Allen Iverson

[AutoThieves]

I have always thought that Allen Iverson shot the ball poorly and made some bad decision on the court. Other people told me that he wouldn't turn the ball over or shoot so poorly if he had better teamates.

Well in the olympics I think he is a major reason why the US is losing. He still shoots a very low percentage, takes wild shots and turns the ball over. He also plays very erratic defense.


When Iverson was certain to be traded it wasn't like the good teams were trying to work out a way to get him and I think the NBA GM's know what I said above.

[CyphaPSU]

Iverson is not the biggest reason this team is losing. He has not attempted nearly the number of shots he usually does. He's played more of a team role.

[AutoThieves]

Iverson is not the biggest reason this team is losing. He has not attempted nearly the number of shots he usually does. He's played more of a team role.

But he still misses most of the shots he takes and like today for instance, turned the ball over way too often.

[DutchFootballRulez]

Iverson had a badgame, but Duncan couldn't stay out of foul trouble all tournament long.

The problem is bigger than who played poorly. Its structural. Its really up to the NBA and the NCAA to decide whether or not they care about International play. As long as the NBA ownership continues to take a wait-and-see approach to European/S. American based players; there won't be any changes.

[FCDarkness]

I thought Allen had a good overall tournament, he just struggled today. In the end, when it came down to the must-win games, the diaper dandies (LeBron, Carmelo, Wade and Stoudamire) couldn't contribute. Wade showed a lot of promise during exhibitions and early in pool play but has been attrocious in the last few games. Marbury had one good game, and it's a good thing he did or they'd have lost to Spain. The big guys (Duncan, Boozer, Odom and Marion) played well but were hampered by foul trouble and the lane-crowding zone defenses that the guards couldn't break down consistently. You combine that with a defense that can't force turnovers or cover the three point line and you have a recipe for disaster. Today specifically, missed free throws and stupid turnovers cost USA big time. Even some unnecessary fouls, a lot of mental errors. But bottom line: they were beaten by a better basketball TEAM, and don't let anyone tell you different.

[Spartak]

Incorrect. Iverson was the USA's best percentage three point shooter in the Olympic games. The USA's failure to win Gold is not his fault. He did his part.

[Toolhead]

Incorrect. Iverson was the USA's best percentage three point shooter in the Olympic games. The USA's failure to win Gold is not his fault. He did his part.

Completely agree, the thread starter obviously has an axe to grind with AI, cause no way in hell can you rationally blame this fiasco on him.

[AutoThieves]

Completely agree, the thread starter obviously has an axe to grind with AI, cause no way in hell can you rationally blame this fiasco on him.


I am not blaming him per se, however I was pointing out that he didn't play all that well.

He lead the team in turnovers and left his man open to hit 3's all tournament long. He shot under 50% as well from the field (i think it was 41%).

i think Allen Iverson epitomizes what is wrong with American basketball today. Good dribbling, but he averaged over 4 turnovers per game last year. How come no one talks about this? He plays out of control way too often.

I've noticed many basketball purist don't like Iverson. Many street ball fans do like him.

I think we need to decide if we want our players to be more street or more fundamentally sound. I don't think anyone can make a case that Iverson is fundamentally sound. He is a walking turnover machine and his shooting is quite poor.

[AutoThieves]

I thought Allen had a good overall tournament, he just struggled today. In the end, when it came down to the must-win games, the diaper dandies (LeBron, Carmelo, Wade and Stoudamire) couldn't contribute. Wade showed a lot of promise during exhibitions and early in pool play but has been attrocious in the last few games. Marbury had one good game, and it's a good thing he did or they'd have lost to Spain. The big guys (Duncan, Boozer, Odom and Marion) played well but were hampered by foul trouble and the lane-crowding zone defenses that the guards couldn't break down consistently. You combine that with a defense that can't force turnovers or cover the three point line and you have a recipe for disaster. Today specifically, missed free throws and stupid turnovers cost USA big time. Even some unnecessary fouls, a lot of mental errors. But bottom line: they were beaten by a better basketball TEAM, and don't let anyone tell you different.


