Good riddance

Allen Iverson has released a statement announcing his retirement from the NBA.

I know we've done a lot of A.I. bashing on this site, and if you're tired of it....too freakin bad. Here's part of Iver-lost's statement:

"I always thought that when I left the game, it would be because I couldn't help my team the way that I was accustomed to. However, that is not the case."

Does Iverson really think he's the best guy to determine his worth as a player? At what point would he actually admit he can't help a team win or play at a high level? Here's a hint - never.

A.I. was always a selfish ball-hog, now with diminished skills he doesn't have much value. He just refuses to see it.

What really bothers me is the way the media portrays Iverson. ESPN analysts call him an all-time great, and many others follow suit. I don't get it. Teams he's played for have consistently gotten better when he leaves. Did the Celtics get better when Bird left? The Bulls with Jordan? The Rockets with Hakeem?

He's shot a miserable percentage from the floor and was never a good defender. His postseason shooting percentage is even worse than the regular season, at a meaty 40 percent. Maybe he could have used a little more PRACTICE. PRACTICE? PRACTICE.

I understand he had some great highlight moments, but he wasn't a great player, I don't care how many guys wearing expensive suits on TV say he was. I would argue he's one of the most overrated players in all of sports.

This is one of the huge problems with sports media today, particularly ESPN. These analysts want to be buddy-buddy with the athletes, so they endlessly pump them up, regardless of how valuable they really are. So the ESPN guys might make a few new friends, but with me, they've lost all credibility.

Just like Iverson.


  1. A.I may not be an all time great and espn is hyping him up but that doesnt mean putting him down as some worthless mediocre nba player is doing justice or being smart. he has accomplished a hell of a lot considering the physical qualities he possesses. He is shortest MVP, took a useless team to the finals and led the league in scoring 4 times. Granted, he is a selfish ball hog and a pain in the rear end and has many negatives that could be pointed out but he is not a mediocre player. he was an excellent player. not an all time great but not worthless.

  2. Pretty sure I never used the words mediocre or worthless, so responding to that makes no sense. Leading the league in scoring isn't as great an accomplishment as you make it sound, considering Iverson led the league in field goal attempts four times as well. As for the that NBA final, he did have a great year, but the Eastern Conference was as bad as it's ever been. I don't think Iverson stunk, I just think he's been wildly overrated. He's the active (for now) leader in career field goal attempts. Only one time between his rookie year and 2007-2008 did he finish outside the top 10 in FGA, 11 times he finished in the top five. Shouldn't he be near the lead league in scoring? The telling statistic is his 42.5 career FG percentage.

  3. Dagger, Iverson is a HOF candidate, maybe a first ballot guy. For all his antics, he was one incredible talent. Who leads the NBA in FGA's today... tell me if he can play?

  4. I'm sure he will make the HOF. And he was an incredible talent. But he wasn't a great basketball player. My point about field goal attempts was not that anyone who takes a lot of shots stinks, but that if you shoot that much it should be a given that you're near the lead league in scoring. Jordan led the league in attempts many times, but he shot 49.7% for his career, not 42.5%. How come nobody has answered the argument that the last two teams he played for got markedly better when he left? Does the fact that he was "an incredible talent" override that? Iverson never shot over 46% from the floor...does that not matter?

  5. Dagger, I agree with your analysis. He is a ball hog no doubt but his recent state of affairs is not that fair. You think there are 5 players in Memphis better than AI than AI should back up a rookie PG? I mean he aint that bad. In all fairness, Nene hardly played when AI was there. He was injured/ill all the time. Bird man wasnt there either. Melo was shootin 3s. Agree, these are excuses for AI's failure to be a team player but all i am saying is that I believe you can win with AI as a supporting PG. maybe Cleveland where Shaq and Bron can keep him in check or LA where Kobe/Gasol/Phil can control him. But asking him to come off theb ench for the Grizzlies? Com'on man.

  6. Are there five better players on Memphis? Maybe, maybe not. That's not the point. If he's slightly better than a young player, the young player should be getting the minutes and the experience. The Grizz aren't winning anything this year, so Iverson does them no good. He's not part of their future. That was my point, he doesn't get that. He shouldn't be the focus of a team anymore. If he was in touch with reality and a little less selfish he would have tried to work with the younger guys and embraced a role coming off the bench. I agree that you could win with Iverson as a supporting player, in fact he'd be the perfect sixth man on a good team, because he could be the prime scoring option on the second team. The problem is he would never accept that role.