how did he became so good at basketball being 5'11´´ ? he was mvp, best rookie, no.1 pick, top scorer etc, but he was a defensive liability I assume.
how did he became so good at basketball being 5'11 ?
how did he became so good at basketball being 5'11´´ ? he was mvp, best rookie, no.1 pick, top scorer etc, but he was a defensive liability I assume.
Iverson's ranking among all guards in defensive win shares, basically who the best defenders were
>1999 - 2nd
>2000 - 6th
>2001 - 3rd
>2002 - 4th
>2003 - 4th
>2004 - Injured
>2005 - 7th
So no he was a very good defender
This is very deceptive because he had an elite defense behind him for the most part, and he gambled on steals. There is 0 chance he was a top 5 guard in the league defensively realistically
He was the best off-ball defender in the NBA until he left Philadelphia. He wasn't a very good on the ball defender, but due to being a elite Free Safety in football he was everywhere on the court and always picking off passes and stealing the ball from the weak side.
he went to georgetown, whose identity was defense
he could not do as many rebounds or block because of his height
True he was like 5'11, so contesting taller guards and getting rebounds was a issue. Iverson is basically as good as a 6'0 and under player can ever get
Best MVP seasons from 1990-2009 ranked by % of MVP votes
>99.8% - Shaquille O'Neal (2000)
>99.1% - Kevin Garnett (2004)
>98.6% - Michael Jordan (1996)
>96.9% - Lebron James (2009)
>93.8% - Michael Jordan (1992)
>93.4% - Michael Jordan (1998)
>92.8% - Michael Jordan (1991)
>90.4% - Allen Iverson (2001)
No other players besides Michael Jordan, Allen Iverson, Shaquille O'Neal, Lebron James and Kevin Garnett received over 90% of the MVP votes during that period
>Shaq
I understand his seethe but...
>KG
KG was 3 votes away and people picked Peja and Jermaine O'Neal. Good players, and O'Neal had a better record, but the East was a fricking tumbleweed. KG put legendary numbers in the harder conference and it was only two wins behind the Pacers.
>Jordan
Robinson is objectively the second best player, but didn't get any first place votes. Malone (and this ends up benefiting him later) and Penny get a combined 3 votes to run him out.
>LeBron
I think he should be angrier about the one that they stupidly gave a vote to Melo. I could see Dwight and KG getting a vote though. Objectively though he was the best player that year and probably deserved it more than those guys. He had better stats than both, best record in the league. 66-16 with the fricking Cavs and the East had less parity because Boston and Magic were on his tail.
Overall it's just dumb that Curry is the 1st. He deserved to be a unanimous MVP, but I do feel like a lot of that is because they finally started revealing votes. If that shit wasn't revealed, you already know some dumbass was going to pick Kawhi or LeBron at 1st .
Philadelphia in 2000 was 6 games back from the best record in the East, Iverson missed 12 games that season. If he played all 82 they'd be the #1 seed in the Eastern conference. Without AI Philly would have been the worst in the NBA, so by that logic which was what the voter used he was the Most valuable player over Shaq who got to play with Kobe Bryant.
Kevin Garnett was probably also deserving to be unanimous MVP
>how did he became so good at basketball
Skill, practice, mastering the game.
It's not all about just being big , having no bag , little skill and stat padding.
>practice
isn't this the guy that's known for shit talking practice?
You guys don't think AI played his ass off and tried to learn the game as much as possible when he was younger and in college? He put in the work even though he wasn't the tallest that's why he was good.
If I can't practice, I can't practice man. If I'm hurt, I'm hurt. I mean … simple as that. It ain't about that... I mean it's... It's not about that... At all. You know what I'm saying I mean... But it's...it's easy … to, to talk about... It's easy to sum it up when you're just talking about practice. We're sitting in here, and I'm supposed to be the franchise player, and we in here talking about practice. I mean, listen, we're talking about practice, not a game, not a game, not a game, we talking about practice. Not a game. Not, not … Not the game that I go out there and die for and play every game like it's my last. Not the game, but we're talking about practice, man. I mean, how silly is that? … And we talking about practice. I know I supposed to be there. I know I'm supposed to lead by example... I know that... And I'm not.. I'm not shoving it aside, you know, like it don't mean anything. I know it's important, I do. I honestly do... But we're talking about practice man. What are we talking about? Practice? We're talking about practice, man. [laughter from the media crowd] We're talking about practice. We're talking about practice. We ain't talking about the game. [more laughter] We're talking about practice, man. When you come to the arena, and you see me play, you see me play don't you? You've seen me give everything I've got, right? But we're talking about practice right now. We talking about pr... [Interrupted].
