Iverson Revisited

To return to the Allen Iverson discussion from the other day, the point was not to deny that the 2007-2008 Denver Nuggets are better than the 2007-2008 Philadelphia 76ers. The point, rather, was that if Iverson was as good as many people say he is, the Iverson-Miller swap should have made Denver much better than it was before the trade while Philly should have gotten much worse. After all, if Iverson is really much better than Miller, then swapping them should have that kind of impact. But you didn't see that kind of impact. Because Iverson's not genuinely much better than Miller.

People like to bring up the 2001 76ers in this regard. After all, they had Iverson and not much in the way of offense besides Iverson, and not withstanding that they had playoff success in a weak East. But Iverson & co. actually put up exactly what you'd expect -- a mediocre offensive effort that ranked, in efficiency terms, 13th out of 29. What made them viable was excellent defense -- 5th out of 29. After all, besides Iverson they had Dikembe Mutombo, someone who's still capable today at the age of 9 million of helping to anchor a first-rate defense.

And, yes, I think Carmelo Anthony is somewhat overrated, too. But the larger point is just that you keep hearing from Denver fans that the team is "underperforming" and has "so much talent." The reality is that Denver's better than most teams, and the reason it's not better than it is is that the talent's not quite as good as many people think.

Comments

Exactly . . . The 2001 Sixers won lots of games because the players (other than Iverson) were effective on defense.

Trading Iverson to the Nuggets could never work since his new team-mates also do not play defense. (I know Camby blocks shots taken by non centers - like Ben Wallace does - but he does not stop the guy he is guarding.) Most importantly, George Karl just rolls the ball out and tells his guys to out score the opposition. . . The Nuggets are performing exactly as their fans should expect . . . They score lots of points and then lose to good teams in the playoffs because they cannot stop anybody.

Posted by Wisconsin Reader | May 3, 2008 12:41 PM

After all, if Iverson is really much better than Miller, then swapping them should have that kind of impact. But you didn't see that kind of impact. Because Iverson's not genuinely much better than Miller.

Faulty reasoning. This completely ignores that trading Miller left them with no real point guard, and that having two stars who both need the ball to be effective does not necessarily make your team better, even if one of the stars is replacing an inferior player.

Posted by AB | May 3, 2008 12:45 PM

If only you applied this kind of statistical rigor to your economics posts.

Posted by AJ | May 3, 2008 12:47 PM

To add to my point above, your statement would be true in fantasy basketball, but in real life the makeup of the team is nearly as important as the overall talent of the individual players.

Posted by AB | May 3, 2008 12:49 PM

"The point, rather, was that if Iverson was as good as many people say he is, the Iverson-Miller swap should have made Denver much better than it was before the trade while Philly should have gotten much worse."

The problem is that you can't construct a championship team around Miller. He's the prototypical good guy to have on a mediocre team.

Having a point guard who can't hit the open jumper simply isn't viable on a team designed to actually win playoff series. He's perfect for a team of puppies needing some organization - exactly like Philly this year or Denver three years ago.

"But the larger point is just that you keep hearing from Denver fans that the team is "underperforming" and has "so much talent."

Meh. I'm a Denver fan, and when I realized that Nene and Atkins weren't going to be available, I realized they didn't have a real shot to go deep this year.

With the roster they were left with, they were an incredibly thin team. You could see one example of that in the LA series where they didn't have anyone to cover Kobe. I don't mean they didn't have a Kobe "stopper", since no one has one of those. I mean they didn't have anyone to cover Kobe.

Think of Washington. DeShawn couldn't stop LeBron, but the Wizards had someone to at least make LeBron work a bit.

If anything, I think the Nuggets slightly overperformed this year. That was a 48 win team that won 50 games.

-----

And Carmelo isn't overrated because no one thinks particularly highly of Carmelo. He hasn't harnessed his talents yet in his career, and everyone is reasonably aware of that.

Posted by Petey | May 3, 2008 1:00 PM

but in real life the makeup of the team is nearly as important as the overall talent of the individual players.

