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

If it was so easy to be a chucker and score as much as Iverson did the Brandon Jennings would be an All-Star max-player right now

If it was so easy to be a 30ppg guard that's shorter than 6 foot then Nate Robinson would be a starter with MVP talks right now

If it was so easy to lead a team out of the Eastern conference back in the early 2000s then McGrady would have gotten past the first round well before he became a Rocket

If it was so easy to lead the league in scoring not once but four seasons then why has there been only 3 other players in NBA history to have done it at least four times?

Iverson might have represented a lot of things that were "bad" about the NBA in the late 90s and early 2000s but the dude was a sub-6' shooting guard that managed to do what no other sub-6' NBA player did or still has done and that is be the best scorer in the NBA while taking his team to the NBA Finals and getting an MVP for it at that. He's not a once-in-a-generation talent like Jordan, Kobe, James or Durant but if you're going to base someone's "greatness" off of just those 4 players alone, then you need to take off your blinders and realize the NBA is more than just those 4 players.

 

This statement goes the same line as "Why do we want LMA on our team while our 3-pt shots generate far more PPS"?

You either have to watch the game or use truly "advanced" stat to analyze players. Every player's offensive output/efficiency is not a static number. Instead, if you like maths, it's a function of hundreds of variables, such as the system, the intensity, the athletic ability of the defense you are facing. The gap between a TS=50% role player shooting occasional corner 3 and a TS=50% one-man show is enormous.

Allen Iverson had the ability to shoulder the whole ball-handling and scoring on his own. No matter how the world of defense was thrown at him on a nightly basis, he still resiliently chucked up a ton of shots on a decent efficiency (TS~50%). Such a capability allows the team to surround him with defensive minded players and those player would still post good offensive efficiencies despite their lack of offensive skills.

AI isn't better Kobe or Wade at the end of the day, but still a HOFer. He was such a joy to watch, and being an absolutely dominant player at 5'11'' was truly a scene to behold.

 

This game is all about "BUCKETS"!!!And always will be....

 

Let me see. I guy that is 6'6 that could dunk once he got to the basket. And he also had more range than AI, which means he didn't have to constantly take the beating AI did. His shots came easier because of his height, leaping ability and range, while AI had to take mid range and go up against trees and packed lanes to score.

 

Probably because he's one of the greatest players of all time. If you're saying AI is not as great as Kobe, I don't think many people would disagree with you.

 

Iverson was a chucker, but he was a HOF level chucker. I was always glad he was in the league for entertainment purposes, and always glad he wasn't a Rocket.

 

One has to realize that your efficiency will go down when volume go up, Iverson's efficiency was bad in a vacuum, but in the context of extreme volume, it was actually pretty good in some years. but because it was so extreme, whenever it drop a little his value loses a ton.

he was extreme, there were some years when he was truly elite, but unlike most other elite guys, he needs to just lose a little efficiency and he turns into a blah player.

 

You can argue it. But he wasn't the most athletic. He was extremely athletic, but not the most.

Not that it matters. He did what he did, with the athleticism he had.

Yeah, but he didn't come close to creating it. Somebody saying it just points to his overvaluing by that generation of fans that probably grew up with and love his style... which is nice and all, but is a blatant ignorance of basketball history.

What is arguable is what it means. It doesn't make him better than those players. It doesn't negate the fact that his PER was so high partly as a result of his high usage rate (again, PER should incorporate usage but from my look at star players, higher usage = higher per). It doesn't negate the fact that you have to incorporate team, style, era, etc. into the analysis, in a better way than PER attempts to at least.

David Robinson put up a 30.66 PER his best year, over 3 points than Hakeem's career high... but would anybody take DRob at his peak over Hakeem at his peak. Of course not.

Dennis Rodman was only the 7th best player on the 95-96 Bulls team according to PER. Kukoc, Kerr and Harper, who all played similar minutes to Dennis were ranked higher. That's ludicrous.

I am far from the statistical whiz that many on this site are. But a bit of googling, and you can see that Iverson benefits from the specific way PER is calculated.

http://wagesofwins.com/2006/11/17/a-comment-on-the-player-efficiency-rating/

Hollinger has set his weights so that inefficient scorers still look pretty good

A lot of good stuff from that article, but effectively PER doesn't penalize a player enough for missed shots (especially given the correlation between efficient shooting - not true shooting, though that too - and wins). THis favors high volume scorers even if they aren't that efficient.

No need to go on and on about the benefits and flaws of PER. It's a stat I often reference, and seems to do a pretty good job. But it has flaws... flaws which seem to benefit a player like AI at the expense of a player like Steve Nash.

Again, I've noted, he's a first ballet HOFer and an all-time great. But I believe him to be overrated. I think his efficiency is higher than it should be - if referencing PER. I think his efficiency benefits from his high usage rate - if referencing PER (again, with many of these players, higher usage leads to higher efficiency). I think his high usage rate was a function of him being him, on that Phillies team, in that system, at the time, etc. Once he left - granted at 31 years old, but that's not ancient - his usage rates noise dived compared to the consistent leading the league in usage.

People have already mentioned how he didn't make the Nuggets any better.

The continual mention of taking his team to the Finals is ridiculous, btw. Yes, he did it (insert Ron Paul photo). In one of the weakest 1-8 of a conference I've ever seen. On a team who strength wasn't his strength. With one of the greatest coaches of all time. Woohoo, he beat the Lakers once in the Finals! Yeah, he had a fantastic game. And they barely beat the Lakers (in OT), who hadn't played a game in 10 days.

Nevermind the fact that, that was the only year his Sixers won more than 50 games, the only year they made it past the eastern conference semifinals, and the Sixers had a losing record as often as they had a winning one with AI.

I don't think AI, think about his flaws, and then diminish them a bit because I think "winner".

