How do you rate him in comparison to Westbrook? I feel like your views on both are quite similar.
Westbrook is the superior player. Better passer, better rebounder and more athletically gifted (and bigger) which allows him to be a better defender than Iverson. Westbrook's problem on defense is that he gambles too much for steals and ends up out of position too often. Very similar to Kobe post 07 or 08. Both have the skills to be great defenders. Kobe was able to focus enough early in his career that he was a great defender for several years. Westbrook might never get there but he is still a superior defender than Iverson.
If you look at Iverson's prime, which I would say runs from 99-06, he played next to Eric Snow from 99-04. Snow guarded the other team's best offensive guard, was a capable ballhandler and had no problem deferring to Iverson whenever he wanted. Philadelphia finished 6th, 5th, 1st, 6th, 4th, 11th, 7th, and 9th in those years. Only twice did they have home court advantage in the first round and only once were they an actual contender.
Even in the year they made the finals, they went to 7 against the Raptors and 7 against the Bucks. Newer fans on the caf might not remember but they were a couple of inches on a Vince Carter shot from being knocked out in the second round at home on a game where Iverson shot 8 for 27.
So much of Iverson's legacy is that he supposedly dragged a bad team to the finals. But let's pause for a second. Look at this screenshot. Iverson is in the bottom right corner. Carter is on the top of the screen. Iverson has no impact on this play. If it goes on, Iverson is the bum who shot 29% at home to lose game 7.
It happened to go in and the 76s barely outlasted Milwaukee and he stepped over Tyron Lue and blah blah blah. But none of that changes the player who he was. This is why I try not to care too much about one result. Even in football, people always talk about whether a manager should be sacked or not based on if they win a cup final or whatever. People don't understand variance and they build narratives around which way things happen to go. Let's focus on the player Iverson was:
- A gifted passer but one who was more interested in shooting
- A defender with quick hands and not a whole lot else
- A bad free throw shooter
- A slightly below average three point shooter
- Not a great finisher at the rim
In his prime he shot 41%, turned the ball over 4 times per game and provided no defensive value and played on one single good team. And yet people thought of him as a superstar or a hall of fame player. With a coach and a team built around him, he could have averaged 20 points per game at decent efficiency and helped his teams a lot more. Instead he is the posterchild for the selfish chucker basketball of the early 2000s.