Right. Especially if "makeup" includes style of play and how the pieces fit together. A squad of the five best point guards in the league, as measured by PER, is composed of Chris Paul, Tony Parker, Jose Calderon, Deron Williams, and Rajon Rondo. The lowest PER is 19.56. I can put together a team of five composed of only players with PERs lower than 19.56 that would crush the PG team. It's trivial. The "talent" of a player isn't fungible.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | May 3, 2008 1:00 PM

Denver isn't that good. Iverson isn't that good. He should pull a Tiny Archibald and just pass and run the show, get Carmelo 30 ppg. The Lakers exposed their weaknesses. They can have Melo and AI and bunch of other young guys with initials and truncations for names, but they have no inside game. The Lakers only became viable contenders when they got Gasol. (But San Antonio could knock them off because of Duncan, who is the most protected player in the game by the refs. )

The big story is the Celtics and their choke. I hope Atlanta, sorry "the ATL", can beat them.

Posted by cal | May 3, 2008 1:10 PM

Denver isn't that good. Iverson isn't that good. He should pull a Tiny Archibald and just pass and run the show, get Carmelo 30 ppg. The Lakers exposed their weaknesses. They can have Melo and AI and bunch of other young guys with initials and truncations for names, but they have no inside game. The Lakers only became viable contenders when they got Gasol. (But San Antonio could knock them off because of Duncan, who is the most protected player in the game by the refs. )

The big story is the Celtics and their choke. I hope Atlanta, sorry "the ATL", can beat them.

Posted by cal | May 3, 2008 1:10 PM

Iverson is one of the greatest shooting guards ever to play the game. Andre Miller is a capable starting point guard. That is the distinction. Denver was left with only mediocre point guard play, while playing in the Western conference. To say that Iverson is not much better than Miller shows an incredible lack of understanding of the NBA, and basketball in general.

Posted by Matt | May 3, 2008 1:18 PM

In 2001 Philly didn't get Mutombo until they were 41-14 and they were noticeably worse after the trade (15-12) and struggled in the playoffs, going the distance against Toronto and Milwaukee and even having trouble with #8 seed Indiana (also they had a lot of injuries). Their defense was anchored by Eric Snow, George Lynch, Tyrone Hill and (before the trade) Theo Ratliff. Larry Brown fell in love with Mutombo after the 2001 All-Star Game (yes, tis true) when Iverson and Marbury and Mutombo led a comeback to beat the West.

Ratliff was much better than Mutombo, and Iverson was incredible that year. It's 7 years later and he's now 32. You can expect some slowdown with the pounding he's taken over the years.

Posted by dday | May 3, 2008 1:18 PM

In 2001 Philly didn't get Mutombo until they were 41-14 and they were noticeably worse after the trade (15-12) and struggled in the playoffs, going the distance against Toronto and Milwaukee and even having trouble with #8 seed Indiana (also they had a lot of injuries). Their defense was anchored by Eric Snow, George Lynch, Tyrone Hill and (before the trade) Theo Ratliff. Larry Brown fell in love with Mutombo after the 2001 All-Star Game (yes, tis true) when Iverson and Marbury and Mutombo led a comeback to beat the West.

Ratliff was much better than Mutombo, and Iverson was incredible that year. It's 7 years later and he's now 32. You can expect some slowdown with the pounding he's taken over the years.

Posted by dday | May 3, 2008 1:20 PM

I'm a Sixers fan, and I've been on both sides of this debate. I think we can all agree AI is not as good as Chris Paul, say.

But it's pointless to keep bringing up the same stats; we all know that AI has never been an efficient player. The question is whether his frenetic style offers something that does not appear in the stat sheet.

It's like Bill James said about sabermetricians who lionized Rogers Hornsby; it's ok to question conventional wisdom, but probably foolish to say you know more about basketball than Larry Brown or even George Karl.

Finally, it's worth noting that the Sixers record in 2001-2 was much better with Kukoc and Ratliff than with Mutombo. They only traded for Deke because Ratliff got injured.

Posted by AWC | May 3, 2008 1:25 PM

You've ignored, again, the most obvious rebuttal, which is that basketball is a game of systems and styles and that Denver is a terrible fit for Allen Iverson. I will say it one more time-- you don't pair to shoot-first, volume scoring perimeter players together. That doesn't work. Allen Iverson is a top 50 player all time.

Posted by Freddie | May 3, 2008 2:02 PM

Miller is underrated as a pure point guard he's not flashy but can be very effective we shouldve got rid of KMart and kept him with that trade

Posted by MAF | May 3, 2008 2:03 PM

Larry Brown fell in love with Mutombo after the 2001 All-Star Game (yes, tis true)

Not without cause; Mutombo's D in that game was truly eye-opening. I remember it specifically.

