PDA

View Full Version : NBA Players React To Allen Iverson's Retirement; Nothing but RESPECT!



Pages : [1] 2

randyorton33
03-02-2014, 08:02 PM
To anyone that tries to shun this mans legacy and lables him negatively....just check out the reactions from some of the greatest ever below...this shows that you idiots that have never touched a ball in your life can dog a man for shooting too much all day....it takes ABILITY and the confidence of your coach and team to get shots off .

Nothing but respect and love for AI last night from Kobe, to KD, to LeBron...they even call him the greatest ever.

http://www.balldontstop.com/nba-players-react-allen-iversons-retirement/

ManRam
03-02-2014, 08:19 PM
the guy was an icon and tremendously formative. i'm sure a TON of current players grew up idolizing him. i did as well. he and t-mac were the only basketball shoes i ever bought. i had a ton of AI apparel. his legacy will never waver in those regards.


but as a basketball player there were some chinks in his game. it is what it is. those guys all obviously respect the hell out of him, as they should....and on the day he got his jersey hoisted they had some hugely praiseworthy things to say about him. maybe some hyperbole, but whatever.


let me ask your, randy, where do you rank him all time?

Chronz
03-02-2014, 08:19 PM
Do you seriously believe that AI is the greatest ever? Are you saying he never clashed with coaches and teammates over his poor shot selection and inconsistent ability to run an offense? And sure some people might have had an issue with him shooting so much, but the biggest issue was always that he MISSED alot.

sammyvine
03-02-2014, 08:27 PM
He was the GOAT obviously ever but he was an amazing player

sammyvine
03-02-2014, 08:28 PM
Do you seriously believe that AI is the greatest ever? Are you saying he never clashed with coaches and teammates over his poor shot selection and inconsistent ability to run an offense? And sure some people might have had an issue with him shooting so much, but the biggest issue was always that he MISSED alot.

i used to think that but what players have said about him, Lebron, CP3 has changed my mind. Those two players arguably have the highest bb IQ in the league and Lebron said he was his favourite player along with Jordan. I am going to take Lebron's word of how good he was.

Chronz
03-02-2014, 08:31 PM
Also, does anyone think they would trash him or put his career in complete perspective on the day he gets his jersey retired? Im pretty sure nobody is that much of a dick. Maybe Rick Barry.


i used to think that but what players have said about him, Lebron, CP3 has changed my mind. Those two players arguably have the highest bb IQ in the league and Lebron said he was his favourite player along with Jordan. I am going to take Lebron's word of how good he was.
What did you used to think and what did they say?

Hellcrooner
03-02-2014, 08:34 PM
Lol do you really expect someone to trash him today?

Tony_Starks
03-02-2014, 08:35 PM
Iverson is your favorite players favorite player. People like to recreate history but at a certain point he was in the best player in the league conversation and definitely the most popular.

He didnt get MVP by accident.

abe_froman
03-02-2014, 08:37 PM
nobody is going to bad mouth a guy during a jersey retirement thing,nobody is that much of a dick.he was one of my favorite players to watch ever,but he was massively overrated by his fans because of that streetball style and the whole persona(favoring style over substance).he was good ,but a lower tier "great"

Chronz
03-02-2014, 08:46 PM
Iverson is your favorite players favorite player. People like to recreate history but at a certain point he was in the best player in the league conversation and definitely the most popular.

He didnt get MVP by accident.
What exactly are we recreating? I dont think anyone ever said he wasn't popular or beloved for his size, heart and style, just like nobody denies that he had poor practice habits, or that his attitude/ignorance prevented him from staying in the league while he obviously still had something left in the tank. He was a gifted athlete who couldn't retain his dominance because it was a game based on speed and misdirection as opposed to efficient shooting/passing.

And he got an MVP that even he admits belongs to Shaq. Can we take it away because he said that or would that be recreating history in a manner you dont like?

He was never the best player in the league, not even close. Duncan, KG and Shaq were always CLEARLY better.

You can maybe make an argument for top 10.

KG21
03-02-2014, 08:49 PM
Someone has to start being a d1ck in a topic. ( Btw his name is Chronz)

Jamiecballer
03-02-2014, 08:50 PM
love how the list was 90% chuckers LOL

my point EXACTLY about his influence on the game.

Chronz
03-02-2014, 08:53 PM
Someone has to start being a d1ck in a topic. ( Btw his name is Chronz)
Shots were fired in the OP, when he called AI detractors idiots.

I love AI. If only his fanatics didn't overrate the **** out of him. Believe me, I still have his shoes, I love that he pretty much brought back throwback jerseys for a period back then. I loved his heart and hustle.

Just hate his fanboys.

NBA_Starter
03-02-2014, 08:59 PM
You have to love the Respect!

chitownbulls
03-02-2014, 09:12 PM
What exactly are we recreating? I dont think anyone ever said he wasn't popular or beloved for his size, heart and style, just like nobody denies that he had poor practice habits, or that his attitude/ignorance prevented him from staying in the league while he obviously still had something left in the tank. He was a gifted athlete who couldn't retain his dominance because it was a game based on speed and misdirection as opposed to efficient shooting/passing.


And he got an MVP that even he admits belongs to Shaq. Can we take it away because he said that or would that be recreating history in a manner you dont like?

He was never the best player in the league, not even close. Duncan, KG and Shaq were always CLEARLY better.

You can maybe make an argument for top 10.

why you so butt hurt bro

Chronz
03-02-2014, 09:31 PM
why you so butt hurt bro

AI spanked me as a child and his fans said it was the best spanking they've ever seen. Overrated spank IMO

Jeffy25
03-02-2014, 09:40 PM
He missed a lot more than he made, and he acted like a thug


A good player, but you don't have to respect him.

ManRam
03-02-2014, 09:46 PM
#thug


:sigh:

Jamiecballer
03-02-2014, 10:06 PM
#cracker

:running:

beliges
03-02-2014, 10:08 PM
AI was a great player. First ballot hall of famer and one of the 30 greatest players ever. Nothing less, nothing more. He was one of the most defining players of a fantastic era.

TheMightyHumph
03-02-2014, 10:08 PM
To anyone that tries to shun this mans legacy and lables him negatively....just check out the reactions from some of the greatest ever below...this shows that you idiots that have never touched a ball in your life can dog a man for shooting too much all day....it takes ABILITY and the confidence of your coach and team to get shots off .

Nothing but respect and love for AI last night from Kobe, to KD, to LeBron...they even call him the greatest ever.

http://www.balldontstop.com/nba-players-react-allen-iversons-retirement/

Players always say good things about retired player. Mark Jackson reaped praises on John Stockton, but in Stockton's last season, Mark tried to start a mutiny against Stockton, trying to stab Stockton in the back and take his starting job. Stockton, seeing what the NBA had turned into, retired.

Players are like politicians about other players. Mostly they sat the politically correct thing.

Not Dwight and Gortat, but I'll bet that changes over the years.

Amd KG, Pierce and Ray Allen will all be singing each others praises.

Geez, Jason Collins is getting nothing but praise from NBA players.

Minimal
03-02-2014, 10:17 PM
Career .425 FG% player doesn't sound any good to me. Overrated.

JJ_JKidd
03-02-2014, 10:24 PM
To anyone that tries to shun this mans legacy and lables him negatively....just check out the reactions from some of the greatest ever below...this shows that you idiots that have never touched a ball in your life can dog a man for shooting too much all day....it takes ABILITY and the confidence of your coach and team to get shots off .

Nothing but respect and love for AI last night from Kobe, to KD, to LeBron...they even call him the greatest ever.

http://www.balldontstop.com/nba-players-react-allen-iversons-retirement/

The first person I heard to say the phrase "play every game like its your last." Much much respect. For the KIDS here who dont appreciate him, there is always Google and Youtube.

cmellofan15
03-02-2014, 10:24 PM
I don't see how some people can't separate the facts and their own opinions. Everybody loved AI, we all have his shoes and jerseys and loved watching him play. But you'd be a damn fool if you tried to argue that he was efficient or ever at the very top of the league.

Chronz
03-02-2014, 10:31 PM
AI was a great player. First ballot hall of famer and one of the 30 greatest players ever. Nothing less, nothing more. He was one of the most defining players of a fantastic era.

Top 30? Thats going too far.

SMH!
03-02-2014, 10:42 PM
He missed a lot more than he made, and he acted like a thug


A good player, but you don't have to respect him.

doesnt matter if you do, as long as the past and present nba superstars respect him which they do.

SMH!
03-02-2014, 10:43 PM
Impossible for someone to make an AI thread and people to not bash him, his peers loved him, a lot of love on twitter yesterday, psd hates him, wonder what they will say when hes first ballot HOF?

Meaze_Gibson
03-02-2014, 10:48 PM
Never will see another superstar like this. He was relentless. And also when you measure in the minutes he played, with the shooting metrics you can understand why he is probably so respected. As a player, the stamina, ability to attack, the midrange, the toughness. One of a kind #poundforpound

TheMightyHumph
03-02-2014, 11:01 PM
doesnt matter if you do, as long as the past and present nba superstars respect him which they do.

It's only words, as I said before

Lisound15
03-02-2014, 11:18 PM
Why does every slight technicality/exaggeration result in argument and stupidity?

Clearly AI isn't the GOAT so arguing that is a moot point.

The whole point of this thread is to appreciate a great player who left his mark on the game of basketball. His peers obviously respected him and appreciated his amazing talent so why can't you just admire what the guy did instead of putting him down.

Easily best crossover of his time.
Won an MVP award.
Took a team of nobodys to the finals (sound familiar to a guy everyone loves down in miami??)
Guy averaged 26 and 6 over his career but nah lets all glorify efficient players who barely crack 15 ppg. Cracks me up some times.

Again, I'm not saying hes the goat, but to grow up watching a guy like iverson play was an honor and I can only hope to see another player with his talent and determination to do whatever it takes to win.

beyourself
03-02-2014, 11:27 PM
Players respect his lifestyle and swag more than his actual game.

Jamiecballer
03-02-2014, 11:29 PM
Why does every slight technicality/exaggeration result in argument and stupidity?

Clearly AI isn't the GOAT so arguing that is a moot point.

The whole point of this thread is to appreciate a great player who left his mark on the game of basketball. His peers obviously respected him and appreciated his amazing talent so why can't you just admire what the guy did instead of putting him down.

Easily best crossover of his time.
Won an MVP award.
Took a team of nobodys to the finals (sound familiar to a guy everyone loves down in miami??)
Guy averaged 26 and 6 over his career but nah lets all glorify efficient players who barely crack 15 ppg. Cracks me up some times.

Again, I'm not saying hes the goat, but to grow up watching a guy like iverson play was an honor and I can only hope to see another player with his talent and determination to do whatever it takes to win.
he was incredibly tough and never backed down but the phrase whatever it takes to win does not apply IMO. that is reserved for guys who lead, make sacrifices, take it on the chest to pick up key charges, are relentless in practice, etc. iverson may have thought he was doing what it took to win but that was part of the problem, again, IMO.

Jeffy25
03-02-2014, 11:31 PM
#thug


:sigh:


He certainly portrayed himself that way.....to me at least :shrug:

Jeffy25
03-02-2014, 11:36 PM
Players respect his lifestyle and swag more than his actual game.

re-read that out loud to yourself and maybe you'll notice how ridiculous that sounds

ghettosean
03-02-2014, 11:38 PM
Someone has to start being a d1ck in a topic. ( Btw his name is Chronz)

I rarely agree with Chronz... but he's 100% right about everything he's been saying. I loved AI to he was one of if not the most exciting player to watch in his prime. His quickness, dribbling skills, heart... etc... it just made him a marvel to watch but he was completely inefficient on the floor and he cared about stats to much... He would never let Larry Brown pull him out of a game unless he scored 30 points or more even if he had a terrible shooting night.

He was extremely entertaining to watch and wore his heart on his sleeves but that's where it ends for me.

Jeffy25
03-02-2014, 11:44 PM
AI was a great player. First ballot hall of famer and one of the 30 greatest players ever. Nothing less, nothing more. He was one of the most defining players of a fantastic era.

No way he is a top 30 player of all time


I'm not trying to hate on him, but there is no way he is a top 30 player.

Top 75? Maybe as far as top 50. But certainly not top 30

Meaze_Gibson
03-02-2014, 11:50 PM
No way he is a top 30 player of all time


I'm not trying to hate on him, but there is no way he is a top 30 player.

Top 75? Maybe as far as top 50. But certainly not top 30
Your top 30?

Jarvo
03-02-2014, 11:52 PM
Alot of ******* in here but whatever, AI along with Duncan are my favorite Basketball players ever. How Lebron was going on about he got tats and wore a headband & sleeve like him I rocked braids lol he was truly great to watch and see him grow from college to the pros. The only bad thing I can say about AI was that he was somewhat selfish at the end of his career and the only reason I say this because he didnt want to come off the bench to a contending team to win a title and a part of me will always hate the fact he never won a ring :( but when he goes to the HOF I will mos def buy tickets for that!

Jarvo
03-02-2014, 11:57 PM
And one more thing, Can you guys shut the **** up calling players a "thug"

beyourself
03-03-2014, 12:03 AM
And one more thing, Can you guys shut the **** up calling players a "thug"

It's funny. You just said you were rocking braids cuz AI had them. Yet don't call him a thug.

Jarvo
03-03-2014, 12:07 AM
It's funny. You just said you were rocking braids cuz AI had them. Yet don't call him a thug.

How does having braids make you a thug? And what does me rocking braids because of him have to do with being a thug? I can tell you're just on here to troll.

Chronz
03-03-2014, 12:13 AM
re-read that out loud to yourself and maybe you'll notice how ridiculous that sounds

Whats wrong with it?


It's funny. You just said you were rocking braids cuz AI had them. Yet don't call him a thug.

Now THATS wrong.


Impossible for someone to make an AI thread and people to not bash him, his peers loved him, a lot of love on twitter yesterday, psd hates him, wonder what they will say when hes first ballot HOF?

You're implying that HOF are beyond criticism. Which makes no sense.

SeoulBeatz
03-03-2014, 12:41 AM
It's funny. You just said you were rocking braids cuz AI had them. Yet don't call him a thug.

What do braids have to do with being a thug?

My music teacher in middle school got braids when Iverson was prominent and he was one of the most intelligent and disciplined people I know, furthest person from a thug that I could imagine.

Iverson said himself "Before I came into the league you thought the suspect was the one wearing braids, now you see the police wearing them".

Asian kids (not me), white kids, latino kids..... they were all rocking braids and armbands in Philly when A.I was on top, and I thought that was a beautiful thing to see.

Chronz
03-03-2014, 12:45 AM
AI did make cornrows a big thing back then. I feel like he jumpstarted SLAM magazine too. AI did alot of good for the game, still dont like his game as much as most seem to

mngopher35
03-03-2014, 12:49 AM
AI was a great player. First ballot hall of famer and one of the 30 greatest players ever. Nothing less, nothing more. He was one of the most defining players of a fantastic era.