Threadly reminder that Iverson
>had one (1) deep playoff run in his entire career which was only possible because of blatant refball since the league thought Mr. Cool tats and the big Philly market was a better finals matchup than Mr. Boring Ray Allen and the small-market Bucks. So his only team accomplishment is making it to a finals where he got swept in 5 and the league had to cheat to get him that far
>shot a hilariously awful 42% for his career. For comparison, John Stockton shot 51%. Stephen Curry has a 3PT% equal to Iverson's regular fg%. He scored so many points by just shooting more than anyone else on his team but as you might imagine having your "best" player missing more shots than he makes is horribly inefficient, hence the not winning anything and generally being a playoff afterthought
>and this is the point where people usually say "yeah but his teammates sucked so he had to shoot that much" which is just massive cope because we saw Iverson with a team full of A+++ talent on the olympic squad he "led" to the worst finish in team USA history. He had LeBron, Duncan and Wade on his team and got btfo by Argentina. And he actually shot WORSE than he did normally. He was the team's leading scorer and he shot 38%. If he had bad teammates, he shot too much and missed more than half of them. If he had good teammates, he...shot too much and missed more than half of them. Better supporting players would have just been wasted on him
>Also, he was paired up with Carmelo at one point when Carmelo was one of the league's leading scorers, and instead of making each other better it was awkward and ineffective and he eventually became a team cancer and was told to go home and wait to be traded or released. Again, pairing him up with anyone else good was a waste because he couldn't defer or create plays for other people. All he did was shoot, and, he was a terrible shot. He was Westbrook without the rebounding or passing which is as useless as it sounds.
Didn't reed, all of it's false BTW.
Iverson had to play 45-48 minutes every game so the team kept him rested by letting him skip practice.
There is a lot of truth to all of that. He was a huge chucker, the game had to revolve around him taking all the shots. And the Bucks did get played by the league that year.
Kek this. The 2001 ECF were a bigger screwjob than Lakers-Kings. That Bucks team absolutely dismantled the Lakers both times they met that year. They were basically a prototype team of todays NBA except with a strong af defensive center w no other skills than being almost as strong as shaq.
AI played in the perfect generation. If he was 15 years younger he'd never have made it in the NBA. His entire career was played in the inefficient isoball 1-on-1 shit where games finished 94-89 and you could shoot 7/19 without people calling you out
Trying to discredit ISO ball because Lebaby is absolute garbage at ISO and can't do anything without a stupid screen or pick and roll or whatever cuz he has no bag, no post-up game, an ugly jumper, And basically is just good at barreling down the lane and flopping to try to get and1.
AI's career shooting splits are horrible. His game wouldn't work in today's NBA
Or he would get 30 free throws a game. We would be Harden without the beard.
He was a career 31% 3pt shooter. Teams today would sag off him 10 feet and let him shoot threes all game. AI could not play in today's NBA without significantly changing his game.
He would need to improve his three point shooting and that's all. The worst would be his mindset, adapating to today's game. But there is no way Iverson could not play in the modern run around and no defense nba.
>A top 5 scorer of all time and perennial league MVP candidate his entire career couldn't play in the NBA today
You are fricking stupid.
No one in that era besides big men shot 50% and over. And the players that did were mostly post up dunker and layup merchants.
The league actually played defense and usually double or triple team the star players on teams. That's the issue with just being a stat nerd and looking at stats all day without knowing the context. Stats without context are meaningless. That's why Zoomers nowadays praise players for stat padding in a soft era with meaningless stats that wouldn't be possible in a tougher era. Today's "stars" would be average joes with a few exceptions.
>they actually played defense
You guys literally do not understand basketball. It's 100x harder to play defense against a team that can spread you out and hit threes from 5 spots than play against a team that has 1 shooter and the rest of the D can sag and collapse/help protect the rim. The game was not more physical and more defensive 20 years ago. Guys just couldn't shoot.
this, Zoomers are moronic. Iverson today would average like 40 points on a bad day.
>games finished 94-89
Another way I can tell this was posted by a homosexual zoomer. That era actually play defense unlike today's soft era filled with onions players, that hardly play defense anymore and can take four steps without getting called traveling, All while trying to get good at flopping to get to the line 20 times a game.
I'm older than you. The difference is that in 1998 every team had 1-2 guys who could shoot threes and the whole team took 15-20 per game max because they shot 32% from deep as a team. Now all 5 dudes on the court can shoot threes and teams hit them at 38% or better. Tempo is faster now. In 03-04 the median team attempted 79 FG/game. Today the median team attempts 89.
tl;dr (because you have ADHD) - players are more skilled offensively today and the game is faster
>players are more skilled offensively today and the game is faster
They are not. This is a myth that people like to repeat nowadays.
Players like McGrady, Vince Carter, AI, Wade, etc and especially Kobe and Jordan would destroy today's league, with them not having to deal with the defenses they did. Them being able to take four steps without traveling. It would be a total joke and they would dominate easy in this era.
Any above average player looks like an absolute beast in today's era with all those advantages.
The Harlem Globetrotters were full of "skilled" players doing a million tricks but they wouldn't cut it in the NBA because they would get shut down easily. That's basically what a lot of these players are nowadays, glorified Globetrotters playing in a soft era.
Just watch today's playoffs. The first few games this month the league just let the players basically hip and hand check each other. It was very physical and most of the games had maybe 90-100 points scored and most of the "stars" like Jalen Brunson, had average 1990s numbers, when just a week or two earlier he was putting up consistent 40+ point games.
It's not the players, it's the rules. Change the reffing, you change the game. Period.
He was also HS state champion as quarterback.
back when NBA had SOVL
https://boards.Fhite/fit/thread/74158762#top
hes overrated cos he was a short king, so short kings wish he was great to prove they can compete with lanklets