Posted by Freddie | May 3, 2008 2:04 PM

Iverson is one of the greatest shooting guards ever to play the game. Andre Miller is a capable starting point guard.

Exactly. Iverson's been playing out of position for most of the last two seasons. The idea that Iverson could, if he wanted to, transform himself into a point guard speaks to just how talented he actually is. (He does it at times, but he'd need a personality transplant to make it permanent.)

Denver's got talent, but they're missing pieces. They have no true point guard to bring up the ball and set up an offense. Their bench is thin. Where's the post production going to come from? Kenyon Martin? Please. The Nugs are a nice team, but they're not a Western Conference contender. Trying to extrapolate some sort of flaw in Iverson's game from this is a mistake.

Posted by Baseballhead | May 3, 2008 2:20 PM

Not only was Iverson in his peak a great player, but, Jesus, he was thrilling to watch. I never rooted for Phillie, but I saw him play when the Sixers were in town (Knicks, Nets) a bunch of times back in the day and - trust me - the guy was a joy. Not Kobe, not Vince Carter, not T-Mac . . . Iverson was the most exciting player of the post MJ-era. I'm not saying he was the best, but if you were a fan of the game you had to love watching him. Shaq, Duncan and a certain former T-Wolf now with the Celtics (whose greatness Matt likes to delude himself went unnoticed) weren't as exciting. And, oh man, young Kobe was still in his callow youth dumbass showoff stage.

Okay, I'll stop raving, but, yeah, Matt's Slate-like contrarian take is way, way off: Iverson was not just great but a veritable fucking delight for any true fan of the game. Even Shaq was impressed. The guy was a little ballsy wonder.

Posted by Ball-hogs are people too | May 3, 2008 2:23 PM

The problem with the Nuggets is chemistry. They either need to try to convert Iverson into a pass-first point guard, or pair him with a defensive minded point guard who is taller/more athletic than Anthony Carter. (Andre Miller would be ideal, but you can't get something for nothing!)

Or get rid of George Karl and get a coach who will have them play defense first. I agree with Freddie -- Karl's system is wrong for Iverson, and I think it's wrong for Carmelo too. Slow the game down, let them get the clutch shots in crunch time of a low scoring game.

Otherwise, we're just waiting for Kenyon Martin's contract to run out . . .

Posted by Colorado Luis | May 3, 2008 2:44 PM

"Where's the post production going to come from? Kenyon Martin?"

The Nene injury saga was the real tragedy of the Nuggets this season.

A healthy Nene is a poor man's Amare, which is all the Nuggets would've needed to make a real run in the West.

K-Mart really got a lot of production out of his battered body this year, but he's a 15mpg guy on an elite team, not a 35mpg guy.

Similarly, Anthony Carter is a nice Jacques Vaughn-ish 10mpg backup, not a starting PG.

-----

Hollinger had the correct rundown on the Nuggets' problem.

In short, George Karl needed to trust in J.R. Smith and play him 35mpg instead of 20mpg. Karl didn't do that for one of three conceivable reasons:

1) To hold down Smith's next contract
2) To better develop Smith through discipline
3) To make Karl's life easier by losing 'the right way' rather than giving up some control and risking winning

If you can tell me which of those three is the correct answer, I'd have a better read on whether Karl is part of the problem or part of the solution.

Posted by Petey | May 3, 2008 3:02 PM

"Hollinger had the correct rundown on the Nuggets' problem."

Here's the meat, if you're too lazy to read through the whole thing:

For Denver's half-court offense to work, the other three guys need to create room by stretching defense out to the 3-point line. Do Kenyon Martin, Marcus Camby and Anthony Carter strike you as the type of guys to do that?

Here's perhaps the most instructive piece of info about the Nuggets' need for floor-spacers. In terms of 3-pointers per shot attempt, Denver's three most prolific bombers this year were Smith, Linas Kleiza and Eduardo Najera. And other than Iverson, they were the three Nuggets with the top offensive plus/minus on the team.

