Or, do you have some data to prove it? Or even to try to support it just a little bit?

Nah... because there isn't any data that supports it. There are players who score lots of points, and do it at a high rate of efficiency -- Wilt Chamberlain springs to mind. Was every shot he took a little harder than the last one?

If every shot gets harder, then throughout the game players' FG%s would drop. Does that happen? Nah.

Michael Jordan was great, elite. Kobe is a very good player, but not great in that way, not elite.

As to AI, he was a marvel and a wonder -- pound for pound probably the greatest player of his era, maybe ever. But "pound for pound" isn't a competitive measure in basketball. It was amazing that he could do what he did, but what he did wasn't all that amazing. He scored a lot -- a huge lot -- because he took a lot of shots -- a huge lot.

But he shot a low %. So what does that leave you saying -- that he was great *because* he shot a low %?

if consistent scoring was easy we'll have the best point guard in the league...instead its not...
proof scoring gets harder is in the attention u receive from defenses night in and out which makes it harder in most cases...
its a reason he outright led his team to the finals past other great shooting guards

I understand u dont like my opinion but its fact iverson was a top 10 sg go thru any sites blogs sport media coverage ask jordan kobe wade etc...the man was top 10, find 5 players that won mutiple scoring titles and steal titles....
u still have yet to giv me 10 definte sgs who were better...

[Kanyewest]

He got overrated by folks like you.

For that trip to the Finals, you may recall the Sixers acquired Dikembe Mutombo, who produced at an elite level the rest of that season. That was probably the best sustained stretch of Mutombo's career, by the way. He was never that productive again.

Seriously, though -- I really liked Iverson. Despite the flaws, he was a very good player for a ton of years (and minutes). Just not as good as folks thought he was.

Also, his road the Finals went through pretty ordinary Toronto and Milwaukee teams, and it took 7 games to get through both teams. It was almost certainly the weakest competition any Finals team has ever faced.

Then Nivek went on to say that 4 of those guys that Iverson went on to face in the playoffs were better shooting guards including Reggie Miller, Vince Carter, Ray Allen, and Kobe Bryant were arguably top 10 shooting guards of all time- so I'm not sure how all of them were ordinary. I remember people picking Indiana to win that series because the Pacers had made the finals the prior year plus they had owned the 76ers in the playoffs.

BTW, that Milwaulkee Bucks team was pretty good at 52 wins. Ray Allen, Sam Cassell, and Glenn Robinson. Plus they had Tim Thomas before he was overpaid, Lindsay Hunter off the bench and few decent energy guys including Darvin Ham and Ervin Johnson.

Toronto beat the New York Knicks who weren't too shabby with Mark Jackson, Latrell Sprewell, Marcus Camby, and Allan Houston.

The big thing that changed after that for Iverson (and even for Shaq) though was that the illegal defense rule was eliminated- which did hurt Iverson's effectiveness. But certainly that was Iverson's year especially the team that was built around him that played solid defense and grabbed offensive boards off of Iverson's penetration.

[nate33]

He got overrated by folks like you.

For that trip to the Finals, you may recall the Sixers acquired Dikembe Mutombo, who produced at an elite level the rest of that season. That was probably the best sustained stretch of Mutombo's career, by the way. He was never that productive again.

Seriously, though -- I really liked Iverson. Despite the flaws, he was a very good player for a ton of years (and minutes). Just not as good as folks thought he was.

Also, his road the Finals went through pretty ordinary Toronto and Milwaukee teams, and it took 7 games to get through both teams. It was almost certainly the weakest competition any Finals team has ever faced.

Then Nivek went on to say that 4 of those guys that Iverson went on to face in the playoffs were better shooting guards including Reggie Miller, Vince Carter, Ray Allen, and Kobe Bryant were arguably top 10 shooting guards of all time- so I'm not sure how all of them were ordinary. I remember people picking Indiana to win that series because the Pacers had made the finals the prior year plus they had owned the 76ers in the playoffs.

BTW, that Milwaulkee Bucks team was pretty good at 52 wins. Ray Allen, Sam Cassell, and Glenn Robinson. Plus they had Tim Thomas before he was overpaid, Lindsay Hunter off the bench and few decent energy guys including Darvin Ham and Ervin Johnson.

Toronto beat the New York Knicks who weren't too shabby with Mark Jackson, Latrell Sprewell, Marcus Camby, and Allan Houston.

