While I'm on the side of people who don't think that Finals appearance is worth much, I also think some are being hypocritical when they would use Kidd's 2 NBA finals as a testament to how HOF good he is. Kidd's East dominant years were in a Conference equally as horrible as AI's year. In fact, I'd argue that Nash's individual and team success of the mid 2000's were much better than AI or Kidd. I watched a lot of NBA back then and Nash's teams were clearly second best those years (and full of injuries and roster worsening in talent due to a cheap owner). And yeah, that means the Mavs were the best team in 06 and got robbed by the refs...I hate the Mavs and love what happened, but that Wade hook non-call was obvious. I'm very happy that the Mavs didn't win, but they were the best team and got screwed. And so did the Kings in 2001. I think I meandered from my original point. Oh well, AI was a great player, but overrated by the media imo. He leads the group of players like Stackhouse, Redd, Larry Hughes, Gilbert Arenas. Him and Kidd do...I know Kidd's stats are fancy, and so are AI's, but having glaring deficiencies in your game that prevent you from leading great teams means you're not an all-time great imo.
The difference between Kidd and Iverson is that Kidd has been a winner everywhere he's gone (except Dallas the first time, and that was a mess). When Kidd came into the league, Dallas improved by 23 wins over the previous season. Phoenix got off to a horrible start in '96, but after they got Kidd they ended up making the playoffs. He won 50+ games several times in Phoenix. When Kidd arrived in NJ, they doubled their win total from 26 to 52. And Phoenix lost 15 more games than they had the previous year with Kidd. Also, Kidd used to be a great defender. Iverson has always been terrible defensively, except for his ability to pick up steals. And as horrible as Kidd's shooting has been throughout his career (40% overall), he's not that much worse than Iverson (42% overall), and he's actually a better three-point shooter. Not to mention that he gets more assists with fewer turnovers.
I guess my beef with AI isn't that he dominates the ball so much, its that he has such horrible efficiency numbers. I mean, even in his prime the main reason he scored 20+ wasn't because he was really good at it, it was because he shot so damn much. All the "assists" he got was also because he had the ball ALL the time. But because he takes so many shots and does it in a flashy manner he gets the "scorer" rep. Look at his skillset though and tell me if you see a hall of fame player: *small size *doesn't play within the offense *can't run an offense *inefficient scorer *defensive liability *takes it to the rack *really quick *good ballhandler *horrible 3 pt shooter Honestly, if AI didn't score via dunks and crossovers, we wouldn't even be having this discussion. Let someone like Kevin Martin take all the shots that AI had taken and get away on D like AI does he'd probably double Ai's stats.
AI is without a doubt a hall of famer. If you don't think so you really don't have a clue about how lax the hall of fame is
He should go to Europe, he'd get plenty of shots, money and popularity there. I feel sorry for him, I still want to watch AI and learn from his moves. But the new kid's in town, his name is Brendon Jennings.
mild language... but epic enough to share every time I see the name Iverson. <object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/exOxUAntx8I&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/exOxUAntx8I&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