Want more? Look at Denver's most effective offensive lineups and you'll see a similar trend. The top five-man units with more than 50 minutes, according to 82games.com, were:

1. Iverson-Smith-Kleiza-Anthony-Najera
2. Iverson-Smith-Kleiza-Anthony-Camby
3. Iverson-Smith-Anthony-Najera-Camby
4. Iverson-Smith-Kleiza-Najera-Martin

Notice a trend here? The Nuggets can score in bunches if they surround Iverson and Anthony with shooters. They can get by with one non-spacer -- either Martin or Camby -- at the 5. And otherwise, there just isn't enough room for their two big scorers to operate at peak effectiveness.

The Nuggets' roster and/or Karl's decisions on tick essentially wasted the possible efficiencies of having two players in Iverson and 'Melo who can't be defended with single coverage.

If you were defending the Nuggets this year, you load up on Iverson and 'Melo whenever they have the ball, because you know that forcing them to swing it to the weak side will result in a 20ft Camby jumpshot or an Anthony Carter 20ft jumpshot. And both of those are very happy results for the defending team.

You need to surround Iverson and 'Melo with guys who can make defenses pay for leaving them alone. And the Nuggets didn't do that this year.

Posted by Petey | May 3, 2008 3:39 PM

"Notice a trend here? The Nuggets can score in bunches if they surround Iverson and Anthony with shooters."

At the trading deadline when all the Nuggets' chatter was about getting Ron Artest, I was amped about potentially getting Mike Miller, who would've been the absolutely perfect fit for the team.

Posted by Petey | May 3, 2008 3:50 PM

The Nuggets aren't that good because they don't play defense. Period. See: Phoenix, Dallas, and Washington.

San Antonio, Detroit, LA and Boston. Defensive intensity wins NBA titles. Not aging and overrated scorers.

Posted by Jeff | May 3, 2008 4:00 PM

The Nuggets aren't that good because they don't play defense. Period. See: Phoenix, Dallas, and Washington.

San Antonio, Detroit, LA and Boston. Defensive intensity wins NBA titles. Not aging and overrated scorers.

Posted by Jeff | May 3, 2008 4:02 PM

"The Nuggets aren't that good because they don't play defense. Period. See: Phoenix, Dallas, and Washington."

You're not too bright, Jeff. Period.

Denver had the 9th best defense in the association. (And Dallas had the 8th best defense, FWIW.)

The problem is that Denver only had the 11th best offense. And with the difficulties Iverson and 'Melo cause for defenses, they should've had one of the top 5 offenses in the league had they thrown out a more appropriate supporting cast around their two studs.

Listening to Jon Barry will rot your basketball mind even quicker than listening to Dave Berri.

Posted by Petey | May 3, 2008 4:30 PM

If Nene is the poor man's Amare, I'd hate to see how poor that hypothetical man would be. We're not talking American-homeless-guy poor. I think this guy would starve to death in weeks.

Posted by too many steves | May 3, 2008 4:31 PM

"If Nene is the poor man's Amare, I'd hate to see how poor that hypothetical man would be. We're not talking American-homeless-guy poor. I think this guy would starve to death in weeks."

Have you actually seen Nene play when healthy?

Nene's only been healthy for two or three months since Iverson arrived, during the tail end of '06 - '07. But for those two or three months, he was really fucking good. Total monster on both ends of the court. Best +/- on the team last year, despite working himself back into shape during the season.

He easily one of the top 8 PF's in the league under 30 if he can stay healthy.

If you told me he was going to be able to stay on the court, I'd take him over Gasol, for example. I might even take him over Boozer if I knew he could stay healthy.

Posted by Petey | May 3, 2008 4:43 PM

If you told me he was going to be able to stay on the court, I'd take him over Gasol, for example.

Depends on the team. For the Nuggets, I guess I could see that.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | May 3, 2008 4:54 PM

Hm. Nene is a good player, but I don't think he's the guy Iverson needs. Again: AI's best ball was played with Kukoc and a bunch of tough guys. In that sense, Gasol would have been a perfect fit.

Posted by AWC | May 3, 2008 5:07 PM

Hm. I don't know if I've ever seen Nene healthy. I've seen him play when I didn't think he was injured, but he's injured so much, maybe he wasn't at full strength. Maybe counting on him to be healthy is like counting on Theo Ratliff to be healthy. Or Camby. But Camby's been healthy lately, so maybe the Nuggest have some special mojo there. Or maybe they're already pressing their luck with Camby not shattering in a million pieces yet.

