# A.I., Most Over-rated Superstar (Hoopsworld article)



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

http://www.hoopsworld.com/article_4315.shtml 

Allen Iverson is so over-rated it’s not funny. Let’s look at some facts. AI has lead the league in scoring 3 of the last 5 years. His scoring over the last 5 years has been accompanied by horrendous shooting. If you rank his shooting % against the shooting % of every player scoring over 26 ppg in the last 30 years, then look at the worst years, his 5 are 5 of the worst 6 (including the worst 4). Only Stackhouse has kept AI from owning all of them. Only Pete Maravich and Stackhouse join AI in those players shooting under 45%. And that covers over 70 players scoring over 26 ppg. Now why is that? It is because throughout history, coaches realize you can’t win with someone shooting that often and making that little. When Philly reached the finals 2 years ago, I researched and found out that in the last 30 years, not ONE team had ever made the finals with a players scoring over 20 ppg and shooting under 44%. Considering that Philly made the finals only because Glen Robinson and Vince Carter missed the last shot of Game 7’s, and it was the WORST BY FAR group of Eastern Conference teams ever, it was pure luck it even happened. Sorry to break it to Philly’s fans, but they won the East by default, as Mourning going down cost Miami the East and Indiana traded Davis for Bender and weakened their team to the point that the East didn’t have a team that could have even made the Western Conference playoffs. Hell, some team had to make the finals. And giving Iverson the MVP was a joke. Too many people forget that Mutumbo had a great year, and so did McKie and Eric Snow. They also played great defense. They had to, because Iverson would have shot them out of the games, as he did when they played a good team (ie: the West). AI leads the league every year in shots taken per game, while shots made per game is way down the line. There are so many guys in the league that if they took the number of shots Iverson takes, AI wouldn’t be in the top 10 of scoring. 
(...)
When Philly made the finals, a stat was posted that Iverson had never made a game-winning, last second shot in high school, college or the pros. And I don’t believe he has made one since. Amazing, a guy who takes more shots per game than anyone, and he can’t make the last one that counts. But he won’t stop trying. 

Allen Iverson, Most Over-rated Superstar

Any comments?

I personnaly think Rod Clarida makes a valid point...


----------



## cafeteriabananas (May 25, 2003)

that article is exactly what I've been trying to tell people for last 2 years. great post


----------



## Kmasonbx (Apr 7, 2003)

First off Allen Iverson took the 3rd most shots per game this year, behind T Mac and Kobe, or him and Kobe took nearly the identicaly amount of shots per game. AI was still 3rd in the league in scoring, he shoots a low percentage because everyone knows there is nobody else on the team that has any chance of hurting them. AI does take bad shots, but thats because he has the ultimate green light and there is a lot of pressure on him to score. 

He may have never hit a buzzer beater game winning shot, but he often comes up with the big shot in the final minute to seal a victory, which is the same thing. Also when you are the only real scoring threat on your team, your going to get double teamed in the closing seconds, team's make other players beat them. 

Philly got real lucky that year to make the finals considering they survived two game winning shots in Game 7s and Zo got hurt. Please thats nonsense these things happen in basketball, I guess Iverson is overrated because Big Dog and Vince can't make open jumpers at the end of games. He didn't deserve MVP? You say Mutomobo had a great year, remember less then half that year came with Philly, and before Mutombo got there the Sixers had the best record in the NBA. Snow and McKie did play great D, because thats their job, and every team needs players like that to be succesful. Are you saying if there are other good players on your team you shouldn't win the MVP? Because if you are your very wrong. Just remember last season Philly started the season 0-5 when Iverson was hurt, as soon as he came back they won their next 6 games, that shows how overrated he is. Iverson averaged over 30 points per game back to back seasons, no player has done that in the last 20+ years with the exception of Jordan. How many great players haven't even averaged 30 for a season? 

They banned his crossover because they claim its a carry, but if you really watch it his hand is always on the side of the ball not under it, which is the definition of a carry. Also don't forget "they even put a zone in the league to try and stop him."


----------



## JNice (Jul 13, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Kmasonbx</b>!
> "they even put a zone in the league to try and stop him."


Really? I didn't know that. I thought it was to stop Shaq. I guess it was all those rings AI was winning, they had to change the rules to stop him.


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Kmasonbx</b>!
> Also don't forget "they even put a zone in the league to try and stop him."


That's also news for me...  

Hey, i think Iverson is a great player, and all, but i don't think is all THAT great.
And the author's comments on his shooting are dead-on: Allen Iverson IS NOT a good shooter.



:starwars:


----------



## Kmasonbx (Apr 7, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Dee Bo</b>!
> 
> 
> Really? I didn't know that. I thought it was to stop Shaq. I guess it was all those rings AI was winning, they had to change the rules to stop him.





> That's also news for me...


I guess you guys don't watch TV much, that was a line from his second Reebok commercial with the rapper Jadakiss, which is why I quoted it. The rings issue doesn't mean a player isn't putting up great #s, look at T Mac, KG, and Jordan before the 90s.

