2017 Isaiah Thomas is better than any version of Iverson.

[OkcSinceSGA]

Iverson was a MVP, 7x all NBA, 4x scoring leader, 3x steals leader, http://www.landofbasketball.com/player_comparison/allen_iverson_vs_isaiah_thomas.htm


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

Again miss entire point of thread and compare careers. Keep up man.

[permaximum]

Iverson was a MVP, 7x all NBA, 4x scoring leader, 3x steals leader, http://www.landofbasketball.com/player_comparison/allen_iverson_vs_isaiah_thomas.htm


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

Again miss entire point of thread and compare careers. Keep up man.

Iverson's peak was MVP - the best basketball player on the planet - .

Isaiah's peak is what? Being a member of All-NBA Third Team?

This is enough for 28 pages of arguments.

[jonjames]

Iverson was a MVP, 7x all NBA, 4x scoring leader, 3x steals leader, http://www.landofbasketball.com/player_comparison/allen_iverson_vs_isaiah_thomas.htm


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

Again miss entire point of thread and compare careers. Keep up man.

Iverson's peak was MVP - the best basketball player on the planet - .

Isaiah's peak is what? Being a member of All-NBA Third Team?

This is enough for 28 pages of arguments.

Yes and Iverson's mvp season wouldn't even be top 3 in voting for this season so what's your point?

[OkcSinceSGA]

Again miss entire point of thread and compare careers. Keep up man.

Iverson's peak was MVP - the best basketball player on the planet - .

Isaiah's peak is what? Being a member of All-NBA Third Team?

This is enough for 28 pages of arguments.

Yes and Iverson's mvp season wouldn't even be top 3 in voting for this season so what's your point?

Hell he wouldn't be top 5.

[permaximum]

Again miss entire point of thread and compare careers. Keep up man.

Iverson's peak was MVP - the best basketball player on the planet - .

Isaiah's peak is what? Being a member of All-NBA Third Team?

This is enough for 28 pages of arguments.

Yes and Iverson's mvp season wouldn't even be top 3 in voting for this season so what's your point?

According to who? Who are you?

Your only arguments can be "ifs". For example "if" I was a bit more lucky, I would be the best basketball player ever. I would be the MVP this season.

[OkcSinceSGA]

Iverson's peak was MVP - the best basketball player on the planet - .

Isaiah's peak is what? Being a member of All-NBA Third Team?

This is enough for 28 pages of arguments.

Yes and Iverson's mvp season wouldn't even be top 3 in voting for this season so what's your point?

According to who? Who are you?

Your only arguments can be "ifs". For example "if" I was a bit more lucky, I would be the best basketball player ever. I would be the MVP this season.

That's all YOU have done in this thread actually. Is suggest what would or could happen now with Iverson, era swaps blah blah.

[sixerswillrule]

They know better than looking at FG% or it's variants and claiming Chandler is the best of all time.

You guys probably think Tyson Chandler is the best player of all time.

It's pretty ridiculous how often this awful counter-argument comes up whenever someone brings up efficiency.

Almost as awful as using Iverson's Big East accolades as evidence that he was a better player than Dwyane Wade.

- a lifelong Sixers fan

[og15]

They know better than looking at FG% or it's variants and claiming Chandler is the best of all time.

You guys probably think Tyson Chandler is the best player of all time.

It's pretty ridiculous how often this awful counter-argument comes up whenever someone brings up efficiency.

Almost as awful as using Iverson's Big East accolades as evidence that he was a better player Dwyane Wade.

- a lifelong Sixers fan

Yea, can't really grasp why anyone even says that as if people don't know how to differentiate between the efficiency of role players and higher usage players. It's such a useless strawman.

[permaximum]

They know better than looking at FG% or it's variants and claiming Chandler is the best of all time.

You guys probably think Tyson Chandler is the best player of all time.

It's pretty ridiculous how often this awful counter-argument comes up whenever someone brings up efficiency.

Almost as awful as using Iverson's Big East accolades as evidence that he was a better player Dwyane Wade.