I certainly haven't seen anything from Nene that would make me take him over Boozer or Gasol, healthy or no. That's some pretty high praise. Nene is good, I know. When he's healthy he's an above average power forward.

You're right about Jon Barry. God, does he suck. He might be worse than Reggie Miller. Reggie never makes any coherent point at all. Barry makes coherent points that are completely stupid.

Maybe Barry should try GMing the Suns and we can have Steve Kerr back on tv.

I'm totally rooting against Jeff Van Gundy getting a coaching job. We want him in that booth. We need him in that booth.

Posted by too many steves | May 3, 2008 5:08 PM

Both Western Semifinals series are pretty damn tasty.

I'd have to assume Kobe will be guarding Deron during crunch time.

Harpring will be this year's Raja Bell.

Gasol/Boozer is the key matchup. Even if they aren't defending each other, you have to assume whichever of them puts up the most production will be on the winning team.

-----

And can we all agree that Rafer Alston is the MVP of the playoffs so far?

Posted by Petey | May 3, 2008 5:11 PM

"Hm. I don't know if I've ever seen Nene healthy. I've seen him play when I didn't think he was injured, but he's injured so much, maybe he wasn't at full strength."

March through April 2007 was the only viewing window.

-----

"Maybe counting on him to be healthy is like counting on Theo Ratliff to be healthy."

He's not in The Expiring Contract of Theo Ratliff territory yet. He's not broken down.

He just keeps having random unrelated stuff happen (like fucking ball cancel) that make you wonder if there isn't some odd pattern going on.

He should be able to play 30+ mpg next year with a positive impact for a contending team. But one would be wise to not bet the farm on it.

Posted by Petey | May 3, 2008 5:19 PM

Everyone is missing the obvious: the West is just flat-out better than the East. In the East, Andre Miller is a premier PG, and that can more than make up for the AI's departure when it opens up minutes and shots for Igoudala. For a team to get better in the West requires a phenomenal upgrade --- like getting Pau Gasol for basically nothing. Getting AI and losing a competent starting PG, while an upgrade, isn't going to do all that much against the West.

Posted by C.S. | May 3, 2008 5:26 PM

"Having a point guard who can't hit the open jumper simply isn't viable on a team designed to actually win playoff series."

BTW, this is why Jason Kidd has been ineffectual since the microfracture.

Pre-injury, Kidd was supersonic enough in other areas to get around his shooting problems. But pre-injury Kidd is the exception that proves the rule.

And seriously, Miller shot 9% on his 3 pointers this year? How is that even possible? I'd bet half the seven footers in the league could do better than that if coach let 'em shoot it.

Posted by Petey | May 3, 2008 5:32 PM

"After all, if Iverson is really much better than Miller, then swapping them should have that kind of impact. But you didn't see that kind of impact. Because Iverson's not genuinely much better than Miller".

First off, what do you think would have happened to the 14-9 Nuggets with no Iverson, and Andre Miller on the team without the suspended Melo and Smith? That was a panic trade...it doesn't happen if Carmelo doesn't get suspended for 15 games. Philly wanted to unload AI and rebuild, so the trade made sense SHORT-TERM, especially for Denver. But how much sense does it make LONG-TERM?

Second, you're not making a fair comparison, since the West is BETTER than when Miller played for Denver and, it can be argued, the East is worse. Boston has become top notch, and Orlando is better, but Miami has imploded, and NJ has declined, as have the Bulls, the Pacers, and the Bucks. Meanwhile, the Hornets almost won their conference this year. Portland is back to .500. Utah is much better. So are the Lakers. So are the Rockets. So are the Warriors.

Third, don't overrate the Nuggets. How they won 50 games in beyond me. They don't have a viable post threat. Camby is an overrated defender who can't score. Anthony Carter is their starting PG(???????). Nene has cancer. Their only consistent three point shooter is JR Smith. Keep them out of the open court and you shut them down (IE: LAKERS-NUGGETS first round obliteration, 2008). And yet they won 50 games and Iverson had (arguably) one of his best overall seasons in a loaded Western Conference.

Third, chemistry is as important as talent. Denver got rid of a very good PG to add a potent scorer in Iverson, then, never properly addressed their PG situation. And they don't have any post threats or many three point shooters. Philly got a stable PG in Miller, and were able to develop guys like Iguodala, Green, Dalembert, etc...

