Allen Iverson is the Most Overrated Player in Basketball History
Allen Iverson. AI. The Answer. One of the most iconic players in NBA history, Iverson is still held in high esteem in NBA circles, and rightfully so. He was not only an athletic icon, but also a cultural figure. Everyone knew who Allen Iverson was. He is the guy that crossed up Michael Jordan. He is the guy that stepped over Tyronn Lue. I would say that the general consensus is that he is a top 30 player of all time. ESPN had him 29th on their top 74 list, and I feel like that is a fair represenation of where the general audience of NBA fans would place him. Today, I will be challenging that. I do not think Allen Iverson is a top 30 player of all time. I do not think he is a top 40 player. I do not even think that Allen Iverson is a top 50 player of all time. In fact, I have trouble putting him in the top 60. Off the court, Allen Iverson’s impact was astronomical. On the court, his impact was overrated.
First, I want to talk about the “overrated” term. The dictionary definiton of overrated is “have a higher opinion of (someone or something) than is deserved.” Does me thinking Iverson is overrated mean that I am hating on him? No, I think Allen Iverson is a fantastic basketball player and is better at the game of basketball than 99.99% of humans on the planet. I really enjoy watching Iverson’s highlights and virtually nobody can top his. This post is not a hate post or anything, it is just me pointing out a player that I think is misconstrued and ranked extremely higher than he should be. Now that that is out of the way, let’s explore why Allen Iverson is the most overrated player in basketball history.
HE WAS INEFFICIENT
I know, this is the cliché argument used against Iverson, but it is true and it is hard to ignore. Efficiency is key in all sports, especially basketball, and it is what separates the good scorers from the great ones. Efficiency is not about accuracy (field goal percentages), it is about “achieving maximum productivity with minimum wasted effort or expense,” which is how the dictionary defines it. AI was a great volume scorer, but could never get over the hump and become a true elite scorer because he struggled to achieve maximum productivity with minimum wasted effort or expense. Iverson’s 2001–2002 scoring title was the least efficient scoring title of all time with a TS+ of 94 (TS+ is TS% compared to league average with 100 always being the league average). His 1998–1999 scoring title was fourth worst with a TS+ of 99. His 2004–2005 and 2000–2001 scoring titles were the ninth and tenth least efficient scoring titles of all time with a TS+ of 100. Allen Iverson won four scoring titles. All four of them were in the bottom ten in terms of efficiency compared to all of the other scoring titles. Allen Iverson shot 31.3% from three in his career. He took a total of 3,383 threes in his career. Yikes.
It could be argued that he was inefficient because of poor spacing. While that is probably partly true, there are examples of players today who have terrible spacing, yet they are still extremely efficient. Last year, according to BBall Index’s spacing values, Stephen Curry was in the 5th percentile in the league in spacing. That is absolutely abysmal. Damian Lillard? 13th percentile. Other stars like Karl-Anthony Towns, Brandon Ingram, and LeBron James all placed less than the 25th percentile in spacing. Keep in my mind, the spacing percentiles have nothing to do with a player’s ability, but rather the team around them.
Comparing the five aforementioned players and their efficiency from last season to Allen Iverson’s peak efficiency season as well as his MVP season and many things are revealed.
Allen Iverson (06–07): +2.7% rTS, 48.8% eFG
Allen Iverson (00–01) 0.0% rTS, 44.7% eFG
Stephen Curry: +8.3% rTS, 60.5% eFG
Damian Lillard: +5.1% rTS, 55.4% eFG
Karl-Anthony Towns: +4.0% rTS, 55.5% eFG
Brandon Ingram: +1.2% rTS, 53.1% eFG
LeBron James:+3.0% rTS, 57.6% eFG
Clearly, these current stars proved just last season that it is possible to be an efficient scorer even if spacing is atrocious. I mean Steph Curry nearly won the MVP award while operating in one of the worst spaced offenses in the entire NBA. It could also be argued that it was harder to score in Iverson’s era so it is not fair to compare him to modern day players. While it is true that it was harder to score in his era, there is a beautiful thing about True Shooting percentage that can be done to fix this dilemma. It can be made relative to the league average through rTS, which is shown above. Since TS% is able to be made relative to league average at the time, that allows for better comparisons across eras because it helps adjust for different styles of play. Clearly, with Iverson’s peak rTS% season being only 2.7% over league average, he lags behind other stars in terms of efficiency. Other players in his era were able to sustain high efficiency compared to The Answer as well. Ray Allen, John Stockton, Steve Nash, and Dirk Nowitzki were the top four in terms of rTS% in Iverson’s MVP season. Iverson ranked 92nd. Of all 117 players who have played over 30,000 minutes in the three point era, only Jerry Stackhouse had a lower eFG% than Allen Iverson.
