Downright Iversonian. The stats from his MVP season:
G MP FG FGA FG% 3P 3PA 3P% 2P 2PA 2P% eFG% FT FTA FT%
71 42.0 10.7 25.5 .420 1.4 4.3 .320 9.4 21.2 .441 .447 8.2 10.1 .814
ORB DRB TRB AST STL BLK TOV PF PTS
0.7 3.1 3.8 4.6 2.5 0.3 3.3 2.1 31.1
Poor efficiency and high usage can still have great value, depending upon what the other options are. Drawing defensive attention and getting shots up on the rim creates offensive rebounding opportunities, and it is certainly far better than a turnover. If there are not other players on the floor that can get the shots up, then you let the low-efficiency guy jack.
If you have other options that ARE more efficient that can be using some of those possessions, then you should probably be more discriminating.
I think Iverson was a fascinating player. Prodigious talent, yet complete inability (or unwillingness) to adapt his game in any way. He would have been constantly skewered had he played in the analytics era, yet he was certainly a player you could not take your eyes off of. Also an incredibly compelling personal story, so many virtues, so many demons/flaws, a constant battle between the two. The more I learned about him, the more I rooted for him.
Although the analytics-era would not have been kind to his late 90s through 00s game, interesting to think about what he would have been like had he grown up in an era where it was more socially acceptable to look up to and emulate players that carried themselves like CEOs (instead of that being seen as "selling out").