- a lifelong Sixers fan

Career averages, MVPs, scoring titles and steal titles are enough for Iverson > Wade. No need to bring Big East accolades.

Iverson's career TS(compared to league average)*USG is better than Wade. So, you can only bring championship argument that will be answered by 3 words. Shaq, LeBron, Bosh.

I'm not a Sixers fan. I'm not even an NBA fan. I'm just a basketball fan that's knowledgable in statistical modeling.

[permaximum]

As someone who watched all three of them in prime:

Career:
1. MJ
2. Kobe
3. Iverson

Peak
1. MJ
2. Iverson
3. Kobe

Young people don't know that until Kobe's 81, Iverson was considered the better player.

[permaximum]

Edit: Double post again.

[sixerswillrule]

They know better than looking at FG% or it's variants and claiming Chandler is the best of all time.

You guys probably think Tyson Chandler is the best player of all time.

It's pretty ridiculous how often this awful counter-argument comes up whenever someone brings up efficiency.

Almost as awful as using Iverson's Big East accolades as evidence that he was a better player Dwyane Wade.

- a lifelong Sixers fan

Career averages, MVPs, scoring titles and steal titles are enough for Iverson > Wade. No need to bring Big East accolades.

Iverson's career TS(compared to league average)*USG is better than Wade. So, you can only bring championship argument that will be answered by 3 words. Shaq, LeBron, Bosh.

I'm not a Sixers fan. I'm not even an NBA fan. I'm just a basketball fan that's knowledgable in statistical modeling.

Prime vs. prime, there is no argument. Wade has at least 3-4 seasons better than Iverson's best season, scoring averages and MVP included, before LeBron was ever even in the picture. Derrick Rose wasn't better than Wade either. To suggest that Shaq was even close to as responsible as Wade for what the Heat did in 06 is insane, based on both the eye test and the numbers. You live in a fantasy world or what? I guess you do if you can pick and choose when to care about minutes played.

2006 regular season
Wade - 2892 minutes, 27.2 ppg, 27.6 PER, 7.5 BPM
Shaq - 1806 minutes, 20.0 ppg, 24.4 PER, 2.6 BPM

2006 playoffs
Wade - 959 minutes, 28.4 ppg, 26.9 PER, 8.9 BPM
Shaq - 759 minutes, 18.4 ppg, 19.9 PER, 0.7 BPM

Shaq was a good Robin but Wade's impact for that team was on an entirely different level and you must be blind to think otherwise.

Wade in 06 and 09 was easily better than Iverson at his peak.

[permaximum]

It's pretty ridiculous how often this awful counter-argument comes up whenever someone brings up efficiency.

Almost as awful as using Iverson's Big East accolades as evidence that he was a better player Dwyane Wade.

- a lifelong Sixers fan

Career averages, MVPs, scoring titles and steal titles are enough for Iverson > Wade. No need to bring Big East accolades.

Iverson's career TS(compared to league average)*USG is better than Wade. So, you can only bring championship argument that will be answered by 3 words. Shaq, LeBron, Bosh.

I'm not a Sixers fan. I'm not even an NBA fan. I'm just a basketball fan that's knowledgable in statistical modeling.

Prime vs. prime, there is no argument. Wade has at least 3-4 seasons better than Iverson's best season, scoring averages and MVP included, before LeBron was ever even in the picture. Derrick Rose wasn't better than Wade either. To suggest that Shaq was even close to as responsible as Wade for what the Heat did in 06 is insane, based on both the eye test and the numbers. You live in a fantasy world or what? I guess you do if you can pick and choose when to care about minutes played.

2006 regular season
Wade - 2892 minutes, 27.2 ppg, 27.6 PER, 7.5 BPM
Shaq - 1806 minutes, 20.0 ppg, 24.4 PER, 2.6 BPM

2006 playoffs
Wade - 959 minutes, 28.4 ppg, 26.9 PER, 8.9 BPM
Shaq - 759 minutes, 18.4 ppg, 19.9 PER, 0.7 BPM

Shaq was a good Robin but Wade's impact for that team was on an entirely different level and you must be blind to think otherwise.