I've noticed the people defending Iverson are all from PA. Coincidence?

The main reason why the US lost is lack of decent outside shooting which would have opened the lane more for Duncan. There are good shooters in the NBA, we just didn't send them to Greece.

Which is my main problem with guys like Iverson. The way they play isn't condusive to winning. It might be entertaining but you're not going to win with crossovers. Brent Barry or Ray Allen would have been much better for USA than most of the guys there this year.

[Toolhead]

I've noticed the people defending Iverson are all from PA. Coincidence?

Probably not, we get more media coverage on him being we're local, national media always seems to parrot each other. Once a first impression is formed it's difficult to change.

The main reason why the US lost is lack of decent outside shooting which would have opened the lane more for Duncan. There are good shooters in the NBA, we just didn't send them to Greece.

Not AI's fault or problem, take that up with Stu Jackson and his clowns at USA basketball.

Which is my main problem with guys like Iverson. The way they play isn't condusive to winning. It might be entertaining but you're not going to win with crossovers.

The Sixers have done a whole lot more winning with Iverson than before we had him. After Barkley left, the Sixers were horrible, not making the playoffs or even being able to win 30 games in a season. That changed once we got AI, remember the Sixers in the Finals a couple of years ago, funny I thought you had to win playoff games to make the finals. Btw, what's the name of the guy who was coaching the Sixers then, I can't remember his name, damn it's right on the tip of my tongue, oh oh shite that's right, it was Larry Brown. Seems the coach of team USA wanted him on the team, I wonder why?

[Alex_1]

I've noticed the people defending Iverson are all from PA. Coincidence?

The main reason why the US lost is lack of decent outside shooting which would have opened the lane more for Duncan. There are good shooters in the NBA, we just didn't send them to Greece.

Which is my main problem with guys like Iverson. The way they play isn't condusive to winning. It might be entertaining but you're not going to win with crossovers. Brent Barry or Ray Allen would have been much better for USA than most of the guys there this year.

Did you really watch any of the Olympics or go by every word that was written by the press? You clearly just don't like Iverson and he's the easy scapegoat since that's what the media's been pushing on you. He has been one of the USA's top performers in the Olympics and your TO comment is pure BS. He's only had maybe 1 per game. He's actually been the USA's most consistent 3 point shooter... unless you want to rule LeBron over him when he's taken a fraction of the shots. And here's the kicker - Iverson hasn't taken the most shots! As for his shooting percentage - gee, look at the rest of the TEAM and tell me how the perimeter guys did. Speaking of "team", IMO, the guy wins even more points to me because he was playing with a broken finger. :rolleyes: Selfish is something IVerson has not been in these games. And his comments in every post game loss has been very respectful to the US and to their opponents.

Okay, so he had a bad game. So did Dwayne Wade. I guess so did Tim Duncan and the rest of the "team". But don't pin their failures on one guy because that simply isn't fair - and wrong. The guy does have international experience - he did win the gold in the University games 9 years ago with Tim Duncan and always wanted to play for the USA. Nobody mentions that though, do they? Stern on the other hand didn't want him to play for the USA team because of his "image" (which you have also blindly fallen for). How ironic that had Iverson not been there, dare I say the USA would have done even worse...

Maybe you should stop listening to the "hype" and reading the papers and actually try to draw your own conclusions based on what you see with your own two eyes.

Me and toolhead have our different bball opinions. But he's right on re. Iverson.

[AutoThieves]

Okay, so he had a bad game. So did Dwayne Wade. I guess so did Tim Duncan and the rest of the "team". But don't pin their failures on one guy because that simply isn't fair - and wrong. The guy does have international experience - he did win the gold in the University games 9 years ago with Tim Duncan and always wanted to play for the USA. Nobody mentions that though, do they? Stern on the other hand didn't want him to play for the USA team because of his "image" (which you have also blindly fallen for). How ironic that had Iverson not been there, dare I say the USA would have done even worse...

