The misconception of A.I. in 2001

[willds09]

I think the Bucks and Raptors were pretty good teams that year

I agree.

[longtime lurker]

False. I've been lurking and participating on sports forums since it took place, and the "consensus" opinion is that he carried a bunch of scrubs there, which also includes Mutombo. Someone on this very thread said Iverson dragged the team "kicking and screaming."



No offense intended, but with all due respect, that's absurd. The number one criteria for evaluating players on this or any other board for "most people" is being a #1 option and being able to "carry the load offensively," "carry a team on his back offensively," and a team being able to give the player in question the ball and tell him to get a basket. I don't know on what planet scoring is underrated when it's the measure by which all players are judged by "most people."

Mutombo was far from a scrub, but he was not playing on the same level as Iverson. And yes people underrate scoring on this board when someone says that Stackhouse or Michael Finley(wtf) could do what Iverson did. People always point out to Iverson's FG% like it's the only thing that matters. Posters on this board think that scoring is just a matter of taking more shots and that unless a player is always trying to pass he's a selfish chucker. Imagine having to go out and score 30-50 points every game because that's what keeps your team in the game, now imagine how hard it is to do that with every team game planning to stop you and last picture how hard that is to do with all the injuries that Iverson had that year playing over 40 minutes a game. There's a reason people who saw that season hold him in such high regard. As great as the 76ers were defensively without Iverson and Larry Brown's brilliance they don't sniff the finals.

[Wavves]

How come this thread dont get deleted tho? A bunch of haters

It's not hating if it's a well put argument.

Just because someone disagrees with what you think, it does not make it 'hating'

[ShaqAttack3234]

Mutombo was far from a scrub, but he was not playing on the same level as Iverson.

Who is arguing that Mutombo was as good as Iverson?

As great as the 76ers were defensively without Iverson and Larry Brown's brilliance they don't sniff the finals.

Yes, and I don't think anyone except the most blatant troll disputes that. But it's also true that Iverson doesn't sniff the finals without that great defense.

It's not a question of whether Iverson was the Sixers best and most important player. It's those who act like Iverson just took any old trash and made them what they were, which isn't true. Big guards who were also excellent defenders and could help with the ball-handling such as Snow and McKie allowed Iverson to play the 2 guard, the position he was most effective at. Rebounders like Mutombo, Hill and Lynch gave Philly second chance opportunities when Iverson was cold, and additional easy baskets in addition to preventing opponents from getting easy shots. And the interior defense anchored by Mutombo allowed Iverson to gamble and play the passing lanes, which is what he did best defensively.

This team wasn't just thrown together randomly. It was built around the team's franchise player, which was Iverson. Iverson covered their deficiencies and allowed them to play to their strengths, and they did the same for him.

It was a flawed team, but a good team. I don't think anyone worth listening to claims he was incredibly fortunate with the talent around him, but ignoring their contributions, and half the game(defense) is stupid, especially when that's what Philly excelled at.

[Myth]

I came in here expecting to read about a misconception. Instead, the OP posted stuff we already knew.

[DMAVS41]

Just my thoughts:
The misconception about AI is that people actually think he carried a team to the Finals when, in reality, he had the best supporting cast for a player of his caliber and style, that cast was ELITE defensively and carried him on that end of the court while he carried the mediocre offense. 2001 76ers ranked 5th in defense, 13th in offense.

That talent amounted to the best in the East but I admit AI makes them the best. Not to mention one of my favorite coaches, and one of the best coaches of all time in Larry Brown.

DPOY, 6MOY, COY, MVP.

The team was far from mediocre, and A.I. did not carry the team. I'll just be more gentle and say that no one carried no one. The team worked wonders under the directions of Larry Brown.

Sure, but it's not like that was a great team or something. Throw in Ray Allen at sg and then it would have been a team that actually could have won the title...and would have been on par with the kind of overall talent most championship teams have had throughout history.

I just don't understand why people just sit here and refuse to acknowledge the overwhelming evidence that it almost always takes a superstar and an all nba type player to win the title.

[ShaqAttack3234]

I just don't understand why people just sit here and refuse to acknowledge the overwhelming evidence that it almost always takes a superstar and an all nba type player to win the title.

It usually works out that way, but there have been exceptions with a few teams that either won, or were minutes away and undoubtedly good enough as constructed. You can definitely contend for a title without fitting that criteria.

