The 2001 MVP...and its injustice

[mehyaM24]

for years now, ive heard all this shit about iverson being a "better candidate" than shaq....and that he had to carry his team....unlike shaq.

a few points here:
-iverson didn't come close to carrying his team in the 2001 playoffs, shooting a pathetic .389% in while SHATTERING the nba single season playoff record with 404 total bricks in a single playoff run(nobody else in nba history is even remotely close-the next closest is 300 )
-second on his own damn team in offensive win shares....the "amazing scorer" didnt even have the most impact on his team offensively.
-led the entire 2001 playoffs in turnovers
-shaq had a higher PER, more winshares, better offensive and defensive rating, and backed his play up in the postseason...dominating iversons team and winning the FINALS mvp award handedly.

so iversons mvp award? asterisk....maybe worse than derrick rose's. i would argue he actually held the sixers offense back in 2001....he WAS the reason for their losses 

[fpliii]

Agreed.

Who would be the top 5 on your ballot that year?

[JT123]

Bringing up playoff stats when MVP is a REGULAR SEASON award.

[Milbuck]

i would argue he actually held the sixers offense back in 2001....he WAS the reason for their losses

Well that's a retarded argument.

- When Iverson was on the court, the Sixers offense was 3.9 points better, and their defense 0.2 points better, overall +4.1 differential.

- When he was on the court, his team shot a better eFG% (.47 to .461), and held the opposing team to lower eFG% (.458 to .468).

- They also turned the ball over less when he was on court, 16.7% TOV rate to 18.7% when he's off the court.

I agree Shaq should've been the MVP, but Iverson definitely had a case.

[mehyaM24]

Agreed.

Who would be the top 5 on your ballot that year?

i couldnt give you a top 5 (some i feel werent even legit candidates), but even kobe or ray allen would have been better choices.

[NumberSix]

Regular season MVP. What's with all the playoff stats?

[mehyaM24]

Well that's a retarded argument.

- When Iverson was on the court, the Sixers offense was 3.9 points better, and their defense 0.2 points better, overall +4.1 differential.

- When he was on the court, his team shot a better eFG% (.47 to .461), and held the opposing team to lower eFG% (.458 to .468).

- They also turned the ball over less when he was on court, 16.7% TOV rate to 18.7% when he's off the court.

I agree Shaq should've been the MVP, but Iverson definitely had a case.

sample size? also post some links for proof.

Bringing up playoff stats when MVP is a REGULAR SEASON award.

i also said shaq had better statistics in the regular season....backing up his play in the postseason

[Bless Mathews]

Bringing up playoff stats when MVP is a REGULAR SEASON award.

Exactly.

Op is a retarded marsupial.

Period.

Idiot.

[Shep]

people talk about iverson and o'neal. nobody ever mentions tim duncan, who I feel should have been co-mvp with o'neal that year. duncan only led the spurs to the best record in the nba, with averages of 22.2ppg, 12.2rpg, 3.0apg, 0.9spg, and 2.3bpg, while playing all 82 games.

[Milbuck]

sample size? also post some links for proof.

The sample size is the entire regular season, the year he won MVP.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/...1/on-off/2001/

[mehyaM24]

Exactly.

Op is a retarded marsupial.

Period.

Idiot.

another poster who cant read lol

[RedBlackAttack]

In retrospect, Shaq should have been MVP. He was the most dominant player in the league and one of the most dominant of all-time... and the guy has one MVP while Steve Nash has two.

There's just something wrong with that picture.

I will say that AI was unreal that season. It's not like it was just gifted to him. He was incredible and looked to be the kind of player we'd look back on as an all-time great.

But, Shaq should've won. One MVP does not reflect his greatness.

[mehyaM24]

The sample size is the entire regular season, the year he won MVP.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/...1/on-off/2001/

these stats also show me, when iverson was off the court, the sixers grabbed more rebounds and had more assists with marginally less efficiency(iverson shot more 3's and shot a decent FT %)

their scoring barely took a hit

[RedBlackAttack]

these stats also show me, when iverson was off the court, the sixers grabbed more rebounds, had more assists with marginally less efficiency(iverson shot more 3's and a decent FT %)

their scoring barely took a hit

That's an awful indicator for player production. How many of those minutes were spent with backups from both teams on the floor, as is usually the case with a guy who plays 92-percent of his team's minutes for an entire season?

How many of those minutes came in the last few moments of blowouts? How many meaningful minutes was AI not on the floor that season? I'm guessing very few.

[Milbuck]

these stats also show me, when iverson was off the court, the sixers grabbed more rebounds, had more assists with marginally less efficiency(iverson shot more 3's and a decent FT %)

their scoring barely took a hit

It blatantly shits on your argument. You said their offense suffered with him, which is absolutely false. Without him their offensive rating was lower, they shot less efficiently, they turned the ball over more, etc. You have nothing.

"barely took a hit"

3.9 point ORTG difference.

You understand that's the difference between the Spurs's offensive rating and the Pelicans this season, right?