Wade in 06 and 09 was easily better than Iverson at his peak.

1. Don't use PER and BPM as your arguments. All-in-one metrics are bad and those are even worse. Even MPG is a better predictor of player performance.
2. Where's RPG? Where's BPG? Where's your favourite eFG?
3. Iverson's 2006 stats are better than Wade's any season and Iverson being on the floor made the Sixers a ton better on top of his own stats unlike other superstars. There are researches about this on the internet. I won't go into the detail.

I believe you started watching NBA passionately in 2000s. It's pretty obvious.

[og15]

As someone who watched all three of them in prime:

Career:
1. MJ
2. Kobe
3. Iverson

Peak
1. MJ
2. Iverson
3. Kobe

Young people don't know that until Kobe's 81, Iverson was considered the better player.

From my memory of the discussions we were having then, both here and other places, I don't remember this being the case if we're talking about individual seasons. Career to date? Well, sure, Iverson had a head start.

Peak Iverson above peak Kobe? What's the argument there?

In his MVP season, Iverson was ranked higher than Kobe and in the top 5, but after that, Kobe was generally ranked in the top 5 while Iverson would be in the top 10-15 and was most seasons ranked below Kobe.

Again if you're talking about career as a whole at that point, then sure, Kobe truly became a star in 99-00 when he was the same age as rookie AI. Iverson already had an MVP and more All-Star, All-NBA, etc as he was 3 years older that Kobe. Thays what is used when comparing career to date. It wasn't the 81 point game that put Kobe ahead of AI career wise, it was just Kobe catching up. He was already considered better for about 4-5 seasons by 05-06 and now building up his own set of career accolades while Iverson was not amassing as much anymore and moving below other guys too on a yearly basis.

Kobe beat him in MVP votes in 2002, 2003, 2004, and 2006. Team wins can affect that, though that affects who wins more than who else gets votes, but so can playing with a guy like Shaq. Let's look at All-NBA teams.

2000: (1st) Kidd, Payton, (2nd) Iverson, Kobe
2001: (1st) Iverson, Kidd (2nd) Kobe, Carter
2002: (1st) Kobe, Kidd, (2nd) Iverson, Payton
2003: (1st) Kobe, McGrady, (2nd) Iverson, Kidd
2004: (1st) Kobe, Kidd. Iverson didn't make it, injuries
2005: (1st) Iverson, Nash, (3rd) Kobe, McGrady
2006: (1st) Kobe, Nash, (3rd) Iverson, Arenas
2007: (1st) Kobe, Nash, Iverson didn't make it
2008: (1st) Kobe, Paul, Iverson didn't make it

[sixerswillrule]

Career averages, MVPs, scoring titles and steal titles are enough for Iverson > Wade. No need to bring Big East accolades.

Iverson's career TS(compared to league average)*USG is better than Wade. So, you can only bring championship argument that will be answered by 3 words. Shaq, LeBron, Bosh.

I'm not a Sixers fan. I'm not even an NBA fan. I'm just a basketball fan that's knowledgable in statistical modeling.

Prime vs. prime, there is no argument. Wade has at least 3-4 seasons better than Iverson's best season, scoring averages and MVP included, before LeBron was ever even in the picture. Derrick Rose wasn't better than Wade either. To suggest that Shaq was even close to as responsible as Wade for what the Heat did in 06 is insane, based on both the eye test and the numbers. You live in a fantasy world or what? I guess you do if you can pick and choose when to care about minutes played.

2006 regular season
Wade - 2892 minutes, 27.2 ppg, 27.6 PER, 7.5 BPM
Shaq - 1806 minutes, 20.0 ppg, 24.4 PER, 2.6 BPM

2006 playoffs
Wade - 959 minutes, 28.4 ppg, 26.9 PER, 8.9 BPM
Shaq - 759 minutes, 18.4 ppg, 19.9 PER, 0.7 BPM

Shaq was a good Robin but Wade's impact for that team was on an entirely different level and you must be blind to think otherwise.

