NovU wrote:Which I would rank as his second best season ever though it's a mere average(or under) of other good names out there. Whoop dee doo though! His TS% increased!
No idea how is that under average of other good names. Now that you mention it, his TS% increased also after handchecking became illegal. Handchecking are the times Wade hardly remembers and shaqless Kobe doesn't.
NovU wrote:Ok. But sorry the fact that proves what? I mean it's only one good season.
It proves that he could be quite efficient when he wasn't the only offensive threat on his team. Even approaching mid 30s.
NovU wrote:No. I was rather putting more emphasis on loss of Billups. Because it was not going to be easy to replace Billups with just about anyone. Especially not AI on last straw.
Wasn't going to be easy to replace a PG with a SG? That's common sense.
NovU wrote:Overblown excuse. Something you can't really measure significance anyways.
If you can't measure it, how are you so sure it's an overblown excuse? Sure, we don't know exactly how it affected their game, but Iverson was being alienated from the team. I remember watching a game (don't remember who it was against, sorry), Iverson got hit on the play and went down holding his knee in pain. About a minute lasted, nobody from the Pistons even came to check on him. Eventually, one of the opposing players did so, AI soon got up and continued playing. Just one example that they didn't like Iverson too much. We don't know whose fault the complete lack of chemistry was, but the fact remains.
NovU wrote:Well... he did try being a PG before. It just didn't work out for him because he loved to shoot too much.
PG Iverson didn't work out too well, because that's when he had the tendency to hold the ball way too long in halfcourt. He was very good at running fastbreaks, but... yeah, that wouldn't cut it. Trying to force any SG to become a PG wouldn't go too well, I'd have to imagine.
NovU wrote:You have it nearly all wrong. First of all Rip was still the better player than Stuckey at that stage of their career(and a proven player over promising talent isn't wrong).
I never said Stuckey was better. I said he worked with Iverson better (and in reverse). If Rip agreed to becoming a sixth man (Ginobili/Terry/Harden-type, not 15 mpg behind Will Bynum), it would probably work out a lot better with AI-Stuckey doing their thing and Rip having quite a bit of freedom off the bench and all the shots he wanted, because obviously he had to share them with AI when starting. Again, speculation, but I think it was worth a try. Definitely better than watching them lose game after game with Rip and AI starting together.
NovU wrote: And Sheed was just about the same player in nearly all categories with a slight decline. Just look at the stats.
The stats tell me that his 3PA/FGA ratio went significantly up and he was worse on defense. He rebounded more, though.
NovU wrote: Lastly, AI tried to adapt by taking less shots but using about the same usage% while taking just about the same shot attempts as before? How is that even possible? Lolz.
15 FGA in Detroit compared to 20 in Philly/Denver is the same? Usage didn't go down much probably due to making Iverson more of a finisher, less of a ballhandler.
NovU wrote:Sounds like a lot of mess from getting rid of one great player for another great player. Wonder why...
Indeed. Bad coaching, chemistry issues, bad player roles, bad fit. And all that for Gordon and Villanueva.
NovU wrote:And of course comparing him to others who were in similar situation where they were also focused due to shitty teammates isn't.
Show me another star player surrounded by no shooters, no finishers and no secondary ball handler for pretty much all of his prime.
NovU wrote:How about making them better or finding anyway possible to make a contribution. Neither Iverson could, because he's more of one way player than others were. Only proves AI was a hard-fit. And this notion that basketball is 1 on 1 continues.
You could make a case that Iverson made Snow, McKie, Thomas and the likes of them better, because of their performance after leaving Philadelphia. Iverson's no Nash however. Did Kobe, Wade, T-Mac ever make anyone better?
NovU wrote: Only proves AI was a hard-fit.
Again, show me someone who would "fit" better in those Sixers teams.
NovU wrote:You seem to be taking Billups's talent too lightly.
No, I just don't think of him as some kind of magician who single-handedly turned the sucky Iverson Nuggets into big, bad, scary Billups WCF Nuggets.
NovU wrote:Kenyon played more games with AI in previous season with AI than Billups in his first season as a Nuggets.
5 more to be exact. Not the difference I had in mind. Martin missed the entire 06-07 season (except for two games when AI was still in Philly) and Nene was fighting cancer in 07-08 which caused him to only play 16 games and not be his usual self when he did play. They were both more or less healthy in 08-09 and the addition of Andersen was also a plus - all that combined worked wonders for team defense.
NovU wrote:Definitely one of top 3 best seasons AI ever had. You almost want to forget about his very previous/next seasons.
I'm not forgetting anything. I just don't like the fact that people seem to remember him as the biggest ballhog and chucker ever, which in my opinion is pure disrespect. He was not put in a position to succeed and lasted 10 years on a bad team without screaming about Pluto or a big market. I think his inefficiency was caused mostly by complete lack of help on offense and don't believe the efficiency jump when he did have some help to be a coincidence. That's probably a more valid argument than "he hit his ceiling as a player", which is rather impossible to prove.