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

I feel like a lot of people in this thread didn't even see him play. At the time, he was easily a top player in the league. He actually made the shots he was throwing up. Extremely gifted when it came to the crossover and scoring. He was fun to watch. No one is saying he should be in the hall of fame but show a little respect at least. I think people are so quick to throw him under now because of his attitude and decline in skills. He needed the ball to be effective and when his skills went down, he was not the best teammate to have.

 

He was a better player than Iverson starting in 2000 - 2001. All the stats back this up, from simple, to advanced, to more advanced (ws/48). Also, watching backed it up.

The arguments I concede wrt to AI are teammates, and playmaking. AI didn't have great offensive teammates. It wasn't just because he couldn't play wih other great offensive players... It was mediocre management. When he finally went to Denver he did become at least a bit more efficient, though not as prolific, and still not amazingly efficient.

As a playmaker AI was underrated. He always had solid assist numbers - per game, per 36, assist %, etc. yes, he always had the ball... But he wasn't immune to passing like some make it out.

As someone else summarized earlier, interesting offensive player, unique player, HOFer.... But near the bottom of that group.

 

You're really going to pick his mvp year to say Kobe was better?

REALLY?!?!?

I mean sure Shaq was better (than everyone), just as Lebron was better than Rose but at some point the revisionism becomes ridiculous.

 

Yes. Kobe was undoubtedly better than Iverson in 2000-01. He scored a similar amount per minute on significantly better efficiency, played worlds better defense, posted a similar AST% on significantly lower usage, rebounded much better (obviously), posted a better WS/48, and had a significant edge in ORtg. That's not to mention that he stepped it up even more in the playoffs, whereas AI was inconsistent and fared worse than the regular season.

 

Well.. Maybe his MVP year is arguable. At best, they were very similar. Kobe had the better PER by over 3 points (meaningful)... And he much better ts%. And better win share, etc.

 

The mvp voting comparison that year

93 first place votes vs 1 3rd and 6 5th.

Now I've seen cases where players came 2nd, 3rd, 4th (usually with several hundred votes) and had a solid case for mvp, but i've never seen someone considered better than 5th in the league by one journalist in the entire country claimed to be better than a runaway winner. There are times when look at the stats proves more about the quality of the stats than the argument (the unhealthy reliance they had on him to create offense that year was unreal).

 

Scoring is much easier on a team that has great spacing and a double team magnet in the low post. People should do a mental exercise -- turn on one of the '01 playoff games (which are nearly all available online), and then imagine how other great offensive players would look on that 76ers team. How would current LeBron play there, for example; does he still post up? That's not to say that there aren't other players who could do very well with that team. But their efficiency would definitely suffer significantly. And vice versa, add a few 3D guys on that 76ers team, and Iverson doesn't have to break down double / triple / quadruple teams every time he tries to penetrate. Which would obviously make scoring easier.

It's tough to choose between Kobe and AI that year. Which isn't a knock on Kobe by the way, he should be in the conversation for the best player that year. Shaq was chilling until the playoffs, in terms of hustle and defense. I think that's the year when Kobe really started to whine about shots a lot, though. It was a bit of a mess of a regular season.
If I was put on the stop and had to choose the best player that year, taking into account both the season and the playoffs, it would have to be Duncan. But Iverson, Shaq, Kobe would also be somewhere in the conversation.

 

just quit, dude. Some of what you said is OK, but most of it just make you look stoopeed

 

For me.. I hated watching AI for most of the time, because when he was good, he was outstanding.. Kobe, nobody else wasn't nearly as entertaining for me as AI was. But when he didn't have it going.. well, that was the dark side. It was ugly to watch. Guys open, waiving, but no passing from AI. You could always see this "I'll get it going" and chucking and chucking again and again. And then he would get his stretch at the end to get his 20-something and team a L, although it was a close game and could have been the other way around. I hated that.

I also hate the bad team argument. Some 5-9 guys just make it work together. When team makes it to the finals, these dudes are doing something right, so they can't bad players. And who is to say that if some other team pulled it together at the time, they wouldn't be able to drop the Lakers. We will never know.