The big thing that changed after that for Iverson (and even for Shaq) though was that the illegal defense rule was eliminated- which did hurt Iverson's effectiveness. But certainly that was Iverson's year especially the team that was built around him that played solid defense and grabbed offensive boards off of Iverson's penetration.

Look at it this way. If the Wizards made it to the Finals this year by beating Milwaukee in the first round, Chicago in the 2nd round, and Toronto in the 3rd round, and then went on to lose to the West team 4-1, would that make John Wall a top 10 PG of all time?

[stevemcqueen1]

Look at it this way. If the Wizards made it to the Finals this year by beating Milwaukee in the first round, Chicago in the 2nd round, and Toronto in the 3rd round, and then went on to lose to the West team 4-1, would that make John Wall a top 10 PG of all time?

Certainly not. But Iverson's esteem is based on a lot more than just that one run.

Which SGs would you put in the top ten before Iverson? I'm struggling to think of ten who were better.

- Jordan, West, Kobe, Wade for sure
- Maybe Drexler?
- Maybe Gervin?

- Maaaaaybe you could argue for Sidney Moncrief at his absolute peak but that was like a three year run. Iverson's career body of work was clearly better and Moncrief was never an MVP candidate.

Pearl, Allen, and Miller were top ten guys but none were better than Iverson. Maravich would have been a poor man's Iverson if he'd played in the same era. Hondo was obviously better but he's more accurately categorized as a SF. You'd have to go far back and stretch to argue some of the old Celtics like Bill Sharman and Sam Jones were better.

The list of top ten all time SGs isn't actually that deep. It shows that the position didn't really evolve in it's importance until about the time of Moncrief and Jordan. Before that, most of the best and most impactful players in the game were forwards and centers.

[stevemcqueen1]

Another thing, Iverson's era was the best SG era in NBA history and for the majority of it, Iverson and Kobe traded the title of best SG back and forth. Guys like Reggie Miller and Ray Allen and Vince Carter were most definitely NOT better than him. Nobody would have accepted that as true at the time. Iverson was a force of nature during his peak.

[nate33]

Look at it this way. If the Wizards made it to the Finals this year by beating Milwaukee in the first round, Chicago in the 2nd round, and Toronto in the 3rd round, and then went on to lose to the West team 4-1, would that make John Wall a top 10 PG of all time?

Certainly not. But Iverson's esteem is based on a lot more than just that one run.

Which SGs would you put in the top ten before Iverson? I'm struggling to think of ten who were better.

- Jordan, West, Kobe, Wade for sure
- Maybe Drexler?
- Maybe Gervin?

- Maaaaaybe you could argue for Sidney Moncrief at his absolute peak but that was like a three year run. Iverson's career body of work was clearly better and Moncrief was never an MVP candidate.

Pearl, Allen, and Miller were top ten guys but none were better than Iverson. Maravich would have been a poor man's Iverson if he'd played in the same era. Hondo was obviously better but he's more accurately categorized as a SF. You'd have to go far back and stretch to argue some of the old Celtics like Bill Sharman and Sam Jones were better.

The list of top ten all time SGs isn't actually that deep. It shows that the position didn't really evolve in it's importance until about the time of Moncrief and Jordan. Before that, most of the best and most impactful players in the game were forwards and centers.

I contend that Iverson's career wasn't really as impressive as our nostalgic memories recall. Fact is, Iverson was a turnover-prone, low-percentage shot-jacker who didn't win very much. Here are the Sixers win totals in his 10 years with the franchise: 22, 31, 46*, 49, 56, 43, 48, 33, 43, 38, 35. He had just 4 seasons of solid, winning basketball in a weak conference (the asterisk is the strike-shortened year, the 46 is an extrapolation). And during those 4 seasons, he never got past the 2nd round of the playoffs except for the one Finals run in 2000-01.

His individual numbers looked good on paper because he played so many minutes. He had 4 seasons when he broke the 30 ppg mark, but it took him 42-44 minutes to do so. On a per-36 basis, he was scoring about 26 a game, which is in line with the guys that Nivek mentioned (Moncrief, Drexler, Allen, etc.) only the guys Nivek mentioned were posting ORtg's around 120 while Iversons were typically below 105. Iverson surely deserves credit for his endurance, but that doesn't make him a better player on the floor than guys who outproduce him on a minute-by-minute basis.