Care to explain the reasoning behind top 30 player ever? You always seem quick to use the rings argument so this doesn't make much sense to me.

Jarvo
03-03-2014, 01:00 AM
What do braids have to do with being a thug?

My music teacher in middle school got braids when Iverson was prominent and he was one of the most intelligent and disciplined people I know, furthest person from a thug that I could imagine.

Iverson said himself "Before I came into the league you thought the suspect was the one wearing braids, now you see the police wearing them".

Asian kids (not me), white kids, latino kids..... they were all rocking braids and armbands in Philly when A.I was on top, and I thought that was a beautiful thing to see.

Dude who said the ignorant *** comment was a troll.

SeoulBeatz
03-03-2014, 01:06 AM
Dude who said the ignorant *** comment was a troll.

Lol good, got worried for a second, thought this was gonna turn into a race war.

todu82
03-03-2014, 01:08 AM
Always liked Iverson. He was a very good player for a long time in the NBA, still I wouldn't consider him very close to be being the best player of all time.

TheMightyHumph
03-03-2014, 01:17 AM
Players respect his lifestyle and swag more than his actual game.

Where are you getting that from?

Ill21
03-03-2014, 01:24 AM
why you so butt hurt bro

having an opinion means you are butt hurt?

Got to love PSD logic

Jarvo
03-03-2014, 01:39 AM
Lol good, got worried for a second, thought this was gonna turn into a race war.

Lol nah he wouldn't want that

Hawkeye15
03-03-2014, 01:54 AM
of course he was a favorite to watch growing up for many of the current players, or anyone age 24-35. Doesn't mean he is a top 40 player ever.

Very exciting player, very inefficient for a superstar, and quite frankly, not a player many GM's would tend to build around in the modern NBA. But for what it's worth, very fun to watch when he was on his game.

Hawkeye15
03-03-2014, 01:55 AM
Always liked Iverson. He was a very good player for a long time in the NBA, still I wouldn't consider him very close to be being the best player of all time.

he was at no point even the best player in the league in a given year. Get the **** out of here with anyone who thinks he was a top 10 player ever.

Jeffy25
03-03-2014, 02:08 AM
Your top 30?

Typing out all 30 is too much, but 25-35 type players are guys like Drexler, Nash, Ewing, Pippen, etc


guys like Chris Paul, Vince Carter, Howard, etc were all better

Iverson as a top 50 is very debatable even.

beliges
03-03-2014, 02:28 AM
AI was a great player. First ballot hall of famer and one of the 30 greatest players ever. Nothing less, nothing more. He was one of the most defining players of a fantastic era.

Care to explain the reasoning behind top 30 player ever? You always seem quick to use the rings argument so this doesn't make much sense to me.

Leta get one thing out of the way. Great Players win rings because they're great. Its not that players are great because they have rings. Rings are for the greatest of all greats. AI is not that guy. Definitely not one of the 10 best. But id certainly put him in my top 30 ever. I got the pleasure of watching his career. I don't think you'll find many people who also witnessed AIs career disagree. He was the greatest player ever under 6ft. One of the best scorers to ever play and one of the better clutch players of his generation. This is why I have him in my top 30.

Jeffy25
03-03-2014, 02:36 AM
Leta get one thing out of the way. Great Players win rings because they're great. Its not that players are great because they have rings. Rings are for the greatest of all greats. AI is not that guy. Definitely not one of the 10 best. But id certainly put him in my top 30 ever. I got the pleasure of watching his career. I don't think you'll find many people who also witnessed AIs career disagree. He was the greatest player ever under 6ft. One of the best scorers to ever play and one of the better clutch players of his generation. This is why I have him in my top 30.

I'd take Chris Paul over AI.....any day. He's already had a better career

Alayla
03-03-2014, 02:40 AM
PLEASE stop the iverson threads... its threads like this that make bagwells....

Alayla
03-03-2014, 02:41 AM
I'd take Chris Paul over AI.....any day. He's already had a better career

Paul> Iverson and it isnt close i argee.

abe_froman
03-03-2014, 02:45 AM
AI was a great player. First ballot hall of famer and one of the 30 greatest players ever. Nothing less, nothing more. He was one of the most defining players of a fantastic era.

seriously?(the list is not in order)
1.jordan
2.russell
3.kareem
4.magic
5.wilt
6.bird
7.shaq
8.duncan
9.hakeem
10.kobe
11.dr.j
12.k.malone
13.kg
14.oscar
15.West
16.moses
17.dirk
18.lebron
19.pettit
20.barkley
21.d-rob
22.stockton
23.frazier
24.nash
25.pippen
26.baylor
27.ewing
28.hondo
29.thomas
30.payton
those are 30 that are better,and i havent even named guys like wade,kidd,cp3,cousy,drexler,ect.

he has an argument for top 50,but not top 30

Meaze_Gibson
03-03-2014, 02:49 AM
Typing out all 30 is too much, but 25-35 type players are guys like Drexler, Nash, Ewing, Pippen, etc


guys like Chris Paul, Vince Carter, Howard, etc were all better

Iverson as a top 50 is very debatable even.
Steve Nash, Vince Carter, are not better than Iverson. They dont have the longevity of all star production. They never consistently saw the types of defenses that were thrown at him. He even played better defense than both of them even though he played more minutes.

Jeffy25
03-03-2014, 02:54 AM
Steve Nash, Vince Carter, are not better than Iverson. They dont have the longevity of all star production. They never consistently saw the types of defenses that were thrown at him. He even played better defense than both of them even though he played more minutes.

Nash is leaps and bounds better than Iverson

Hell he shot from the 3 point line better than Iverson did overall, and he was a playmaker, not chucker, and he made the guys around him better.

Nash has better win shares and was easily the better true shooter

Iverson was probably better defensively, but not enough to make up the gap that Nash has on Iverson.

And it's funny you say longevity....both Carter and Nash played more minutes than Iverson.

Meaze_Gibson
03-03-2014, 02:58 AM
seriously?(the list is not in order)
1.jordan
2.russell
3.kareem
4.magic
5.wilt
6.bird
7.shaq
8.duncan
9.hakeem
10.kobe
11.dr.j
12.k.malone
13.kg
14.oscar
15.West
16.moses
17.dirk
18.lebron
19.pettit
20.barkley
21.d-rob
22.stockton
23.frazier
24.nash
25.pippen
26.baylor
27.ewing
28.hondo
29.thomas
30.payton
those are 30 that are better,and i havent even named guys like wade,kidd,cp3,cousy,drexler,ect.

he has an argument for top 50,but not top 30

Much respect. but Walt Frazier, John Havlicek, Steve Nash, Elgin baylor, were not better than Iverson but I can respect that list.

Duncan = Donkey
03-03-2014, 03:00 AM
Iverson was probably the GOAT chucker. Also has a case for being the greatest inefficient scorer of all time, He was amazing in that regard. Amazes me how overrated this guy is.

AIverson
03-03-2014, 03:00 AM
You guys consider people like Nash better than Iverson? Talk about pure hating lol. I can see CP3, yeah. 2nd best pg of all time next to magic, but Nash? pippen? Vince carter? Any non bias basketball fan would tell you AI is without a doubt better than these guys. I guess this place is like ****** where ts% means everything lol. Never during iversons playing career where those guys considered better lol.

abe_froman
03-03-2014, 03:01 AM
Much respect. but Walt Frazier, John Havlicek, Steve Nash, Elgin baylor, were not better than Iverson but I can respect that list.
how werent they?

Chronz
03-03-2014, 03:02 AM
You guys consider people like Nash better than Iverson? Talk about pure hating lol. I can see CP3, yeah. 2nd best pg of all time next to magic, but Nash? pippen? Vince carter? Any non bias basketball fan would tell you AI is without a doubt better than these guys. I guess this place is like ****** where ts% means everything lol. Never during iversons playing career where those guys considered better lol.

Whats wrong with liking Pippen? Vince Carter might have been better at his peak but I would agree his career falls short.

Jeffy25
03-03-2014, 03:03 AM
Much respect. but Walt Frazier, John Havlicek, Steve Nash, Elgin baylor, were not better than Iverson but I can respect that list.

Not that Wins Shares is an 'all-knowing list' or anything.

But it maybe gives you an idea:

Havlicek - 131.72 (31st)
Nash - 129.54 (33rd)
Frazier - 113.54 (47th)
Baylor - 104.15 (67th)


Iverson - 98.97 (76th)


A lot of that is influenced by playing more minutes (Karl Malone for example is one of the highest in career Wins Shares because of his minutes)

Nash and Havlicek played more minutes than Iverson, and Nash basically played the same amount as Iverson

There are other ways to measure the best of all time, but none of them show Iverson to be a top 30 player.

AIverson
03-03-2014, 03:03 AM
how werent they?

Exactly how were they? Look at the stats and turn on some footage and watch them all play. Iverson was more skilled than all of them.

Duncan = Donkey
03-03-2014, 03:04 AM
You guys consider people like Nash better than Iverson? Talk about pure hating lol. I can see CP3, yeah. 2nd best pg of all time next to magic, but Nash? pippen? Vince carter? Any non bias basketball fan would tell you AI is without a doubt better than these guys. I guess this place is like ****** where ts% means everything lol. Never during iversons playing career where those guys considered better lol.

Nash is better than Iverson, but I understand some people prefer an undersized chucker

Jeffy25
03-03-2014, 03:06 AM
You guys consider people like Nash better than Iverson? Talk about pure hating lol. I can see CP3, yeah. 2nd best pg of all time next to magic, but Nash? pippen? Vince carter? Any non bias basketball fan would tell you AI is without a doubt better than these guys. I guess this place is like ****** where ts% means everything lol. Never during iversons playing career where those guys considered better lol.

I have absolutely no bias in the NBA, I literally don't even have a favorite team (none in my area, never grew up preferring any).

AI was not better than any of the players you just named.

He was a chucker, he was inefficient. He was a great defensive player and a good ball handler. But anyone is going to average 30 points a game if you left them shoot that much. AI had talent, and he could get difficult shots off. But he was a selfish player, and wasn't able to be an all time great because of himself. He kept himself from being an all time great.

He was never the greatest player in a given season, never made anyone around him better, and is honestly, a borderline hall of famed.

I'm 30, and he was a great player in the NBA during my teenage years. You would think that would be the era where he would be idolized. But it was very evident what sort of player he was when watching him. And the numbers don't disagree.

If anyone would have a bias, wouldn't it possibly be the poster with his name as Iverson?

Hawkeye15
03-03-2014, 03:08 AM
You guys consider people like Nash better than Iverson? Talk about pure hating lol. I can see CP3, yeah. 2nd best pg of all time next to magic, but Nash? pippen? Vince carter? Any non bias basketball fan would tell you AI is without a doubt better than these guys. I guess this place is like ****** where ts% means everything lol. Never during iversons playing career where those guys considered better lol.

for sure yes. Like I have stated, Iverson is the definition of old school evaluation versus new school. No GM on a good team would build around him today, because high volume scorers were so much more valued back in the day.

Nash is the greatest shooter in history. And so much more of an impact offensively, it's not even a conversation.

Jeffy25
03-03-2014, 03:08 AM
Exactly how were they? Look at the stats and turn on some footage and watch them all play. Iverson was more skilled than all of them.

Being better skilled doesn't make someone a better basketball player.

Chronz
03-03-2014, 03:13 AM
seriously?(the list is not in order)
1.jordan
2.russell
3.kareem
4.magic
5.wilt
6.bird
7.shaq
8.duncan
9.hakeem
10.kobe
11.dr.j
12.k.malone
13.kg
14.oscar
15.West
16.moses
17.dirk
18.lebron
19.pettit
20.barkley
21.d-rob
22.stockton
23.frazier
24.nash
25.pippen
26.baylor
27.ewing
28.hondo
29.thomas
30.payton
those are 30 that are better,and i havent even named guys like wade,kidd,cp3,cousy,drexler,ect.

he has an argument for top 50,but not top 30

You sir have inspired me. A general list of additional players I deemed to have a superior legacy/career. Which is obviously a different argument than best peak/prime runs. Though Drexler would prolly make my top-30

Wade, Rick Barry, Gervin, Nique, Dwight


Prolly better but guys you could convince me otherwise:
Elvin Hayes, Cowens, Reed, McHale, Worthy, Pierce

Tony_Starks
03-03-2014, 03:14 AM
Lets not also forget how much of a warrior this guy was. Its not like he just hoisted J's, he went to the basket with no fear and took mad punishment. REAL punishment, not fool the ref punishment.

To do what he did and play through injuries at what 6'0, a buck sixty soaking wet? Never saw it before, wont see it again.

Won't find that in a stat sheet.

abe_froman
03-03-2014, 03:15 AM
Exactly how were they? Look at the stats and turn on some footage and watch them all play. Iverson was more skilled than all of them.

i have,and guarantee much more than you have

AIverson
03-03-2014, 03:17 AM
I have absolutely no bias in the NBA, I literally don't even have a favorite team (none in my area, never grew up preferring any).

AI was not better than any of the players you just named.

He was a chucker, he was inefficient. He was a great defensive player and a good ball handler. But anyone is going to average 30 points a game if you left them shoot that much. AI had talent, and he could get difficult shots off. But he was a selfish player, and wasn't able to be an all time great because of himself. He kept himself from being an all time great.

He was never the greatest player in a given season, never made anyone around him better, and is honestly, a borderline hall of famed.

I'm 30, and he was a great player in the NBA during my teenage years. You would think that would be the era where he would be idolized. But it was very evident what sort of player he was when watching him. And the numbers don't disagree.

If anyone would have a bias, wouldn't it possibly be the poster with his name as Iverson?

I have no problem admitting when a player is better than Iverson. We all know, for instance, that Chris Paul is far and away the better player, and there is really no argument that can be made in Iverson's favor. None of the players I listed were the greatest in the nba at any point in time. Iverson for his volume was effiencient enough. 27 and 6 on 42.5% shooting is damn good. It's right in the same ball park as guys like Kobe and his 45% shooting.

Meaze_Gibson
03-03-2014, 03:18 AM
Nash is leaps and bounds better than Iverson

Hell he shot from the 3 point line better than Iverson did overall, and he was a playmaker, not chucker, and he made the guys around him better.

Nash has better win shares and was easily the better true shooter

Iverson was probably better defensively, but not enough to make up the gap that Nash has on Iverson.

And it's funny you say longevity....both Carter and Nash played more minutes than Iverson.
Nash played with Amare in his prime, Dirk in his prime, Shawn Marion in his prime. Tim Hardaway and Nick van exels for backup pgs. He always had legit second options and has alway been placed on better teams. Nash is easily the best shooter but not a better scorer. Hell he couldnt even give you more than 36 minutes in his prime, while playing extremely piss poor defense. Meanwhile Iverson gave you 43 minutes a night, as a freakin 6'0 pg/sg, while the entire defense is keyed in on you. With his 30 pts and 6 *** a night, he still contributed more offense than steve nash did with 18 and 11 while playing better defense.