[DMAVS41]

It usually works out that way, but there have been exceptions with a few teams that either won, or were minutes away and undoubtedly good enough as constructed. You can definitely contend for a title without fitting that criteria.

Of course you can contend...but it usually just doesn't work out.

If Iverson had Ray Allen...who knows
If Lebron had Pau Gasol in 07...who knows
If Dirk had Paul Pierce in 06...who knows

I'm not saying it "can't" happen...we've seen it happen with Dirk and Duncan in the last decade. We saw the Pistons win, but they didn't have a superstar.

And sometimes the competition just isn't that great. Not taking away from Duncan in 03, but it's not like they were world beaters. The Lakers were a joke, Dirk got hurt...and then weak competition in the finals.

If you are building a title team and you have a superstar. The first thing you should do is go out and get a legit all nba player to pair with him that fits well. Then worry about everything else.

The margin for error is just too small with single star teams almost every time.

[ShaqAttack3234]

Of course you can contend...but it usually just doesn't work out.

If Iverson had Ray Allen...who knows
If Lebron had Pau Gasol in 07...who knows
If Dirk had Paul Pierce in 06...who knows

I'm not saying it "can't" happen...we've seen it happen with Dirk and Duncan in the last decade. We saw the Pistons win, but they didn't have a superstar.

And sometimes the competition just isn't that great. Not taking away from Duncan in 03, but it's not like they were world beaters. The Lakers were a joke, Dirk got hurt...and then weak competition in the finals.

If you are building a title team and you have a superstar. The first thing you should do is go out and get a legit all nba player to pair with him that fits well. Then worry about everything else.

The margin for error is just too small with single star teams almost every time.

I'd still bet on the Spurs if Lebron had Gasol in 2007. I'd bet a lot of money actually, and I don't gamble. Ray would have been interesting with AI. You'd lose quite a bit defensively in the backcourt, although you'd gain some much needed shooting, and another ball-handler and go to scorer. I have no idea how well they would have worked together, though.

Dirk didn't need Pierce, Dallas was good enough to win as constructed. They beat a really good Spurs team and pretty much had control of the finals up 2-0 with a 15 point lead or something in the 4th quarter of game 3. That was really more of an LA/Portland 2000 situation than anything. They just gave away a key game, while the other team(mainly Wade) did everything right down the stretch, though they still had other opportunities after that and Miami was the team to come through. One or two things go differently and Dallas wins the series. Same with Boston in 2010 vs LA. It wasn't them failing to have a true top 10 player that held them back, it was giving up a few key rebounds, and rebounding had been a problem all season.

The margin for error is small for every team. Only one team out of about 30 wins every year, and the difference can be as small as a shot, or getting a more favorable match up, especially when you have teams that are really close.

Winning a championship is exceptionally difficult which is why some of the difference can come down to a lucky bounce, a close(or blown) call, a bad coaching decision, one key mistake by a player on a single possession even, an injury ect. Any one of those things can be the difference between winning a title and just being one of the other contenders.

Beyond anything, I think you simply have to establish a system, have players that buy into it, have quite a bit of talent, complement each other and play as a team. How that talent is distributed, or what kind of players your team revolves around doesn't really have to be the same thing.

[DMAVS41]

I'd still bet on the Spurs if Lebron had Gasol in 2007. I'd bet a lot of money actually, and I don't gamble. Ray would have been interesting with AI. You'd lose quite a bit defensively in the backcourt, although you'd gain some much needed shooting, and another ball-handler and go to scorer. I have no idea how well they would have worked together, though.

Dirk didn't need Pierce, Dallas was good enough to win as constructed. They beat a really good Spurs team and pretty much had control of the finals up 2-0 with a 15 point lead or something in the 4th quarter of game 3. That was really more of an LA/Portland 2000 situation than anything. They just gave away a key game, while the other team(mainly Wade) did everything right down the stretch, though they still had other opportunities after that and Miami was the team to come through. One or two things go differently and Dallas wins the series. Same with Boston in 2010 vs LA. It wasn't them failing to have a true top 10 player that held them back, it was giving up a few key rebounds, and rebounding had been a problem all season.

The margin for error is small for every team. Only one team out of about 30 wins every year, and the difference can be as small as a shot, or getting a more favorable match up, especially when you have teams that are really close.

Winning a championship is exceptionally difficult which is why some of the difference can come down to a lucky bounce, a close(or blown) call, a bad coaching decision, one key mistake by a player on a single possession even, an injury ect. Any one of those things can be the difference between winning a title and just being one of the other contenders.