Maybe you should stop listening to the "hype" and reading the papers and actually try to draw your own conclusions based on what you see with your own two eyes.

Me and toolhead have our different bball opinions. But he's right on re. Iverson.


Ok can you tell me why the media has been so hard on Iverson? Also he lead the USA team in turnover, as he lead the NBA in turnovers. He also shoots very poorly.

Is any of this disputable? And if not, how is turning theball over and shooting poorly condusive to winning?

Interested in your answer. You say that Iverson's been one of thier top performers yet I don't think most people see it that way. Duncan is the number one guy for USA, Odom second. After that it really doesn't matter since the team has gone 4 and 3.

[AutoThieves]

Probably not, we get more media coverage on him being we're local, national media always seems to parrot each other. Once a first impression is formed it's difficult to change.



Not AI's fault or problem, take that up with Stu Jackson and his clowns at USA basketball.



The Sixers have done a whole lot more winning with Iverson than before we had him. After Barkley left, the Sixers were horrible, not making the playoffs or even being able to win 30 games in a season. That changed once we got AI, remember the Sixers in the Finals a couple of years ago, funny I thought you had to win playoff games to make the finals. Btw, what's the name of the guy who was coaching the Sixers then, I can't remember his name, damn it's right on the tip of my tongue, oh oh shite that's right, it was Larry Brown. Seems the coach of team USA wanted him on the team, I wonder why?


The Sixers are slightly over .500 since Iverson go there. They went to the finals the year that they had the defensive player of the year and the 6th man of the year. Other than that Iverson has never gotten past the 2nd round. So if you say he was a winner because he got to the finals that one year, what does that say about the rest of his career?


Again asnwer my question. How does having a poor shooting percentage and turning the ball over more than 4 times per game (and he lead USA in turning the ball over) help your team win? Apparently the evidence is that it doesn't. And don't think for a second that iverson would be on the team if Kobe, Mcgrady or Ray Allen didn't decline.


Also, Larry Brown didn't choose Iverson. If you don't know about the selection process then why are you posting here? As a matter of fact, iverson was late to a team meeting and Brown didn't play him.

[Alex_1]

Your bias against Iverson has made you incredibly simple.

I will shred your argument to pieces when I return later on. I will say this - you were correct on the NBA stat. But you will want to look up some of your other erroneous statistics. Also, you might want to take a look at the qualifying team to see who was actually there. You ignore his injury, you ignore the success he has had, you ignore his steals, you ignore his assists, and you ignore the faults of everyone else on the team yet chose Iverson. I mean, very rarely will you find an individual that is totally incapable of drawing his own conclusions with his own two eyes. I don't think you saw a game and you're obviously too lazy to look up the statistics. Instead, the media have seemingly found a sheep, and you will follow their words, no matter how right or wrong they may be. The team lost. You have to get this. The team lost. And it wasn't solely Iverson's fault. And... exactly who did Larry Brown chose? How much influence did he have in the selection process? Instead of saying what others should understand, you need to do a LOT of research yourself. I don't care what the media says. I can watch the games and see it for myself.

The rest of your post I will happily dismantle later.

[AutoThieves]

Your bias against Iverson has made you incredibly simple.

I will shred your argument to pieces when I return later on. I will say this - you were correct on the NBA stat. But you will want to look up some of your other erroneous statistics. Also, you might want to take a look at the qualifying team to see who was actually there. You ignore his injury, you ignore the success he has had, you ignore his steals, you ignore his assists, and you ignore the faults of everyone else on the team yet chose Iverson. I mean, very rarely will you find an individual that is totally incapable of drawing his own conclusions with his own two eyes. I don't think you saw a game and you're obviously too lazy to look up the statistics. Instead, the media have seemingly found a sheep, and you will follow their words, no matter how right or wrong they may be. The team lost. You have to get this. The team lost. And it wasn't solely Iverson's fault. And... exactly who did Larry Brown chose? How much influence did he have in the selection process? Instead of saying what others should understand, you need to do a LOT of research yourself. I don't care what the media says. I can watch the games and see it for myself.