Also I said longevity in all star production, AI was putting All star/Superstar numbers for 12 consecutive years. Steve Nash had about nine. vc had 10

Chronz
03-03-2014, 03:18 AM
Leta get one thing out of the way. Great Players win rings because they're great. Its not that players are great because they have rings. Rings are for the greatest of all greats. AI is not that guy. Definitely not one of the 10 best. But id certainly put him in my top 30 ever. I got the pleasure of watching his career. I don't think you'll find many people who also witnessed AIs career disagree.
I dont understand, do you think only 10 players have won rings? Give us this list, I guarantee you will list quite a few NBA champions behind AI. Why discredit them for AI?


He was the greatest player ever under 6ft.
Even if its true, why would that matter. Its not like you get extra credit for having it harder, if anything it implies a weakness. Short SG who couldn't defend the position and absolutely needed a bigger guard to mask his defensive shortcomings while being inefficient offensively and being the kind of guy who couldn't facilitate ball movement all that well.


One of the best scorers to ever play and one of the better clutch players of his generation. This is why I have him in my top 30.
I'd love to see that list.

Chronz
03-03-2014, 03:22 AM
Lets not also forget how much of a warrior this guy was. Its not like he just hoisted J's, he went to the basket with no fear and took mad punishment. REAL punishment, not fool the ref punishment.

To do what he did and play through injuries at what 6'0, a buck sixty soaking wet? Never saw it before, wont see it again.

Won't find that in a stat sheet.
You'll find it under games missed. And you'll also notice you dont get extra credit for having it harder. It might be more impressive, but it doesn't help you win games more than the guy who can do the same thing only more effectively thanks to physical dominance.

sunsfan88
03-03-2014, 03:23 AM
I wonder what the player reactions would have looked like for Jordan's retirement if they had Twitter and Insta back then and if all these social media sites were as popular as it is today...

Chronz
03-03-2014, 03:24 AM
I have no problem admitting when a player is better than Iverson. We all know, for instance, that Chris Paul is far and away the better player, and there is really no argument that can be made in Iverson's favor. None of the players I listed were the greatest in the nba at any point in time. Iverson for his volume was effiencient enough. 27 and 6 on 42.5% shooting is damn good. It's right in the same ball park as guys like Kobe and his 45% shooting.

Ima huge CP3 fan, and while I agree CP3 at his best is better, having a better legacy/career is more than just about your own individual talent. CP3 hasn't passed AI just yet, longevity and winning still matters.

Meaze_Gibson
03-03-2014, 03:31 AM
I have no problem admitting when a player is better than Iverson. We all know, for instance, that Chris Paul is far and away the better player, and there is really no argument that can be made in Iverson's favor. None of the players I listed were the greatest in the nba at any point in time. Iverson for his volume was effiencient enough. 27 and 6 on 42.5% shooting is damn good. It's right in the same ball park as guys like Kobe and his 45% shooting.
Chris paul is not far and away a better player because chris paul is a mystery in playoff basketball. I saw Iverson run through ray allen, sam cassell, vince carter, reggie miller, anfernee hardaway etc. When i tell you they feared him. They like really didnt want to guard him. Do you know what a prime iverson would have done to Michael Conley? Who has Chris paul won battles against? an old j kidd? old derek fisher? Who really fears chris paul?

AIverson
03-03-2014, 03:32 AM
for sure yes. Like I have stated, Iverson is the definition of old school evaluation versus new school. No GM on a good team would build around him today, because high volume scorers were so much more valued back in the day.

Nash is the greatest shooter in history. And so much more of an impact offensively, it's not even a conversation.

You don't think a prime Iverson would thrive in today's rule set and faster pace compared to the early 00's? The likelyhood of him winning a championship as the best player on the team would be unlikely, but Nash wouldn't do any better in that situation. Lesser players like Rose and Irving get praised in today's game, yet they were not the player Iverson was. Iverson's efficiency would sky rocket in today's game, and there's statistical proof to support this theory. It's hard not imagine him having success in the league today.

SeoulBeatz
03-03-2014, 03:35 AM
Lets not also forget how much of a warrior this guy was. Its not like he just hoisted J's, he went to the basket with no fear and took mad punishment. REAL punishment, not fool the ref punishment.

To do what he did and play through injuries at what 6'0, a buck sixty soaking wet? Never saw it before, wont see it again.

Won't find that in a stat sheet.

One of my favorite aspects of his game. This isnt Antoine Walker just slugging up the court and hoisting threes, A.I went ****ing HARD in the paint, hence the crazy amount of fta's for his career. He really earned foul calls, unlike harden flailing everytime someone breathes on him. Players knocked the **** out of A.I (it was a sound strategy since he was so tiny) but he always got right back up. His toughness was one of his traits you could admire and why he was such an inspiration for the smaller guys in the league.

Jeffy25
03-03-2014, 03:37 AM
I have no problem admitting when a player is better than Iverson. We all know, for instance, that Chris Paul is far and away the better player, and there is really no argument that can be made in Iverson's favor. None of the players I listed were the greatest in the nba at any point in time. Iverson for his volume was effiencient enough. 27 and 6 on 42.5% shooting is damn good. It's right in the same ball park as guys like Kobe and his 45% shooting.

Except when you add in the additional turnovers, worse free throw and three point shooting.....and more shots per game, less winning, and worse longevity.

He is no where close to Kobe's ballpark

Hawkeye15
03-03-2014, 03:40 AM
You don't think a prime Iverson would thrive in today's rule set and faster pace compared to the early 00's? The likelyhood of him winning a championship as the best player on the team would be unlikely, but Nash wouldn't do any better in that situation. Lesser players like Rose and Irving get praised in today's game, yet they were not the player Iverson was. Iverson's efficiency would sky rocket in today's game, and there's statistical proof to support this theory. It's hard not imagine him having success in the league today.

I don't think the current regime of top GM's would ever build around a player who takes that many shots to score points.

I don't believe for a nanosecond that his efficiency would rise today.

Meaze_Gibson
03-03-2014, 03:42 AM
Not that Wins Shares is an 'all-knowing list' or anything.

But it maybe gives you an idea:

Havlicek - 131.72 (31st)
Nash - 129.54 (33rd)
Frazier - 113.54 (47th)
Baylor - 104.15 (67th)


Iverson - 98.97 (76th)


A lot of that is influenced by playing more minutes (Karl Malone for example is one of the highest in career Wins Shares because of his minutes)

Nash and Havlicek played more minutes than Iverson, and Nash basically played the same amount as Iverson

There are other ways to measure the best of all time, but none of them show Iverson to be a top 30 player.
Majority of the reason is that they weren't even the #1 guys on their own teams. You can't compare captains and soldiers.

Frazier had a stacked squad. Hell Baylor played with Jerry West, ai had no such luxury. Havlicek likewise had luxuries (Bill Russel). Statwise Baylor is 5 ft taller but shoots the same percentage? Havlicek's numbers dont touch AIs consistency wise either

Meaze_Gibson
03-03-2014, 03:45 AM
Except when you add in the additional turnovers, worse free throw and three point shooting.....and more shots per game, less winning, and worse longevity.

He is no where close to Kobe's ballpark
He shot more cause he played more. On a per minute basis, Kobe and AI were about even in shot attempts, but no argument here kobe was much better than AI. but def not steve nash and vince carter lol gn

Jeffy25
03-03-2014, 03:47 AM
He shot more cause he played more. On a per minute basis, Kobe and AI were about even in shot attempts


and scored less per minute

mngopher35
03-03-2014, 03:56 AM
Leta get one thing out of the way. Great Players win rings because they're great. Its not that players are great because they have rings. Rings are for the greatest of all greats. AI is not that guy. Definitely not one of the 10 best. But id certainly put him in my top 30 ever. I got the pleasure of watching his career. I don't think you'll find many people who also witnessed AIs career disagree. He was the greatest player ever under 6ft. One of the best scorers to ever play and one of the better clutch players of his generation. This is why I have him in my top 30.

So you just stop using the rings as the main criteria after the top 10 or so? I have seen you count rings for people in the top 10 who were 2nd best player on their team at the time (magic, Kareem and Shaq, Kobe) so I'm curious why it means so much for them and not for others? It seems to me with that criteria players like Drexler, Havlicek, Frazier, Pippen, Pierce etc. would all be ahead of him. I don't mind not factoring in rings but it just seems really odd after the discussions we have had (and I have seen) for AI to rank this high for you.

AI was an extremely exciting player to watch and had some ridiculous moves. As for the top 30 comment I still would definitely disagree. He was a volume scorer (inneficient) on a team that was focused around defense. His teams excelled more because of that side of the ball in Philly. Now his inefficient play partly had to do with him having to do extra work on that end but you can't just ignore it. Top 50ish sounds about right to me.

As others have stated Chris Paul is better than Iverson was.

randyorton33
03-03-2014, 03:59 AM
the guy was an icon and tremendously formative. i'm sure a TON of current players grew up idolizing him. i did as well. he and t-mac were the only basketball shoes i ever bought. i had a ton of AI apparel. his legacy will never waver in those regards.


but as a basketball player there were some chinks in his game. it is what it is. those guys all obviously respect the hell out of him, as they should....and on the day he got his jersey hoisted they had some hugely praiseworthy things to say about him. maybe some hyperbole, but whatever.


let me ask your, randy, where do you rank him all time?


He is in my top 30 all-time.

Jeffy25
03-03-2014, 04:04 AM
He is in my top 30 all-time.

Hell, you got him on Mount Rushmore....


Allen Iverson can be on someones Mount Rushmore

randyorton33
03-03-2014, 04:14 AM
Anyone that rinks Chris Paul, Steve Nash or Vince Carter or Gary Payton over Allen Iverson is an IDIOT and doesnt know basketball.

1996 Rookie Of The Year
11 x NBA All-Star
7 x All-NBA
2 x All-Star game MVP
3 x steals leader
4 x scoring champ (3rd most ever)
2001 NBA Most Valuable Player
26.7 PPG scoring average for his career (6th all-time)
30.0 PPG average in the playoffs - 2nd to only Michael Jordan
Greatest crossover ever.
24, 368 career points in just 900 games! (would have hit 27k had he not got blackballed, AI was about to set records)
5th most 40 point games of all-time (in just 900 games!!!)
5000 + assists.....


TOP 25-35 EVER. Argue with that resume, I am begging you.

jerellh528
03-03-2014, 04:19 AM
He was good

poleandreel
03-03-2014, 04:23 AM
Anyone that rinks Chris Paul, Steve Nash or Vince Carter or Gary Payton over Allen Iverson is an IDIOT and doesnt know basketball.

1996 Rookie Of The Year
11 x NBA All-Star Voted by fans, ergo means nothing
7 x All-NBA Counting stats based on volume FGA
2 x All-Star game MVP lol no explanation needed
3 x steals leader
4 x scoring champ (3rd most ever) Never on good efficiency, volume shooter
2001 NBA Most Valuable Player
26.7 PPG scoring average for his career (6th all-time) Volume shooter
30.0 PPG average in the playoffs - 2nd to only Michael Jordan Look at his fg% in the playoffs...it's actually atrocious
Greatest crossover ever. Cool, rafer alston has a good one too
24, 368 career points in just 900 games! (would have hit 27k had he not got blackballed, AI was about to set records) Again, coincides with every other one of his counting stat achievements based on volume shooting
5th most 40 point games of all-time (in just 900 games!!!)
5000 + assists.....Ridiculous usage rate


TOP 25-35 EVER. Argue with that resume, I am begging you.

CP3, Nash, Carter, Westbrook, etc will all be viewed as better when their careers are over. Comparing Chris Paul to Iverson is lulz, Cp3 is better at literally every facet of basketball.

Jeffy25
03-03-2014, 04:25 AM
Anyone that rinks Chris Paul, Steve Nash or Vince Carter or Gary Payton over Allen Iverson is an IDIOT and doesnt know basketball.

1996 Rookie Of The Year
11 x NBA All-Star
7 x All-NBA
2 x All-Star game MVP
3 x steals leader
4 x scoring champ (3rd most ever)
2001 NBA Most Valuable Player
26.7 PPG scoring average for his career (6th all-time)
30.0 PPG average in the playoffs - 2nd to only Michael Jordan
Greatest crossover ever.
24, 368 career points in just 900 games! (would have hit 27k had he not got blackballed, AI was about to set records)
5th most 40 point games of all-time (in just 900 games!!!)
5000 + assists.....


TOP 25-35 EVER. Argue with that resume, I am begging you.

Payton destroys him, Nash and CP3 too.

Carter is potentially debatable.

And those accolades don't illustrate a players ranking very well.

But let's look at the Glove

1989-90 NCAA AP All-America (1st)
1990-91 NBA All-Rookie (2nd)
1993-94 NBA All-Defensive (1st)
1993-94 NBA All-NBA (3rd)
1994-95 NBA All-Defensive (1st)
1994-95 NBA All-NBA (2nd)
1995-96 NBA All-Defensive (1st)
1995-96 NBA All-NBA (2nd)
1996-97 NBA All-Defensive (1st)
1996-97 NBA All-NBA (2nd)
1997-98 NBA All-Defensive (1st)
1997-98 NBA All-NBA (1st)
1998-99 NBA All-Defensive (1st)
1998-99 NBA All-NBA (2nd)
1999-00 NBA All-Defensive (1st)
1999-00 NBA All-NBA (1st)
2000-01 NBA All-Defensive (1st)
2000-01 NBA All-NBA (3rd)
2001-02 NBA All-Defensive (1st)
2001-02 NBA All-NBA (2nd)
2006 NBA Champion
Led in assists in 99-00
Led in steals 95-96

Accolades are a weird way to say best ranks.

Scoring awards for a guy that took the most shots.....think about that Led the NBA in shots attempted four times, but only led the NBA in scoring once....he is the 104th worst field goal shooter of all time....worse than J.R. Smith.

TheMightyHumph
03-03-2014, 04:35 AM
You guys consider people like Nash better than Iverson? Talk about pure hating lol. I can see CP3, yeah. 2nd best pg of all time next to magic, but Nash? pippen? Vince carter? Any non bias basketball fan would tell you AI is without a doubt better than these guys. I guess this place is like ****** where ts% means everything lol. Never during iversons playing career where those guys considered better lol.

Don't know much about the NBA game,do you?

mngopher35
03-03-2014, 04:36 AM
Anyone that rinks Chris Paul, Steve Nash or Vince Carter or Gary Payton over Allen Iverson is an IDIOT and doesnt know basketball.

1996 Rookie Of The Year
11 x NBA All-Star
7 x All-NBA
2 x All-Star game MVP
3 x steals leader
4 x scoring champ (3rd most ever)
2001 NBA Most Valuable Player
26.7 PPG scoring average for his career (6th all-time)
30.0 PPG average in the playoffs - 2nd to only Michael Jordan
Greatest crossover ever.
24, 368 career points in just 900 games! (would have hit 27k had he not got blackballed, AI was about to set records)
5th most 40 point games of all-time (in just 900 games!!!)
5000 + assists.....


