Allen Iverson says he would average 43 points in today’s NBA

[zombiesonics]

Stern got a lot of heat for trying to make the game easier for Euros to score. Now the Euros are saying it's harder to score in the Euro league then it is in the NBA.

Mike James is currently dominating Euroleague.

[thedangerouskitchen]

The dude had a 9-season span where he averaged 10 FTA's per game. Iverson was a low-efficiency chucker. Doesn't mean he wasn't good at it, but his shooting percentages aren't likely to improve much in today's NBA.

Iverson: 37% from 10-16 feet / 40% from 16-3pt (
LeBron: 36% from 10-16 feet / 39% from 16-3pt

Yes, thank you. Now, how many shots are each player jacking from those locations?

Iverson 42%
LeFraud 30%

... but you have to consider that Iverson was a tiny PG playing in a Big Man era, where the paint/rim was protected by 1-2-3 Bigs always, where as James is a 6'8 beast who spent the majority of his career in an era where the rim/paint area was wide-open.

LeFraud excelled as a Scorer "because of" his God-given physical stature not his skill, coupled with the era he played most of his career, where as Iverson was a fish out of water (so to speak) in his era... so naturally he couldn't duplicate James' efficiency from 0-3 feet.

Point is, you can't call Iverson a "low-efficient chucker" withOut putting an asterisk next to LeFraud, who exploited his "natural-born gifts" in an era that was perfect for his style.

Iverson today would take 40%+ of his shots from 0-3 feet (instead of 29%, and he'd convert at a Lebron-esque 75% with no one defending that part of the floor (vs. 57% when the rim/paint was always protected)... which is one of the main reasons why he'd Score many more PPG today, at a much more efficient rate.

[PhutureDynasty]

Noticing a lack of pound for pound discussion in this here thread.

Iverson won the 2001 MVP over an apex Shaq season.

Also the stepover and the crossover.

Destroid.

[Bush4Ever.]

Lebron and Iverson overlapped from 2004-2008. Same era. Same rules. Same everything.

Lebron hit 69 percent of his at-rim shots in that span, while Iverson made 56 percent.

Keep in mind this is super young pre-prime Lebron, and prime Iverson.

A prime Iverson didn't even come close to doing what a pre-prime, super-young Lebron did at the rim.

Edit: lol

[elmouse03]

Stern got a lot of heat for trying to make the game easier for Euros to score. Now the Euros are saying it's harder to score in the Euro league then it is in the NBA.

Mike James is currently dominating Euroleague.

You should get his jersey then.

[Robceltsfan]

Iverson: 37% from 10-16 feet / 40% from 16-3pt (
LeBron: 36% from 10-16 feet / 39% from 16-3pt

Yes, thank you. Now, how many shots are each player jacking from those locations?

Iverson 42%
LeFraud 30%

... but you have to consider that Iverson was a tiny PG playing in a Big Man era, where the paint/rim was protected by 1-2-3 Bigs always, where as James is a 6'8 beast who spent the majority of his career in an era where the rim/paint area was wide-open.

LeFraud excelled as a Scorer "because of" his God-given physical stature not his skill, coupled with the era he played most of his career, where as Iverson was a fish out of water (so to speak) in his era... so naturally he couldn't duplicate James' efficiency from 0-3 feet.

Point is, you can't call Iverson a "low-efficient chucker" withOut putting an asterisk next to LeFraud, who exploited his "natural-born gifts" in an era that was perfect for his style.

Iverson today would take 40%+ of his shots from 0-3 feet (instead of 29%, and he'd convert at a Lebron-esque 75% with no one defending that part of the floor (vs. 57% when the rim/paint was always protected)... which is one of the main reasons why he'd Score many more PPG today, at a much more efficient rate.

So LEMME GET THIS STRAIGHT.

You've absolutely shit on Lebron for his mid-range shooting.....and yet just showed that he's basically on-par with Iverson. And I'm somehow supposed to believe that that undersized little shit is going to score 43 PPG in today's NBA despite Lebron being a better 3-point shooter and much better/bigger at the rim?

You sir, are completely full of shit.

[thedangerouskitchen]

Lebron and Iverson overlapped from 2004-2008. Same era. Same rules. Same everything.

Lebron hit 69 percent of his at-rim shots in that span, while Iverson made 56 percent.

Keep in mind this is super young pre-prime Lebron, and prime Iverson.

A prime Iverson didn't even come close to doing what a pre-prime, super-young Lebron did at the rim.

Edit: lol

69% as a young athletic beast vs. 77% as an old man in today's era (ie; the last 5 years)... further proof that Iverson scores way more AND much more efficiently if he played today.

Thanks for backing up my point.

[Bush4Ever.]

Thanks for backing up my point.

He'd be more efficient than a 42 percent shooting (78 percent from FT and 31 PT from 3) in today's NBA?