POOR ADVANCED AND DEFENSIVE STATS
Other than his inefficient scoring, defense is probably the biggest argument used against Allen Iverson. There is a reason for that; it is true. Allen Iverson was an established offensive force, but his defense was lackluster. He was already put at a disadvantage because of his small stature as he only stood six feet tall and weighed 165 pounds. On defense, he was the definition of a gambler. He was the Trevon Diggs of basketball. He would often jump into passing lanes to get a steal. If he timed it correctly, he would get a steal and an easy layup at the other end. He averaged 2.2 steals over his career, but that is not necessarily a good thing. Because as often (and maybe more) as he would get a steal, he would miss. This caused him to be completely out of position and give his opponent a clear driving lane, which caused his teammates to scramble defensively. Diving deeper past the steal numbers, and a poor defender is revealed. He had a career -0.2 DBPM. In comparison, Steph Curry, who is often bashed for his poor defense, has a career DBPM of 0.4.
There are a multitude of stats that are available now due to improved technology that were not available in Iverson’s era that help paint a better picture of Allen Iverson’s impact. Paceandspacehoops.com gives some really good perspectives on Iverson’s value and impact by utilizing some advanced stats. First off, Allen Iverson never surpassed .200 WS/48. Compared to other all-time shooting guards, this is pretty concerning. James Harden has had 10 seasons over .200. Clyde Drexler and Reggie Miller had five seasons over .200. Manu Ginóbili had seven seasons over .200. I do not even need to talk about Kobe or MJ because they are not even in the same stratosphere as Iverson, or any other shooting guards for that matter.
VORP stands for value over replacement player and Iverson’s career high was 6.1 (which means he was 6.1 points per 100 possessions better than the replacement level player) in 2000–2001. That is admittedly very good, but it still ranked sixth in the NBA that season. Vince Carter, Shaquille O’Neal, Tracy McGrady, Kevin Garnett, and Karl Malone all had a higher VORP than the MVP. In his MVP season, he ranked eleventh in WS/48. That was the highest he ever ranked in a season. Nearly all available advanced stats portray The Answer as less impactful than the general audience of NBA fans think he is.
TOO MUCH FOCUS ON HIS MVP SEASON
If you just watched the 2000–2001 season and playoffs, you would probably think that AI was one of the best players to ever play. This one streak of success skewed the overall perception of Iverson and is one of the main reasons that he is overrated. I am not taking anything away from his performances that season, as he did lead one of the worst Finals teams in NBA history to the championship game. He was absolutely incredible that season. The problem is that too many people remember the good and not the bad of his. career. If you just watched that season, you would not realize that Iverson led the league in turnovers twice. In his 71 career playoff games, he only won 30. If you take away that season, he played in 48 playoff games and only won 12. That is only a 25% win rate, which is not a great indicator of elite play. His MVP season was the only season his team won the division and the only time that he made it past the second round of the playoffs. Later in his career, he teamed up with a young Carmelo Anthony in Denver. In the two years Allen Iverson played for the Nuggets, they did not make it out of the first round. In the year after he left, the Nuggets made the Western Conference Finals. The 76ers made the playoffs for two years after Iverson left. The Pistons went from 59 wins to 39 wins when Iverson joined the team.
I will say that if you are looking at his impact culturally and the way that he changed the game, Allen Iverson is up there with the all-time greats. Everyone knew who Allen Iverson was for a reason. I just think his on-the-court impact lags behind his impact on the game as a whole.
In 1543, Nicholas Copernicus came up with heliocentrism, the idea that the planets revolved around the sun. Iverson played at his best as a heliocentric player, but a team that had Allen Iverson as the sun was never going to win a championship.