Beyond anything, I think you simply have to establish a system, have players that buy into it, have quite a bit of talent, complement each other and play as a team. How that talent is distributed, or what kind of players your team revolves around doesn't really have to be the same thing.

Don't you then think it's a bit odd that all the teams that win have exactly what I'm talking about? I'd still bet on the Spurs as well, but I'd also bet it goes at least 6 games....a lot actually.

The Sixers would have just been better. Ray Allen is fine defensively...not like he ever hurt the Celtics...and he's a perfect pair for Iverson in that he can impact the game so much without the ball...but can also create for himself and others etc. Sixers would have been better...and actually would have had a legit shot to beat the Lakers...the team they had...no real shot.

The Mavs didn't "need" Pierce...or maybe they did. You could point to a lot of reasons why they lost...probably coaching being the biggest. But maybe having another legit player on that team instead of Howard or Terry...you don't blow that lead.

Again...you literally have to ignore all the evidence to say what you are saying.

Single superstar teams just rarely win a title. Just a fact....and after this much evidence...kind of hard to just ignore and talk about systems and such.

In terms of superstars winning without the help of an all nba teammate...you I think you only have Hakeem, Duncan, and Dirk doing it since 1980.

You can take your system...and I'll take a superstar and an all nba player and i'll win about 90% of the time or more. Again...it's just a proven fact at this point.

If the system and stuff you talk about actually mattered as much as you think...then it would happen more often. A guy like Lebron would have been able to win in 09 or 10. Kobe would have been able to do it in 08 (gasol was good, but he didn't play at the level he did the next 2 years)

Did you ever think that all those teams that seem to get "lucky" or end up winning have the two all nba players?

So I'll venture a guess that either the Thunder or Heat win this year. And not the Spurs or Grizzlies.

[willds09]

It's not hating if it's a well put argument.

Just because someone disagrees with what you think, it does not make it 'hating'

I understand, but im sorry its really hating

[kurple]

By the standards of teams to do what they did...they are far below mediocre.

People keep trying to rewrite history on that team acting like guys in no way of note were somehow special because of what they were able to do. Posting sixth man of the year as if that makes Aaron Mckie some really good player. Hes at best the 3rd worst player to ever win it. If you look at who else has won it....im not sure he wouldnt make every single team worse if traded for the 6th man of the year...of that season. Maybe not the Suns when Rodney Rogers won it...but that would be close.

They were scrappy...and thats about it. They were on like a 59 win pace when they had Theo Ratliff before Mutombo. Thats how Brown was the all star coach Mutombo so impressed. AI was leading a team whos second best player was Theo Ratliff...to a near 60 win pace.

That they played D and rebounded does not mean he wasnt...by a mile...the main reason they were a good team. That they won some games without him(not many) doesnt either. Fact is....you hold a draft and can take every player to ever play a finals game....I bet you get a hell of a lot of rounds in before you see Eric Snow, Mckie, Lynch, Tyrone, and company go.

People often act like chemisty is talent. It isnt. They had a great run together. Played hard....and leaned on AI as much as any team ever leaned on one player.

They were Allen Iverson, Mutombo, and a gang of straight up role players playing hard. I wouldnt trade Joakim Noah for the entire non AI/Mutombo 2001 76ers lineup.

Brown deserves credit. All coaches do. But AI did his thing and flat out drug that team kicking and screaming into history. And nobody said anything different watching it happen. That wasnt some great team. It wasnt a very good team either. It was...ok. By the standards of teams to do what they did...they were awful.

They played together well to be more than the sum of their parts.

But the parts were nothing of note.

[OhNoTimNoSho]

Just my thoughts:
The misconception about AI is that people actually think he carried a team to the Finals when, in reality, he had the best supporting cast for a player of his caliber and style, that cast was ELITE defensively and carried him on that end of the court while he carried the mediocre offense. 2001 76ers ranked 5th in defense, 13th in offense.

That talent amounted to the best in the East but I admit AI makes them the best. Not to mention one of my favorite coaches, and one of the best coaches of all time in Larry Brown.

DPOY, 6MOY, COY, MVP.

The team was far from mediocre, and A.I. did not carry the team. I'll just be more gentle and say that no one carried no one. The team worked wonders under the directions of Larry Brown.

Your ability to make a clear point is mediocre.

[ShaqAttack3234]

Don't you then think it's a bit odd that all the teams that win have exactly what I'm talking about?