No shit. He'd be benched in a nanosecond on high-volume at those percentages.

But *relative to league*, there's no reason to expect he'd keep pace, efficiency-wise.

He was a dogshit three point shooter in HIS era. In this one, he'd be goofy-behind.

His ability to draw FTs and get a little uptick from wider scoring lanes isn't offsetting that *relative to peers*. Relative to his own performance in the 00s? Sure. But that standard from the 00s is basically basement-level in 2024.

Kevin Durant, with all his scoring abilities and skills....30 a game.

Iverson? 43 a game. Because he be dribblin' fancy and sheeet. Alpha alpha tough old school alpha courage.

[Bush4Ever.]

[Robceltsfan]

ANY player to average 43 PPG is going to be taking a minimum of 30 shots per game....likely closer to 35 shots per game.

Other than a guy named Wilt Chamberlain in the early 60's, no player has EVER shot the rock like that.

[Havlicekstealsit]

"...that undersized little shit.." lol

[thedangerouskitchen]

Yes, thank you. Now, how many shots are each player jacking from those locations?

Iverson 42%
LeFraud 30%

... but you have to consider that Iverson was a tiny PG playing in a Big Man era, where the paint/rim was protected by 1-2-3 Bigs always, where as James is a 6'8 beast who spent the majority of his career in an era where the rim/paint area was wide-open.

LeFraud excelled as a Scorer "because of" his God-given physical stature not his skill, coupled with the era he played most of his career, where as Iverson was a fish out of water (so to speak) in his era... so naturally he couldn't duplicate James' efficiency from 0-3 feet.

Point is, you can't call Iverson a "low-efficient chucker" withOut putting an asterisk next to LeFraud, who exploited his "natural-born gifts" in an era that was perfect for his style.

Iverson today would take 40%+ of his shots from 0-3 feet (instead of 29%, and he'd convert at a Lebron-esque 75% with no one defending that part of the floor (vs. 57% when the rim/paint was always protected)... which is one of the main reasons why he'd Score many more PPG today, at a much more efficient rate.

So LEMME GET THIS STRAIGHT.

You've absolutely shit on Lebron for his mid-range shooting.....and yet just showed that he's basically on-par with Iverson. And I'm somehow supposed to believe that that undersized little shit is going to score 43 PPG in today's NBA despite Lebron being a better 3-point shooter and much better/bigger at the rim?

You sir, are completely full of shit.

...and YOU called Iverson a "low efficient chucker" for actually shooter BETTER than LeBron from 10 feet to the 3PT line.

What's that make you, full of wisdom and insight?



"Old Man" LeBron is shooting 77% from 0-3 feet the past 5 seasons... much better than he did the first 10 years of his career/prime. Thus, it stands to reason Iverson (one of the greatest slashers ever) would increase his both his Efficiency AND his Shot Volume at the rim if he played in this era.

The result of fewer shots taken from 10 - 3PT range and more shots from 0-3 feet (in an era where it's MUCH easier to Score at the rim than it was in AI's day) suggests that Iverson would indeed Score a LOT more points at a better overall clip today.

What evidence do you have that it would be "tougher" for a lightning quick Slasher to score when no one protects the rim???

Exacly... none. You're grasping at straws if you believe that nonsense. Hell, today you have 10th men off the bench dropping 20 a game on any given night; yet one the greatest Scorers in league history would somehow have a more difficult time?

Say it ain't so rob.

[thedangerouskitchen]

Thanks for backing up my point.

He'd be more efficient than a 42 percent shooting (78 percent from FT and 31 PT from 3) in today's NBA?

No shit. He'd be benched in a nanosecond on high-volume at those percentages.

But *relative to league*, there's no reason to expect he'd keep pace, efficiency-wise.

He was a dogshit three point shooter in HIS era. In this one, he'd be goofy-behind.

His ability to draw FTs and get a little uptick from wider scoring lanes isn't offsetting that *relative to peers*. Relative to his own performance in the 00s? Sure. But that standard from the 00s is basically basement-level in 2024.

Kevin Durant, with all his scoring abilities and skills....30 a game.

Iverson? 43 a game. Because he be dribblin' fancy and sheeet. Alpha alpha tough old school alpha courage.

Great job completely ignoring the fact that Iverson was a lightning quick Slasher who could get to the rim anytime he wanted, and in today's NBA he's be driving non-stop considering there's no rim protectors. That would increase his Efficiency (ie; FG%) and his PPG because he'd be Scoring at a higher clip while reducing the number of 10 - 3PT range shots.

...and FTR the Top 3 Scorers in the game today (ie; PPG) are ALL "below-average" career 3-point shooters, with Giannis shooting even worse than Iverson... so spare me the crappola that you need to be a great shooter in today's NBA.