The reality is the zone wasn't put in the league to stop anybody, the NBA thought it would create a better flow to the game, because it would eliminate the 1 on 1 isolation plays, that so many teams were running. Iverson was one of the players who benefited the most from the isolation plays because no player can guard him 1 on 1. This is where that line came from in the commercial.


----------



## allenive21 (Jul 28, 2002)

All I can say about this article is that heart is a stat that cannot be measured, if it could be, I am sure that Iverson would lead the league. Who wouldn't want a player on their team to lead the league in that stat?


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

AI is at a disadvantage, he says he wants help, but he still wants to take all the shots and he expects guys to always make shots when he passes it to them. He really wants to take all the shots but he says all the right things in the media.


----------



## DYNASTY (Jun 18, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Kmasonbx</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Thank you. I don't see the need to bash Iverson. Why, if him and Kobe take the same amount of shots, why is it any different if Shaq is on Kobe's team to relieve pressure. 

If anything they should have been making that argument for mr. Kobe.


----------



## Kmasonbx (Apr 7, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>allenive21</b>!
> All I can say about this article is that heart is a stat that cannot be measured, if it could be, I am sure that Iverson would lead the league. Who wouldn't want a player on their team to lead the league in that stat?


Very good point, how many injuries does he play through?

I just took a look at this article, and the guy who wrote it said Iverson is more overrated than Vince, lol, that is one of the dumbest things I've ever read. Iverson's team never did better for a stretch of games without him, while Vince's team made the playoffs without him, and had something like an 11 game streak without him. Contrary to poplular belief Iverson has never averaged 30 shots a game for a season. I think his career high is around 27 shots, which is a lot, but who else was going to take shots on that team, Eric Snow? Aaron McKie? Mutombo? Thats what I thought. For his career he takes 23 shots a game, which is no higher a number than any other scorer. And his point about Iverson being down the line in shots made while leading in shots attempted, he led the league in shots made per game the last 2 seasons, prior to this one.


----------



## Arclite (Nov 2, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>PauloCatarino</b>!
> http://www.hoopsworld.com/article_4315.shtml
> 
> 
> And I don’t believe he has made one since. Amazing, a guy who takes more shots per game than anyone, and he can’t make the last one that counts. But he won’t stop trying.


Statements like "and I don't believe" when it isn't regarding an opinion, but a statistical fact, DON'T belong in professionally written articles. Either do your homework, or don't write the GD article. That statement, to me, makes Clarida look a total amateur.

How is this different than every other write-up done by posters here? The only difference I see is that bbb posters usually offer at least a *little* bit of constructive criticism.

Allen Iverson is the first one in thirty years to be on a finals team with a player scoring >20ppg and shooting under 44%? Wow, that's amazing. So if a player shoots a low % and has superstar status, they're overrated? Point in case: Antoine Walker shot 38% this year from the field. *38%.* People look at the number and quickly say "Oh my god, he was an all-star? OVERRATED." No. More than 1/3 of his field goal attempts were three point shots. For a player who takes only two point field goals to score the same amount of points, in the same amount of shots, he'd need to shoot 45%. Obviously that is BY NO MEANS a spectacular number (especially for a forward), but I'd take a 45% field goal percentage from a forward if he could pass, rebound and handle the ball the way Walker can. No one was calling Malone counterproductive two years ago when he was shooting 45% from the field. Hell, only Sacto and Utah as TEAMS shot that well from the floor this last year. 

That's just in Walker's case (yeah that was a cheap way to put in a good word for Walker because he doesn't get many outside of Celtic fans) - how about Iverson? Well Mr. Clarida, if you had bothered to do the math - which you obviously didn't, if Iverson had shot 44% from the field instead of the 42% he actually shot, he would have scored a point more. *A point*. Big deal. Since I'm sick of doing math right now (  ), why don't you do some math for me - how many more points does Iverson get his team by getting them 3 extra possesions each game off of steals? Cause I bet it's more than the 1ppg he'd get them by shooting 2% better from the floor.

Anyways, enough numbers - as it's been said, you can't measure heart. Rod, you might be the only one (aside from others who hate Iverson) who would take 2 field goal percentage points over GUTS.


----------



## TheRifleman (May 20, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>PauloCatarino</b>!
> http://www.hoopsworld.com/article_4315.shtml
> 
> Allen Iverson is so over-rated it’s not funny. Let’s look at some facts. AI has lead the league in scoring 3 of the last 5 years. His scoring over the last 5 years has been accompanied by horrendous shooting. If you rank his shooting % against the shooting % of every player scoring over 26 ppg in the last 30 years, then look at the worst years, his 5 are 5 of the worst 6 (including the worst 4). Only Stackhouse has kept AI from owning all of them. Only Pete Maravich and Stackhouse join AI in those players shooting under 45%. And that covers over 70 players scoring over 26 ppg. Now why is that? It is because throughout history, coaches realize you can’t win with someone shooting that often and making that little. When Philly reached the finals 2 years ago, I researched and found out that in the last 30 years, not ONE team had ever made the finals with a players scoring over 20 ppg and shooting under 44%. .........
> ...