In terms of developing talented young guys, you need a PG. Something that Miller is, but AI is not. That's why you may have a slight improvement record wise (combined with the fact that some East teams have fallen off big time).

The way you choose to measure "impact" is suspiciously simplistic, as it ignores many other important factors.

Posted by Mike | May 3, 2008 6:55 PM

If you told me he was going to be able to stay on the court, I'd take him over Gasol, for example. I might even take him over Boozer if I knew he could stay healthy.

Sure, and Grant Hill was one of the best players of the last ten years, when he was healthy. Didn't help Orlando (or, now, the Suns) win any playoff series.

Posted by right | May 3, 2008 7:23 PM

Because Iverson's not genuinely much better than Miller.

Your basketball posting license is revoked.

Do you really think the 2001 Sixers would have been anywhere near the same team with Miller instead of AI?

All Iverson ever needed was a dominant big man to play with and he's never had that. Dikembe may have been the closest but he couldn't handle Shaq.

It's a joke to even consider Andre Miller in his class. And that's nothing against Andre Miller.

Posted by Undecided | May 3, 2008 9:23 PM

It really doesn't matter how you word it...the point is that it is ridiculous to compare two completely different players in Andre Miller and Iverson. Andre is a PG, AI is a combo gaurd. It is ridiculous to compare Andre to a future Hall of famer. Compared to Iverson, don't nobody even knows who Andre is. Enough with the hate already, because i'm sure Iverson doesn't care.

Anyone watching the Nuggets can see that the problems go far beyond Iverson. That team has no offensive or defensive sets (no structure), a Coach that doesn't seem to Coach, their front office didn't even seem to address the issues that were needed for this team after they made the trade. Iverson is not the type of player you just add on a team without having a plan. It seems like the Nuggets made a trade for Iverson with NO plan and then everyone expects for him to go into a flawed system and make them contenders? Give me a break.

Also, the Sixers are no better then what they were with Iverson...they made the playoffs being 2 games below .500. So lets stop acting as if they turned into the Boston Celtics. The Sixers finally have a real PG that can control the offense (something they didn't have since they traded Eric Snow), and some of the younger players are a little more matured now and are stepping up because at this point they have no choice because Iverson is not there to save them. THEY DID NOT HAVE THE PROPER PLAYERS or pieces SURROUNDING IVERSON, period. That current Sixer team is chalked full of a bunch of role players and what they are missing is a star player and a closer...which ironically enough is AI. I find it funny that the topic of this post is about Iverson supposidly not making Denver significantly better (although they did have a better record then years past), when it should be about the fact that the Sixers are going to be struggling for some time in the post Iverson era. They have a lot of work to do.

Posted by Anon02 | May 3, 2008 11:39 PM

Cal said:
"Denver isn't that good. Iverson isn't that good. He should pull a Tiny Archibald and just pass and run the show, get Carmelo 30 ppg".

^A guy that holds the third highest PPG average in the history of the league "isn't that good" to you? Yikes thats an ignorant statement. Also, the Nuggets didn't trade for Iverson just for him to defer on every single play to Carmelo. Why should Iverson have to defer to a lesser player? A player that has choked all season when the game is on the line? It doesn't make any sense.

AWC said:

"I'm a Sixers fan, and I've been on both sides of this debate. I think we can all agree AI is not as good as Chris Paul, say".

^Um, no we can't all agree on that, considering that Chris Paul and Iverson are two different types of players..one is a pure PG and one is a combo gaurd/sg gaurd. One is going to the Hall of Fame and one is just beggining his careers. My goodness, is there a decent NBA mind in this bunch? I have to get out of here. LOL!

Look, Iverson is one of the few players in the NBA that is box office and whereever he goes people will pay to go see. He is in a flawed system and that system is doing nothing but exploiting his weaknesses when a good system would be highlighting his and Carmelos strengths. I'm starting to wonder if Iverson should have just stayed in Philly, because his job certainly isn't easier in Denver. He is still having to do the same things he did in Philly all those years, which is carry a team on his back. Iverson has played out of position on and off all season, he leads that team in PPG, assists, steals and minutes played (leads the league in minutes played). Theres nothing wrong with Iverson, he's the same player in a different uniform playing for another flawed system..anyone with commen sense could see this. Its really that simple.