TOP 25-35 EVER. Argue with that resume, I am begging you.

all-star games are voted by fans (injured players can be starters just by popularity. 4 time scoring champ but how many of those years was he also leading the league in shots per game?

There is nothing about efficiency (or advanced stats in general), defense, rings/team success etc. Basically you just listed a bunch of accolades (and random notes like best crossover ever). There are many things to argue about it...

TheMightyHumph
03-03-2014, 04:38 AM
Majority of the reason is that they weren't even the #1 guys on their own teams. You can't compare captains and soldiers.

Frazier had a stacked squad. Hell Baylor played with Jerry West, ai had no such luxury. Havlicek likewise had luxuries (Bill Russel). Statwise Baylor is 5 ft taller but shoots the same percentage? Havlicek's numbers dont touch AIs consistency wise either

I reiterate, you don't know much about the NBA, do you?

Jarvo
03-03-2014, 09:58 AM
You can't put CP3 and Iverson in the same sentence right now, Paul who is super overrated imo on this site can't even get The Clippers to the WCF when everyone thinks he has a top 10 player with him. AI put his team on his back to go to The Finals give me a break and why are some of you so pissed that someone says they have Iverson in their top 10-15 players ever? Some are you are nit picking like Skip on 1st take. He did stuff while playing that stats can't show and no one had the heart or dedication like Iverson did and that is the reason why people hold him high in rankings along with how he played and if you can't see that oh well, To me he's in the Top 15 players ever to play the game.

Jarvo
03-03-2014, 10:00 AM
all-star games are voted by fans (injured players can be starters just by popularity. 4 time scoring champ but how many of those years was he also leading the league in shots per game?

There is nothing about efficiency (or advanced stats in general), defense, rings/team success etc. Basically you just listed a bunch of accolades (and random notes like best crossover ever). There are many things to argue about it...

AI ***** on Nash on defense and Nash isn't a better scorer than him, He's a better leader than Paul who throw players under the bus and like I said earlier Paul is not even in the same sentence as AI, Gary was good but not better than Iverson can't put it any shorter.

I would pick AI over all 3 everytime.

D-Leethal
03-03-2014, 11:41 AM
all-star games are voted by fans (injured players can be starters just by popularity. 4 time scoring champ but how many of those years was he also leading the league in shots per game?

There is nothing about efficiency (or advanced stats in general), defense, rings/team success etc. Basically you just listed a bunch of accolades (and random notes like best crossover ever). There are many things to argue about it...

lol, individual accolades is how you determine who makes the HOF, its how you rank the best ever, and thats how it will always be . PSD plays advanced stats swords with each other but nobody that matters or actually makes these decisions is using flawed, infant, unproven, guinea pig metrics like win shares to determine who gets in the HOF or who is a top 50 player ever, and efficiency is only the end-all-be-all on this forum, not to people who actually get paid to analyze the game and choose who gets in the HOF. Actual NBA people recognize that volume scorers are usually volume scorers for a reason, because their team and coaches ask them to be, because thats the best chance for their team to succeed.

waveycrockett
03-03-2014, 11:52 AM
He was easily a top-3 player in his prime. He played the game hard on both ends of the court which is unheard of in todays NBA. And for his size he was always mismatched but won those individual battles 9 times out of 10. He was a winner which is not something you can say about guys like Carmelo Anthony, Deron Williams, Tracy McGrady, Vince Carter. He gutted it out all the time. Obviously he had some glaring flaws especially his attitude but that was part of the way he played the game. Huge chip on his shoulder.

Alayla
03-03-2014, 11:58 AM
Anyone that rinks Chris Paul, Steve Nash or Vince Carter or Gary Payton over Allen Iverson is an IDIOT and doesnt know basketball.

1996 Rookie Of The Year
11 x NBA All-Star
7 x All-NBA
2 x All-Star game MVP
3 x steals leader
4 x scoring champ (3rd most ever)
2001 NBA Most Valuable Player
26.7 PPG scoring average for his career (6th all-time)
30.0 PPG average in the playoffs - 2nd to only Michael Jordan
Greatest crossover ever.
24, 368 career points in just 900 games! (would have hit 27k had he not got blackballed, AI was about to set records)
5th most 40 point games of all-time (in just 900 games!!!)
5000 + assists.....


TOP 25-35 EVER. Argue with that resume, I am begging you.

Its true hes better than carter and Nash has his own problems but im discusted with you claiming anyone saying Chris Paul is better than Iverson is an idiot that doesn't know basketball because Franky.. its the truth.

Alayla
03-03-2014, 12:01 PM
Ima huge CP3 fan, and while I agree CP3 at his best is better, having a better legacy/career is more than just about your own individual talent. CP3 hasn't passed AI just yet, longevity and winning still matters.

CP3 is far past AI lets be frank...

Alayla
03-03-2014, 12:04 PM
You can't put CP3 and Iverson in the same sentence right now, Paul who is super overrated imo on this site can't even get The Clippers to the WCF when everyone thinks he has a top 10 player with him. AI put his team on his back to go to The Finals give me a break and why are some of you so pissed that someone says they have Iverson in their top 10-15 players ever? Some are you are nit picking like Skip on 1st take. He did stuff while playing that stats can't show and no one had the heart or dedication like Iverson did and that is the reason why people hold him high in rankings along with how he played and if you can't see that oh well, To me he's in the Top 15 players ever to play the game.

Please stop creating bagwells...be realistic Calling Iverson top 40 is as far as i will go.

Alayla
03-03-2014, 12:13 PM
Lets not also forget how much of a warrior this guy was. Its not like he just hoisted J's, he went to the basket with no fear and took mad punishment. REAL punishment, not fool the ref punishment.

To do what he did and play through injuries at what 6'0, a buck sixty soaking wet? Never saw it before, wont see it again.

Won't find that in a stat sheet.

these people will never admit that nor will they ever listen to the fact most players who actually played agiesnt him will tell you he was a nightmare to defend. They try and use stats as a way to feel superior. But they fail to realize stats where made as a guide not as the answer no pun intended.

Jamiecballer
03-03-2014, 01:00 PM
You guys consider people like Nash better than Iverson? Talk about pure hating lol. I can see CP3, yeah. 2nd best pg of all time next to magic, but Nash? pippen? Vince carter? Any non bias basketball fan would tell you AI is without a doubt better than these guys. I guess this place is like ****** where ts% means everything lol. Never during iversons playing career where those guys considered better lol.
sorry dude. no way Iverson is ahead of any of those players. what did he do that was above average besides score?

Jarvo
03-03-2014, 01:21 PM
Please stop creating bagwells...be realistic Calling Iverson top 40 is as far as i will go.

Not trying, If I say he is Top 15 TO ME and you say he's Top 40 TO YOU that's what we think. It's no right or wrong answer not gonna bash anyone like other people to prove a point.

Jarvo
03-03-2014, 01:23 PM
sorry dude. no way Iverson is ahead of any of those players. what did he do that was above average besides score?

Ok not trying to bash but you think Carter, Pippen and Nash better than Iverson?? Lol Welp to each his own.

Eagles710
03-03-2014, 01:27 PM
wayyy to many children in this forum that have no idea how Iverson played ... AND THE WORD CHUCKER SHOULD BE REPLACED WITH SCORER ... If that's the case, MJ was a Chucker = Jordan was a bad player



^^^^ Sounds Dumb doesn't it ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Jeffy25
03-03-2014, 01:31 PM
lol, individual accolades is how you determine who makes the HOF, its how you rank the best ever, and thats how it will always be . PSD plays advanced stats swords with each other but nobody that matters or actually makes these decisions is using flawed, infant, unproven, guinea pig metrics like win shares to determine who gets in the HOF or who is a top 50 player ever, and efficiency is only the end-all-be-all on this forum, not to people who actually get paid to analyze the game and choose who gets in the HOF. Actual NBA people recognize that volume scorers are usually volume scorers for a reason, because their team and coaches ask them to be, because thats the best chance for their team to succeed.
what an incredibly barbaric way of looking at the world.

Jarvo
03-03-2014, 01:34 PM
wayyy to many children in this forum that have no idea how Iverson played ... AND THE WORD CHUCKER SHOULD BE REPLACED WITH SCORER ... If that's the case, MJ was a Chucker = Jordan was a bad player



^^^^ Sounds Dumb doesn't it ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Ehh for Iverson on here people find any excuse for him not to be mention as one of the greats in anything, I rather take the words from players who he played with/against than people who just watch and look at stats :shrug:

Jeffy25
03-03-2014, 01:43 PM
He was easily a top-3 player in his prime. He played the game hard on both ends of the court which is unheard of in todays NBA. And for his size he was always mismatched but won those individual battles 9 times out of 10. He was a winner which is not something you can say about guys like Carmelo Anthony, Deron Williams, Tracy McGrady, Vince Carter. He gutted it out all the time. Obviously he had some glaring flaws especially his attitude but that was part of the way he played the game. Huge chip on his shoulder.

I also don't understand this 'he was a winner' thing.

The Sixers had a .550 winning percentage when he was with them, and they only won 50 games once.....and then a 50-32 season in Denver, followed by a 39 win season with Detroit.

Winner? That's a bit much, even if you believe an individual player has enough control over his teams success.

I guess Chris Paul is more of a winner, because his teams winning percentages when he starts is almost .560



I swear, some people just love to create a narrative, and stick with it no matter how inaccurate it is.

Jamiecballer
03-03-2014, 01:49 PM
Ok not trying to bash but you think Carter, Pippen and Nash better than Iverson?? Lol Welp to each his own.

absolutely. all no-brainers to me, really.

they were certainly all more productive. maybe not more talented but at the end of the day does it matter more what you can do? or the quality of what you produce? to me it's the latter.

Jeffy25
03-03-2014, 01:50 PM
wayyy to many children in this forum that have no idea how Iverson played ... AND THE WORD CHUCKER SHOULD BE REPLACED WITH SCORER ... If that's the case, MJ was a Chucker = Jordan was a bad player



^^^^ Sounds Dumb doesn't it ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Are you kidding?


Jordan shot .497 in his career
Iverson show .425 in his career


In order for Iverson to shoot the same as Jordan to finish out his career, Iverson would have had to make 3725 of his next 4631 shots (80.4%)

Get real

Jordan was a significantly better shooter than Iverson.

koreancabbage
03-03-2014, 01:51 PM
wayyy to many children in this forum that have no idea how Iverson played ... AND THE WORD CHUCKER SHOULD BE REPLACED WITH SCORER ... If that's the case, MJ was a Chucker = Jordan was a bad player


^^^^ Sounds Dumb doesn't it ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

no, you just sound dumb

Tony_Starks
03-03-2014, 02:01 PM
At the end of the day whether you like it or not The Answer is the MJ of today's generation of NBA. In terms of gameplay, heart, and style he's a icon.

ghettosean
03-03-2014, 02:07 PM
You guys consider people like Nash better than Iverson? Talk about pure hating lol. I can see CP3, yeah. 2nd best pg of all time next to magic, but Nash? pippen? Vince carter? Any non bias basketball fan would tell you AI is without a doubt better than these guys. I guess this place is like ****** where ts% means everything lol. Never during iversons playing career where those guys considered better lol.




for sure yes. Like I have stated, Iverson is the definition of old school evaluation versus new school. No GM on a good team would build around him today, because high volume scorers were so much more valued back in the day.

Nash is the greatest shooter in history. And so much more of an impact offensively, it's not even a conversation.

:clap: :clap: :clap:

waveycrockett
03-03-2014, 02:31 PM
I also don't understand this 'he was a winner' thing.

The Sixers had a .550 winning percentage when he was with them, and they only won 50 games once.....and then a 50-32 season in Denver, followed by a 39 win season with Detroit.

Winner? That's a bit much, even if you believe an individual player has enough control over his teams success.

I guess Chris Paul is more of a winner, because his teams winning percentages when he starts is almost .560



I swear, some people just love to create a narrative, and stick with it no matter how inaccurate it is.

I've been following the NBA for 20 years there is no narrative i'm trying to create. The talent around Allen Iverson was putrid, just as bad as T-Mac had around him in his ORL days yet A.I always managed to pull his team out of the 1st round and even to the NBA Finals. He was most definitely a winner.

JEFFY I know your a baseball guy but unlike in baseball you cannot look at individual numbers in a vacuum in basketball. Alot of factors effect stats especially when your playing on such a talent deprived team.

Hawkeye15
03-03-2014, 02:34 PM
wayyy to many children in this forum that have no idea how Iverson played ... AND THE WORD CHUCKER SHOULD BE REPLACED WITH SCORER ... If that's the case, MJ was a Chucker = Jordan was a bad player


^^^^ Sounds Dumb doesn't it ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

except one was super efficient, the other not at all.

Hawkeye15
03-03-2014, 02:35 PM
At the end of the day whether you like it or not The Answer is the MJ of today's generation of NBA. In terms of gameplay, heart, and style he's a icon.

Really? I don't see kids in China buying his jersey, I see them buying Kobe/LeBron jersey's. Iverson appeals to a lot of fans, but not nearly as many as MJ did. Or Kobe has.

Shlumpledink
03-03-2014, 02:42 PM
It's only people that played with him or that were up and comers while he was playing that are saying this. Call me when his predecessors are saying it

waveycrockett
03-03-2014, 02:43 PM
Really? I don't see kids in China buying his jersey, I see them buying Kobe/LeBron jersey's. Iverson appeals to a lot of fans, but not nearly as many as MJ did. Or Kobe has.

Maybe true but in their prime and their primes did coincide for a while, AI was the MUCHHHH more popular athlete in the urban community. I remember reading several articles years ago attesting to the fact that it bugged the hell out of Kobe he was not accepted anywhere near like AI was in the "urban" community and it was a big factor which lead to Kobe jumping ship to Nike in the hopes he could catch A.I's popularity.

waveycrockett
03-03-2014, 02:46 PM
It's only people that played with him or that were up and comers while he was playing that are saying this. Call me when his predecessors are saying it
Look at John Wall's twitter feed.

Jeffy25
03-03-2014, 02:49 PM
Look at John Wall's twitter feed.

Do you know what a predecessor is?

waveycrockett
03-03-2014, 02:51 PM
Do you know what a predecessor is?
I thought it was the opposite of what it is. I should of googled it.

Hawkeye15
03-03-2014, 02:57 PM
Maybe true but in their prime and their primes did coincide for a while, AI was the MUCHHHH more popular athlete in the urban community. I remember reading several articles years ago attesting to the fact that it bugged the hell out of Kobe he was not accepted anywhere near like AI was in the "urban" community and it was a big factor which lead to Kobe jumping ship to Nike in the hopes he could catch A.I's popularity.

right, and that I agree with. But the urban community makes up exactly what percentage of ticket holders? He may have been a league leader in domestic jersey sales for a while, but his popularity was mostly inner city, American setting, obviously with some outliers. I am sure a lot of small basketball players idolized him, because they tried to identify with him.

