Why Is Allen Iverson Considered To Be so Great? He was a chucker..

Quit hatin

if AI was 6ft 6 in, he would average 40 points a game.

AI was a blast to watch. if you didnt think so, you're not a fan of the game.

 

This is r****ded. He averaged over 26ppg with vastly improved efficiency when he played with Melo in Denver. His shooting percentages also improved playing with a way past his prime Chris Webber, with whom he had no problems sharing the ball.

 

AI vs. an even improved Asik is of course a no brainer.

But I'd already take Harden over AI.

 

I see all these stats but how do you put the willingness to drive to the hole strong 15-20 a game and get crushed when your only 6'0''? Ray Allen or any other player wouldn't dare do it. I really disliked certain aspects of Allen Iverson's personality but the guy was a great player with a lion's heart and he was fun to watch.

What a perversion of stats!


There are lies, damned lies, and statistics
-Mark Twain (popularized by)

 

I'd take that 2000 Pacers supporting cast over the 2001 76ers supporting cast very easily. It wasn't just more talented, it was also much better built and most of those players had a lot of experience playing together.

That '01 team was a case of major overachieving.

They used to have players like George Lynch or Kevin Ollie spotting up at 3. Players who couldn't hit a wide open 3, and no one defended them. So they had a bunch of situations where Iverson was double teamed and still there was no one to pass to. They had 2 rebounding bigs with little range inside. They had players who would try to create, fail, waste the clock and then throw the ball to someone for a desperation shot.
That team needed someone who not only could score a lot of points, but who could score a lot of points at decent efficiency while double and triple teamed. Not many players can do that. Someone like Reggie Miller would get absolutely smothered on that team. That team maxed out its defensive ability, rebounded very well, but they needed someone like Iverson.

It was an embarrassment as far as management job. It's possible to build a defensive team without making it completely inept offensively. How hard can it be to get a couple of 3D guys?

I guess as far as "starting a franchise", our views aren't different. If you are not a Billy King, you might prefer to build around someone with less issues with coaches, even if he's not as good a player. Maybe. Regardless, it's fascinating what Iverson did in '01, very few players would've succeeded in that situation.

 

Has anyone ever considered the possibility that Iverson had such awful teammates because he could never mesh with the talented teammates he did have, like Chris Webber, Jerry Stackhouse, Glenn Robinson, and Carmelo Anthony? Also the fact that he was point guard size, but couldn't really play point guard because he dominated the ball so much, which put a major crimp on how his teams were forced to build their roster?

 

Not in the last 2 minutes, no. The last time we had that discussion was at the top of this page.

 

Who was "the most" athletic then? Shaq? Kobe? T-Mac? Ben Wallace? Vince Carter? Why? Because they were born bigger? Iverson had a 41 inch vertical, and was easily the quickest player of his generation. I guess you can say that since Vince and Steve Francis could do 43 or 44, they're more athletic. Does it matter?

The conversation is dumb, but it's well within the bounds of reason to argue that Iverson's combination of speed and leaping ability and durability, particularly on a pound-for-pound basis, was unmatched among his contemporaries. Just like how you could argue Shaq's size and agility were as well.

Why not? He scored more points and grabbed more rebounds and handed out more assists during that season. Flat out, speaking - he was simply better during that regular season than Hakeem on offense...it's not that hard to recognize this using PER or even plain old unadjusted stats in which he easily beats Hakeem. The object of the game is to score more points than the other team, and the guy who scores more poitns and tosses more assists in whatever metric you want was a better performer on offense - full stop,although ti's obviously an unpopular opinion on this board. Hakeem crushed him in the playoffs, sure, but you're appealing to something irrelevant with respect to the regular season, and not even remotely tangential to Iverson's career.

.

Becuase PER doesn't do a good job of taking into account defense and penalizes Rodman for his undeniably horrible offense. The premise of this thread is erroneous one that Iverson is not an efficient offensive player. I

f you want to argue that his poor defense was camouflaged by PER - go ahead and start making that argument, but otherwise it looks like your just badly casting about for a reason to not be objective.

He benefits from the fact that it measures per-minute performance, adjusted for pace, and his performance, per minute was very high. More or less, the opposite of an inefficient chucker who puts up good raw numbers but looks pedestrian when you adjust for per minute, (see your most improved player, Aaron Brooks, 2010, for an example of that effect in action)

 

Peopple here also forget that iverson led the league at mpg, playing something like 44 mpg, all while being injured most of the time.
His team just couldt afford to have him on the bench.
And for that guy who thinks harden is better than AI, thats because you didnt watch iverson play. He was as dominant as a 6.0 foot guy can be. Better offense than harden, and he at least played the passing lanes, leading the league on spg for some years.