The rest of your post I will happily dismantle later.


Please tell me what stats I got wrong?

Also I didn't blame Iverson soley for the teams loss, but I think he epitomizes what is wrong with basketball today. His fueds with coaches doesn't help, including showing up late to a team meeting before the Olympics.

I watched every USA game and I watched tons of NBA games.

You still didn't answer my question above, doesn't turning the ball over more than anyone else and shooting worse than most hurt your team?

As for Larry Brown, he had little say in who the team selected. He wanted Reggie Miller but the committe didn't invite Miller.


Let's look at Iverson's career witht he sixers


2003/04 33-49 failed to make playoffs
2002/03 48-34 lost in 2nd round of playoffs
2001/02 43-39 lost in 1st round of playoffs
2000/01 56-26 lost in NBA finals
1999/00 49-33 lost in 2nd round of playoffs
1998/99 28-22 lost in 2nd round of playoffs
1997/98 31-51 failed to make playoffs
1996/97 22-60 failed to make playoffs

cumulative: 310 wins 264 losses .540 winning percentage career


Now according to IBM stats for off guards, a computer system that takes into accounts all stats, which would indicate his positive stats aren't enough to outwiegh his negative stats in 2003/04:

Tracy Mcgrady 23.75
Kobe Bryant 22.68
Ray Allen 20.91
Paul Pierce 20.49
Lebron James 18.77
Allen Iverson 18.19


And if you look at the bigsoccer thread below this on who you would pick for your USA team....not one person chose Iverson. Doesn't any of this mean anything to you?

[Alex_1]

Please tell me what stats I got wrong?

He did NOT lead the USA team in turnovers.

http://www.usabasketball.com/seniormen/2004/04_moly_stats.html

This is after six games. He had only 1 turnover today. Tim Duncan had more than one. You're not going to believe this, but 14 is a higher number than 11. Oh, it's true! And check this out - 14 is higher than 12 too! As a matter of fact, any number that Tim Duncan had that's higher than, oh, -2, would mean that Iverson did not lead his team in turnovers. Oh wait... but then there's Mr. Wade in there at 13, and I'm going to go out on a limb and say that 13 is also higher than 12.

Spot on on the NBA stat though. 48 games he played, and his assist to turnover ratio wasn't all that bad. But spot on anyway. He led the league in turnovers this year.


Also I didn't blame Iverson soley for the teams loss, but I think he epitomizes what is wrong with basketball today.

I see. Care to elaborate? Or will you go through algorithems and read a few clippings to draw this conclusion like the rest?


His fueds with coaches doesn't help, including showing up late to a team meeting before the Olympics.

Yup. He shouldn't have been late to the team meeting. Hey wait... was he the only person late? No? Funny that. And yup, he had a few feuds with coaches. Why don't we run through the list of players over time that have had feuds with coaches or been late to team meetings. Oh, that's right. You prefer to focus on Iverson. After all, he is the media darling for all that's wrong with the NBA, so why shouldn't you eagerly follow suit?

"Its the cornrows."


I watched every USA game and I watched tons of NBA games.

It's not showing. One things for certain, you didn't watch the qualifying tournament.


You still didn't answer my question above, doesn't turning the ball over more than anyone else and shooting worse than most hurt your team?

Okay. I'll answer this question as soon as you answer this one: Where did I or anyone in this thread say: "turning the ball over and shooting worse does not hurt your team". There. Go on. Find it. Look it up. Do a search. Tell me what you come back with, sport. Nothing? Too bad.