 

The team was built that way because Iverson couldn't play with another good offensive player.

 

For some reason he was always entertaining to watch. He could miss 10 in a row and immediately come back and make ten in row when the game was on the line. When he would get dialed in it was impressive.

 

Great individual player and scorer. He got to the line alot, shot a decent percentage (78%), and was basically unstoppable in terms of being able to get a shot off under the most difficult circumstances. Towards the end of his career, he became a good passer as well. On defense, he was one of the league leaders in steals.

And he did it at 5'11" or 6'0" while being slight of stature and enduring big time punishment.

At the same time, if I were starting a franchise, I would not choose prime AI over guys like a prime Wade or Kobe, the former of whom is a better team player and the latter of whom is kind of like a bigger version of AI, so you always draft the bigger guy.

The interesting and unanswered question in my mind is how Iverson would've played early in his career during his physical athletic prime with a strong offensive supporting cast. Would he have been willing to distribute and run a team-oriented offense ala Steve Nash, or would he have held on to the ball just a split second too long to allow the defense to get set? To me, our hometown analog would be Harden, who actually scores and shoots at a far more efficient rate than Iverson did, draws a high number of fouls, shoots free throws at a higher percentage, but who can have a tendency to hold onto the ball too long, turns the ball over more, and is not as good on defense. Given Harden's very young age and considerably better attitude than AI about team ball at this age, we could be seeing the development of AI v2 in James, especially if he picks up his defense. Let's all sit back and enjoy over the next few years and find out.

 

So what was Jennings' excuse for not even cracking 20 ppg when he was the primary scorer in the lock out season before Ellis came into town? And you think that Jennings is going to all of a sudden get more free throws because he's going to jack up more shots? The similarity between Jennings and Iverson starts and ends with their chucking. I brought up the Jennings comparison is because one thing that made Iverson great was his relentless to get to the basket and that is proven by the amount of free throws he takes. That takes a special type of player to consistently get to the line and Jennings is not that player. A player his size (which is also why I brought up Jennings) taking that kind of abuse and hits in the paint and still produce is what separates the Brandon Jennings of the world from the Allen Iversons.

Right and Iverson's proven he can sustain his scoring over an entire regular season while Nate Robinson hasn't even been able to crack a starting lineup for an entire year. Let me know when Robinson can be relied upon the ENTIRE season like Iverson was. Green light is given either because A) the player is significantly greater than his teammates or B) the team is in desperation mode. Iverson might fit both situations but Robinson clearly doesn't.

Right and he would have been only the 6th player in NBA history that has won at least 4. I don't even know why you would try to bring Durant up as a point of rebuttal considering out of the decades of NBA basketball only Jordan, Chamberlain, Gervin and Iverson have achieved that feat. When Durant gets another scoring title, Iverson would STILL be in elite company.

 

i dont see how AI was a chucker as his FG# is still relatively 43-44% which is what Harden is

also, AI took a ton of FTs (same as Harden) and have a ton more assists

very underrated player on this board. i would take AI over Harden in a heartbeat

 

This kind of gets to the bigger picture of my point as a guy who recognizes AI's great career, but finds him to be overvalued.

There are a LOT of guys I'd pick over AI to start a franchise. MJ, Lebron, Kobe, Wade, Magic, Oscar, Isiah, Stockton, Nash, Kidd, Gary Payton (maybe a push, but he's the only PG to ever win DPOY), Clyde, Pierce, Nique, Pippen, Havlicek, Dr. J, Lebron, Bird, Baylor, CP3... well, I'm just going to stop... haven't even thought about the big men yet, and there ar eprobably a number of other guard-backcourt types I'd also take over AI. I'd put AI on par with Ray Allen. If forced between the 2 to start a farnchise I pick Ray. He doesn't have AI's upside skills, but then it's much easier to build a winning franchise around him.

He's also like Reggie Miller in that regard. Reggie also took an otherwise ho hum team to the Finals - remember Austin Croshere was a super impactful player that post-season... Austin Croshere! AI is definitely a better overall player than Reggie, but who would I choose to start a franchise... it's a push.. which says something.

 

No. 100% wrong. The team was built that way because Billy King is a godawful GM and Larry Brown has a fetish for defensive scrappy hustle players entirely dependant on his "right way" system.

AI played phenomenally next to Raja Bell who was by far was the best second option, buried on the bench. Can you name any young players/rookies Larry developed? Olympics anyone?

AI gets far too much blame and Larry/King far too little. Nobody could put up efficient numbers with no inside or outside threat and zero spacing. Whatever AI's efficiency was, his teammates were far worse options wide open.

As far as players teaming, it was a different era. Nobody was teaming with anybody back then. Everybody was going after those Garnett contracts. Shaq, TMac, Marbury were LEAVING stars to be the man solo. Plus I'm pretty sure the Sixers had a bad cap situation.

 

Agreed. If I were to pick an player who was uniquely strong in one area to start a franchise, I would take a player like Rodman in his prime over AI. Rodman's unique skill in rebounding could greatly benefit any team (not to mention his individual defense). That said, AI is a sure fire HOF and one of the most entertaining players ever.

Here's an interesting question. If they were the same age, would you rather have Asik now or AI? What if I were to tell you that Asik could master the 15-17 footer, hit close to 70% from the free throw line, and improve his hands just a little bit within the next year or two (realistic goals in my mind)?

 

AI allllll day long. not even close


AI is the best best best best version of what potentially James Harden can develop into

 

I'm still amazed Mr. Winslow thinks AI's scoring was a product of simply having the green light.

For the third time, if it's that simple, why aren't more bad teams creating 30 ppg scorers? Why not just let a guy chuck it, so he can score 30+ and raise his stock, so you can trade him? Wouldn't fans love having a scoring leader, even if the team sucks?