 

Who are all these people that didn't want to play with Iverson? You're applying today's player mindset to 12 years ago. It wasn't the same.

 

Stackhouse was a 19ppg guy as a rookie, a 20ppg guy as a sophomore with AI, and a low 21-23ppg guy in his prime (besides that one 29ppg year). AI had 7.5 apg that year. Tony Parker's best year is 7.7apg.

Chris Webber put up his career average 20ppg with A.I. at 32, on NO legs. Again, AI with help dishes 7.4apg

Glen Robinson was one year from being out of the league, and got benched for a rookie Iggy

Melo put up his career high 28.9ppg with AI who dished 7 apg. Its George Karl vs Popovich in the playoffs, what do you expect?

I think some of you guys get your opinions from Skip Bayless instead of watching games

 

Why are you focused on how many points a player makes on the number of shots he takes? That is one element of gauging a player's abilities but you're making it out to be the end-all be-all. Kevin Martin had unbelievable numbers advanced stats-wise but he is/way by no means an alpha-dog. If you are telling me that Nate Robinson can score 16ppg on 13 shots every night OVER AN ENTIRE NBA SEASON then I'll shut up. But if there is even a small amount of doubt then I rest my case.

And the whole "nobody wanted to play with Iverson" mythos, where are you getting that from? I really want to see quotes from players that said as much because in all honesty I think the general consensus from his former teammates is that they loved playing with him.

I think you're picking your fight with the wrong person because I don't think I ever mentioned Rose and Iverson in the same conversation.

As for Iverson's size and using a 7 footer as a comparison...I mean really? Dirk is a special player because, despite his height, he could knock down threes and create space for his teammates. Iverson was a special player because, despite his height, he could get into the lane, finish, get fouled or both. I don't know what you're getting at with an Iverson v. Dirk comparison because the latter is an incredible shooter.

To point, if you think Iverson's accomplishments as a player isn't incredible because of his size, go look at Aaron Brooks' only season as the primary scorer for the Rockets. He's about the same height but couldn't get to the line because of his size, which is about the same as Iverson's. The NBA is a big man's game and Iverson was able to overcome that in his own way.

So now that we've come full circle. First it was "Why is Iverson so great? He's a chucker" to now "He's a unique player and a hall of famer". So now he's also a ballhog because he "played in a system built specifically for him and him alone"? I think you need to reevaluate your perception of Allen Iverson because it's all semantics at this point. A coach building a system entirely around one player is the player's fault? An organization that brought in players that complemented said player is the player's fault? Did you even watch Sixers basketball?

Iverson is a scorer and not a real point guard. Solution: Put Eric Snow in the starting line up to run the point

Iverson is too small to guard other shooting guards. Solution: Put Eric Snow on the opposition's shooting guard. Have George Lynch and Jumaine Jones come off the bench.

Iverson's game means that he needs 3 point shooters ready at all times. Solution: Put Eric Snow and Aaron McKie in for perimeter shooting

Iverson shoots way too much and that means more rebounds. Solution: Trade for Mutombo, play Tyrone Hill more, and draft Theo Ratliff

What you and others don't see is that it wasn't Iverson was a great teammate (uncoachable yes) but the organization and Larry Brown brought in players that were complementary to Iverson. The role players around him played above average to great defense and are good enough on offense to keep the other team from doubling down on Iverson. If you have a player that can score 30 points per game you need, what, 95-70 more points a night to win? Spread that over 7-8 other players and that's what 9-10 points per game per player?

You also forget that this whole concept of NEEDING AND WANTING multiple stars on a team wasn't en vogue during Iverson's prime years. Iverson wanted to be the man, McGrady wanted to be the man (that's why he bolted Toronto), Kobe wanted to be the man (why Shaq got traded), Francis wanted to be the man, etc. Hell even Marbury wanted to be the man and got shipped out of Minnesota for Tom Gugliotta.

Could he have coexisted better with Carmelo Anthony yea but most people don't remember the two years Denver got knocked out of the playoffs were to the eventual champion Spurs and to the eventual Finals loser the Lakers. Hell, go look up Iverson's stats in Denver. He took less shots and got a better FG% because of it. He also averaged more than 7 assists per game. To say that he is a ballhog and not look at the whole situation is pretty shortsighted and not giving the man the credit he deserve.