As for Larry Brown, he had little say in who the team selected. He wanted Reggie Miller but the committe didn't invite Miller.

I rest my case.


Let's look at Iverson's career witht he sixers


2003/04 33-49 failed to make playoffs
2002/03 48-34 lost in 2nd round of playoffs
2001/02 43-39 lost in 1st round of playoffs
2000/01 56-26 lost in NBA finals
1999/00 49-33 lost in 2nd round of playoffs
1998/99 28-22 lost in 2nd round of playoffs
1997/98 31-51 failed to make playoffs
1996/97 22-60 failed to make playoffs

cumulative: 310 wins 264 losses .540 winning percentage career

Great. Now why don't you look up the other players on this roster and see their relative impact on their teams. Go on. Tim Duncan was the one with the most success. LeBron has a bright future as does Carmelo. Now... tell me who else was on Iverson's team. Go on. Bring out Aaron McKie. Bring on Dikembe Mutombo. But why not the MVP? Yeah, that doesn't back your argument so you won't even mention it. The Sixers didn't have Iverson, they'd have been a lottery team each of those years. Why, even in your fallacial statistics above you fail to note that in the last season he played in only 48 of those games.

Your bias is staggering. Can you possibly create a neutral opinion? Is it possible?


Now according to IBM stats for off guards, a computer system that takes into accounts all stats, which would indicate his positive stats aren't enough to outwiegh his negative stats in 2003/04:

Tracy Mcgrady 23.75
Kobe Bryant 22.68
Ray Allen 20.91
Paul Pierce 20.49
Lebron James 18.77
Allen Iverson 18.19

Who the ******** cares about an IBM stat system for off-guards. And thank-you for leaving out the equation that would indicate exactly what his negative stats would be for the 2003-20004 season WHICH WAS, again, shortened to 48 games due to INJURY.

My word. If your going to use stats, at least use them correctly.


And if you look at the bigsoccer thread below this on who you would pick for your USA team....not one person chose Iverson. Doesn't any of this mean anything to you?

I wonder. When you're reading, how does your brain process the letters? Like, if I write: "It was a sunny day outside". Will you read it as: "My neighbour has a blue car"?

Take a second and read through the rules of that 15 post thread with few roster entries, Sparky. Your good at contorting the truth, I'll give you that.

http://www.bigsoccer.com/forum/showthread.php?t=128412&page=1

Basketball is a team game. The USA team lost to the better team today. The LA Lakers lost to the better team in June. The USA didn't lose because "Allen Iverson is all that's wrong with the NBA". You want to know what's wrong with the NBA? It's that it's not so much about good basketball anymore. It's about selling tickets. Its about selling merchandise. Its about expanding their markets abroad. its about TV timeouts. Its about franchise expansion. Its about slam dunks. its about one on one. Its about kids skipping college. Its about a lack of focus on fundamentals. Its about endorsements. Its about hall of famers getting traded.

The problem with the NBA is far greater than Allen Iverson. Say what you want about his personal life. But that guy could have a broken leg and he'll play. This time he had a broken finger that'll without question effect his NBA season, yet still wanted to play for the USA. I'll always respect that, regardless of what some muppet newspaper reporter or know nothing bandwagon fan says.

[Alex_1]

Ok can you tell me why the media has been so hard on Iverson? Also he lead the USA team in turnover, as he lead the NBA in turnovers. He also shoots very poorly.

Interested in your answer. You say that Iverson's been one of thier top performers yet I don't think most people see it that way. Duncan is the number one guy for USA, Odom second. After that it really doesn't matter since the team has gone 4 and 3.