I believe the author is in error on that point, as I have a few games on tape somewhere - and Iverson made some game winning shots - which is what counts.

As for anything else the author says, to each his own. I'll take Iverson in a heart beat - as small as he is - the guy has tremendous HEART. <b>Most big guys don't want to score inside in today's game - why? Because you get the snot pounded out of you.</b> THINK of how courageous Iverson is at 5'10 and 165#. He goes in there so much, gets pounded, takes his free throws and carries on.

What is his lifetime %? He is probably around 40%, which is NOT that far off of other GUARDS....and guards that are all MUCH bigger and not as brave. I think only 2 or 3 guards get to that free throw line as much as Iverson does.

He may not be a good shooter - but he is one helluva <b>SCORER</b>!


----------



## TheRifleman (May 20, 2002)

*Re: Re: A.I., Most Over-rated Superstar (Hoopsworld article)*



> Originally posted by <b>Sovereignz</b>!
> 
> 
> <b>Statements like "and I don't believe" when it isn't regarding an opinion, but a statistical fact, DON'T belong in professionally written articles. Either do your homework, or don't write the GD article. That statement, to me, makes Clarida look a total amateur.</b>
> ...


:clap: :greatjob:


----------



## mo76 (Jun 13, 2003)

This article is obviosly biased. Not every shot is the same. If you watch the sixers you would no that no one else wants to shoot so AI often has to through stuff up to create for his teamates. That point about AI never making a game winning shot is just plain weak. I have seen AI *take over* games like no one else can. (except MJ). *Allan Iverson is not the most overated star in the nba. He is the DEFINITION of a superstar in the nba.*


----------



## MemphisX (Sep 11, 2002)

It's so funny. He took a collection of stiffs to the NBA Finals and unlike J Kidd, he actually got a win vs. the Lakers. Why is AI more overrated than Jason Kidd who also doesn't shootwell and leads the league in turnovers. 

FG% is like any other stat. It can be twisted and manipulated to mean anything. For example, Ray Allen is a career 45% shooter and is considered near the level of AI but would anyone want Ray Allen at the 2 over AI? All of Ray Ray's good shooting % does not translate into wins and that is what hoops is about. Winning.


----------



## tenkev (Jun 12, 2002)

His team was not a collection of stiffs. Dikembe Mutombo was still an awesome defensive player then. Eric Snow is a great defender, and a good point. Aaron McKie was 6th man of the year. Not a collection of stiffs.


----------



## Cam*Ron (Apr 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Kmasonbx</b>!
> They banned his crossover because they claim its a carry, but if you really watch it his hand is always on the side of the ball not under it, which is the definition of a carry. Also don't forget "they even put a zone in the league to try and stop him."


Allen is that you?


----------



## tsolan20 (Jun 29, 2003)

*RE:*

How is AI overrated he led his team to a title


----------



## Cam*Ron (Apr 13, 2003)

*Re: RE:*



> Originally posted by <b>tsolan20</b>!
> How is AI overrated he led his team to a title


<strike>WTF??? </strike>(Bunk, don't mask vulgarities - you Know that! trm)


----------



## sOuthpole (May 9, 2003)

> Too many people forget that Mutumbo had a great year


 Actually he was only on the team for like the last 3rd of the year and I may be wrong but the Sixer's went something like 44-14 with Ratliff and something like 14-14 after they got him.. The article actually has a false statement...


> Considering that Philly made the finals only because Glen Robinson and Vince Carter missed the last shot of Game 7’s


 Actually Glenn Robinson missed that easy shot I think in game 5 of the series and how is that Iveron's fault and why should he be penalized because of that? He had his team winning at the end of those two games.. Why doesn't he get credit for that?


----------



## sOuthpole (May 9, 2003)

Also, someone else posted this on another board...
Career averages for players scoring over 16 points this past season....

ai 42.0 %
tmac 45.3%
kobe 45.6%
kidd 40.4
marbury 43.1%
pierce 43.8%
payton 46.9%
Ray Allen 45.0
Jerry Stackhouse 41.0%
Steve Francis 43.8%
Ricky Davis 41.0%
sam cassel 45.3%
rip hamilton 43.6%
Michael Jordan 49.7%
Gilber Arenas 43.7%
steve nash 46.5%
Jason Terry 42.9%
David Wesley 43.3%
Latrell Spreewell 42.8%
Chauncey Billups 40.5%

This is not a huge difference at all from everyones favorite superstars (TMac, Kobe, Pierce) Only one really far ahead of the pack is Jordan but hey its Jordan.


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>sOuthpole</b>!
> Also, someone else posted this on another board...
> Career averages for players scoring over 16 points this past season....
> 
> ...


Ahh... this kind of stuff makes me feel really old. When i started do watch NBA games, a player who shot 45,0% FG was considered a MEDIOCRE shooter...
How the times (and the game...) has changed.
I get your point, but you are including in that list a group of great three-point shooters, and that's bound to make their FG% drop.
Nice post.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

That article was utterly biased and ridiculous. Iverson is the very definition of superstar in professional sports. Iverson is second only to Jordan when it comes to selling out games on the road. Know why that is? It's because when you watch Iverson, you are watching something that is completely and utterly unique in pro basketball. This kid plays his heart out every night, whether he is shooting good or shooting bad. He led the NBA in steals this past year, and really changed his game to get Philly back to respectability going into the playoffs. By the time the Detroit series came around he was averaging double digit assist numbers to go along with his scoring.

