Allen Iverson Chokes Up

[ToppersBsktball10]

He's got almost 23,000 career points.

2nd amongst active players. And he did most of this before the hand check era.

PPG is super overrated if u do it horribly inefficently like Iverson does. Give pretty much any top 10 player 20+ shots per game and almost all would score more points than Iverson. Oh and most of them would play far better defense as well.

Funny seeing as he's the third leading scorer as far as ppg of all time. So everybody with 20+ shots would do better than AI? That definitly makes sense... 

I didn't say everybody, I said a top 10ish player. Also AI was super durable throughout his career and constantly took 20+ shots which is why he is the 3rd leading ppg scorer of all time. If u gave Shaq, Kobe, heck even Pierce 20+ shots and they all played the same amount of games as Iverson, they'd all have more points.

Kobe takes about 26+ shots to get too thirty. I'll agree with Pierce because all his high scoring games lately he's only taking about 14 shots

[GKC]

He's got almost 23,000 career points.

2nd amongst active players. And he did most of this before the hand check era.

PPG is super overrated if u do it horribly inefficently like Iverson does. Give pretty much any top 10 player 20+ shots per game and almost all would score more points than Iverson. Oh and most of them would play far better defense as well.

Funny seeing as he's the third leading scorer as far as ppg of all time. So everybody with 20+ shots would do better than AI? That definitly makes sense... 

I didn't say everybody, I said a top 10ish player. Also AI was super durable throughout his career and constantly took 20+ shots which is why he is the 3rd leading ppg scorer of all time. If u gave Shaq, Kobe, heck even Pierce 20+ shots and they all played the same amount of games as Iverson, they'd all have more points.

Wouldn't you agree though that his durability as the main focus of an offense for someone his size is a feat in itself? Especially at the style he plays? Dwyane Wade couldn't play like that for an entirely healthy season, and most all-star guards at 6'1 or less show dramatic drops after 30 (look at Isiah and Payton).

He's definitely not a top 10 player of all time (though he did deserve that MVP award), but people in this thread are making it sound like he isn't a good player period. How many great scoring small guards are there?

[ToppersBsktball10]

He's got almost 23,000 career points.

2nd amongst active players. And he did most of this before the hand check era.

PPG is super overrated if u do it horribly inefficently like Iverson does. Give pretty much any top 10 player 20+ shots per game and almost all would score more points than Iverson. Oh and most of them would play far better defense as well.

Funny seeing as he's the third leading scorer as far as ppg of all time. So everybody with 20+ shots would do better than AI? That definitly makes sense... 

I didn't say everybody, I said a top 10ish player. Also AI was super durable throughout his career and constantly took 20+ shots which is why he is the 3rd leading ppg scorer of all time. If u gave Shaq, Kobe, heck even Pierce 20+ shots and they all played the same amount of games as Iverson, they'd all have more points.

Wouldn't you agree though that his durability as the main focus of an offense for someone his size is a feat in itself? Especially at the style he plays? Dwyane Wade couldn't play like that for an entirely healthy season, and most all-star guards at 6'1 or less show dramatic drops after 30 (look at Isiah and Payton).

He's definitely not a top 10 player of all time (though he did deserve that MVP award), but people in this thread are making it sound like he isn't a good player period. How many great scoring small guards are there?

Especially since he's only about 5' 10" 160 lbs.

[LB3533]

Iverson's career isn't going to be based solely on his scoring.

Iverson's going to the hall of fame because of his career body of work, not just one aspect of his game.

People like to pounce on the guy because he looks different, acts different, presents himself differently to society etc.

On the court, AI embodies what every player should act. The emotion, the hustle, the selfless giving up of the body etc....

I love how people keep saying that the NBA is not a one on one league or that AI is a great individual player like that is somehow should be viewed as a bad thing.

I'll take the better individual player over the best "team player" any game of the year.

[PerkinsIsABEAST]

He's got almost 23,000 career points.

2nd amongst active players. And he did most of this before the hand check era.

PPG is super overrated if u do it horribly inefficently like Iverson does. Give pretty much any top 10 player 20+ shots per game and almost all would score more points than Iverson. Oh and most of them would play far better defense as well.

Funny seeing as he's the third leading scorer as far as ppg of all time. So everybody with 20+ shots would do better than AI? That definitly makes sense... 

I didn't say everybody, I said a top 10ish player. Also AI was super durable throughout his career and constantly took 20+ shots which is why he is the 3rd leading ppg scorer of all time. If u gave Shaq, Kobe, heck even Pierce 20+ shots and they all played the same amount of games as Iverson, they'd all have more points.