Posted by Anon02 | May 3, 2008 11:59 PM

The point, rather, was that if Iverson was as good as many people say he is, the Iverson-Miller swap should have made Denver much better than it was before the trade while Philly should have gotten much worse.
Whoever wrote this article needs a reality check.......... , How insulting to compare a basketball legend in A.I, to some mediocare guard in the NBA. FOR STARTERS, WHEN DE SIXERS WENT TO THE NBA finals, iverson had nobody to support him offensively, he was their only weapon. Shaq had kobe and vise versa. Lets think of how many 6 fotters have a 40 point game, then talk about a 6 footer having a 50 plus game in the playoffs, that is just ridiculous. To me A.I is the best basketball player right now under 6foot, and i say that just becos of Kobe bryant. This is a guy who finished third in the league in scoring playing with a broken finger a quater of the season. I dont need to remind anybody on all his accomplishments cause we all know it. Chris pauls bn in the league for 3 yrs and u think u can comapare him to a 6 footer who has bn consistent for 12years, thats a joke. like i said u need a reality check. A.I IS A LEGEND and i think theres no disputing that............
joshua

Posted by joshua | May 4, 2008 3:03 AM

The point, rather, was that if Iverson was as good as many people say he is, the Iverson-Miller swap should have made Denver much better than it was before the trade while Philly should have gotten much worse.
Whoever wrote this article needs a reality check.......... , How insulting to compare a basketball legend in A.I, to some mediocare guard in the NBA. FOR STARTERS, WHEN DE SIXERS WENT TO THE NBA finals, iverson had nobody to support him offensively, he was their only weapon. Shaq had kobe and vise versa. Lets think of how many 6 fotters have a 40 point game, then talk about a 6 footer having a 50 plus game in the playoffs, that is just ridiculous. To me A.I is the best basketball player right now under 6ft.6inches, and i say that just becos of Kobe bryant. This is a guy who finished third in the league in scoring playing with a broken finger a quater of the season. I dont need to remind anybody on all his accomplishments cause we all know it. Chris pauls bn in the league for 3 yrs and u think u can comapare him to a 6 footer who has bn consistent for 12years, thats a joke. like i said u need a reality check. A.I IS A LEGEND and i think theres no disputing that............
joshua

Posted by joshua | May 4, 2008 3:09 AM

This is craven Iverson hatred. Shame, shame, shame.

Iverson didn't just lead the Sixers offense in 2001, he led their defense by averaging over 2 steals a game and captaining a fast break counter-attack that stunned the juggernaut Lakers in Game 1.

When a 6 foot player leads the league in scoring and steals, and pilots his team to the finals, with virtually no help, you don't call him overrated. Particularly not on the basis of a trade made years later when his body is worn from a decade of punishment against larger players.

Anyone who has watched the guy play live knows he's a phenomenol athlete.

Posted by Jonathan Dworkin | May 4, 2008 4:39 AM

This is craven Iverson hatred. Shame, shame, shame.

Iverson didn't just lead the Sixers offense in 2001, he led their defense by averaging over 2 steals a game and captaining a fast break counter-attack that stunned the juggernaut Lakers in Game 1.

When a 6 foot player leads the league in scoring and steals, and pilots his team to the finals, with virtually no help, you don't call him overrated. Particularly not on the basis of a trade made years later when his body is worn from a decade of punishment against larger players.

Anyone who has watched the guy play live knows he's a phenomenol athlete.

Posted by Jonathan Dworkin | May 4, 2008 4:40 AM

I just watched the Sixers play six games against the Pistons. It seemed like Philadelphia did pretty well because now they are a team, rather than Iverson and 4 other guys. That, and the fact that Mo Cheeks is a heck of a coach, are why I think Philly was better after the trade. Iverson is still a hell of a player.

But, hey, by the Steve Nash rules, if your new team is worse after acquiring you, and your old team is better for getting rid of you, I guess that means AI is in for a few MVP awards.

I don't mean they didn't have a Kobe "stopper", since no one has one of those.

Tayshaun Prince, anyone?

Posted by Notorious P.A.T. | May 4, 2008 9:45 AM

before nash: 29–53
with nash: 62–20

Notorious P.A.T, you're an idiot.

Posted by trouc | May 4, 2008 12:54 PM

Saying "I don't like Allen Iverson" is functionally identical to saying "I don't like basketball."