If Keith Van Horn didn't completely disapear in the playoffs they might have been in the finals again. They could have very easily won the detroit series 4-1 but for some lapses and bad bounces. And Iverson's sixers gave the Lakers the biggest challenge of any of their championships. If they had been healthy that series would have been at least a 7 game series. But you had half the sixer team playing with broken bones and torn muscles. Aaron Mckie isn't the same player to this day.

And Allen Iverson inspires that kind of heart.

If Iverson were white he would be hailed from coast to coast as a shining example of how to play a sport. But for some reason some people still can't see past skin color and corn rows and see the most competitive player this side of MJ.

People say he is greedy, but if you've ever watched a philly game, he does try to get his teammates involved, they miss a lot of open layups. Anyone notice in the all-star games Iverson is perenially the most self-less player on the court? Trust me, you put someone on the sixers who can score the ball Iverson will be a league leader in assists.

As far as Iverson never hitting a gamewinning shot. That's incorrect. I saw him hit one his rookie year, I think against the Pacers, he arched a baseline jumper at the buzzer to win.

That's a bs stat to even try and measure, because oftentimes the game winning shot happens at some point in the last minute, but not exactly at the last second. Iverson makes plenty of big shots down the stretch.


----------



## BEEZ (Jun 12, 2002)

Terrible, Terrible article


----------



## Kmasonbx (Apr 7, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>futuristxen</b>!
> 
> People say he is greedy, but if you've ever watched a philly game, he does try to get his teammates involved, they miss a lot of open layups. Anyone notice in the all-star games Iverson is perenially the most self-less player on the court? Trust me, you put someone on the sixers who can score the ball Iverson will be a league leader in assists.


Exactly what I've said in a couple of other threads. Like I said before Iverson shoots out of necessity, give him another real star, and Iverson shoots at least 45% from the field and gets 7 assists a game, he would be widely considered the best player in the game if he could just get someone else who can take a game over.

In reality one reporters article means nothing, I would much rather be complimented by my peers than some guy who wishes he could do the things I do. The year Iverson won the MVP in a Sports Illustrated article Stephon Marbury said Iverson was the best player in the league by far. Everyone remembers Shaq's comments earlier in the year about Iverson being one of the 5 greatest players EVER because of his heart. Now statements like those mean more than anything any reporter could ever say.


----------



## MJG (Jun 29, 2003)

I think the article is very good, and obviously will ruffle many feathers with people. I mean, what superstar could he have listed that wouldn't get people angry? I personally agree that AI is overrated as a basketball player (no one should doubt his off-the-court abilities though). What many people don't get is that just because someone is viewed as overrated, that doesn't mean that they aren't very good. People tend to rate Iverson in the second half of the top-10 players in the league, which I think is higher than he deserves. If there was a fantasy draft and all teams had to start from scratch, I just don't believe that AI would be picked anywhere from 6-10. However, one thing I would like to add is that I think a lot of AI's problems come with the team that he has been given. Anyone who watched the all-star game saw what I believe to be Iverson at his best -- amazing penetrator, great passer, and an on-court leader. I believe that if you stuck him at point for a team loaded with talented players (Kings, for example), he would shut up a lot of his critics with a different style of play than he has with the Sixers.


----------



## CraW-SovAH (Jun 30, 2003)

A_I is a god


----------



## Kmasonbx (Apr 7, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>MJG</b>!
> If there was a fantasy draft and all teams had to start from scratch, I just don't believe that AI would be picked anywhere from 6-10.


I don't think that would prove he wasn't a top 10 player. Yao Ming and LeBron James would go ahead of him, but they aren't close to being as good as Iverson. Can anybody honestly name 10 players they think are better than Iverson?


----------



## BEEZ (Jun 12, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Kmasonbx</b>!
> 
> 
> Can anybody honestly name 10 players they think are better than Iverson?


NO


----------



## TheRifleman (May 20, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>sOuthpole</b>!
> Also, someone else posted this on another board...
> Career averages for players scoring over 16 points this past season....
> 
> ...



Props [ :greatjob: ] for doing what Iwas too busy to do - <b>as I said b/4 - most GUARDS just don't get that much higher of a shooting %.</b> Iverson gets attacked way too much. He is one courageous liitle runt; how many on that list go in amongst the BIG men and go the free throw line as much as the runt of the list???


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Kmasonbx</b>!
> Can anybody honestly name 10 players they think are better than Iverson?


What about:

1-Shaq:
2-Kobe;
3-K.G.;
4-Duncan;
5-T-Mac;
6-Nowitzki;
7-Chris Webber;
8-Paul Pierce;
9-Ray Allen;
10-Stephon Marbury;
11-Jason Kidd;
12-Gary Payton;
13-Steve Francis.