Iverson would be breaking ankles every time he touched the ball, en route to an easy layup/dunk via lanes sooooo wide-open you could land a jet on them.

Factoids.

[Bush4Ever.]

Kevin Durant: 30 PPG
Allen Iverson: 43 PPG

TDK basketball theory in a nutshell.

I'll pass on the newsletter.

[Bush4Ever.]

Giannis is significantly better at getting to the rim and getting clean shots by the way. No, not as a function of the game today, but because of his physical attributes (strength/size, wingspan/length) while still be pretty damn quick and explosive.

Giannis is basically the guys who humiliated Iverson at the rim in his era in terms of size/strength/dimension.

[Robceltsfan]

Iverson 42%
LeFraud 30%

... but you have to consider that Iverson was a tiny PG playing in a Big Man era, where the paint/rim was protected by 1-2-3 Bigs always, where as James is a 6'8 beast who spent the majority of his career in an era where the rim/paint area was wide-open.

LeFraud excelled as a Scorer "because of" his God-given physical stature not his skill, coupled with the era he played most of his career, where as Iverson was a fish out of water (so to speak) in his era... so naturally he couldn't duplicate James' efficiency from 0-3 feet.

Point is, you can't call Iverson a "low-efficient chucker" withOut putting an asterisk next to LeFraud, who exploited his "natural-born gifts" in an era that was perfect for his style.

Iverson today would take 40%+ of his shots from 0-3 feet (instead of 29%, and he'd convert at a Lebron-esque 75% with no one defending that part of the floor (vs. 57% when the rim/paint was always protected)... which is one of the main reasons why he'd Score many more PPG today, at a much more efficient rate.

So LEMME GET THIS STRAIGHT.

You've absolutely shit on Lebron for his mid-range shooting.....and yet just showed that he's basically on-par with Iverson. And I'm somehow supposed to believe that that undersized little shit is going to score 43 PPG in today's NBA despite Lebron being a better 3-point shooter and much better/bigger at the rim?

You sir, are completely full of shit.

...and YOU called Iverson a "low efficient chucker" for actually shooter BETTER than LeBron from 10 feet to the 3PT line.

What's that make you, full of wisdom and insight?



"Old Man" LeBron is shooting 77% from 0-3 feet the past 5 seasons... much better than he did the first 10 years of his career/prime. Thus, it stands to reason Iverson (one of the greatest slashers ever) would increase his both his Efficiency AND his Shot Volume at the rim if he played in this era.

The result of fewer shots taken from 10 - 3PT range and more shots from 0-3 feet (in an era where it's MUCH easier to Score at the rim than it was in AI's day) suggests that Iverson would indeed Score a LOT more points at a better overall clip today.

What evidence do you have that it would be "tougher" for a lightning quick Slasher to score when no one protects the rim???

Exacly... none. You're grasping at straws if you believe that nonsense. Hell, today you have 10th men off the bench dropping 20 a game on any given night; yet one the greatest Scorers in league history would somehow have a more difficult time?

Say it ain't so rob.

I didn't say it would be tougher.....I said you're a moron for thinking ANYONE can average 43 PPG in today's NBA (without simply ball hogging so much that it's detrimental to team winning).

[Bush4Ever.]

Jordan...beats Chris Mullin by 4.5 points a game in 1992.
Jordan...beats Kevin Durant by 17 points a game in 2024.

No.

Iverson beats Gilbert Arenas by four points a game in 2006.
Iverson beats Steph Curry by 15 points a game in 2024.

No.

For all the numbers, breakdown of skills, etc...we do on this topic, it really ought to be simple when you view it through that lens, especially with the magnitudes of proposed difference.

[lettherebehouse]

"...that undersized little shit.." lol

I picked up the subtle racism in that too

[thedangerouskitchen]

Kevin Durant: 30 PPG
Allen Iverson: 43 PPG

TDK basketball theory in a nutshell.

I'll pass on the newsletter.

Again, AI played in an era where it was harder to score. Plus Durant takes only 20% of his shots at the rim. AI today would average 25 a game just on drives (through the wide-open lanes) alone... or are you of the opinion AI would be standing on the perimeter chuckin' 8-12 long-range bombs a night in today's era?

[thedangerouskitchen]

Giannis is significantly better at getting to the rim and getting clean shots in an era where NO ONE DEFENDS THE BASKET by the way. No, not as a function of the game today, but because of his physical attributes (strength/size, wingspan/length) while still be pretty damn quick and explosive.

Giannis is basically the guys who humiliated Iverson at the rim in his era in terms of size/strength/dimension.

Fixed in for you.

Put Giannis in the 80's-00's when 1-2-3 Bigs were always in the paint / around the rim and the story changes altogether.

Not a hard concept to grasp: No Defense makes it easier to Score.

Next...