Wade in 06 and 09 was easily better than Iverson at his peak.

1. Don't use PER and BPM as your arguments. All-in-one metrics are bad and those are even worse. Even MPG is a better predictor of player performance.
2. Where's RPG? Where's BPG? Where's your favourite eFG?
3. Iverson's 2006 stats are better than Wade's any season and Iverson being on the floor made the Sixers a ton better on top of his own stats unlike other superstars. There are researches about this on the internet. I won't go into the detail.

I believe you started watching NBA passionately in 2000s. It's pretty obvious.

There is literally no logical argument that can be made that Wade was not by far the biggest reason for the Heat's first title. None at all. It's not even worth going into it any further because that's how ridiculous it is.

No, Iverson's 2006 stats were not better than Wade's. Iverson simply did not have as big of an impact as Wade did with the Heat. It's pretty obvious that you have no clue what you're talking about. I started watching the NBA early enough to see all of Iverson's prime and know that the opposite end of the spectrum with people saying that Iverson was not as good as Ray Allen (which I've seen on this site) is not as crazy as you saying that Iverson was better than Wade. My time is up here - can only deal with so much delusion.

[tlau]

Career averages, MVPs, scoring titles and steal titles are enough for Iverson > Wade. No need to bring Big East accolades.

Iverson's career TS(compared to league average)*USG is better than Wade. So, you can only bring championship argument that will be answered by 3 words. Shaq, LeBron, Bosh.

I'm not a Sixers fan. I'm not even an NBA fan. I'm just a basketball fan that's knowledgable in statistical modeling.

Prime vs. prime, there is no argument. Wade has at least 3-4 seasons better than Iverson's best season, scoring averages and MVP included, before LeBron was ever even in the picture. Derrick Rose wasn't better than Wade either. To suggest that Shaq was even close to as responsible as Wade for what the Heat did in 06 is insane, based on both the eye test and the numbers. You live in a fantasy world or what? I guess you do if you can pick and choose when to care about minutes played.

2006 regular season
Wade - 2892 minutes, 27.2 ppg, 27.6 PER, 7.5 BPM
Shaq - 1806 minutes, 20.0 ppg, 24.4 PER, 2.6 BPM

2006 playoffs
Wade - 959 minutes, 28.4 ppg, 26.9 PER, 8.9 BPM
Shaq - 759 minutes, 18.4 ppg, 19.9 PER, 0.7 BPM

Shaq was a good Robin but Wade's impact for that team was on an entirely different level and you must be blind to think otherwise.

Wade in 06 and 09 was easily better than Iverson at his peak.

1. Don't use PER and BPM as your arguments. All-in-one metrics are bad and those are even worse. Even MPG is a better predictor of player performance.
2. Where's RPG? Where's BPG? Where's your favourite eFG?
3. Iverson's 2006 stats are better than Wade's any season and Iverson being on the floor made the Sixers a ton better on top of his own stats unlike other superstars. There are researches about this on the internet. I won't go into the detail.

I believe you started watching NBA passionately in 2000s. It's pretty obvious.

Have no dog in this fight but what metric are you using to say that Iverson's 2006 (or did you mean 2001) is better than any of Wade's seasons? I just did a quick check and (correct me if i am wrong) but can't find any evidence to suggest that Iverson's TS% relative to league average is > Wade's TS% relative to league average.

I am also assuming that your ts% * usg as an argument is also a troll comment lol.

[permaximum]

There is literally no logical argument that can be made that Wade was not by far the biggest reason for the Heat's first title. None at all. It's not even worth going into it any further because that's how ridiculous it is.

No, Iverson's 2006 stats were not better than Wade's. Iverson simply did not have as big of an impact as Wade did with the Heat. It's pretty obvious that you have no clue what you're talking about. I started watching the NBA early enough to see all of Iverson's prime and know that the opposite end of the spectrum with people saying that Iverson was not as good as Ray Allen (which I've seen on this site) is not as crazy as you saying that Iverson was better than Wade. My time is up here - can only deal with so much delusion.