I truly think only 2 or 3 of that list could be compared to A.I., while the others are heads and shoulders above.

That's my opinion, off course... :shy:


----------



## TheRifleman (May 20, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>PauloCatarino</b>!
> 
> 
> What about:
> ...



Interesting list you have there. Heart is such an intangible, isn't it? George Karl said that Ray Allen did NOT play with enough "heart". I've heard that same thing said about CWebb. Come to think about it - I've heard that said about Almost every player on that list.


----------



## ATM (Jun 23, 2003)

iverson is 6'1, and he still puts up 28 a game
there are no other players on his team that remotely resemble an offensive threat, people say that kobe would be better w/o shaq around? kobe gets open shots b/c of shaq, one on one he is the best player in the league, he has an explosive first step, leads the league in steals, plays 42 minutes every night, and is able to score consistently with a hand in his face

look at who other players have

shaq/kobe
nowitzki/nash/finley/van exel
webber/bibby/peja
francis/yao/mobley
pierce/walker
payton/cassell
ray allen/rashard lewis
marbury/amare/marion
j-kidd/k-mart/jefferson
the only players that are in one player team situations like iverson are t-mac, KG, and duncan, and those are 3 NBA 1st teamers, get real iverson is one of the best players in the NBA today


----------



## BEEZ (Jun 12, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>PauloCatarino</b>!
> 
> 
> What about:
> ...


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>BEEZ</b>!


Any backing up to your statement?
Starting with the All-Nba first team?


----------



## Kmasonbx (Apr 7, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>PauloCatarino</b>!
> 
> 
> What about:
> ...


I don't think you really believe this, you just put all the players that can be considered better than Iverson, and decided to put all of them ahead of him, I'm surprised you didn't put Vince Carter at 14. How many playoffs has Steve Francis made, with a better team surrounding him than Iverson has had every year with the exception of the year they went to the Finals? GP isn't close anymore, Ray Allen never was close, Steph wouldn't even say he is better than Iverson, I feel you can make a solid case for all the others, but only the top 5 can you say with absolute confidence that they are better then Iverson.


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Kmasonbx</b>!
> 
> 
> I don't think you really believe this, you just put all the players that can be considered better than Iverson, and decided to put all of them ahead of him, I'm surprised you didn't put Vince Carter at 14. How many playoffs has Steve Francis made, with a better team surrounding him than Iverson has had every year with the exception of the year they went to the Finals? GP isn't close anymore, Ray Allen never was close, Steph wouldn't even say he is better than Iverson, I feel you can make a solid case for all the others, but only the top 5 can you say with absolute confidence that they are better then Iverson.


Here's my criteria: if i was a GM with all the money in the world to spend, in my 12-men A.I. wouldn't even be in the bench. I believe Kobe is (much) better and i'd prefer Ray allen over AI.
I can say with "absolut confidence" that Dirk, PPierce, Webber and JKidd are better than AI.
I'm biased for the Glove, for i love the guy since i've seen him play as a rookie(!). 
Marbury and Francis: hell yeah, they're debatable, but that's the POINT: i think AI isn't a sure-top-13 in the league.

Don't get me wrong: i LIKE the little rascal (and yes, he's got a HUGE heart), but i happen to think he's a little overrated: like most of the writers said, Philly was a one-year-wonder.
AI could eventually average 25-5-8 for a season and win a title, but that won't happen in Philly. And that certainly won't happen with AI jacking up 30 shots a game!

Love your signature, though :yes:


----------



## BEEZ (Jun 12, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>PauloCatarino</b>!
> 
> 
> Any backing up to your statement?
> Starting with the All-Nba first team?


Honestly I would be wasting my time.


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>BEEZ</b>!
> Honestly I would be wasting my time.


That's an honest response, i guess... :|


----------



## Kmasonbx (Apr 7, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>PauloCatarino</b>!
> 
> 
> And that certainly won't happen with AI jacking up 30 shots a game!
> ...


AI has never averaged 30 shots a game for a season like I said before, only one year he even approached it and that was last season when he averaged 27.8, and for his career he averaged 22.8 shots a game, which is no more than any other superstar scorer. 

Thanks for the compliment about the sig


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Kmasonbx</b>!
> AI has never averaged 30 shots a game for a season like I said before, only one year he even approached it and that was last season when he averaged 27.8, and for his career he averaged 22.8 shots a game, which is no more than any other superstar scorer.


Tell me something: what do you look for in a SG?
What is your favourite SG in the NBA?
And why?


----------



## TheRifleman (May 20, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Kmasonbx</b>!
> 
> 
> AI has never averaged 30 shots a game for a season like I said before, only one year he even approached it and that was last season when he averaged 27.8, <b>and for his career he averaged 22.8 shots a game, which is no more than any other superstar scorer. </b>
> ...


<b>Perception</b> is such an important part of our own individual bias, isn't it? 

It is amazing how people perceive that Iverson hoists up 30 shots a game or perceive that he shoots WAY below other guards - when in fact, those perceptions are - personal perceptions only - not facts.


----------



## Bball_Doctor (Dec 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>TheRifleman</b>!
> 
> 
> <b>Perception</b> is such an important part of our own individual bias, isn't it?
> ...