Posted by Freddie | May 4, 2008 1:26 PM

Equating AI with what makes someone love basketball shows a basic lack of understanding of what makes for good basketball.
AI is an extraordinary ball hog who does not make his teammates better on the floor and actively makes the team weaker off the court.
If you like one-on-one and posing, you should love AI. If you want your team to actually win, AI should be far away.
Teams win. AI is what is wrong with modern basketball.

Posted by MiloMecir | May 4, 2008 1:53 PM

Equating AI with what makes someone love basketball shows a basic lack of understanding of what makes for good basketball.
AI is an extraordinary ball hog who does not make his teammates better on the floor and actively makes the team weaker off the court.
If you like one-on-one and posing, you should love AI. If you want your team to actually win, AI should be far away.
Teams win. AI is what is wrong with modern basketball.

Posted by MiloMecir | May 4, 2008 1:54 PM

By the way, Allen Iverson is NOT a good defender.
Putting yourself consistently out of position, not rotating to help your teammates and just going for spectacular passing-lane steals might just get you the league lead in steals and a career average of over 2 steals per game.
However, your team defense will suffer and your main assignment will get a lot of open shots.
Iveson plays for stats, any teammate involvement is an aterthought.
Discipline, intelligence, unselfishness, sacrifice, maturity and team-play are all totally alien concepts to AI.
But he sure dribbles well and wow, he can sure score.
Only a fool would take AI over CP3. The same guy would take Dominique Wilkins over Magic Johnson.

Posted by MiloMecir | May 4, 2008 2:20 PM

People who don't think AI is a great player either don't actually watch basketball or don't understand it.

(And that isn't a false dilemma.)

Posted by Mr. Six | May 4, 2008 7:51 PM

@ Notorious P.A.T

How are the Sixers better? They made the playoffs being 2 games below .500. Iverson led almost that same team of players (only they were younger and weren't as experienced) to a better record and the playoffs the season before he got traded. But hey don't let the facts get in your way. That Sixer team doesn't have a choice but to share the scoring simply because no one is there to save them anymore.

When Iverson was in Philly they would all defer to him, you blame Iverson... blame the Coach. They also didn't have a real point gaurd to control the offense...during Iversons last days there, Andre Iguadala was playing the point gaurd position...Andre I.!! That goes to show how crazy things were. The Sixers would actually benefit better with having Iverson now that they have a decent PG. Iverson is one of the few players in the league that having him on the team gives you a chance to win everynight. There are very few players you can say that about.

Bottom line the Sixers are a mediocre team and still have a ways to go before they are even remotely relevent again since the Iverson trade. Hell that guy was the only reason why the Sixers were even spoken of the past 11 years and remains to be reason why they are spoken of now.

Posted by Anon02 | May 4, 2008 11:01 PM

before nash: 29–53 with nash: 62–20 Notorious P.A.T, you're an idiot.

Pot, kettle, black. Were you going to mention D'Antoni's installation of a completely new offensive system? The Marbury Suns played Amare as a post-up, back-to-the-basket type, and depended on Marbury to create for everyone. The system with Nash let Amare, Marion, Johnson, et al, take advantage of their speed and athleticism while masking their total inability to defend in the half-court by forcing tempo change. Nash is a terrific PG, perfect for exploiting the system, but let's not pretend the only reason the Suns succeeded was because there was a change at the point.

Posted by Baseballhead | May 5, 2008 12:56 AM

Melo overrated??? You must be joking, the only reason that Melo, and Iverson for that matter, aren't averaging over 30 ppg is because they are on the same team. I think if we made a trade for say, Steve Nash instead of Iverson, we would have been much better because we didn't need another elite scorer because we already had Melo, we need a true point guard, bottom line.

Posted by Al | May 5, 2008 8:22 PM

An utterly ridiculous article.

"In reality, Iverson isn't much better than Miller" or some jibberish to that effect.

With that statement, you've lost all credibility. I even know you don't believe such garbage. This is simply a case of an aspiring writer trying to garner some attention - and that you did.

Kudos to you, though; quite a lot of responses to a baseless article. I won't bother defending AI. I'm simply going to leave you with a bit of advice:
If you want to be a successful writer, one that carries a certain level of respect - don't stoop to levels such as this to get a few hits. Write some articles with true substance and you wouldn't be wasting everybody's time including your own.

Posted by tealish | May 9, 2008 12:26 AM