Here was the post. Well, it's rather small now & I guess not as relevant. But really... what is this fascination with the media's take? Nobody has said he is the perfect player. But he is a very good player who can score and lead his team. I want to show you something, because it is something you desperately don't want to acknowledge:

http://www.usabasketball.com/seniormen/2003/03_molyq_stats.html

The statistics from the qualifying tournament. Interesting, no? Check out that FG percentage? And how about those 3's? Neat, huh? The guy had a few turnovers, I know you want to revel in that. But he did put together some sweet passes (remember the alley oops?) and this team steamrolled. But gee... look at that team. Mighty different than this one, wasn't it?

http://www.usabasketball.com/seniormen/2004/04_moly7_box.html

Here is the boxscore for the game too, BTW. You said something about him turning the ball over way too much today. He had one turnover.

He had a bad game, simple as that. Even he won't make excuses. He shot the ball poorly. But gee... haven't all of the perimeter players on the team?

You picked the wrong guy to get on. I mean, this grudge makes it sound like he stole your wallet then shortly after used the money to take out the girl who dumped you for him.

[Toolhead]

I guess according to you, KG must suck, because before this year he NEVER manage to get out of the first round of the playoffs. I see you're using that lame computer geek IBM stat shite to make your point. They don't take alot of things into consideration, like AI has to carry the Sixers by himself because they ain't got anybody who can score besides him. Of course he has a bunch of turnovers and take some bad shots, he has to make things happen, cause on one else on that team is. How about besides considering the not so good things on his resume you consider these, how many players in the NBA can drop 50 pts. any night on anybody and I mean anybody. He can torch Kobe, Bowen, Artest, you name it he can break their ankles and probably already has. Some other highlights of AI's career(off the top of my head).

Rookie of the year
scored 40 pts. in six straight games as a rook(no one else has done this - not even Jordan)
3 time NBA season scoring leader
NBA MVP

You might watch alot of hoops, but you don't know as much hoops as you think(that or you're just plain hatin')

[AutoThieves]

He did NOT lead the USA team in turnovers.

http://www.usabasketball.com/seniormen/2004/04_moly_stats.html

This is after six games. He had only 1 turnover today. Tim Duncan had more than one. You're not going to believe this, but 14 is a higher number than 11. Oh, it's true! And check this out - 14 is higher than 12 too! As a matter of fact, any number that Tim Duncan had that's higher than, oh, -2, would mean that Iverson did not lead his team in turnovers. Oh wait... but then there's Mr. Wade in there at 13, and I'm going to go out on a limb and say that 13 is also higher than 12.


Check your stats again tough guy. Iverson had 4 turnovers today pushing him to the lead. Why do you lie?



Spot on on the NBA stat though. 48 games he played, and his assist to turnover ratio wasn't all that bad. But spot on anyway. He led the league in turnovers this year.


His assist to turnover ratio wasn't even in the top 20 in the league. Why do you lie?




Yup. He shouldn't have been late to the team meeting. Hey wait... was he the only person late? No? Funny that. And yup, he had a few feuds with coaches. Why don't we run through the list of players over time that have had feuds with coaches or been late to team meetings. Oh, that's right. You prefer to focus on Iverson. After all, he is the media darling for all that's wrong with the NBA, so why shouldn't you eagerly follow suit?


So the other guys were wrong too, Iverson has a long history of this sort of thing. Do you admit that?



It's not showing. One things for certain, you didn't watch the qualifying tournament.

Maybe you can tell me why most basketball purist don't like Iverson? Maybe you can tell me why people like Jordan and barkley have ripped iverson in the past?



Okay. I'll answer this question as soon as you answer this one: Where did I or anyone in this thread say: "turning the ball over and shooting worse does not hurt your team". There. Go on. Find it. Look it up. Do a search. Tell me what you come back with, sport. Nothing? Too bad.

No you just ignored it. So do you think it's a problem that Iverson turns the ball over so much and shoots so poorly or not?





Great. Now why don't you look up the other players on this roster and see their relative impact on their teams. Go on. Tim Duncan was the one with the most success. LeBron has a bright future as does Carmelo. Now... tell me who else was on Iverson's team. Go on. Bring out Aaron McKie. Bring on Dikembe Mutombo. But why not the MVP? Yeah, that doesn't back your argument so you won't even mention it. The Sixers didn't have Iverson, they'd have been a lottery team each of those years. Why, even in your fallacial statistics above you fail to note that in the last season he played in only 48 of those games.