Perception can sometimes be the alcohol of reality. If we truly percieve something as the truth we convince ourselves it is although it might very well not be...kind of like the Matrix.  

AI might be overrated but you know what his heart isn't. He might not be the greatest guy or the hardest working off the court but AI is easily and by far the hardest working player I have ever seen in a game since Isiah. To see a player of that stature do what he does is truly remarkable. Is he overrated? There certainly is an argument that can be made from that (keep in mind most of it being biased) but you got to love someone playing that hard in a game. It is truly NBA's version of David vs. Goliath.


----------



## Kmasonbx (Apr 7, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>PauloCatarino</b>!
> 
> 
> Tell me something: what do you look for in a SG?
> ...


I want a SG who can take over the game at anytime, but he has to be able to find the open man when it calls for it. Even when he is off he should still be able to impact the game in a positive way. Meaning if he goes 5 for 22 he should still be able to get close to 20 points off of fts, or get assists. Think about Game 7 of the sereis against the Raptors, Iverson only scored 21 points on poor shooting but he had 16 assists, he still dominated the game. He is usually second in the league in FTs attempted per game, so even with bad shooting nights he still gets his points. He gets so much attention when he drives to the basket his misses create offensive rebounds for his teammates. 

My favorite SG is Iverson, but I think Kobe is the best, but I can't say without a doubt T Mac is better. I mean where was T Mac in the last 3 games of the Pistons series? Yea he scored 37 in game 6 but he took 35 shots, and the other two games he didn't score 20, and Chauncey Billups dominated him the last 2 games, 40 and 37, on great shooting. Iverson showed his ability to pass against the Pistons 25 points and 9 assists a game for the series. He can score and pass, he is not one dimensional like so many people think, and don't forget he has led the league in steals for the last 3 or 4 years.


----------



## RoddneyThaRippa (Jun 28, 2003)

This is the bottom line with AI...he's carried a crappy team on his back, through injuries and personal problems, since he got to the league. Ok, he's not a great shooter. Ok, he doesn't make the best decisions. But this team had no business making the Finals and had no business getting where it did this year. If you want to place blame, go place it on Kobe Bryant. Put Iverson and that team at the beginning of last season and they don't go through that slump. Iverson may not always be pretty, but he gets the job done.


----------



## RangerC (Sep 25, 2002)

Let me play devil's advocate here. I love Allen Iverson. He and Chris Webber are my two favorite players in the NBA, and Iverson is one of the major reasons why I follow the NBA. However, I've started to come to the conclusion that you just CAN'T win it all with Allen Iverson.

1) AI is a 5'11 2 guard. If you want any semblance of backcourt defense, you have to play him with a 1 that is capable of guarding 2's. Those players are in extremely short supply (the only starter caliber players I can think of are Eric Snow and Marko Jaric) and generally have serious deficiencies. This severely limits your options in the backcourt.

2) It's very difficult to find star-caliber players willing to play a subserviant role to Iverson. Jerry Stackhouse - gone. Larry Hughes - gone. Tim Thomas - gone. No one likes to play in a system where 1 guy takes 30% of the shots and completely monopolizes the ball - and if the team isn't in the hunt for championships, guys will want out. No one to blame but AI for the lack of talent on his teams.

3) Even role players have trouble playing with Iverson. Speedy Claxton - gone because he was incompatible with Iverson. Matt Harpring looked like a scrub playing alongside Iverson - in Utah he put up borderline All-Star numbers for a better team. Toni Kukoc HATED playing with Iverson. Once again, hard to get guys willing to play alongside AI - and even harder to keep them. 

Sure, AI made it to the Finals and caught the Lakers napping in Game 1 - but you have to remember that the EC that the Sixers won was the 2nd worst conference of all-time. The EC won less than 39% of their games vs. the WC that year, and the non-playoff Houston Rockets (who won 45 games) actually had a higher winning percentage vs. the EC than the Sixers (yes, the WC's 9th seed would have had a chance to win the EC - it was THAT bad). In the WC, the Sixers would have been out in the 1st round. They won the EC almost by default.

The only way I can see Iverson winning is to swallow his pride, move back to 1, and somehow get on a team like Minnesota or Sacramento where the PF and/or C are the primary distributors. This 5'11 SG business just isn't working out.

Also - Iverson winning the MVP was a ridiculous case of EC bias. Shaq, Chris Webber and Tim Duncan all played better that year than Iverson, on better teams.


----------



## Kmasonbx (Apr 7, 2003)

> 2) It's very difficult to find star-caliber players willing to play a subserviant role to Iverson. Jerry Stackhouse - gone. Larry Hughes - gone. Tim Thomas - gone. No one likes to play in a system where 1 guy takes 30% of the shots and completely monopolizes the ball - and if the team isn't in the hunt for championships, guys will want out. No one to blame but AI for the lack of talent on his teams.