Jeffy25
03-03-2014, 03:01 PM
I've been following the NBA for 20 years there is no narrative i'm trying to create. The talent around Allen Iverson was putrid, just as bad as T-Mac had around him in his ORL days yet A.I always managed to pull his team out of the 1st round and even to the NBA Finals. He was most definitely a winner.

JEFFY I know your a baseball guy but unlike in baseball you cannot look at individual numbers in a vacuum in basketball. Alot of factors effect stats especially when your playing on such a talent deprived team.
What exactly did AI win?

ewing
03-03-2014, 03:04 PM
What do players know, before advanced stats they were wearing there shorts on there heads and shooting at the wrong basket

Goose17
03-03-2014, 03:05 PM
Lebron said he was his favourite player along with Jordan. I am going to take Lebron's word of how good he was.

Lebron said he was his one of his favourites, not that he was one of the best. There's a MASSIVE difference.

OP is butt hurt because people are calling Iverson out for being the inefficient chucker that he was. I loved watching Iverson play, and he was one of my favourites to watch out of sheer entertainment but to say he was anything other than a volume scorer with an awful attitude is just foolish.

Goose17
03-03-2014, 03:09 PM
JEFFY I know your a baseball guy but unlike in baseball you cannot look at individual numbers in a vacuum in basketball. Alot of factors effect stats especially when your playing on such a talent deprived team.

And you can't completely ignore them either.

waveycrockett
03-03-2014, 03:11 PM
right, and that I agree with. But the urban community makes up exactly what percentage of ticket holders? He may have been a league leader in domestic jersey sales for a while, but his popularity was mostly inner city, American setting, obviously with some outliers. I am sure a lot of small basketball players idolized him, because they tried to identify with him.

Basketball is the #1 sport by far in Urban Communities and is where the vast majority of these guys came from which is important to them not to mention whileThey may not be the leaders in ticket sales the urban community I"m sure made up the majority of the television market back in the late 90's and early 00's. I'm from an urban community believe me alot more than the "short" guys idolized A.I

waveycrockett
03-03-2014, 03:13 PM
What exactly did AI win?

An MVP

BALLER R
03-03-2014, 03:14 PM
They said he's pound for pound the greatest.

waveycrockett
03-03-2014, 03:14 PM
And you can't completely ignore them either.

True but it's not like baseball where numbers can stand on their own.

TheMightyHumph
03-03-2014, 03:14 PM
Ehh for Iverson on here people find any excuse for him not to be mention as one of the greats in anything, I rather take the words from players who he played with/against than people who just watch and look at stats :shrug:

What players say in public and what they think are very different things.

You didn't know that, did you?

Jarvo
03-03-2014, 03:15 PM
It's only people that played with him or that were up and comers while he was playing that are saying this. Call me when his predecessors are saying it

Shaq, Kobe, Dr J, Barkley and countless others greats gave him high praise sooo

waveycrockett
03-03-2014, 03:18 PM
Shaq, Kobe, Dr J, Barkley and countless others greats gave him high praise sooo

Isiah Thomas, Magic Johnson. The list goes on.

Goose17
03-03-2014, 03:18 PM
They said he's pound for pound the greatest.

Do you know what pound for pound means?

And nobody is going to say he sucks during his retirement, especially not publicly.

People are reaching.

Goose17
03-03-2014, 03:22 PM
LOL, Someone tweeted

"Iverson was Monta Ellis with super powers"

:laugh:


Iverson was an inefficient chucker and an awful locker room presence, but some people are really hating on him right now.

There will never be another Iverson. He's arguably the most unique player of his time, maybe ever.

beyourself
03-03-2014, 03:25 PM
Iverson was 5-11 and reported to camp at 155 pounds. I don't know if he actually played at 155. The trainers probably got him to eat a ton of food during the season, but we all saw how little he was. So maybe he was 155.

waveycrockett
03-03-2014, 03:29 PM
When AI was in his prime he was must see TV every weekend. The NBA built their TV schedules around him the same way they do around LeBron, KD and Melo. They dont do that for guys who suck. I'm pretty sure the people trashing AI are the ones who probably never saw him in his prime.

beyourself
03-03-2014, 03:32 PM
When AI was in his prime he was must see TV every weekend. The NBA built their TV schedules around him the same way they do around LeBron, KD and Melo. They dont do that for guys who suck. I'm pretty sure the people trashing AI are the ones who probably never saw him in his prime.

I saw him in his prime. Are you calling me people like me a liar or stupid because I'm telling you. When you go 7-25 every other game that's not balling out.

Hawkeye15
03-03-2014, 03:35 PM
Basketball is the #1 sport by far in Urban Communities and is where the vast majority of these guys came from which is important to them not to mention whileThey may not be the leaders in ticket sales the urban community I"m sure made up the majority of the television market back in the late 90's and early 00's. I'm from an urban community believe me alot more than the "short" guys idolized A.I

I am not denying that, I am simply saying the MAJORITY of NBA fans, whether you like it or not, are not from the urban community, which represents only a small portion of our nation, and 0 percent of the international fan base.

His popularity for his on court production was great, but his popularity is widely huge among the urban community because he is the first star who really just came out looking like a gangster. Hence why the NBA made a dress policy, because the customers that pay for tickets are not from the inner city.

ewing
03-03-2014, 03:36 PM
I saw him in his prime. Are you calling me people like me a liar or stupid because I'm telling you. When you go 7-25 every other game that's not balling out.

what did he shoot the other nights? It seems like it would hard to get up to around 42% shooting 7 for 25 every other night

waveycrockett
03-03-2014, 03:37 PM
I saw him in his prime. Are you calling me people like me a liar or stupid because I'm telling you. When you go 7-25 every other game that's not balling out.

When your getting to the line a bunch of times, creating havoc in the passing lanes, getting teammates involved you are. 7-25 in a vacuum looks bad put it in context.

beyourself
03-03-2014, 03:38 PM
what did he shoot the other nights? It seems like it would hard to get up to around 42% shooting 7 for 25 every other night

That's why I said every other night. Like everybody Iverson had his better shooting nights and lesser shooting nights.

TheMightyHumph
03-03-2014, 03:38 PM
Iverson is your favorite players favorite player. People like to recreate history but at a certain point he was in the best player in the league conversation and definitely the most popular.

He didnt get MVP by accident.

And Nash didn't get his two MVPs by accident. But many fans question them.

Jeffy25
03-03-2014, 03:39 PM
Basketball is the #1 sport by far in Urban Communities and is where the vast majority of these guys came from which is important to them not to mention whileThey may not be the leaders in ticket sales the urban community I"m sure made up the majority of the television market back in the late 90's and early 00's. I'm from an urban community believe me alot more than the "short" guys idolized A.I

Being idolized has very little to do with him being a great basketball player

So does him being short

So does the Sixers ability to win


he was a volume scorer who was allowed to shoot. Partially out of team need, and partially because it was his personality.

Being an idolized chucker doesn't mean he was great. Just because he could average 30 points a game, doesn't mean he was great. At the great inefficiency that he had for shooting, can you imagine of a better shooter was allowed to run those Sixers teams and get off that many shots? Again, imagine if D. Wade, T. Parker, S. Curry, had the defensive teams that Iverson had and got to take 25+ shots per game? They would literally average 35+ points a game.

None of these guys took 25+ shots per game.

How many players took 25+ shots per game in their prime? How many took 21.8 shots per game for a career?

Jeffy25
03-03-2014, 03:40 PM
An MVP

Try and stay consistent here.

You said he was a 'winner'

Implying team success in your statement.....last I checked, the MVP was an individual award and he didn't even deserve it that year regardless.

waveycrockett
03-03-2014, 03:41 PM
Being idolized has very little to do with him being a great basketball player

So does him being short

So does the Sixers ability to win


he was a volume scorer who was allowed to shoot. Partially out of team need, and partially because it was his personality.

Being an idolized chucker doesn't mean he was great. Just because he could average 30 points a game, doesn't mean he was great. At the great inefficiency that he had for shooting, can you imagine of a better shooter was allowed to run those Sixers teams and get off that many shots? Again, imagine if D. Wade, T. Parker, S. Curry, had the defensive teams that Iverson had and got to take 25+ shots per game? They would literally average 35+ points a game.

None of these guys took 25+ shots per game.

How many players took 25+ shots per game in their prime? How many took 21.8 shots per game for a career?

How many crappy basketball players or mediocre ones are idolized? Like the 1st prerequisite for being an NBA Idol is that you have to be pretty freaking good.

beyourself
03-03-2014, 03:43 PM
How many crappy basketball players or mediocre ones are idolized? Like the 1st prerequisite for being an NBA Idol is that you have to be pretty freaking good.

There are always exceptions. Iverson was literally the walking embodiment of what street ballers want to see in their favorite player. Short, lean, tats, gangsta, ball hog, fast, rebellious, I could go on and on and on.

waveycrockett
03-03-2014, 03:44 PM
Try and stay consistent here.

You said he was a 'winner'

Implying team success in your statement.....last I checked, the MVP was an individual award and he didn't even deserve it that year regardless.
Last I checked team success plays a big part in MVP voting process dont play ignorant you know this as fact. It's not simply given to the guy who scores the most points.

TheMightyHumph
03-03-2014, 03:44 PM
How many crappy basketball players or mediocre ones are idolized? Like the 1st prerequisite for being an NBA Idol is that you have to be pretty freaking good.

Maravich is idolized by many.

Terrible NBA player. A chucker, a TO machine and a loser. Very flashy, though.

Hawkeye15
03-03-2014, 03:44 PM
When AI was in his prime he was must see TV every weekend. The NBA built their TV schedules around him the same way they do around LeBron, KD and Melo. They dont do that for guys who suck. I'm pretty sure the people trashing AI are the ones who probably never saw him in his prime.

why is that AI fans only answer?

Question. How many of you were knowledgeable basketball fans 14 years ago? Most of you were young teenagers, or even younger. How did you possibly know anything outside the fact you liked watching a player score a bunch of points?

Serious question, seeing as I KNOW this site is young as hell. I sure know a ton more about the game than I did 15-20-30 years ago. With the numbers we have now, we know volume scorers are without a doubt the most difficult players to build a team around. AI is no different, and as I have stated multiple times, he is the clinical definition of old school thinking versus new school thinking. He wouldn't sniff a chance at the MVP today.

Jamiecballer
03-03-2014, 03:45 PM
It's only people that played with him or that were up and comers while he was playing that are saying this. Call me when his predecessors are saying it

great point mr dink.

waveycrockett
03-03-2014, 03:45 PM
There are always exceptions. Iverson was literally the walking embodiment of what street ballers want to see in their favorite player. Short, lean, tats, gangsta, ball hog, fast, rebellious, I could go on and on and on.

1)AI wasn't the 1st short guy to play in the NBA

2)AI wasn't the 1st "gangsta" to play in the NBA.

Sounds like your describing Nate Robinson or something.

Jeffy25
03-03-2014, 03:46 PM
what did he shoot the other nights? It seems like it would hard to get up to around 42% shooting 7 for 25 every other night

Well, he basically averaged 10/11 out of every 25

His career average game was 9.3/21.8 with 1/4 from three point range and 7/9 from the free throw line, another 3.6 turnovers with 2 steals, 6 assists, 4 boards in 41 minutes.

i.e. 26 points...and an inefficient shooting performance

That looks like Monta Ellis taking more shots today.

Hell, look how much better Kyrie Irving is this season

mngopher35
03-03-2014, 03:46 PM
lol, individual accolades is how you determine who makes the HOF, its how you rank the best ever, and thats how it will always be . PSD plays advanced stats swords with each other but nobody that matters or actually makes these decisions is using flawed, infant, unproven, guinea pig metrics like win shares to determine who gets in the HOF or who is a top 50 player ever, and efficiency is only the end-all-be-all on this forum, not to people who actually get paid to analyze the game and choose who gets in the HOF. Actual NBA people recognize that volume scorers are usually volume scorers for a reason, because their team and coaches ask them to be, because thats the best chance for their team to succeed.

Plenty of people paid to analyze the game use other stats than ppg. These advanced statistics weren't just created out of thin air and are recognized by many. If ppg were all that mattered Iverson would be talked about much more in the top tier of players but I pretty much never hear this happen. It is because efficiency does matter.

I never once said it was the end all be all, you just decided to focus on that single aspect (my guess is you have a problem with stats in general then). I also mentioned defense and team success/rings which people also consider when ranking player. I think he should most certainly be in the HOF, but isn't top 30 all time. The guy laid down a random list of things (mostly accolades) but picked a couple of stats and an opinion of his liking then said to argue he is top 25-35 ever. If you agree with him feel free to add more to the argument.

Hawkeye15
03-03-2014, 03:47 PM
what did he shoot the other nights? It seems like it would hard to get up to around 42% shooting 7 for 25 every other night

9-22 a night over his career. With a 51.8% TS. Below average. But, he was the defenses main goal to stop, though today coaches would let him shoot 22 footers all night long and keep him out of the lane to make him even less efficient.

waveycrockett
03-03-2014, 03:47 PM
why is that AI fans only answer?

Question. How many of you were knowledgeable basketball fans 14 years ago? Most of you were young teenagers, or even younger. How did you possibly know anything outside the fact you liked watching a player score a bunch of points?

Serious question, seeing as I KNOW this site is young as hell. I sure know a ton more about the game than I did 15-20-30 years ago. With the numbers we have now, we know volume scorers are without a doubt the most difficult players to build a team around. AI is no different, and as I have stated multiple times, he is the clinical definition of old school thinking versus new school thinking. He wouldn't sniff a chance at the MVP today.
The funny thing is I'm not even an AI fan I'm just laughing at the revisionist history here. It's like if 10 years from now a bunch of people start saying that Dirk Nowitzki was never a great player. It's comical. I'm not sitting here saying he was the greatest of his era or anything like that either. But AI was a great player in his prime.

beyourself
03-03-2014, 03:47 PM
Let's not forget than for some reason volume scoring was only respected for a short window in NBA history. Right when AI played.

Before Jordan it was said that a scoring champion couldn't win a title. Even though he was so efficient.

In 2014 inefficient volume scorers are seen for what they are.

waveycrockett
03-03-2014, 03:49 PM
Let's not forget than for some reason volume scoring was only respected for a short window in NBA history. Right when AI played.

Before Jordan it was said that a scoring champion couldn't win a title. Even though he was so efficient.

In 2014 inefficient volume scorers are seen for what they are.

Last I checked Carmelo Anthony was 2nd in the MVP voting last year.

ewing
03-03-2014, 03:49 PM
9-22 a night over his career. With a 51.8% TS. Below average. But, he was the defenses main goal to stop, though today coaches would let him shoot 22 footers all night long and keep him out of the lane to make him even less efficient.


no one thought of laying off of him and trying to keep him out of the lane hmmm..

