On Wednesday I published a chart showing Chauncey Billups' career win shares compared to the players acquired for him by trade. Of course, Mr. Big Shot was once dealt for Allen Iverson, so Iverson appears on the chart just under Billups. The mere presence of A.I. below a contemporary on a chart led to some debate about whether Iverson was actually a lesser player than Billups, which should be a reasonable discussion to have.

But because it's Iverson, nothing is reasonable.

The Answer is one of two modern players for whom Internet debate is basically useless. (The other is Kobe.) There are certain people on the Internet for whom A.I. ranks among the best guards ever, a living legend and a player behind only Kobe, Duncan and Shaq in his era. These are people that respond to a chart that places Billups over Iverson based on an admittedly arcane statistic by literally laughing out loud and pointing out what they see as a major gaffe.

Then there are certain people who think Iverson is not just overrated, but wildly overrated. These are usually stats people. Iverson was not the most efficient player in the league despite huge scoring and assists numbers. Some fans and analysts are so committed to efficiency as the highest priority that they'll argue Iverson was no better than an average player with above-average opportunities. One prominent stats writer claimed Iverson was the 91st-most productive player in the league the year he won MVP. That same stats writer was heavily endorsed by Malcolm Gladwell, so his position won a lot of extra cachet.

There are a number of folks that feel similar, though less strident on the subject. Some might be surprised that Iverson landed so close to Billups on that chart.

A widespread difference of opinion about a player is not rare, especially in the Hot Take era. But pro-Iverson and anti-Iverson folks aren't even speaking the same language. Even otherwise reasonable writers take up arms when Iverson is the topic, as if he is the talisman to the greater debate about the importance of shooting efficiency and the value of data. Note that I'm purposely not linking to any of the hot takes one way or the other. Like I'm saying, the debate is not useful and actually might be destructive.

The reality is that while Iverson captured and has held our imaginations like few others, what you think about A.I. as a player need not be polemic. As a data-friendly writer and fan, I tend to think that efficiency does matter quite a bit. But I also recognize the value of shot creation, of taking a huge load. Iverson's Finals team is a perfect example of this issue: how much did Larry Brown benefit from being able to rely on A.I. taking 30 shots a game, freeing up other rotation spots for elite defenders?

But the Iverson debates, because he's Allen F. Iverson, never allow for that sort of discussion. At least not on the Internet. He's either a legendary scorer without parallel or a ball-hogging chucker of the highest order. On the Internet, there seems to be painfully little gray area.

Until people can take the emotion out of the Iverson they remember, comparing him to anyone else is totally useless. Let's just talk about Nick Young instead.