When there was talk of trading Iverson to the Pistons, Stackhouse was saying he would love the chance to play with Iverson again. Larry Hughes and Iverson were best friends, Hughes was traded because he played the same position. Who cares about Tim Thomas, he has never lived up to his potential. So players don't hate playing with him, the fact is the Sixers traded them so Iverson could play the 2, and he is clearly better than both. 

And on the MVP thing, Iverson led his team to 58 wins, and was the only true star on his team. MVP is not the award given to the best player that year, but to the most valuable. If AI could get a big man who could actually score in the post, and a great spot up shooter, the Sixers would win a lot of games. If Kenny Thomas can develop into that post player, and they can sign a great 3 point shooter, any thought of Iverson being overrated will be ended. Because then you'll see #s like 27 and 7.


----------



## Arclite (Nov 2, 2002)

Good observations, RangerC.. I think saying he _can't_ win it all might be a bit of a stretch.. 

As far as his teammates go, well what exactly have the likes of Stackhouse, Hughes, and Thomas done that Iverson haven't? Besides, all three of those guys, for many reasons, are players I wouldn't want on my team.

And the roleplayers, many people don't like playing alongside Iverson because of his *off-court* issues, which tarnish his status somewhat but in my mind definitely don't qualify him for Malone/Barkley/Ewing-itis. I mean come on, Harpring blossomed in Utah because he worked furiously on his outside shot, and because he had three of the greatest passers in the league passing to him and looking for him, it's not simply because he was playing with Iverson that he wasn't putting up 18/7. I mean for pete sake, Coach Brown told Harpring not to shoot the ball! Iverson can't be blamed for that.



> Originally posted by <b>RangerC</b>!
> 
> 
> Also - Iverson winning the MVP was a ridiculous case of EC bias. Shaq, Chris Webber and Tim Duncan all played better that year than Iverson, on better teams.


Hmm... :uhoh:. 

MPG FG% 3P% FT% OFF DEF RPG APG SPG BPG TO PF PPG 

38.8 .465 .238 .784 1.60 4.20 5.80 3.5 1.72 .55 2.26 1.80 28.7 

42.0 .420 .320 .814 0.70 3.10 3.80 4.6 2.51 .28 3.34 2.10 31.1 

The top, if you haven't guessed, is Jordan's MVP campaign in 97-98. The bottom is Iverson's 00-01. In 97-98, Malone had a far better season than his MVP season the year after, and Tim Duncan played as good or better his rookie year than he played in 00-01 (their record was two games better in 00-01). 

I will agree with you though that maybe, MAYBE Chris Webber could have been MVP in 00-01. But you see the thing is, without making any major changes, no one expected the Sixers to have the turnaround they did, winning about 15 games more than they did the previous season.

Iverson was as much a legit MVP in 00-01 as Jordan was in 97-98 :yes:.


----------



## RangerC (Sep 25, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Sovereignz</b>!
> Hmm... :uhoh:.
> 
> MPG FG% 3P% FT% OFF DEF RPG APG SPG BPG TO PF PPG
> ...


A few knocks on AI's MVP:

1) The Sixers would have been 1 and out in the WC, most likely - yes, they won the EC, but the 9th place WC Houston Rockets won 80% of their games vs the EC that season.
2) He missed 11 games - second most ever missed by an MVP. That should be the difference right there. In 2001-02 Shaq had a better season than Tim Duncan, but Duncan took the MVP because he played a full 82 and Shaq missed a significant number of games.
3) All his stats were inflated by playing 42 minutes per game

In 97-98 the Bulls were the best team in the NBA. In 00-01 the Sixers weren't the NBA's best AND Iverson missed 13% of his team's games AND there were 3 other very deserving players. Iverson is one of my favorites, but I can find no way to justify his MVP award.


----------



## BEEWILL (Apr 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>RangerC</b>!
> 
> 
> A few knocks on AI's MVP:
> ...


It doesn't matter different teams match up differently. missed games that whole team missed games they were beat up and still had the best record.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

You say the whole EC, WC thing is a reason to tarnish what the sixers accomplished that year, but the fact of the matter is, if they don't lose to the bulls the final game of the regular season, when Brown was resting all of his players, then they would have had Home Court advantage.

You bring out Iverson missing games that year as part of the problem. What you fail to mention is that he ONLY missed 11 games. If I remember correctly that was a broken thumb, right? And he came back way faster than anyone expected. Comparing how Shaq dealt with his injuries this year, and how Iverson deals with his injuries all the time, just underscores another thing about Iverson that few if any players in the league have. He WILL play through anything.

That Sixers team was broken down by the time they reached the lakers, and they were in every single game, but they ran out of gas by the time they got back to Philly. Eric Snow was playing on a broken foot. Aaron Mckie could barely lift his shot. That team was the epitome of Iverson and what he has brought to basketball and to the Sixers. And it is why he is a superstar.

Numbers don't tell you a thing about Iverson. To know why Iverson is a superstar and why people follow him almost religiously no matter what city he plays in, you have to watch his game. There was a beautiful article on ESPN's Page 2 contrasting Tim Duncan and Allen Iverson's playing styles and I think it encapsulated perfectly why people love Iverson and why people hate him.