Jeffy25
03-03-2014, 03:50 PM
How many crappy basketball players or mediocre ones are idolized? Like the 1st prerequisite for being an NBA Idol is that you have to be pretty freaking good.

I'd imagine it's a good portion of the one's that are over-rated.


From the words in this thread, it's pretty evident that Iverson is a very over-rated player.

I never realized people idolized him so much.


I paid more attention to baseball growing up, and the numbers helped me realize that some players like Griffey and Pete Rose were very over-rated players. It doesn't take difficult logic to figure out why.

Iverson was a good ball handler, a good defensive player, and a guy who wasn't afraid to take the shots on teams where he was allowed to take the shots.

He was inefficient, selfish, and not the leader that people seem to want to make him out to be.

Being idolized doesn't mean he was great. Fans over-rate players all the time. People build up inaccurate narratives all the time.

If Iverson were coming up today, there aren't many teams that would accept his style of play...in fact, I can't think of one scheme where it would be allowed to work today.

Jamiecballer
03-03-2014, 03:51 PM
I'd imagine it's a good portion of the one's that are over-rated.


From the words in this thread, it's pretty evident that Iverson is a very over-rated player.

I never realized people idolized him so much.


I paid more attention to baseball growing up, and the numbers helped me realize that some players like Griffey and Pete Rose were very over-rated players. It doesn't take difficult logic to figure out why.

Iverson was a good ball handler, a good defensive player, and a guy who wasn't afraid to take the shots on teams where he was allowed to take the shots.

He was inefficient, selfish, and not the leader that people seem to want to make him out to be.

Being idolized doesn't mean he was great. Fans over-rate players all the time. People build up inaccurate narratives all the time.

If Iverson were coming up today, there aren't many teams that would accept his style of play...in fact, I can't think of one scheme where it would be allowed to work today.
or the winner that people make him out to be. for his insane talent he was quite the underachiever.

Jeffy25
03-03-2014, 03:52 PM
Last I checked team success plays a big part in MVP voting process dont play ignorant you know this as fact. It's not simply given to the guy who scores the most points.

You said he was a winner, and you implied team success....as if he carried his team through the playoffs, or posted 60 win seasons.

I'm not even ready to say that individuals influence games enough for it to even matter, but the idea that AI was a winner is the wrong tactic of argument for him. It doesn't help you, his teams never did anything.

Hawkeye15
03-03-2014, 03:52 PM
The funny thing is I'm not even an AI fan I'm just laughing at the revisionist history here. It's like if 10 years from now a bunch of people start saying that Dirk Nowitzki was never a great player. It's comical. I'm not sitting here saying he was the greatest of his era or anything like that either. But AI was a great player in his prime.

But we have numbers stating Dirk has been an great player. Where are the numbers supporting AI, outside his sheer volume?

Iverson will forever be a debate amongst fans. Stat heads will always undervalue any impact he had, and those against stats will totally overvalue what he did.

Please don't think I am saying he didn't belong on the court or something. I am simply saying, his breed is the most difficult to build a chip team around. We know that now.

Hawkeye15
03-03-2014, 03:53 PM
no one thought of laying off of him and trying to keep him out of the lane hmmm..

not to the extent they would now. They would also force him to his inefficient areas. Unless Iverson embraced metrics, and adjusted his game, he would be less efficient today.

waveycrockett
03-03-2014, 03:53 PM
You said he was a winner, and you implied team success....as if he carried his team through the playoffs, or posted 60 win seasons.

I'm not even ready to say that individuals influence games enough for it to even matter, but the idea that AI was a winner is the wrong tactic of argument for him. It doesn't help you, his teams never did anything.
His teams were successful both in the regular season AND post season. Whats your point? And you way to sidestep the point. Voters ABSOLUTELY factor in team success into MVP voting and you know this.

beyourself
03-03-2014, 03:54 PM
Last I checked Carmelo Anthony was 2nd in the MVP voting last year.

He's not as efficient as you'd like, but at least he had a 56 TS% last year. It's not like he's a total chucker out there.

waveycrockett
03-03-2014, 03:57 PM
He's not as efficient as you'd like, but at least he had a 56 TS% last year. It's not like he's a total chucker out there.

AI has never posted a TS of at least 56%? Lets stop with the double standard here. And yes Melo is most definitely a chucker.

Jeffy25
03-03-2014, 03:58 PM
Last I checked Carmelo Anthony was 2nd in the MVP voting last year.

And yet, AI never shot as efficiently as Melo did last year, and Melo shot more threes, had less turnovers, and a better free throw percentage than in any season AI ever played.

Melo, for his career, makes the same number of field goals, while taking two less shots per game.

ewing
03-03-2014, 03:58 PM
not to the extent they would now. They would also force him to his inefficient areas. Unless Iverson embraced metrics, and adjusted his game, he would be less efficient today.

you guys really think that everyone was a moron before 2008.

jerellh528
03-03-2014, 04:01 PM
Some people take efficiency too far. Iverson took a bad team in the weak east to the finals before it was cool. Lol.

beyourself
03-03-2014, 04:01 PM
you guys really think that everyone was a moron before 2008.

Stackhouse, T-Mac, Carter, AI, Marbury, Kobe. Everybody thought they could just jack 20 footers all game long every game.

Goose17
03-03-2014, 04:01 PM
The truth of the matter is this, the game has changed.

Whether you like it or not is irrelevant. Efficiency is now valued more than ever.

Look at the scoring leaders of the last few years, nobody has broken the 30 point mark for three years (since KD). The closest was Melo last season with 28.66 points per game, even if you look back at late 90's early 00's, there was a change between then and like '03). This has nothing to do with a lack of scoring talent, it's to do with the shift in focus, we value the quality of scoring over the quantity. Look at Iversons last scoring title of his career, 31ppg on 39.8% in 2008-09 Wade got the scoring title hitting 30ppg on 49.1% I know which player I would rather have had.

Iverson was entertaining but with the way the game has changed, we will NEVER see another league leader in scoring like him ever again, because he wouldn't be given a green light like Iverson was, he would be told to improve his shot selection and wouldn't stay as a number one option if he didn't improve it.

Iverson will be remembered for his cocky attitude on and especially off the court as well as his inefficient chucking. But he will also be remembered for putting the team on his back, when Philly went to the finals, the second highest scorer on his team was averaging 12 points per game. It's not like he didn't have help, Snow was a solid distributor but not a great scorer. Regardless, very few players, even today, could carry a team that far, inefficiently or otherwise.

We're going to see better scorers and bigger stars, we'll probably even see smaller heroes and slicker crossovers (if they stop calling "carrying" again ;)) but we will literally never see a player like Iverson ever again.

Forget talent, skill, basketball I.Q or efficiency. Like so many that came before him, Iverson transcends that, he's one of the few, one of the truly unique. Iverson, Shaq, Olajuwon, Magic, Bill Russell and Lebron among others. This isn't about being the best, it's about being truly unique, completely different. We've already seen waves of guys attempt to mimic Michael Jordan and his game (Kobe being the most obvious) and they can sort of remind you of him at times. But we will never see a guy like Lebron with that unique blend of size, quickness, athleticism, power and finesse, the ability to do it all. We will never see another 6'9" point guard who can move so swiftly, handle the ball so slickly, distribute in such a stylish fashion and run a team like Magic Johnson. We will never see a player as physically dominant as Shaq. We will never again see a guy lead a team to eight consecutive championships with that passing ability, intelligence and cunning that Bill Russell had.

And we will never see a player like Iverson ever again.

Jeffy25
03-03-2014, 04:02 PM
His teams were successful both in the regular season AND post season. Whats your point? And you way to sidestep the point. Voters ABSOLUTELY factor in team success into MVP voting and you know this.

I'm having difficulty keeping up with your argument here.

What is your point?

First it was 'he's a winner'
Then I asked what he won
And you said MVP

His teams weren't that great, a .550 team winning percentage for a career isn't very high in the NBA....not for a 'superstar'

Hawkeye15
03-03-2014, 04:02 PM
AI in his MVP year:

11th in win shares
10th in PER
13th in WS/48
82nd in Offensive rating
113th in TS%

list goes on and on...

waveycrockett
03-03-2014, 04:02 PM
And yet, AI never shot as efficiently as Melo did last year, and Melo shot more threes, had less turnovers, and a better free throw percentage than in any season AI ever played.

Melo, for his career, makes the same number of field goals, while taking two less shots per game.

UMMM he most certainly has. 07-08 And they were in fact teammates that year with A.I posting a greater number of Win Shares that season too.

Hawkeye15
03-03-2014, 04:02 PM
you guys really think that everyone was a moron before 2008.

yeah dude, that is what I am saying....

Jeffy25
03-03-2014, 04:03 PM
AI has never posted a TS of at least 56%? Lets stop with the double standard here. And yes Melo is most definitely a chucker.

Just 07/08 when he was in Denver, never when he was in Philly or taking 20 shots a game (he took 16 a game that year).

jerellh528
03-03-2014, 04:03 PM
Sad when fans nowadays dismiss a guy like iverson because "efficiency or statz"

Hawkeye15
03-03-2014, 04:05 PM
Sad when fans nowadays dismiss a guy like iverson because "efficiency or statz"

what are we dismissing? The league in general now values efficiency, and tends to not build around players like AI.

Nobody should dismiss his influence on the game, or the fact that he was exciting to watch. But to hear a guy say he was at one point a top player in the game, or a top 20 player ever, if false.

waveycrockett
03-03-2014, 04:05 PM
I'm having difficulty keeping up with your argument here.

What is your point?

First it was 'he's a winner'
Then I asked what he won
And you said MVP

His teams weren't that great, a .550 team winning percentage for a career isn't very high in the NBA....not for a 'superstar'
.550 winning percentage is solid especially considering he was used as a freak show to sell tickets on bad teams his last few seasons in the league. I would love to see what some of his contemporary superstars winning % are IE Vince Carter and T-Mac

Jeffy25
03-03-2014, 04:06 PM
UMMM he most certainly has. 07-08 And they were in fact teammates that year with A.I posting a greater number of Win Shares that season too.

Yeah, when he was averaging 10 less shots per game than in his prime.

Jeffy25
03-03-2014, 04:08 PM
.550 winning percentage is solid especially considering he was used as a freak show to sell tickets on bad teams his last few seasons in the league. I would love to see what some of his contemporary superstars winning % are IE Vince Carter and T-Mac

His .550 was just what the Sixers winning percentage was with him....doesn't include his decline years.

Jamiecballer
03-03-2014, 04:09 PM
basketball fans were supposed to stay in the dark forever i guess and make our evaluations based entirely on emotion or who looked most impressive in the moment.

jerellh528
03-03-2014, 04:09 PM
what are we dismissing? The league in general now values efficiency, and tends to not build around players like AI.

I don't know, I feel the league has always valued efficiency because obviously scouts have been paid for generations to do a job and must've taken that into account. But now with the internet and media blowup numbers are being made readily available to the average fan, so it just feels more metric-y. Ofcourse new formulas and stuff are being created nowadays, but forms of advanced stats and efficiency have been around decades, IMHO. Anyways, iverson has shown that he can be built around when he took that bad team to the finals in the weak east, and iverson's teams were pretty regularly one of the better teams in the league. But you're right, teams TEND not to build around iverson types but they're no iverson. Iverson had what stats can't measure which is intangibles/ heart/ killer instinct which is a prime example of why stats can sometimes be a bit misleading and when you hear guys talk about the "other stuff" besides stats, that's what they mean. Plus we're not talking 60s era, were talking like 10 yrs ago. Not THAT much has changed since then.

TheMightyHumph
03-03-2014, 04:12 PM
Some people take efficiency too far. Iverson took a bad team in the weak east to the finals before it was cool. Lol.

Kidd did the same thing the two following seasons, with Sixers third string Center and Jason Collins manning the middle.

beyourself
03-03-2014, 04:13 PM
I don't know, I feel the league has always valued efficiency because obviously scouts have been paid for generations to do a job and must've taken that into account. But now with the internet and media blowup numbers are being made readily available to the average fan, so it just feels more metric-y. Ofcourse new formulas and stuff are being created nowadays, but forms of advanced stats and efficiency have been around decades, IMHO. Anyways, iverson has shown that he can be built around when he took that bad team to the finals in the weak east, and iverson's teams were pretty regularly one of the better teams in the league. Plus we're not talking 60s era, were talking like 10 yrs ago. Not THAT much has changed since then.

If Kobe was a career 50% shooter you'd be saying entirely different stuff. Yea I went there. I hope this doesn't completely sabotage this thread, but I know it could. My bad if it does.

Disclaimer: this could get ugly.

ewing
03-03-2014, 04:18 PM
The truth of the matter is this, the game has changed.

Whether you like it or not is irrelevant. Efficiency is now valued more than ever.

Look at the scoring leaders of the last few years, nobody has broken the 30 point mark for three years (since KD). The closest was Melo last season with 28.66 points per game, even if you look back at late 90's early 00's, there was a change between then and like '03). This has nothing to do with a lack of scoring talent, it's to do with the shift in focus, we value the quality of scoring over the quantity. Look at Iversons last scoring title of his career, 31ppg on 39.8% in 2008-09 Wade got the scoring title hitting 30ppg on 49.1% I know which player I would rather have had.

Iverson was entertaining but with the way the game has changed, we will NEVER see another league leader in scoring like him ever again, because he wouldn't be given a green light like Iverson was, he would be told to improve his shot selection and wouldn't stay as a number one option if he didn't improve it.

Iverson will be remembered for his cocky attitude on and especially off the court as well as his inefficient chucking. But he will also be remembered for putting the team on his back, when Philly went to the finals, the second highest scorer on his team was averaging 12 points per game. It's not like he didn't have help, Snow was a solid distributor but not a great scorer. Regardless, very few players, even today, could carry a team that far, inefficiently or otherwise.

We're going to see better scorers and bigger stars, we'll probably even see smaller heroes and slicker crossovers (if they stop calling "carrying" again ;)) but we will literally never see a player like Iverson ever again.

Forget talent, skill, basketball I.Q or efficiency. Like so many that came before him, Iverson transcends that, he's one of the few, one of the truly unique. Iverson, Shaq, Olajuwon, Magic, Bill Russell and Lebron among others. This isn't about being the best, it's about being truly unique, completely different. We've already seen waves of guys attempt to mimic Michael Jordan and his game (Kobe being the most obvious) and they can sort of remind you of him at times. But we will never see a guy like Lebron with that unique blend of size, quickness, athleticism, power and finesse, the ability to do it all. We will never see another 6'9" point guard who can move so swiftly, handle the ball so slickly, distribute in such a stylish fashion and run a team like Magic Johnson. We will never see a player as physically dominant as Shaq. We will never again see a guy lead a team to eight consecutive championships with that passing ability, intelligence and cunning that Bill Russell had.

And we will never see a player like Iverson ever again.