 

Not when every stat points to the objective fact that Kobe was better. Yes they had an unhealthy reliance on Iverson to create offense, but that was as much Iverson's doing and playstyle as anything else. Being able to play without so much ball dominance and coexist with other scorers is a part of offensive skill as much as anything else. The early Sixers teams saw chemistry problems and dramatically reduced roles for previously productive guys like Weatherspoon and Coleman because of this. Larry Hughes exploded in production immediately after being moved away from Iverson's team. Toni Kukoc's production fell off a cliff immediately upon being signed by Iverson's team. Iverson never coexsited very well with another scorer until Melo on the 2007-08 Nuggets, which was one of his best seasons, and after his usage rate at dropped significantly and he had learned to play without dominating the ball all the time.

Yeah Kobe/Shaq had some chemistry problems that regular season, but his production was still great, and they figured it out really quickly in the postseason. Your point about there being poor spacing/no post magnet in Philly is fair, though there were a lot of teams that didn't really understand spacing yet back then, so I'll grant you that argument for AI. Conversely, though, he never had to defer to anyone either, and no low post player meant no clogging up the lanes for drives. Spacing also wasn't as important because zone was completely illegal back then, so it was possible to clear out driving lanes whenever AI wanted anyway. Kobe's production was significantly better than AI's, though, and he just plain *looked* better on the court out there, so I still do think Kobe was better in that season.

 

Now hold on a damn minute and let me teach you something about trying to extrapolate data like that. All you need to seriously consider is that fact that the fewer shots a player takes, the greater percentage of his shots will be high-percentage shots. Capiche? *ahem* "IF DEANDRE JORDAN TOOK 25 SHOTS PER GAME AT 65% FROM THE FIELD HE'D BLOW IVERSON OUT OF THE WATER"

Not trying to be inflammatory but keep that in mind that your reasoning wasn't sound.

 

He took a horrible squad to the Finals against kobe and shaq. /done

 

Yet you never saw Ray Allen carrying his team into the finals. In fact, all those Milwaukee teams only made it past the first round once, despite some pretty decent supporting casts in that same wretched eastern conference. Maybe they DID need him to take 25 shots and he couldn't do it.

 

Ray Allen never had the handles or the quickness with the ball necessary to really carry a team. He couldn't get to the rim often enough and was only a pretty good, not elite finisher there, and his off-the-dribble jumpshot wasn't nearly as good as when he spotted up or came off screens, so I definitely agree he didn't have the talent or skillset to take 25 shots and carry a team like AI did.

 

If memory serves me right, that was the year before the Rule Change, when the NBA subsequently allowed zone defenses (subject to 3 second rule) this allowed teams to neutralize one-on-one scorers and shifted the game to a team game. AI would not excel after the rule change.

 

Shaq/Kobe stats were great in 2001, but the Lakers were underachieving, and Shaq even said he won't defend until he gets more shots. When they put that drama aside, they were great.

Shaq was the biggest talent and the best player when he put his mind into it. And maybe that's enough to rank him as the best player that year, I don't know. Kobe turned into a true superstar that year. But while Kobe/Shaq were busy doing drama, Duncan was going to work and Iverson & co were overachieving, always playing 100%. They even had the best record in the league until they traded for Mutombo and Iverson picked up some injuries.

Btw, it's an interesting topic what a perfect Iverson team should be. I don't think it's a Shaq type post up player. Not that they wouldn't win a lot, just not a perfect fit. It should be players who would benefit from Iverson's drives. Great 3pt shooters, big men who can hit jumpers, a player or two who can create off the catch and move the ball. Vince maybe, Ray Allen, prime Sabonis, Al Horford, Garnett, etc. But the main theme should still be defense, toughness and rebounding, just with much better spacing.

 

Ray Allen's style is not one who dominates the ball. Only ball-dominating perimeter players shoot a lot. All other players, including highly effective big men seldom average more than 20 shots per game.

Allen is like the rich man's Rip Hamilton. He is very good at getting open and hitting shots. But he lets the ball comes to him, rather than takes the ball and go to work. Players who can carry a teams are perimeter player who can create for himself or dominant big men. That doesn't mean they are "better" than guys like Allen. When they play with other great talents on the team, it matters how they fit together.

I don't have time to do research. But I believe that Allen helped the Celtics more than Iverson helped the Nuggets.

 

I think that's his point. Multiple people have made "If player X took as many shots as Iverson, he'd score gazillion points" argument in this thread.

Different players, different games.

 

In his prime Ray Allen created for himself a lot.