The fact of the matter, and it is undisputable at this point, no one in the game today plays with the heart that Iverson plays with. Superstars are made, not because they have pretty stats that message board people can banter back and forth about, superstars are made because they bring something special to the table that no one else can bring to the game.

Iverson may never win a championship. But that doesn't mean he doesn't have the heart of a champion.

You bring up Webber. Put Iverson when he was in college on the Fab Five, and they would have won the Championship that year. Put him in on that Golden State team Chris came in to and they would have gotten out of the first round. Put him on the Kings now, and the Kings would have been champions this year. Iverson has always made the most of the situation he has been in, Webber on the other hand has usually made the worst of it. The diffrence between these two "superstars" underscore why filling up a stat box doesn't mean you are playing to win, and playing with heart, two things that Iverson has always done and why he is definitely not some over-rated flavor of the month superstar.


----------



## BEEWILL (Apr 13, 2003)

he's gotta point


----------



## . (Jun 30, 2003)

allen iverson is the biggest reason why 76ers made the playoff every year, basically 76ers is a one man team, and without him, 76ers will be a perrenial lottery team, no team in the nba has relied on one player more than the 76ers, besides the answer, almost everyone on the team is consider "GARBAGE" so i really dont consider allen iverson as "OVERRATED" in anyway, he maybe need to take 1000000 shot to score 10 points but its ok, who else on his team can do his thing the way he does ??


----------



## BEEWILL (Apr 13, 2003)

A.I. is underrated. hey " . " point blank period


:laugh:


----------



## . (Jun 30, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>BEEWILL</b>!
> 
> 
> A.I. is underrated. hey " . " point blank period
> ...


i never said "A.I" is "UNDERRATED", we are talking about "A.I" being "OVERRATED" so dont change the topic, give me your thought on how you think about the answer, by the way how many posts do you plan on getting tonight ?? :laugh:


----------



## BEEWILL (Apr 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>.</b>!
> 
> 
> i never said "A.I" is "UNDERRATED", we are talking about "A.I" being "OVERRATED" so dont change the topic, give me your thought on how you think about the answer, by the way how many posts do you plan on getting tonight ?? :laugh:


And I hope it motivates him even more.


----------



## pr0wler (Jun 8, 2003)

Okay well it seems you guys have ventured past the stages of just blindly looking at the guys FG %. There are many other factors that come in to play when deciding which players are more efficient, and i'm glad you guys realize that. 

For example, the average power forward/center takes less than 10 3's per year...and usually avg around say .480 FG % (rough estimate). Now....a guard would usually averages around .420 FG% (another rough estimate). But about 1/4 of most guards shots come from the 3 point line....which would lower their FG %. In addition, the avg 3 point % this year was .350. Lets say a person shot ONLY 3's the entire year at .350...thats like the equivalent of avging .525 from 2's....which is DAMN good. So a guards overall shots to points ratio would be very close if not as good as most big men, due to the 3 point factor. 

Another important factor comes into play when deciding FG %. Number and % of free throws. Lets say a guy got fouled 5 times.....took 10 foul shots. He makes 8. Thats like 8 points on 5 shots (since those 2 free throws are like 1 shot/1 trip down the floor) That is the equivalent of shooting 80% from the field, which is extraordinary. An example of this inflation would be Allen Iverson. He was 2nd in the league in free throw attempts. Hes shooting around 80% from the line.....so he will have a better "attempts" to points ratio then just a quick look.

Now, i have devised a fairly simple system to find out once and for all who are the most efficient offensive players. This accumulates all of these factors, so spit a nice easy number.

Lets use Allen Iverson as an example, since he is the topic of conversation

He has 2262 points this year, 736 FT attempts, and 1940 FG attempts. Divide the FT attempts by 2 (this turns FT attempts into # of shots), add that to the FG attempts. Then divide total points by that number...and for Allen Iverson you get 0.98. That basically means that he is averaging 98 points per 100 "attempts"...if you want to call them that. That is a fairly good number, and doesnt take into account other factors such as his leadership ability etc. 

This formula factors in free throws, 3's, 2's....everything, to give u a nice clean efficient number. Now some efficiencies of some big names.....and some players which may surprise you.

Shaquille O'Neal - 1.17
Tracy McGrady - 1.11
Paul Pierce - 1.04
Antoine Walker - 0.93
Dirk Nowitzki - 1.17
Kobe Bryant - 1.08
Brent Barry - 1.18
Ray Allen - 1.12
Michael Redd - 1.17
Matt Harpring - 1.16
Peja Stojakovic - 1.18
Eddy Curry - 1.18

Peja is the most efficient player in the NBA....and still manages to average 19 points per game, what a player! Other notables are 
Brent Barry, Eddy Curry, Shaquille O'Neal, Dirk Nowitzki, and Michael Redd....who pound per pound are some of the most efficient players in the NBA. Of course.....Brent Barry and Redd who are avging around 10 points a game, although efficient, dont match Dirk and O'neal who are avging 25+ per game.

This doesnt measure heart....clutch shots, leadership etc. Just hard raw stats, keep that in mind. If anyone can find an error in this formula plz say so.


----------