So really, it's that one Finals run that enhances his legacy more than anything else. If not for that run, then he's really little more than World B Free for 44 minutes a game rather than 36. I'm sorry. If I'm trying to win games, I'd much rather have someone like Harden, Moncrief, Ginobili, Allen or Reggie Miller. Maybe those guys wouldn't do as well as Iverson in a one-man-show configuration, but those guys have the type of skills that mesh well with other good players so that you can build a contender. Iverson was unable to play alongside other good offensive players with much effectiveness.

[Nivek]

This one of those conversations that never changes anyone's position. Reputation and fan appreciation isn't the same thing as being a great player. Names change, times change, information changes, but the same conversations keep happening. My guess is that if I ran that made up junk stat "only good stuff," Iverson would be near the top all-time. Then if I ran the counterpart "only bad stuff" he'd probably be near the top there too.

[Nivek]

Another thing, Iverson's era was the best SG era in NBA history and for the majority of it, Iverson and Kobe traded the title of best SG back and forth. Guys like Reggie Miller and Ray Allen and Vince Carter were most definitely NOT better than him. Nobody would have accepted that as true at the time. Iverson was a force of nature during his peak.

I would have accepted it as true. A lot of people would have. Iverson was good, but there were plenty of folks arguing he was overrated and pointing to his missed shots and turnovers as evidence.

Definitely agree that MANY people thought Iverson was great. Heck, I was amazed by him and loved watching him play. One of my top basketball memories was going to Philly to see him go up against the Antoine Walker & Paul Pierce Celtics. He made a bunch plays late (as did Mutombo), and the Sixers won. But, I think when folks talk/talked about him as being "the best SG," they were/are overrating him.

[Nivek]

named 10 sg better than iverson from 1975 and up

Don't have time to do much digging, but...off the top of my head and in no particular order, Jordan, McGrady, Wade, Ginobili, Moncrief, Ray Allen, Drexler, and Kobe for sure. That's eight. Vince Carter. Harden. Fat Lever (I looked him up) had four seasons better than Iverson's best, but his career was cut short by injury. I could see taking Iverson over him on longevity. Reggie Miller, probably. Maybe Gervin.

That's 13 -- two of them arguable -- off the top of my head. I know I'm forgetting someone. And it leaves out players before 1975 who were pretty good. And some guys who had a really good season or two, but got hurt. I'm thinking Brandon Roy.

Mitch Richmond?

I just looked Richmond up. The numbers aren't as good as I remember him being -- perhaps part of the reason why his team usually weren't all that good? His three best years in my numbers were 1995-1998 (ages 30-32). PPA those years: 141, 153, 147. Before that, he was above average, but not impressively so.

Before the 1998-99 season, he got traded to Washington, whereupon his production went off a cliff -- 89, 106, 83. He finished up with a 41 PPA season with the Lakers.

When I look at Richmond, I see pretty average offensive efficiency most years. He didn't rebound or do much defensive work.

Iverson was better.

[stevemcqueen1]

I contend that Iverson's career wasn't really as impressive as our nostalgic memories recall. Fact is, Iverson was a turnover-prone, low-percentage shot-jacker who didn't win very much. Here are the Sixers win totals in his 10 years with the franchise: 22, 31, 46*, 49, 56, 43, 48, 33, 43, 38, 35. He had just 4 seasons of solid, winning basketball in a weak conference (the asterisk is the strike-shortened year, the 46 is an extrapolation). And during those 4 seasons, he never got past the 2nd round of the playoffs except for the one Finals run in 2000-01.

His individual numbers looked good on paper because he played so many minutes. He had 4 seasons when he broke the 30 ppg mark, but it took him 42-44 minutes to do so. On a per-36 basis, he was scoring about 26 a game, which is in line with the guys that Nivek mentioned (Moncrief, Drexler, Allen, etc.) only the guys Nivek mentioned were posting ORtg's around 120 while Iversons were typically below 105. Iverson surely deserves credit for his endurance, but that doesn't make him a better player on the floor than guys who outproduce him on a minute-by-minute basis.

So really, it's that one Finals run that enhances his legacy more than anything else. If not for that run, then he's really little more than World B Free for 44 minutes a game rather than 36. I'm sorry. If I'm trying to win games, I'd much rather have someone like Harden, Moncrief, Ginobili, Allen or Reggie Miller. Maybe those guys wouldn't do as well as Iverson in a one-man-show configuration, but those guys have the type of skills that mesh well with other good players so that you can build a contender. Iverson was unable to play alongside other good offensive players with much effectiveness.