If the Sixers didn't have Iverson they'd be a lottery team? Maybe you can then explain why they went 12-8 to finish the season in 2003 to make the playoffs, which was unlikely when Iverson was playing. Or that they were no different with him in the lineup then they were without him this season. Why do you lie?




Who the ******** cares about an IBM stat system for off-guards. And thank-you for leaving out the equation that would indicate exactly what his negative stats would be for the 2003-20004 season WHICH WAS, again, shortened to 48 games due to INJURY.

Uh, wrong. Ray Allen played less games than Iverson. His negative stats were his 4.3 turnovers per game and 38% shooting. He misses more than 6 out of every 10 shots he takes. Why do you lie?


Take a second and read through the rules of that 15 post thread with few roster entries, Sparky. Your good at contorting the truth, I'll give you that.

http://www.bigsoccer.com/forum/showthread.php?t=128412&page=1

Yes I did, people chose Duncan but NO ONE chose Iverson. Why do you lie?


Basketball is a team game. The USA team lost to the better team today. The LA Lakers lost to the better team in June. The USA didn't lose because "Allen Iverson is all that's wrong with the NBA". You want to know what's wrong with the NBA? It's that it's not so much about good basketball anymore. It's about selling tickets. Its about selling merchandise. Its about expanding their markets abroad. its about TV timeouts. Its about franchise expansion. Its about slam dunks. its about one on one. Its about kids skipping college. Its about a lack of focus on fundamentals. Its about endorsements. Its about hall of famers getting traded.

The problem with the NBA is far greater than Allen Iverson. Say what you want about his personal life. But that guy could have a broken leg and he'll play. This time he had a broken finger that'll without question effect his NBA season, yet still wanted to play for the USA. I'll always respect that, regardless of what some muppet newspaper reporter or know nothing bandwagon fan says.


You will always respect a player who shoots too much, too poorly and turns the ball over too much? Skips practices, fueds with his coaches and parks in handicapped spaces?

[AutoThieves]

I guess according to you, KG must suck, because before this year he NEVER manage to get out of the first round of the playoffs. I see you're using that lame computer geek IBM stat shite to make your point. They don't take alot of things into consideration, like AI has to carry the Sixers by himself because they ain't got anybody who can score besides him. Of course he has a bunch of turnovers and take some bad shots, he has to make things happen, cause on one else on that team is. How about besides considering the not so good things on his resume you consider these, how many players in the NBA can drop 50 pts. any night on anybody and I mean anybody. He can torch Kobe, Bowen, Artest, you name it he can break their ankles and probably already has. Some other highlights of AI's career(off the top of my head).

Rookie of the year
scored 40 pts. in six straight games as a rook(no one else has done this - not even Jordan)
3 time NBA season scoring leader
NBA MVP

You might watch alot of hoops, but you don't know as much hoops as you think(that or you're just plain hatin')



Iverson can also shoot 2 for 21 on anyone.

remember that one?
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2004/basketball/nba/03/03/bc.bkn.76ers.knicks.ap/


When people bring up his scoring it's easy to see he shoots way more than anyone else. When he scores 50 he needs more 35 shots. Kobe doesn't need that many shots. And you failed to mention that the Sixers lost most of those games where he scored over 40 in his rookie season.


Can you also anser these 4 questions:

1) why did the Sixers trade Iverson for Stackhouse in 2000? remember the trade was nixed because Geiger failed a physical.

2) why when Iverson was on the trading block this summer did no one show any interest besides the Hawks?


3) why when Coleman scored almost 20 a game did Iversons stats and shooting still stay low?


4) why now that he has Duncan and Odom does he still shoot 40% and turn the ball over so much?

I guess your arguments don't have much weight then huh?