Wouldn't you agree though that his durability as the main focus of an offense for someone his size is a feat in itself? Especially at the style he plays? Dwyane Wade couldn't play like that for an entirely healthy season, and most all-star guards at 6'1 or less show dramatic drops after 30 (look at Isiah and Payton).

He's definitely not a top 10 player of all time (though he did deserve that MVP award), but people in this thread are making it sound like he isn't a good player period. How many great scoring small guards are there?

yes his durability with his size is a feat in itself. And yes he was a good player in his prime, heck he was very good. However he was incredibly overrated and someone like Chauncey Billups when on the Pistons, although not nearly as flashy is more valueable in terms of winning basketball games than someone like Allen Iverson.

The average fan way overrates PPG on average/bad TS% and way underrates defense.

[Fafnir]

See the problem with that is, you are a chronic AI hater clearly. Which makes that futile for me to even attempt. People will try to point to last year as some sort of reasoning as to why he is now bad.

Just like the tools who try too use Marbury's stats last year for the same point and ignore that he hadn't played in over a year.

Twice now you have called me a hater and refused to debate with me about a player's value. You've also bashed statistics again.

How do you expect people to take you seriously if you won't engage in a conversation with them? You made a claim, back it up! The list isn't that long, name the players that AI is better than and we can have discussion about it.

I'm still waiting.

AI was an amazing talent, but he's no longer a starting caliber player. Nor can he be the center of a team's offense. I think is overall career is overrated but his peak was amazing, can't take that away from him.

[guava_wrench]

Iverson's career isn't going to be based solely on his scoring.

Iverson's going to the hall of fame because of his career body of work, not just one aspect of his game.

People like to pounce on the guy because he looks different, acts different, presents himself differently to society etc.

On the court, AI embodies what every player should act. The emotion, the hustle, the selfless giving up of the body etc....

I love how people keep saying that the NBA is not a one on one league or that AI is a great individual player like that is somehow should be viewed as a bad thing.

I'll take the better individual player over the best "team player" any game of the year.

That philosophy gives you the Denver Nuggets from the year before last. Full of talent, but a bust as a team.

Get rid of AI and bring in a player who is not as good an individual player (Billups) and your start winning.

I appreciate your critique of certain generalizations of others, but you have some problematic generalizations of your own.

If you want to be a star in the league, be a great individual player and a GM can build a team around you. But if you are no longer at the point where a GM will build a team around you, you need to listen to coaches when they tell you how to fit in with a team effectively, or face the lack of interest as a FA that Iverson is facing.

Some traits of AI are great. Some are horrible. What would AI's career have been if he practiced like Jordan or KG? Would he now have a ring?

Look at Pierce's adjustment from being just a scorer to using more energy on defense and sharing the ball on offense. If not for that adjustment, does Pierce have a ring?

It is good that people are defending AI's legacy. I think he deserves that. But the legacy doesn't mean much when looking for a contract in 2009.

[LB3533]

That philosophy gives you the Denver Nuggets from the year before last. Full of talent, but a bust as a team.

Get rid of AI and bring in a player who is not as good an individual player (Billups) and your start winning.

I appreciate your critique of certain generalizations of others, but you have some problematic generalizations of your own.

If you want to be a star in the league, be a great individual player and a GM can build a team around you. But if you are no longer at the point where a GM will build a team around you, you need to listen to coaches when they tell you how to fit in with a team effectively, or face the lack of interest as a FA that Iverson is facing.

Some traits of AI are great. Some are horrible. What would AI's career have been if he practiced like Jordan or KG? Would he now have a ring?

Look at Pierce's adjustment from being just a scorer to using more energy on defense and sharing the ball on offense. If not for that adjustment, does Pierce have a ring?

It is good that people are defending AI's legacy. I think he deserves that. But the legacy doesn't mean much when looking for a contract in 2009.

Wait a second, were the Nuggets losing before Billups got there? 45 and 50 wins are losing seasons now?

And if you are talking about playoffs, have the Billups's Nuggets face the Spurs or Lakers, see if the Nuggets get out of the 1st Round.

Maybe a Billups's Nuggets team could have beaten the Spurs this year, but it wouldn't be because of Billups, it would have been because of "no Manu".

An Iverson's Nuggets team would have destroyed an already imploding New Orleans Hornets team, just as easily as the Billups's Nuggets dispatched them this past playoffs.

I believe practicing is very important, but when it comes to winning a ring, you can practice 24/7 and if you don't got the championship team around you, you won't win a ring....period.