I was talking about the supporting cast.

And Wade > Iverson thing is really comical. You guys live in an isolated place here in RealGM and repeat the same lies over over again until you believe it was the truth in the first place. I can definetely understand the comparison. But not that far.

[permaximum]

Have no dog in this fight but what metric are you using to say that Iverson's 2006 (or did you mean 2001) is better than any of Wade's seasons? I just did a quick check and (correct me if i am wrong) but can't find any evidence to suggest that Iverson's TS% relative to league average is > Wade's TS% relative to league average.

I am also assuming that your ts% * usg as an argument is also a troll comment lol.

How can I say this in your language? If I only bet on teams that play in Home, I would be correct more than comparing BPM, RPM, WS, PER etc. of players on the court and betting according to them.

All-in-one metrics are not mature enough to compare player performances yet.

I said TS%*USG is better. As for why did I include it:
1. Someone pointed it out as a counter-argument to Tyson Chandler example.
2. It's as much as a significant factor as TS% according to statistical data.

This is the problem of people nowadays. They have an idea about everything.

[permaximum]

As someone who watched all three of them in prime:

Career:
1. MJ
2. Kobe
3. Iverson

Peak
1. MJ
2. Iverson
3. Kobe

Young people don't know that until Kobe's 81, Iverson was considered the better player.

From my memory of the discussions we were having then, both here and other places, I don't remember this being the case if we're talking about individual seasons. Career to date? Well, sure, Iverson had a head start.

Peak Iverson above peak Kobe? What's the argument there?

In his MVP season, Iverson was ranked higher than Kobe and in the top 5, but after that, Kobe was generally ranked in the top 5 while Iverson would be in the top 10-15 and was most seasons ranked below Kobe.

Again if you're talking about career as a whole at that point, then sure, Kobe truly became a star in 99-00 when he was the same age as rookie AI. Iverson already had an MVP and more All-Star, All-NBA, etc as he was 3 years older that Kobe. Thays what is used when comparing career to date. It wasn't the 81 point game that put Kobe ahead of AI career wise, it was just Kobe catching up. He was already considered better for about 4-5 seasons by 05-06 and now building up his own set of career accolades while Iverson was not amassing as much anymore and moving below other guys too on a yearly basis.

Kobe beat him in MVP votes in 2002, 2003, 2004, and 2006. Team wins can affect that, though that affects who wins more than who else gets votes, but so can playing with a guy like Shaq. Let's look at All-NBA teams.

2000: (1st) Kidd, Payton, (2nd) Iverson, Kobe
2001: (1st) Iverson, Kidd (2nd) Kobe, Carter
2002: (1st) Kobe, Kidd, (2nd) Iverson, Payton
2003: (1st) Kobe, McGrady, (2nd) Iverson, Kidd
2004: (1st) Kobe, Kidd. Iverson didn't make it, injuries
2005: (1st) Iverson, Nash, (3rd) Kobe, McGrady
2006: (1st) Kobe, Nash, (3rd) Iverson, Arenas
2007: (1st) Kobe, Nash, Iverson didn't make it
2008: (1st) Kobe, Paul, Iverson didn't make it

I agree with you that Kobe's prime caught up in 2006. But that 81-point game alone had an even bigger factor in people's minds. It was the turning point.

But you hide or miss some points.

1. Iverson's prime started in 1998-99.
2. Iverson playing for Nuggets raised his efficiency but cost his accolades.
3. Team wins do affect a lot and Kobe was either the Robin or had the Robin in those years.
4. Iverson's peak and most of his prime happened in the handcheck era. Kobe's peak and most of his prime happened in the next era.
5. What Iverson accomplished in 2001 was not repeated. 2007 LeBron got close but they were swept by a worse team. There aren't any statistical data for Kobe to think he ever was capable of what Iverson did in 2001. Kobe never raised his teammates' efficiency and decreased TO rates of the team when he was on the floor. Iverson used all those bad shots a team of that kind had to take per night with such high efficiency while providing wide open shots for his teammates because of the tremendous attention he got.