When did Iverson actually ever play with elite offensive players though? Not during the good part of his career, he got one real season in Denver before he fell off the cliff.

Iverson was a brilliant offensive player. I don't care as much about ORtg in this context because it doesn't account for role. Ray Allen, Drexler, Miller, Moncrieff, etc. simply could not have performed the role Iverson did. They didn't have anywhere near his unbelievable explosiveness, skill, and creativity. Nor that kind of Alpha dog ultra-competitiveness that the GOATs have. The inefficient ISO ball slashing that Iverson excelled at was how NBA offense was played back then. During the late 90s and early 2000's, the only guys who did it as well as him were Jordan and Kobe. That's why he was one of the most valuable and dominant offensive players in the NBA during his prime.

The esteem in which people held Iverson back then was real too, it's not produced form nostalgia. There is a whole generation of perimeter players in the NBA right now for whom Michael Jordan and Allen Iverson were their biggest influences as they grew up and learned the game. The players know who the good players are/were. The basketball world understood Iverson was a stud and one of the best players in the league. His legacy is only coming under fire now because the context of the NBA game has changed so much that his career numbers don't look good compared to the high efficiency numbers produced by the top scorer's in today's game. It's not an apples to apples comparison though.

[Kanyewest]

Look at it this way. If the Wizards made it to the Finals this year by beating Milwaukee in the first round, Chicago in the 2nd round, and Toronto in the 3rd round, and then went on to lose to the West team 4-1, would that make John Wall a top 10 PG of all time?

We'll have to see how history judges those on Bucks, Bulls, and Raptors team (btw why didn't you have the Hawks in the Eastern Conference finals ) . Wall would certainly have leg up on Knight, Rose, and Lowry. In Iverson's case, he went up against Reggie Miller who had just been to the NBA Finals the prior season, Vince Carter who had his best season ever in his career, and Ray Allen in his prime.

And yes the 76ers lost the series 4-1. But Shaq/Kobe Lakers proved that they may have been one of the greatest teams of all time given that they had yet to lose a playoff game until entering the NBA Finals. I don't think many teams historically could have beaten the Lakers in a 7 game series with the illegal defense rule.

[Kanyewest]

I contend that Iverson's career wasn't really as impressive as our nostalgic memories recall. Fact is, Iverson was a turnover-prone, low-percentage shot-jacker who didn't win very much. Here are the Sixers win totals in his 10 years with the franchise: 22, 31, 46*, 49, 56, 43, 48, 33, 43, 38, 35. He had just 4 seasons of solid, winning basketball in a weak conference (the asterisk is the strike-shortened year, the 46 is an extrapolation). And during those 4 seasons, he never got past the 2nd round of the playoffs except for the one Finals run in 2000-01.

His individual numbers looked good on paper because he played so many minutes. He had 4 seasons when he broke the 30 ppg mark, but it took him 42-44 minutes to do so. On a per-36 basis, he was scoring about 26 a game, which is in line with the guys that Nivek mentioned (Moncrief, Drexler, Allen, etc.) only the guys Nivek mentioned were posting ORtg's around 120 while Iversons were typically below 105. Iverson surely deserves credit for his endurance, but that doesn't make him a better player on the floor than guys who outproduce him on a minute-by-minute basis.

So really, it's that one Finals run that enhances his legacy more than anything else. If not for that run, then he's really little more than World B Free for 44 minutes a game rather than 36. I'm sorry. If I'm trying to win games, I'd much rather have someone like Harden, Moncrief, Ginobili, Allen or Reggie Miller. Maybe those guys wouldn't do as well as Iverson in a one-man-show configuration, but those guys have the type of skills that mesh well with other good players so that you can build a contender. Iverson was unable to play alongside other good offensive players with much effectiveness.

When did Iverson actually ever play with elite offensive players though? Not during the good part of his career, he got one real season in Denver before he fell off the cliff.

Iverson was a brilliant offensive player. I don't care as much about ORtg in this context because it doesn't account for role. Ray Allen, Drexler, Miller, Moncrieff, etc. simply could not have performed the role Iverson did. They didn't have anywhere near his unbelievable explosiveness, skill, and creativity. Nor that kind of Alpha dog ultra-competitiveness that the GOATs have. The inefficient ISO ball slashing that Iverson excelled at was how NBA offense was played back then. During the late 90s and early 2000's, the only guys who did it as well as him were Jordan and Kobe. That's why he was one of the most valuable and dominant offensive players in the NBA during his prime.

