Iverson was never the Answer

[cordobes]

I remember when folks here were ready to trade Al Jefferson to get AI.  Ah, how quickly we forget.  I got into huge fights with several posters here when I argued that Iverson was totally overrated, as the Wages of Wins predicted, and then there was a long discussion about how the Wages of Wins approach (regression analysis) was flawed, because how could any statistical approach be correct when it denied the greatness of Alan Iverson?

I was never a fan of AI - quite the opposite, and mostly due to stylistically issues (I was never a fan of over-dribbling 1vs5 basketball). However, I also agree the Wage of Wins approach is flawed. Any statistical metric that rates Rodman above Michael Jordan is very flawed. (Berri's problem, IMO, is the nosense of overvaluing gaining possessions - rebounding, etc - and then punishing their use - grossly undervaluing the shot-creation).

[hangers]

I would ask "what success in Philly?"  Iverson clearly had an untalented team "he" took to the finals.  He had arguably the best defensive center of his era. Philly management brilliantly surrounded Iverson with defensive-minded role players who covered Iverson's defensive deficiencies.  Iverson also had arguably the best coach of his era who built a system around Iverson.  With the exception of that one year, Philly struggled to reach .500 with the great Iverson as their  "leader".

Iverson was a huge individual talent.  But he has never made his team better.  Every team he's ever been on (with the exception of the 2000-2001 team) has been diminished by his presence and immediately improved upon his departure.  It's no coincidence whatsoever that Denver drastically improved post trade and Detroit drastically improved post-injury.

The fact that various media fall all over themselves praising Iverson doesn't change who he is as a player.  Dumars did the right thing sitting him.  He, as a service to Curry, should have sat Iverson as soon as he acquired him.  The trade was strictly financial to begin with.  Dumars is too smart a basketball mind to fathom Iverson being an improvement over Billups.  There is no comparison whatsoever between the two players.  Billups is a winner and champion.  Iverson will never be on a championship team.

I don't know that AI has never made a team better, or that every team with AI on it has gotten better after he's left. AI's Finals Philly team was built around his ability to create and score. With a different star, it's hard to say that they would be as good. I remember reading somewhere that AI's "selfish" play in fact was encouraged by Larry Brown. For example, it created for his teammates by drawing multiple defenders, leading to more offensive rebounding opportunities.

Also, in Denver, Iverson shot 45% and averaged 26 and 7. That's not bad. They didn't have as much success with AI because they weren't good defensively (it didn't help that K-Mart and Nene were constantly injured) and their offense was inconsistent. They've gotten much better this year, not just because of Billups (who I think is underrated) and the departure of AI, but also because K-Mart, Nene, Birdman, JR Smith of playing bigger roles, and Melo maturing. I think it's unfair to say AI was detrimental to that team.