There are very few, and the fact that there does not prove any point you've been trying to put out. Yes there are great shooting guards who shoot efficiently, the correlation between that and the 76ers becoming better with AI traded is inexistant. And if you say that the 76ers could have traded AI for a "great" and "efficient" shooting guard, wouldn't that make AI a great player too, considering a team were hypothetically willing to trade their great player for him?
Exactly, which is why I said that AI was a bad example which doesn't work in your favor. I never said that stats are irrelevant to the game and are wrong, just that they aren't exactly shown in their "brightest moment" when Allen Iverson is considered the 9th best player on his team when he was MVP. In fact I even said in my earlier post that I get what you mean, and agree to a certain extent, only this was a horrible example.
And this whole final paragraph you have written, does it have anything to do with your argument that Iverson being 9th on his team is justifiable and is a good example to how WS is a very effective tool to evaluate a player? No.
Just for argument sake, I will say this. Iverson might have been a ball-hog, but him taking those shots. That's what made them win games, many times he took bad shots, many times he made those bad shots. Many times, if he didn't take those shots, the 76ers would have lost. In comparison to all the times he was effective as a high-volume scorer, his "failures" and "inefficiencies" were pretty minimal.
As for your last sentence, well that's just obvious. That's like saying the Raptors would be a better team if Chris Paul replaced Jose, or Dwight replaced Bargnani. Actually, it's not even that far fetched. I actually disagree with the statement itself, with the roster the 76ers had, anything that wasn't a superstar probably would have meant that they would have been what Cleveland is today.