The comman mistake people tend to make is checking individual stats without looking what that player did to their teammates' stats when he was on the floor. RAPM born out of this need but noise, bias and multi-collinearity issues hurt the metric so bad that it's even worse than MPG as an individual player-performance predictor.

[og15]

Career averages, MVPs, scoring titles and steal titles are enough for Iverson > Wade. No need to bring Big East accolades.

Iverson's career TS(compared to league average)*USG is better than Wade. So, you can only bring championship argument that will be answered by 3 words. Shaq, LeBron, Bosh.

I'm not a Sixers fan. I'm not even an NBA fan. I'm just a basketball fan that's knowledgable in statistical modeling.

Prime vs. prime, there is no argument. Wade has at least 3-4 seasons better than Iverson's best season, scoring averages and MVP included, before LeBron was ever even in the picture. Derrick Rose wasn't better than Wade either. To suggest that Shaq was even close to as responsible as Wade for what the Heat did in 06 is insane, based on both the eye test and the numbers. You live in a fantasy world or what? I guess you do if you can pick and choose when to care about minutes played.

2006 regular season
Wade - 2892 minutes, 27.2 ppg, 27.6 PER, 7.5 BPM
Shaq - 1806 minutes, 20.0 ppg, 24.4 PER, 2.6 BPM

2006 playoffs
Wade - 959 minutes, 28.4 ppg, 26.9 PER, 8.9 BPM
Shaq - 759 minutes, 18.4 ppg, 19.9 PER, 0.7 BPM

Shaq was a good Robin but Wade's impact for that team was on an entirely different level and you must be blind to think otherwise.

Wade in 06 and 09 was easily better than Iverson at his peak.

1. Don't use PER and BPM as your arguments. All-in-one metrics are bad and those are even worse. Even MPG is a better predictor of player performance.
2. Where's RPG? Where's BPG? Where's your favourite eFG?
3. Iverson's 2006 stats are better than Wade's any season and Iverson being on the floor made the Sixers a ton better on top of his own stats unlike other superstars. There are researches about this on the internet. I won't go into the detail.

I believe you started watching NBA passionately in 2000s. It's pretty obvious.

I guess we can compare both of them in their highest volume seasons. Now, some things to consider, one is that the 04-05 to 06-07 seasons were a transition period for the league in adjusting to the new rules. 05-06 season had a mix of players and teams adjusting to taking more advantage of the new rules, and the refs and the league still figuring out how to best enforce the rules. So to be fair and consistent, we do have to acknowledge that Iverson actually played at the most advantageous time of the new rules. In 05-06, 10 players averaged 25+ PPG, the top 6 players in PPG all averaged 10+ FTA/G.

League Average FTr (20 years):

97-98: 0.330
98-99: 0.330
99-00: 0.308
00-01: 0.309
01-02: 0.293
02-03: 0.302
03-04: 0.303
04-05: 0.324
05-06: 0.333
06-07: 0.327
07-08: 0.306
08-09: 0.306
09-10: 0.300
10-11: 0.300
11-12: 0.276
12-13: 0.243
13-14: 0.284
14-15: 0.273
15-16: 0.276
16-17: 0.271

The league average FTr in 05-06 was 0.333. In 16-17 it was 0.271. So FT's are actually awarded 6.2% less than in 05-06. Now some people might say "well it is the 3PT shot", but the problem with this is that teams are trading long mid-range for 3PT shots, not shots at the rim and in the paint. The long mid-range does not produce a significant foul draw and certainly wouldn't even come close to making a 6 % difference. There are some other factors, but as we can see, there was a spike from 04-05 to 06-07 where the FTr was at about 32-33% before it dropped back again. All of the lowest numbers in the last 20 years have been in the last 5 seasons.