The esteem in which people held Iverson back then was real too, it's not produced form nostalgia. There is a whole generation of perimeter players in the NBA right now for whom Michael Jordan and Allen Iverson were their biggest influences as they grew up and learned the game. The players know who the good players are/were. The basketball world understood Iverson was a stud and one of the best players in the league. His legacy is only coming under fire now because the context of the NBA game has changed so much that his career numbers don't look good compared to the high efficiency numbers produced by the top scorer's in today's game. It's not an apples to apples comparison though.

And even Nivek will tell you that Anthony was overrated .

[Nivek]

When did Iverson actually ever play with elite offensive players though? Not during the good part of his career, he got one real season in Denver before he fell off the cliff.

Iverson was a brilliant offensive player. I don't care as much about ORtg in this context because it doesn't account for role. Ray Allen, Drexler, Miller, Moncrieff, etc. simply could not have performed the role Iverson did. They didn't have anywhere near his unbelievable explosiveness, skill, and creativity. Nor that kind of Alpha dog ultra-competitiveness that the GOATs have. The inefficient ISO ball slashing that Iverson excelled at was how NBA offense was played back then. During the late 90s and early 2000's, the only guys who did it as well as him were Jordan and Kobe. That's why he was one of the most valuable and dominant offensive players in the NBA during his prime.

Well, sorta. League average offensive efficiency was 105.3 during Iverson's career. Iverson's career ortg was 105. So, average. But, when you compare him to other high usage players (30+% usage rate), Iverson was 7th out of 7 in efficiency during his career -- behind Lebron, Kobe, Wade, Jordan, McGrady and Anthony. Make the usage cutoff 28% and Iverson is 14th out of 16.

I don't think anyone would accuse Iverson of being a bad offensive player (I certainly wouldn't). Rather, the low efficiency compared to other high usage players keeps him out of the group of elite offensive players. Elite offensive players combine high usage and efficiency. Iverson didn't.

The esteem in which people held Iverson back then was real too, it's not produced form nostalgia. There is a whole generation of perimeter players in the NBA right now for whom Michael Jordan and Allen Iverson were their biggest influences as they grew up and learned the game. The players know who the good players are/were. The basketball world understood Iverson was a stud and one of the best players in the league. His legacy is only coming under fire now because the context of the NBA game has changed so much that his career numbers don't look good compared to the high efficiency numbers produced by the top scorer's in today's game. It's not an apples to apples comparison though.

I agree with the first part of this section -- Iverson was extremely popular. I don't agree his legacy is being attacked because how we've valued efficiency has changed. I (among others) made many of these same points and comparisons during Iverson's career. And, even comparing him to his peers in similar roles, he shows up as less efficient. What he accomplished during his career was damned impressive. No need to exaggerate it.

[nate33]

When did Iverson actually ever play with elite offensive players though? Not during the good part of his career, he got one real season in Denver before he fell off the cliff.

During his time with Philly, he played alongside Derrick Coleman (age 30), Jim Jackson (age 27), Jerry Stackhouse (ages 22-23), Larry Hughes (ages 20-21), Tony Kukoc (ages 31-32), Matt Harpring (age 25), Keith Van Horn (age 27), Glenn Robinson (age 31), Andre Iguodala (ages 21-22).

In all cases, these other players scored dramatically more points at a higher efficiency when playing elsewhere, away from Iverson (or in Philly after Iverson left). Any one of these guys could have been a 15-20 point scorer at the time they were with Iverson, but instead ended up being a 10-12 PPG player. The only instance where a player even came close to his career best numbers was with Keith Van Horn.

When Iverson left Philly, they jumped from a .333 record (5-10) to a .447 (30-37) record. When Iverson joined Denver, they fell from a .608 record (14-9) to a .540 record (27-23). And we all know that the Iverson/Carmelo experiment didn't go well.

In Iverson's final year in Denver, they won 50 games. After trading him for Billups, Denver won 54 games. In Detroit's last year with Billups, they won 59 games. After trading for Iverson, they won 39 games.