First, I'll say that this is how I interpreted these definitions.

Superstar= Top 5 player, or at least in the discussion
All-nba type player= Top 15 type player

Right away we have these teams that don't fit one part of your criteria

2011 Mavs
2004 Pistons
2003 Spurs
1994 Rockets
1990 Pistons
1989 Pistons

That's 6 teams in 24 seasons, so 25% of the teams. Not as rare as what you're making it out to be. Here are a few other teams that I consider to have proved capable, but fell a little short.

2010 Celtics
2006 Mavs
2005 Pistons
2000 Blazers
1994 Knicks

The Sixers would have just been better. Ray Allen is fine defensively...not like he ever hurt the Celtics...and he's a perfect pair for Iverson in that he can impact the game so much without the ball...but can also create for himself and others etc. Sixers would have been better...and actually would have had a legit shot to beat the Lakers...the team they had...no real shot.

Allen was a pretty poor defender in Milwaukee, though he did play better defense with Boston. Maybe he'd have been better playing for a defensive-minded coach as well, I don't know. Similar to how Allen was always a good off the ball player, but he didn't play off the ball nearly as much in Milwaukee and Seattle. That was an adjustment he made going to Boston because prior to that, he handled the ball and got his own shot a lot.

Either way, this changes the team's chemistry quite a bit because now Iverson is playing more point guard, a position he was less effective at, and he's not in the same role to maximize his own ability by getting as many shots.

Regardless of whether Philly is better or not, I don't see them faring much better against the Lakers. There's no reason to think this addition would slow down Shaq one bit, and they now have much less of a chance to contain Kobe with Allen getting most of the minutes that would have gone to McKie or Snow.

This comes down to match ups and the irony is that Philly actually did fit your criteria. They had a superstar in Iverson and an all-nba second team center in Mutombo.

The Mavs didn't "need" Pierce...or maybe they did. You could point to a lot of reasons why they lost...probably coaching being the biggest. But maybe having another legit player on that team instead of Howard or Terry...you don't blow that lead.

Maybe, then again, they might not get such a commanding lead in the first place. Either way, Dallas didn't need more scoring. They had a top 5 player in Dirk in addition to several perimeter threats and were the best offensive team in the league.

That team didn't need any additions to win a title. They needed to not collapse and play the way they did all season, the way that got them past the 63 win defending champion Spurs and the way that got them that lead in the first place.

Again...you literally have to ignore all the evidence to say what you are saying.

25% of the title teams since '89 is not nearly as rare as you're making it out to be, and then there's those other teams who were right on par with the actual champions who gave them series that couldn't have possibly been closer.

Single superstar teams just rarely win a title. Just a fact....and after this much evidence...kind of hard to just ignore and talk about systems and such.

You can take your system...and I'll take a superstar and an all nba player and i'll win about 90% of the time or more. Again...it's just a proven fact at this point.

The teams that have won haven't just been stars thrown together, their chemistry and systems have been integral parts of their success.

If you want to look at trends, 11 of the last 22 championship teams have run the triangle. Pop ran essentially the same system for all 4 of his championship teams. Then there's the best example I can think of what a difference a system can make.

The 1994 Rockets who had recently started with more of a 4 out/1 in approach with everything going through Hakeem. When they started doing this in 1993 during Rudy T's first full season, they became legit contenders. Prior to that, they were a first round type team despite having many of the same players such as Hakeem, Thorpe, Mad Max and Kenny Smith. Was it the addition of a rookie Robert Horry that took them from a 42-40 team that missed the playoffs in '92 to a 55 win team that finished the season 28-6 and lost in OT of a controversial game 7 of the WCSF to a loaded Sonics team? And then was it the addition of a rookie Sam Cassell that took them from there to actually winning it all?

No, the biggest difference was that Hakeem at 30 was finally in a system that maximized his individual ability, and in this system, his teammates complemented him and they played as a team.

What about the 2008 Celtics? Are they anywhere near as dominant without their defensive schemes?

You need to have a coach who maximizes the talent on his roster and adjusts to their strengths. That's why the Lakers are still barely over .500. They clearly have much more talent than that.