Solid post and something that is being completely missed in his thread. AI peaked in a transition period for the NBA. The ball dominate scoring PG was a big time fad. It was after the hand check era and before bigs really improved there range and when the post game wasn't quite dead. It was a different league. One that i thought was pretty ugly to watch but AI excelled in it

jerellh528
03-03-2014, 04:18 PM
If Kobe was a career 50% shooter you'd be saying entirely different stuff. Yea I went there. I hope this doesn't completely sabotage this thread, but I know it could. My bad if it does.

Disclaimer: this could get ugly.

Nah, we'd probably still have 5 rings either way and I'd take his intangibles over a few % points any day.

Hawkeye15
03-03-2014, 04:20 PM
I don't know, I feel the league has always valued efficiency because obviously scouts have been paid for generations to do a job and must've taken that into account. But now with the internet and media blowup numbers are being made readily available to the average fan, so it just feels more metric-y. Ofcourse new formulas and stuff are being created nowadays, but forms of advanced stats and efficiency have been around decades, IMHO. Anyways, iverson has shown that he can be built around when he took that bad team to the finals in the weak east, and iverson's teams were pretty regularly one of the better teams in the league. But you're right, teams TEND not to build around iverson types but they're no iverson. Iverson had what stats can't measure which is intangibles/ heart/ killer instinct which is a prime example of why stats can sometimes be a bit misleading and when you hear guys talk about the "other stuff" besides stats, that's what they mean. Plus we're not talking 60s era, were talking like 10 yrs ago. Not THAT much has changed since then.

who presents this data to the fans? And while teams may have tried to capture efficiency to some degree over time, it's nowhere near the level it is today. Hell, a 1/3 of the league didn't even employ an advanced statistics guy as recent as 5 years ago. Scouting reports on AI most likely read: Blinding speed, try to force him to shoot jumpers. But now it would be so detailed it's ridiculous. With actual data.

Hawkeye15
03-03-2014, 04:21 PM
Solid post and something that is being completely missed in his thread. AI peaked in a transition period for the NBA. The ball dominate scoring PG was a big time fad. It was after the hand check era and before bigs really improved there range and when the post game wasn't quite dead. It was a different. One that i thought was pretty ugly to watch but AI was one of it better players.

Agreed on this. But, at this point, AI is the kind of guy many teams would never build around. He would either need to adjust his game to fit in as a star player, or he would likely see a huge drop in responsibility.

TheNumber37
03-03-2014, 04:21 PM
AI bashing on PSD should stop with his retirement.

Yes, he had flaws, no one has ever been perfect their whole careers.
He played his game which was very impactful, inspiring, influential and astonishing for a guy his size.

Nope, he never played with another true talent of his own stature (or even relatively), so much of his career is maligned by this...

Still. He is a first ballot HOF and NO ONE can dispute that. In the end, people are picking apart the game of a 6 foot 165 pound scoring guard who is a first ballot HOFer....

Jarvo
03-03-2014, 04:24 PM
What players say in public and what they think are very different things.

You didn't know that, did you?

No people been saying this about AI for years idk why you think just because he's retired they'll switch up.

beyourself
03-03-2014, 04:24 PM
Agreed on this. But, at this point, AI is the kind of guy many teams would never build around. He would either need to adjust his game to fit in as a star player, or he would likely see a huge drop in responsibility.

Is the inefficient volume scorer dead in the NBA? I'm trying to think. There are some PG's who shoot way too much, but that's about it.

Melo shoots it a lot, but at least he's decently efficient.

It's actually extinct.

Jarvo
03-03-2014, 04:25 PM
Agreed on this. But, at this point, AI is the kind of guy many teams would never build around. He would either need to adjust his game to fit in as a star player, or he would likely see a huge drop in responsibility.

El oh El

Jamiecballer
03-03-2014, 04:25 PM
I don't know, I feel the league has always valued efficiency because obviously scouts have been paid for generations to do a job and must've taken that into account. But now with the internet and media blowup numbers are being made readily available to the average fan, so it just feels more metric-y. Ofcourse new formulas and stuff are being created nowadays, but forms of advanced stats and efficiency have been around decades, IMHO. Anyways, iverson has shown that he can be built around when he took that bad team to the finals in the weak east, and iverson's teams were pretty regularly one of the better teams in the league. But you're right, teams TEND not to build around iverson types but they're no iverson. Iverson had what stats can't measure which is intangibles/ heart/ killer instinct which is a prime example of why stats can sometimes be a bit misleading and when you hear guys talk about the "other stuff" besides stats, that's what they mean. Plus we're not talking 60s era, were talking like 10 yrs ago. Not THAT much has changed since then.

that's a bit of a myth i think. how his teams ranked in terms of wins in his career.

25
22
12
11
3
14
10
22
16
19
10
11
5

i don't know if i'd call that regularly among the leagues bests although i suppose you'd have to define "among".

ewing
03-03-2014, 04:25 PM
Agreed on this. But, at this point, AI is the kind of guy many teams would never build around. He would either need to adjust his game to fit in as a star player, or he would likely see a huge drop in responsibility.


I think given his skill set he would likely find a way to have a big influence on games but he would have to be a different player today. Teams would not build around a the ball dominate 6 foot volume scorer.

jerellh528
03-03-2014, 04:25 PM
who presents this data to the fans? And while teams may have tried to capture efficiency to some degree over time, it's nowhere near the level it is today. Hell, a 1/3 of the league didn't even employ an advanced statistics guy as recent as 5 years ago. Scouting reports on AI most likely read: Blinding speed, try to force him to shoot jumpers. But now it would be so detailed it's ridiculous. With actual data.

I somewhat agree, but this advanced metrics guy may have just gone under another title. Maybe executive in charge if player development or something of the sort. Either way, if the league is headed into the direction your saying, it would be too baseball-esque for me with gms thinking they could piece guys whose stats compliment eachother without much else. Basketball to me is the epitome of a game of heart out of all the team sports, as corny as that sounds.

jerellh528
03-03-2014, 04:26 PM
that's a bit of a myth i think. how his teams ranked in terms of wins in his career.

25
22
12
11
3
14
10
22
16
19
10
11
5

i don't know if i'd call that regularly among the leagues bests although i suppose you'd have to define "among".

Just from memory I remember them being in the playoffs quite a bit.

Jamiecballer
03-03-2014, 04:27 PM
Agreed on this. But, at this point, AI is the kind of guy many teams would never build around. He would either need to adjust his game to fit in as a star player, or he would likely see a huge drop in responsibility.

personally i think he'd be pushed into a Jamal Crawford type role. no offense meant.

beyourself
03-03-2014, 04:28 PM
I somewhat agree, but this advanced metrics guy may have just gone under another title. Maybe executive in charge if player development or something of the sort. Either way, if the league is headed into the direction your saying, it would be too baseball-esque for me with gms thinking they could piece guys whose stats compliment eachother without much else. Basketball to me is the epitome of a game of heart out of all the team sports, as corny as that sounds.

Dude nobody is saying basketball isn't a game played with heart and will. There are some things that can't be measured, but come on man.

.425 career FG% and taking 25-27 shots a game in your prime. That's chucking, period.

jerellh528
03-03-2014, 04:30 PM
Dude nobody is saying basketball isn't a game played with heart and will. There are some things that can't be measured, but come on man.

.425 career FG% and taking 25-27 shots a game in your prime. That's chucking, period.


You took career fg% yet prime shot attempt. Another way to manipulate stats

Jamiecballer
03-03-2014, 04:30 PM
Just from memory I remember them being in the playoffs quite a bit.
then you are using the term "among the leagues best" quite loosely that's all i'm saying.

jerellh528
03-03-2014, 04:33 PM
then you are using the term "among the leagues best" quite loosely that's all i'm saying.

Probably, thanks for shedding light on that.

beyourself
03-03-2014, 04:33 PM
You took career fg% yet prime shot attempt. Another way to manipulate stats

How about the season where he actually did shoot it 27 times and shoot below 40%?

TheMightyHumph
03-03-2014, 04:35 PM
No people been saying this about AI for years idk why you think just because he's retired they'll switch up.

What does his retirement have to do with anything?

Hawkeye15
03-03-2014, 04:38 PM
Is the inefficient volume scorer dead in the NBA? I'm trying to think. There are some PG's who shoot way too much, but that's about it.

Melo shoots it a lot, but at least he's decently efficient.

It's actually extinct.

I can't think of any "star" player that is as inefficient as Iverson was. His leash would be reeled in today, unless he altered his style of play. Ie, shot a lot less...

Hawkeye15
03-03-2014, 04:40 PM
I think given his skill set he would likely find a way to have a big influence on games but he would have to be a different player today. Teams would not build around a the ball dominate 6 foot volume scorer.

Yeah, I actually think he would be best served being a 6th man nowadays. Unless he really just bought into not shooting nearly as much, in which case he could play PG and be excellent at it. But, that is all theory, because we know AI liked to shoot the rock all night long.

jerellh528
03-03-2014, 04:41 PM
How about the season where he actually did shoot it 27 times and shoot below 40%?

Yeah that's pretty bad, but the 6ers needed that at the time. Iverson was playing 44mpg and they were still a top half playoff team in the east. I'd say because of him not in spite of him. Would everyone love a durant on their team? Ofcourse, that's not what I'm saying. But iverson had a role, and played it well.

beyourself
03-03-2014, 04:43 PM
Yeah that's pretty bad, but the 6ers needed that at the time. Iverson was playing 44mpg and they were still a top half playoff team in the east. I'd say because of him not in spite of him. Would everyone love a durant on their team? Ofcourse, that's not what I'm saying. But iverson had a role, and played it well.

Iverson wasn't missing on purpose. He just couldn't hit his shots.

Hawkeye15
03-03-2014, 04:43 PM
I somewhat agree, but this advanced metrics guy may have just gone under another title. Maybe executive in charge if player development or something of the sort. Either way, if the league is headed into the direction your saying, it would be too baseball-esque for me with gms thinking they could piece guys whose stats compliment eachother without much else. Basketball to me is the epitome of a game of heart out of all the team sports, as corny as that sounds.

Here is a comment on why I think analytical GM's are the best in the game now, and will be going forward:

When Flip Saunders was asked about Ricky Rubio's shooting, and how his TS% is well below league average, he responded with, "Yeah, stats don't tell you how hard a player works in practice or what is in his heart though, and that is all that matters".

Uh, no Flip, it isn't. Making ****ing shots is what matters.

I am not saying this will be a robotic league. There are factors to take into account outside stats. But unless a player is documented as a bad teammate, or has a noticeably poor work ethic or substance problem, stats will run the show. The game is evolving into more of a specialized game now, due to studying the metrics, and it won't stop. It will never be ONLY about stats, but you can't stop the movement now.

jerellh528
03-03-2014, 04:44 PM
I'm not trying to do math right now but let's say you shoot 25 times a game on .460%, how many more misses is that than someone who shoots 25 times of .500%?

beyourself
03-03-2014, 04:46 PM
I'm not trying to do math right now but let's say you shoot 25 times a game on .460%, how many more misses is that than someone who shoots 25 times of .500%?

Don't know, but let me tell you why that small percentage is everything.

Everybody is good in the NBA. There is a fine line between winning and losing.

ewing
03-03-2014, 04:47 PM
Yeah, I actually think he would be best served being a 6th man nowadays. Unless he really just bought into not shooting nearly as much, in which case he could play PG and be excellent at it. But, that is all theory, because we know AI liked to shoot the rock all night long.


I honestly don't know who he would be if he came out today. Remember, it not like there would a bunch of goons clogging the paint either he would be able to kick it to real shooters. AI got to the level he did b/c he had game. That game would definitively have to adapted to the way the league is now if he were to be a star

Hawkeye15
03-03-2014, 04:47 PM
I'm not trying to do math right now but let's say you shoot 25 times a game on .460%, how many more misses is that than someone who shoots 25 times of .500%?

1 more miss a game. But 46% is a good shooter for a perimeter player even. AI hovered around 40% for much of his peak career.

Hawkeye15
03-03-2014, 04:50 PM
I honestly don't know who he would be if he came out today. Remember, it not like there would a bunch of goons clogging the paint either. AI got to the level he did b/c he had game. That game would definitively have to adapted to the way the league is now if he were to be a star

yeah, which is why it's such a heated debate, the Iverson one. At the time, he was considered an absolute superstar. Now that we have the data to start measuring better, well after the fact, we can pinpoint his very large holes.

Judging way after the fact is a luxury, but by no means does it impact, positively or negatively, his play in that time period itself.

Jarvo
03-03-2014, 04:51 PM
What does his retirement have to do with anything?

Because folks are saying people only given high praise just because he's retired, But I doubt they're lying on the words that their saying about AI.

Hawkeye15
03-03-2014, 04:54 PM
Because folks are saying people only given high praise just because he's retired, But I doubt they're lying on the words that their saying about AI.

agreed. Players are human. They have biases too. Many of the current stars were teenagers when Iverson was in his peak. Of course he has a lot of fans that are currently playing, that is for real.

ewing
03-03-2014, 04:55 PM
Here is a comment on why I think analytical GM's are the best in the game now, and will be going forward:

When Flip Saunders was asked about Ricky Rubio's shooting, and how his TS% is well below league average, he responded with, "Yeah, stats don't tell you how hard a player works in practice or what is in his heart though, and that is all that matters".

Uh, no Flip, it isn't. Making ****ing shots is what matters.

I am not saying this will be a robotic league. There are factors to take into account outside stats. But unless a player is documented as a bad teammate, or has a noticeably poor work ethic or substance problem, stats will run the show. The game is evolving into more of a specialized game now, due to studying the metrics, and it won't stop. It will never be ONLY about stats, but you can't stop the movement now.

I remember a couple years back Van Gundy saying that he thought Kobe was the best offensive rebounder in the league off missed free throws while calling the game. They went a checked and he was right. I agree with you and think better stats are a good thing. I also think people get a little carried away with regard to there revolutionary impact and how the teach us things that no one knew. There is definitely better more access to more information now and i think that is something every coach espically should be taking advantage of

beyourself
03-03-2014, 05:02 PM
For us older guys who have seen the world and gotten some experience we really could give two ***** what NBA players think.

When more than half of these guys are making millions and go bankrupt after retirement their opinions and statements mean little to us.

Hawkeye15
03-03-2014, 05:03 PM
I remember a couple years back Van Gundy saying that he thought Kobe was the best offensive rebounder in the league off missed free throws while calling the game. They went a checked and he was right. I agree with you and think better stats are a good thing. I also think people get a little carried away with regard to there revolutionary impact and how the teach us things that no one knew. There is definitely better more access to more information now and i think that is something every coach espically should be taking advantage of

I will say, some coaches are so in tune with the game, they know stats before they are even available, ie, your example you just listed. Stats are a tool, but by no means will, or should ever replace essential parts of the game, like coaching.

Stats are a great thing, but they aren't the end all be all. There will always be a place for good old fashion strategic guessing.

Hawkeye15
03-03-2014, 05:04 PM
For us older guys who have seen the world and gotten some experience we really could give two ***** what NBA players think.