Again, your comparisons warrant little merit because you're not comparing the same types of players. Durant's offensive game greatly differs from Iverson and vice versa. Do I think Durant is a better player than Iverson? Absolutely yes but KD's a much better shooter and is also a foot taller.

You might think height is an irrelevant piece in the Iverson mythos but it is one of the biggest reasons why he's going to be a Hall of Famer. He did things no other player in the history of the NBA had done given the vertical limitations he had.

 

Old veterans. Name some young stars that refused to go to Philly and went elswhere a la Lebron/Melo/Bosh/amar'e/Howard.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/basketball/nba/news/2000/07/03/free_agents/

Look at all those scrubs...the only stars that were FA like duncan and Reggie Miller weren't leaving their team. It had nothing to do with AI. Tmac went to Orlando because it was home. And that's just looking it at it from the outside, who knows if Philly even had money to spend. They had given MacCulloch like 6 mill a year, so that was one bad contract on their books. They had an aged Derrick Coleman for 8 mill, one year, as well.

 

Second. It's hard to argue whether he still played the same way if he's paired with another star player. If the offensive scheme had changed, would his efficiency be improved as well?

I do like certain aspects of his game:
1) Ability to attack the rim and draw fouls even without proper spacing. In this forum, we have seen so many posts pointing out the importance of shooters to spread the floor around Harden/Lin. A few seasons ago, we argued how Alston's 3-pt shooting hurt Yao's game. If AI was surrounded with floor-spreading, 3-point shooting power forward and point guard, would his driving game become even more efficient?

2) Ability to draw the double or triple team. His teammates gained better position to get offensive rebounds and second chance points around the rim. In the right system (ex: Rocket's offensive scheme last season), his teammates would be wide open behind the arc (high quality shots).

3) Ability to consistently score when being double or triple teamed. Perhaps he should pass the ball and make the right play, but in the situation where the shot clock is down to a few seconds, a player may have to force a shot up or pass to a teammate who is also not open in order to beat the shot clock violation.

4) Ability to change the pace and score in transition. While he's too small to be a good defender, he did play the passing lane and get easy points on the break.

5) Ability to play under pressure. He's not afraid of the big moments and game-winning shots. I guess after going through the past few seasons, we all know the importance of having a star player to close out the game.

As others have mentioned, he over-dribbled a lot and took ugly contested jump shots, but who was their second scoring option? If Morey were 76ers GM, he would have played along with another star player and better role players in his prime. With a second option who could score consistently (ex: Allan Houston, Paul Pierce, Ray Allen, Latrell Sprewell), would Larry Brown's "play the right way" school of coaching still allow him to chuck shots up like he did? Of course we'll never know. We'll never know if he's willing to change his game. All I am saying is that he had the tools and potential to be an all-time great.

 

To answer your question why the Durants and LeBrons of the world don't take 25 shots is because that's not how the NBA is built now. Having a 2-star system isn't anything new but it's more prevalent now than it was during the late 90s and early 2000s. Durant can't take 25 shots a night because Westbrook is there. LeBron can't take 25 shots a night because Wade and Bosh are there. Could they take 25+ a night? Of course but there's no way their shooting % wouldn't suffer because of the increased attempts. Hell, Kevin Durant came out and said he don't hoist mid court shots because he wants to keep his FG% in tact.

Lol your assumption that Durant and Dirk are great players because they know it's a team game whereas Iverson does not is laughable. You're basing most of your argument against Iverson on two things: his FG% and your assumption that he didn't want another great player to play with. You can deem Iverson a ball hog but what if his teammates wanted him to take those shots? What if his role players know that they lived and died by what Iverson did on the offensive end and lived and died by what them, the role players, did on the defensive end?

Again, you're comparing two different eras of stars. "I didn't see people going to him". Did you see people going to Houston to play with Hakeem? Did you see All-Stars taking their talents to the Riverwalk and play with Duncan? Outside of the players the Bulls drafted and traded for, what other All-Star came on his own to Chicago? I didn't see people wanting to leave their teams to go play with Grant Hill in Detroit either. Different eras of NBA basketball.

If you're going to compare Iverson to today's stars than of course he doesn't measure up. The stars of today aren't overly selfish, don't shoot high volumes, and don't mind circle jerking with one another for a title. But if you put Iverson in that 1995-2004 era where the Me-First era was prevalent, one could argue that he was probably the 3rd best player during that time behind Shaq and Tim Duncan.