If the system and stuff you talk about actually mattered as much as you think...then it would happen more often. A guy like Lebron would have been able to win in 09 or 10. Kobe would have been able to do it in 08 (gasol was good, but he didn't play at the level he did the next 2 years)

Actually, 2009 Cavs are a perfect example. Their offensive system, or lack thereof was exposed in the playoffs. When push came to shove, it was Lebron ball. Although there were other issues there such as how many match up problems the Magic caused and how thoroughly SVG outcoached Mike Brown. Despite Lewis burning Cleveland's 4s consistently, Brown kept defending him the same way. That made a massive difference, aside from Lewis producing at a high level all series, there was the 3 he got when Cleveland was up 2 to win game 1 and the 3 he got with Cleveland up 3 to send game 4 into OT, a particularly inexcusable lapse. Then there was Dwight just abusing Cleveland inside.

Even with the team they had, it came down to match ups and poor coaching. I firmly believe Cleveland would have matched up much better against LA than they did against Orlando, and I also believe Cleveland would have given LA a tougher series than Orlando did.

As far as 2010? The biggest thing here is Lebron suddenly disappearing with a 2-1 lead. But you can also point to match ups. They acquired Shaq to match up with Orlando, but they made another move that gave Boston a big match up advantage which was trading for Jamison. That allowed KG to have his way with Jamison and weakened Cleveland's defense.

Besides, I consider the 2008 Lakers to fit your criteria. Losing to a 66-16 team with a historically great defense, 3 hall of famers and a 10.3 margin of victory doesn't mean much. Just proves how great Boston was, especially since the Lakers dominated the West, including a team that fit your criteria.

Did you ever think that all those teams that seem to get "lucky" or end up winning have the two all nba players?

2010 Finals- A few extra rebounds, and you could argue that if Perkins doesn't go down, he gives them that. Though rebounding had been a season long weakness so if I were to make an addition to this team, it'd have been to help that, not trying to swing a trade for a top 5 player. Either way, there's no question they could win as constructed. LA and Boston were virtually even.

2006 Finals- No team that is good enough to have a 2-0 series lead and a 13 point lead with 6:30 remaining should blow that lead. It's as simple as that. Part of this is attributable to what Wade did, which is an unusual performance for any superstar.

2005 Finals- Sheed leaving Horry for that 3 in game 5 was the difference, and Horry playing like a star that game in general with 21 points and 7 rebounds while making 5 threes and all the plays down the stretch including 13 points in the 4th and 5 in OT. This came down to a role player, and really carelessness on Sheed's part.

2000 Blazers- Again, if you have a 15 point lead in the 4th quarter of game 7, you simply shouldn't lost the game. While it's true that Shaq and Kobe had 9 points each in the 4th and made big plays all around, the role players were also making shots they had generally missed during the series. Either way, this doesn't come down to just 2 stars either. They happened to be mentally tough stars, which isn't always the case. You could have 2 stars and they may crumble in a moment like this. In fact, the Lakers were clearly just the mentally tougher team and that was the difference. This was proven as the Lakers won additional championships the next 2 years and the Blazers became the league's biggest underachievers. And I'd credit Phil Jackson for the Lakers mental toughness in this situation because they were hardly a mentally tough team prior to 2000. In fact, something I find interesting is that with this series and the Miami comeback, is it any coincidence that Phil and Riley were on the right side of the comebacks vs Dunleavy and Avery Johnson? I doubt it.

We all know how close the 1994 finals was, but that doesn't really matter much because neither finals team fit your criteria.

Did any of these teams need a superstar to win a title? No, they were right there and either choked, sometimes choked as bad as you can choke or had a deficiency exposed(Boston)

So I'll venture a guess that either the Thunder or Heat win this year. And not the Spurs or Grizzlies.

I think the Heat are winning another title. I'll have to think about a pick for the West more since I'm still undecided on OKC without Harden, but also worried about Manu's health.

[tmacattack33]

Just my thoughts:
The misconception about AI is that people actually think he carried a team to the Finals when, in reality, he had the best supporting cast for a player of his caliber and style, that cast was ELITE defensively and carried him on that end of the court while he carried the mediocre offense. 2001 76ers ranked 5th in defense, 13th in offense.

That talent amounted to the best in the East but I admit AI makes them the best. Not to mention one of my favorite coaches, and one of the best coaches of all time in Larry Brown.

DPOY, 6MOY, COY, MVP.

The team was far from mediocre, and A.I. did not carry the team. I'll just be more gentle and say that no one carried no one. The team worked wonders under the directions of Larry Brown.

Yeah, so four guys carried the load on defense...meanwhile, one guy carried the load on offense.

So, it seems that Iverson was indeed ridiculously important to that team.