He may not be efficient, but he was damn good at what he did. He's as much of a legend as Pistol Pete - interpret that as you may.
How do you know what kind of player he would have been had he been 6 inches taller? Would he have been as quick? Would he have handled the ball as much? He would have had to rely more on someone else getting him the ball since he probably would not have been a point guard.
I have his jersey. And back in the day, whenever I wore it, people would really go hard at me to prove that I wasn't Iverson-like. So yeah, only legends get that kinda respect.
Allen Iverson changed the game from a cultural standpoint. NBA culture and, more significantly, American culture. The rule changes the NBA put in to defend crossovers. He is the reason David Stern put a dress code in the NBA lol. He is a legend
Efficiency is really important and was something that hurt Iverson's game. But what made Iverson great was something that doesn't get reflected in efficiency stats. He would singlehandedly breakdown defenses that were geared toward stopping his dribble penetration and when he would get in the lane, he'd put up a shot that would either go in or would lead to an offensive rebound and scoring opportunity for an uncoordinated front court player whose man had come over to help on Iverson that would otherwise have no ability to score. That's how he was able to elevate the likes of Tyrone Hill, Theo Ratliff, Aaron McKie, and Eric Snow and later Deke to the finals. That's also the reason he couldn't play with any other stars since he was the ultimate ball-dominant guard. So, yes, he was a legend for his ability to breakdown a defense. But he was flawed since it took away from his ability to play as part of a team of multiple stars needed to win a chip.
Yeah in a really pathetic Eastern Conference. A team led by Vince Carter was his biggest competition in that conference. Vince Carter! So lets keep that in context. Sorry, but I have been watching NBA for over 20+ years and I know a high volume inefficient chucker when I see one. I will give him credit for being tough, having high endurance, and being relentless (to get his shot up).
AI has a career 21 PER (higher than Steve Nash) and went as high as 26 one year. His playoff PER was even higher, and ranks him 28th all time for playoff PER. And for retired players, that is the 5th best all-time for guards.
he brought the lame hipity hopity culture to the NBA and gave it its thug look but, yes he's a legend. Loved watching him play.
Being a "legend" and an all time great are two different things. I don't think Iverson is one of the 50 greatest players ever, but he is a legend. He was one of the 2-3 biggest named players during his prime and was a borderline cultural icon.
If you don't count championships, he was definitely one of the 50 best Basketball players of all time.
Even though PER has the word efficiency in it, it's not a great measure of efficiency. Here's an explanation: "Hollinger argues that each two point field goal made is worth about 1.65 points. A three point field goal made is worth 2.65 points. A missed field goal, though, costs a team 0.72 points. Given these values, with a bit of math we can show that a player will break even on his two point field goal attempts if he hits on 30.4% of these shots. On three pointers the break-even point is 21.4%. If a player exceeds these thresholds, and virtually every NBA player does so with respect to two-point shots, the more he shoots the higher his value in PERs. So a player can be an inefficient scorer and simply inflate his value by taking a large number of shots." from Dave Berri quoted in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Player_efficiency_rating His eFG% was pretty ordinary, actually. Nonetheless, I think his stats don't pick up his ability to cause havoc for opposing defense.
Classic example of overration... Oh he broke MJ's ankles. First of all he carried, and secondly Philly lost the game. But we know all yall care about is Anklezbreakaz and Da time Larry Brown carried them to the finals they lost in