[Kanyewest]

Seeing Iverson's best teammates is laugahable considering Kobe's best teammates which included Eddie Jones, Nick Vax Exel, Shaq, Derek Fisher, Horace Grant, Robert Horry, Brian Shaw, Karl Malone, Isiah Rider, Mitch Richmond, and Gary Payton. And that's just from Kobe's first three peat. Then Kobe gets to play with Caron Butler, Lamar Odom, Pau Gasol, Derek Fisher, Trevor Ariza, Ron Artest, and Dwight Howard.

It helps that Ray Allen was able to preserve his health and reinvent himself after he aged but his teammates have included Cassell, Robinson, Lewis, Pierce, KG, Rondo, LeBron, Wade, and Bosh.

Well Iverson also got to play with Aaron McKie who was 6th man of the year who also broke his ankle in the NBA Finals and career was never the same. So that's something. And yes Mutombo was really good- problem was when he went against someone like Shaq he was just average.

The Nuggets were worse when they acquired Iverson than after because Carmelo Anthony/JR Smith/Nene were beginning to serve their suspensions in their roles in the Nuggets/Knicks brawl. And of course the Wizards somehow managed to lose this game to Andre Miller on the very same road trip when Arenas scored 60 points against the Lakers and 50+ against the Wizards. The Nuggets finished that season 10-1 to make the playoffs.

The narrative that the 76ers were better off without Iverson is also a bit silly since Philly was 0-8 without Iverson before the trade.

And yes at that point in Iverson's career when he was traded for Billups, he was never the same player. Kobe/Allen/Carter ceertainly have a case for better longevity- although none of those guys logged the same number of minutes per game as Iverson did.

[deneem4]

mvp
multiple scoring titles
mutiple steal titles
mutiple nba 1st team

Iverson is 6ft westbrook without durant BUT BETTER...and no mattee how u feel about westbrook stats attitude demeanor, the man is elite.
when people discuss westbrook stats later on they will say hes inefficient and turnover prone....true to a degree..but the stats dont show the heart n love he played with...
stats will never show how an inefficient 6ft scorer won mvp n carried his team to the finals...


now on to wall...i wish wall took almost as many shots as iverson did SOME GAMES...simply because no one else on the team wants to average more than 15pts Beal is capable but for some reason he not...when wall become a more aggressive scorer assisting will be easier....

is it wrong to want wall to be as good as a young isiah thomas neither are excellent shooters both great passers both have sg sidekicks but 20/10 should be wall minimum til he starts to decline

[Nivek]

Iverson is 6ft westbrook without durant BUT BETTER...and no mattee how u feel about westbrook stats attitude demeanor, the man is elite.
when people discuss westbrook stats later on they will say hes inefficient and turnover prone....true to a degree..but the stats dont show the heart n love he played with...

Westbrook has two seasons so far that rate better than Iverson's best (at least in terms of contributing to winning games), and he's working on a third. He does miss shots and commit a lot turnovers, but Westbrook rebounds well, assists well, and is an extremely effective defender.

Out of curiosity, I ran my statistical doppelganger machine on Iverson. For his MVP season, 6 of the top 10 "similars" were himself. Pretty unique player. The closest non-Iverson comps were: Stackhouse, Kobe twice (2006-07 and 2002-03) and Arenas.

The most similar (though not very) player from last season was Carmelo Anthony.

In my numbers, Iverson's best season was 2005-06. Once again, 6 of his top 10 "similars" where himself. I haven't done an extensive study, but of the players I've looked at through this "doppelganger machine" I haven't found a guy as unique as Iverson. The most similar non-Iverson comps for that 2005-06 season:

- Kobe 2006-07
- Wade 2009-10
- Kobe 2008-09
- Stackhouse 2000-01

None of those guys are very close, though. Iverson was really unique. Once again, the closest player from 2013-14 was Carmelo.

stats will never show how an inefficient 6ft scorer won mvp n carried his team to the finals...

Well, actually they do. Or, more correctly stated, they show how the Sixers got there. Iverson was a BIG contributor on offense. His personal efficiency was better than average that season (106 vs. league average of 103), and better than his team's efficiency that season (Philly scored 103.6 points per 100 possessions). Philly's strength that season was really its outstanding defense (5th best in the regular season -- less than a point per 100 possessions behind the league leading teams that season).

That was also the year Larry Brown won Coach of the Year, Mutombo won Defensive Player of the Year, and McKie won 6th man of the year. Probably the most decorated no-talent team in league history.

[tontoz]

Iverson averaged almost 4 3 pointers per game even though he shot them at 31.3% for his career. GOAT