When more than half of these guys are making millions and go bankrupt after retirement their opinions and statements mean little to us.

factor in that the best GM's are fat short white guys generally, who have never played the game at a high level, while the majority of ex players have no clue what they are doing in a front office, and it tells you all you need to know about their ability to evaluate talent.

I don't care who MJ thinks is good, I will take Sam Presti's opinion over his any day of the week for example.

beyourself
03-03-2014, 05:05 PM
factor in that the best GM's are fat short white guys generally, who have never played the game at a high level, while the majority of ex players have no clue what they are doing in a front office, and it tells you all you need to know about their ability to evaluate talent.

I don't care who MJ thinks is good, I will take Sam Presti's opinion over his any day of the week for example.

Definitely.

Jamiecballer
03-03-2014, 05:05 PM
Probably, thanks for shedding light on that.

well for all the winner talk i thought it might be a myth worth dispelling.

Goose17
03-03-2014, 05:36 PM
Solid post and something that is being completely missed in his thread.

Appreciated. And like I said, the game has changed.

TheMightyHumph
03-03-2014, 05:50 PM
Because folks are saying people only given high praise just because he's retired, But I doubt they're lying on the words that their saying about AI.

Again, what players say in public and what they think are two very different things.

sammyvine
03-03-2014, 06:56 PM
16 pages lol?

why?

Hawkeye15
03-03-2014, 07:12 PM
16 pages lol?

why?

as I stated, Iverson will forever be a big debate amongst the fans. He was considered a superstar, but his stats suggest far from it. The truth lies in between, but many fans take a side and run with it.

Chronz
03-03-2014, 07:14 PM
You can't put CP3 and Iverson in the same sentence right now,
Agreed, but its not for the reasons you go on to state, CP3 simply hasn't displayed the longevity and his resume needs some work. But if we were to discuss the 2 at their best, I would gladly take CP3.


Paul who is super overrated imo on this site can't even get The Clippers to the WCF when everyone thinks he has a top 10 player with him. AI put his team on his back to go to The Finals
Blake wasn't a Top-10 player tho, and hes never entered the post season healthy, so he has alot more questions to answer. CP3 cant heal Blake. AI had more help when you account for the inferior competition he faced and the defensive support in place. The Sixers were elite defensively and weak offensively, meanwhile, even though Blake and DJ were nonexistent, and even though they were facing one of the best defensive teams in the league, CP3 led his teams offense to a higher degree than AI did during that Finals run, the reason they didn't make the finals is because the Grizz bigmen abused ours children. And its not CP3's job to anchor the paint, nor was it AI's. If CP3 has Dikembe Mutombo instead of Blake, they would have advanced further. Thats how meaningless Blake was in that series and how impactful Deke was for the Sixers in the post season. Deke and AI were both the stars of that team, they just impacted the game on different fronts. And in the case of Deke, he anchored a top tier defense that fell apart without him in the post season, just like the Sixers mediocre offense fell apart without AI all year.



give me a break and why are some of you so pissed that someone says they have Iverson in their top 10-15 players ever?
Nobodies pissed, if anything we are entertained by such a foolish notion.


Some are you are nit picking like Skip on 1st take. He did stuff while playing that stats can't show and no one had the heart or dedication like Iverson did and that is the reason why people hold him high in rankings along with how he played and if you can't see that oh well, To me he's in the Top 15 players ever to play the game.

That cop out holds true for alot of other great players, only in their case, they didn't need the excuse because it didn't prevent them from achieving more or producing at a higher level.

Chronz
03-03-2014, 07:20 PM
He was easily a top-3 player in his prime. He played the game hard on both ends of the court which is unheard of in todays NBA. And for his size he was always mismatched but won those individual battles 9 times out of 10. He was a winner which is not something you can say about guys like Carmelo Anthony, Deron Williams, Tracy McGrady, Vince Carter. He gutted it out all the time. Obviously he had some glaring flaws especially his attitude but that was part of the way he played the game. Huge chip on his shoulder.
Easily?

LOL. KG, Duncan, and Shaq were always better. And when they weren't enough, Kobe/Dirk certainly were.

And him playing hard doesn't change the fact that he needed bigger PG's to play those SG's for him, so when you say he won the matchups 9/10 times, what exactly are you basing that on. I recall him regularly witnessing opposing teams stars light it up to a higher degree, they just didn't always have the team to win.

Im not seeing what makes AI more of a winner than the guys you mentioned, how do we define that? Tmac at his best was certainly a superior player because he could actually clamp down without needing guys to defend his position, in fact, HE was that guy who you could put on just about anyone. Hes clamped down on PG's and PF's alike, hell, the guy even played center in certain zone schemes. AI doesn't give you that kind of versatility and 2-way efficiency.

Chronz
03-03-2014, 07:25 PM
An MVP

That he would have given to Shaq (His words, not mine).

Chronz
03-03-2014, 07:31 PM
Some people take efficiency too far. Iverson took a bad team in the weak east to the finals before it was cool. Lol.
Nah, that team wasn't bad, he had the most support of any single star IMO, particularly when you consider just how important Deke was in the playoffs and how little AI impacted his teams defense.

Hawkeye15
03-03-2014, 07:33 PM
Nah, that team wasn't bad, he had the most support of any single star IMO, particularly when you consider just how important Deke was in the playoffs and how little AI impacted his teams defense.

you forget Iverson fans only acknowledge his roster support, or lack there of, on one side of the ball. He didn't play with a scoring star, hence he must have put the team on his back and willed them to victory.

Meaze_Gibson
03-03-2014, 07:41 PM
I reiterate, you don't know much about the NBA, do you?

I know that Elgin Baylor shot 43% for his career while playing with two Hall of Fame players the majority of his career. The man on his team was Jerry West.
I know that Walt Frazier played with at least 4 Hall of Famers including, Willis Reed, Dave Debusschere, Earl the Pearl, and Bill Bradley.The man on his teams were Willis Reed.


Likewise I know that the only Hall of Famer AI played with is and that he would have a more difficult road than when compared to those with stacked teams. I also know that when AI had legit options such as Melo or Chris Webber his fg%went up

Chronz
03-03-2014, 07:45 PM
What I want to know is, why is it so bad to say AI is one of the 50-60 greatest players to ever play, or had one of the best careers, there have been lots of great players to play this game. If anyone takes that designation as disrespect, the same would hold true for the players they are diminishing in favor of AI.

AI obviously a great player, but he was just as obviously not as good as some people have claimed here.

Hawkeye15
03-03-2014, 07:50 PM
What I want to know is, why is it so bad to say AI is one of the 50-60 greatest players to ever play, or had one of the best careers, there have been lots of great players to play this game. If anyone takes that designation as disrespect, the same would hold true for the players they are diminishing in favor of AI.

AI obviously a great player, but he was just as obviously not as good as some people have claimed here.

remember the general age bracket here. It times in perfectly with AI's peak, and he was a very influential player. He basically brought the hood into the NBA game as a star player. He was very exciting, so many posters here, who were ages 10-18 at the time, fell in love with him game. Now they are being told he wasn't a top player at any point, and it doesn't sit right with them.

Same thing with every generation. They all have a player(s) they defend when evidence points otherwise.

MJ was playing in my ages 10-18, so I worshipped him. Alas, he has the numbers to back up the claims..

abe_froman
03-03-2014, 07:53 PM
I know that Elgin Baylor shot 43% for his career while playing with two Hall of Fame players the majority of his career. The man on his team was Jerry West.
different era,% was low v. today,but not bad v. the league average,ai's was almost always sub par v. league average


I know that Walt Frazier played with at least 4 Hall of Famers including, Willis Reed, Dave Debusschere, Earl the Pearl, and Bill Bradley.The man on his teams were Willis Reed.
1.bradley shouldnt be in the hof
2.it was def fraizer's team,after '71 reed was pretty much done



Likewise I know that the only Hall of Famer AI played with is and that he would have a more difficult road than when compared to those with stacked teams. I also know that when AI had legit options such as Melo or Chris Webber his fg%went up
mutombo is going into the hof
also number of hofers isnt a gauge of how strong teams are,its also nice sure but you can have same/better success with a deep thats deep in great role players ...and he was also surround by that

abe_froman
03-03-2014, 08:00 PM
What I want to know is, why is it so bad to say AI is one of the 50-60 greatest players to ever play, or had one of the best careers, there have been lots of great players to play this game. If anyone takes that designation as disrespect, the same would hold true for the players they are diminishing in favor of AI.

AI obviously a great player, but he was just as obviously not as good as some people have claimed here.
because part of being a fan is to hold him in the highest regard,it helps validate your opinion/love of him(my favorite must be the best,why else would he be my fav).i agree its stupid,but its something i've noticed with all the rose=best in the league,kobe/lebron=best player ever,ect.

you fall in love with a player,you root for him ,its a byproduct that happens

TheMightyHumph
03-03-2014, 08:21 PM
I know that Elgin Baylor shot 43% for his career while playing with two Hall of Fame players the majority of his career. The man on his team was Jerry West.
I know that Walt Frazier played with at least 4 Hall of Famers including, Willis Reed, Dave Debusschere, Earl the Pearl, and Bill Bradley.The man on his teams were Willis Reed.


Likewise I know that the only Hall of Famer AI played with is and that he would have a more difficult road than when compared to those with stacked teams. I also know that when AI had legit options such as Melo or Chris Webber his fg%went up

AI would've asked that West, Stumpy and Baylor get traded, because they shot too much (Baylor did average 13.5 rpg, 4.3 apg and 27.4 ppg despite having two other HOFers on his team).

AI couldn't lick Frazier's socks. Prime Frazier was up there with West and Oscar.

Jarvo
03-03-2014, 08:45 PM
Agreed, but its not for the reasons you go on to state, CP3 simply hasn't displayed the longevity and his resume needs some work. But if we were to discuss the 2 at their best, I would gladly take CP3.


Blake wasn't a Top-10 player tho, and hes never entered the post season healthy, so he has alot more questions to answer. CP3 cant heal Blake. AI had more help when you account for the inferior competition he faced and the defensive support in place. The Sixers were elite defensively and weak offensively, meanwhile, even though Blake and DJ were nonexistent, and even though they were facing one of the best defensive teams in the league, CP3 led his teams offense to a higher degree than AI did during that Finals run, the reason they didn't make the finals is because the Grizz bigmen abused ours children. And its not CP3's job to anchor the paint, nor was it AI's. If CP3 has Dikembe Mutombo instead of Blake, they would have advanced further. Thats how meaningless Blake was in that series and how impactful Deke was for the Sixers in the post season. Deke and AI were both the stars of that team, they just impacted the game on different fronts. And in the case of Deke, he anchored a top tier defense that fell apart without him in the post season, just like the Sixers mediocre offense fell apart without AI all year.



Nobodies pissed, if anything we are entertained by such a foolish notion.


That cop out holds true for alot of other great players, only in their case, they didn't need the excuse because it didn't prevent them from achieving more or producing at a higher level.


Too many excuses for Paul, I'm sorry and all I hear is on here or on tv how Blake is a top 10 player Iverson never played with another superstar outside of Melo & if you want to count an aging but good Mutumbo.

blahblahyoutoo
03-03-2014, 08:53 PM
is AI still broke?

3RDASYSTEM
03-03-2014, 09:03 PM
Do you seriously believe that AI is the greatest ever? Are you saying he never clashed with coaches and teammates over his poor shot selection and inconsistent ability to run an offense? And sure some people might have had an issue with him shooting so much, but the biggest issue was always that he MISSED alot.

Running a larry brown offense? don't ****ing kid yourself

CHRONZ is dumb enough to think CP3/NASH would have excelled running the offense with T HILL or marc Jackson in the post, and lynch/mckie on the wings

good ****ing luck, you would have missed a lot of shots also playing 8 inches out of position just to help your team score/create, as the only lone scorer creator on the team

you are so ****ing bball lacking that you didn't even understand that a 5'10'' PG had to be the interior scorer and perimeter scorer all at once with no help(except team defense)but you keep saying he couldn't run the ****ing offense

you bball genius, HE WAS THE ****ING ENTIRE OFFENSE

larry brown would clash with his own wife im sure if she was on the coaching staff, and the other coaches like chris ford shouldn't even matter since they never did, yeah he clashed with HOF coach after coach in your IVERSON blueprint magazine

don't make me posts those BRON/CP3 quotes where they are in complete awe of IVERSON

Jamiecballer
03-03-2014, 09:05 PM
Laugh out loud.

3RDASYSTEM
03-03-2014, 09:13 PM
remember the general age bracket here. It times in perfectly with AI's peak, and he was a very influential player. He basically brought the hood into the NBA game as a star player. He was very exciting, so many posters here, who were ages 10-18 at the time, fell in love with him game. Now they are being told he wasn't a top player at any point, and it doesn't sit right with them.

Same thing with every generation. They all have a player(s) they defend when evidence points otherwise.

MJ was playing in my ages 10-18, so I worshipped him. Alas, he has the numbers to back up the claims..

not only did MJ have the game, he had the 6 6 6 Gatorade nike McDonald media space jam circus in a vice grip chokehold, and vice versa so that backed him up even more so than his actual game on the court, mind control brainwashing into being like mike

all people/players in 60's and 70's say those players are the best all time, its nothing wrong with IVERSON being a top 5 player of his generation/era, which he is easily, KIDD-KG-IVERSON-SHAQ-DUNCAN

he was battling SHAQ/DUNCAN/KG for league supremacy, all 7footers, and his rookie year after JORDAN who was better at guard spot? and im taking a 21yr old over 35yr old in any era

nuthugging=worshipping

so even you have blinders on, thanks or admitting that

the thing is with IVERSON is I say what he displayed on the court, you guys keep bringing up how he did with coaches or he wasn't top this or that, but he did more with less than any player his era, imagine had he played for CUBAN for 10yrs with high talent or in PORTLAND? you guys would really be mad at his success then, he had to make a name for himself with a core of mckie/snow, I wonder why CP3/BRON left similar mckie/snow situations in CLE/N.O.? or did they go play with lesser talent with the current teams they represent now?

Hawkeye15
03-03-2014, 09:15 PM
not only did MJ have the game, he had the 6 6 6 Gatorade nike McDonald media space jam circus in a vice grip chokehold, and vice versa so that backed him up even more so than his actual game on the court, mind control brainwashing into being like mike

all people/players in 60's and 70's say those players are the best all time, its nothing wrong with IVERSON being a top 5 player of his generation/era, which he is easily, KIDD-KG-IVERSON-SHAQ-DUNCAN

he was battling SHAQ/DUNCAN/KG for league supremacy, all 7footers, and his rookie year after JORDAN who was better at guard spot? and im taking a 21yr old over 35yr old in any era

are you ****ing kidding me? No, MJ's game took a dump on every other facet of what made him famous. He is literally not challenged in any way as the GOAT right now.

Iverson wasn't even a top 5 player in any given year he played, let alone an era, give me a break.