I've looked at Pierce's adjustment. The only reason Paul was able to focus more on defense is because his management was able to supply Paul, some form of championship caliber teammates and mix of decent veterans and role players.

If management doesn't supply Paul with those teammates, he's just your scorer, offensive type wing player a la Vince Carter or Tracy McGrady.

Lastly, the 2009 Pistons.

Did Dumars bring Allen Iverson in to actually win?

Did Dumars bring Allen Iverson to be Allen Iverson or to be Chauncey Billups?

Did Iverson try to be "The Answer" or did he try to fit in?

I'll answer those questions as simply as I can.

With the new coaching team in place, no matter what Iverson did, he was going to fail because there was not one player on that Pistons team as talented as Carmelo Anthony was and Iverson is not a true PG so he will not come close to being a Chauncey Billups, let alone a Steve Nash etc.

If he tried to be "The Answer" he'd be labeled selfish.

If he tried to fit in, which he did, the Pistons would have failed anyways because they didn't need a guy coming in to just "fit in", if they did, they would have just KEPT Chauncey Billups.

[GKC]

That philosophy gives you the Denver Nuggets from the year before last. Full of talent, but a bust as a team.

Get rid of AI and bring in a player who is not as good an individual player (Billups) and your start winning.

I appreciate your critique of certain generalizations of others, but you have some problematic generalizations of your own.

If you want to be a star in the league, be a great individual player and a GM can build a team around you. But if you are no longer at the point where a GM will build a team around you, you need to listen to coaches when they tell you how to fit in with a team effectively, or face the lack of interest as a FA that Iverson is facing.

Some traits of AI are great. Some are horrible. What would AI's career have been if he practiced like Jordan or KG? Would he now have a ring?

Look at Pierce's adjustment from being just a scorer to using more energy on defense and sharing the ball on offense. If not for that adjustment, does Pierce have a ring?

It is good that people are defending AI's legacy. I think he deserves that. But the legacy doesn't mean much when looking for a contract in 2009.

Wait a second, were the Nuggets losing before Billups got there? 45 and 50 wins are losing seasons now?

And if you are talking about playoffs, have the Billups's Nuggets face the Spurs or Lakers, see if the Nuggets get out of the 1st Round.

Maybe a Billups's Nuggets team could have beaten the Spurs this year, but it wouldn't be because of Billups, it would have been because of "no Manu".

An Iverson's Nuggets team would have destroyed an already imploding New Orleans Hornets team, just as easily as the Billups's Nuggets dispatched them this past playoffs.

I believe practicing is very important, but when it comes to winning a ring, you can practice 24/7 and if you don't got the championship team around you, you won't win a ring....period.

I've looked at Pierce's adjustment. The only reason Paul was able to focus more on defense is because his management was able to supply Paul, some form of championship caliber teammates and mix of decent veterans and role players.

If management doesn't supply Paul with those teammates, he's just your scorer, offensive type wing player a la Vince Carter or Tracy McGrady.

Lastly, the 2009 Pistons.

Did Dumars bring Allen Iverson in to actually win?

Did Dumars bring Allen Iverson to be Allen Iverson or to be Chauncey Billups?

Did Iverson try to be "The Answer" or did he try to fit in?

I'll answer those questions as simply as I can.

With the new coaching team in place, no matter what Iverson did, he was going to fail because there was not one player on that Pistons team as talented as Carmelo Anthony was and Iverson is not a true PG so he will not come close to being a Chauncey Billups, let alone a Steve Nash etc.

If he tried to be "The Answer" he'd be labeled selfish.

If he tried to fit in, which he did, the Pistons would have failed anyways because they didn't need a guy coming in to just "fit in", if they did, they would have just KEPT Chauncey Billups.

I think it's fair to say Denver was better with Chauncey. Firstly, they vaulted to the 2nd seed for the first time.

Secondly, they made it to 8th in defensive efficiency, something that if had been in previous years, they might actually have beaten the Spurs teams (or at least done better).

Third, I don't think people are blaming Iverson for the Pistons failing, but Iverson didn't exactly accimilate well into the team. And Iverson didn't fit in. He didn't accept his bench role, and refused to even play. This is a guy who has played through everything in his entire career including two sprained ankles, and yet somehow a sprained back sidelines him for over 20 games?

I think his career is great. He'll be labelled one of the greatest scorers ever. However, Chauncey is a better fit for the Nuggets, and Iverson did quit on the Pistons (not that it's all his fault, but he did quit).