Iverson who was already great at drawing fouls had a career high 11.5 FTA/G. He had his career second best .455 FTr, the best came in 06-07 at .465. Paul Pierce had a career high 10.3 FTA/G and a career high .555 FTr, his career second best was in 04-05. Wade who were are talking about had a career high 10.7 FTA/G in 05-06, second best 10.5 FTA/G in 06-07 and third best 9.9 FTA/G in 04-05. His FTr those threes seasons, .578, .568, .556. Obviously it was never that high again in his career. Gilbert Arenas, same situation, etc. So in general the FTr of perimeter players had a peak from 04-05 to 05-60. So there is some acknowledgment that those seasons were a feast for perimeter players, and contrary to the belief, maybe of some who didn't watch the league back then or were too young and just hear of how the rules were not as easy for perimeter players, the initial seasons with the rule were actually the most favorable. getting into the bonus quickly and getting a boost both in FTr and also in production because of the other outcomes.

Anyways, we'll look at their raw numbers, then compare per 100 possessions to take into account minutes, but also pace as pace had been going up around the league, so don't want to penalize AI.

Allen Iverson 2005-2006

Raw Numbers:
33.0 ppg | 3.2 rpg | 7.4 apg | 1.9 spg | 0.1 bpg | 3.4 tpg | 43.1 mpg

Per 100 Possessions:
39.7 pts | 3.9 rebs | 8.9 ast | 2.3 stl | 0.2 blk | 4.1 tov

Shooting and Efficiency:
44.7% FG | 32.3% 3PT | 81.4% FT | 46.7% eFG | 54.3 TS% | 111 Ortg

Offensive On/Off:
108.4 Ortg On | 98.4 Ortg Off | Net +10.0 Ortg

Defensive On/Off:
108.5 Drtg On | 107.2 Drtg Off | Net +1.3 Drtg

Overall Net On/Off: +8.5

Dwyane Wade 2008-2009

Raw Numbers:
30.2 ppg | 5.0 rpg | 7.5 apg | 2.2 spg | 1.3 bpg | 3.4 tpg | 38.6 mpg

Per 100 Possessions:
41.8 pts | 7.0 rebs | 10.3 ast | 3.0 stl | 1.9 blk | 4.8 tov

Shooting and Efficiency:
49.1% FG | 31.7% 3PT | 76.5% FT | 51.6% eFG | 57.4% TS | 115 Ortg

Offensive On/Off:
110.5 Ortg On | 99.4 Ortg Off | Net: +11.1 Ortg

Defensive On/Off:
107.3 Drtg On | 110.5 Drtg Off | Net: -3.2 Drtg

Overall Net On/Off: +14.2

While a +8.5 Net Ortg is good, there is actually nothing at all special or significant about that, so at the least the suggestion that Iverson is making teammates better than other superstars just can't be held on to. In the comparison, we see that even with AI's great net effect on offense, Wade still matched, and actually beat him slightly. Defensively Wade improved his teams defense, while Iverson's team defended better when he was off the court, but taking into account that when he was off it was mostly opposing bench players on, so those units would on average have a lower Ortg anyways, we wouldn't say he made the defense "worse", but he didn't really improve their defense while Wade at least based on on/off improve his teams defense.

So in this comparison, looking at the data, this statement you made is incorrect: "Iverson being on the floor made the Sixers a ton better on top of his own stats unlike other superstars.". You will need to show the research and go into detail if you want to support this claim because first of all it is easily refutable. Now the refutable part is not that Iverson made his team better, but that this is something other superstars weren't doing, or even doing better. How would they be superstars if they weren't making their teams better, it doesn't even make sense in that most basic part, so I don't understand what you are getting at here. If you are going to hold on to the statement, then more detail would be needed as to how you are coming to this conclusion.

If it is totally a subjective exercise of "well I watched and I say so", then of course that doesn't really help us much in having a discussion about superstars impact on the team and on winning. We all watched, so why would any of our conclusions without data have any more authority or weight? In that case we can just fall back to people's assertions of whomever wins more games or goes past more rounds has more impact and that tends to fail any scrutiny, and of course in this case the 05-06 Sixers team winning just 38 games doesn't even work with that line of thinking anyways.