PDA

View Full Version : What stats would peak Manu have put up if he replaced Iverson on the 2001 Sixers?



KnicksorBust
09-20-2016, 02:45 PM
Allen Iverson (2001)
31.1 ppg / 4.6 apg / 3.8 rpg / 2.5 spg / 3.3to with splits of 42%/32%/81%
PER = 24.0
TS% = 52%

Manu Ginobili (best season)
19.5 ppg / 4.5 apg / 4.8 rpg / 1.5 spg / 2.7to with splits of 46%/40%/86%
PER = 24.3
TS% = 61%

KnicksorBust
09-20-2016, 02:45 PM
Also are the Sixers better? worse? about the same?

TheDish87
09-20-2016, 03:05 PM
worse. there is an incredibly short list of players who could have did what Iverson did in 2001 and Manu isnt on it, as great as he was.

Hawkeye15
09-20-2016, 03:10 PM
with Manu, the team would have been built differently. Not sure I could even begin to think about this question honestly. Manu is much more unselfish, so you would want cutters/shooters with him. But could he carry that usage with his style of play?

Shammyguy3
09-20-2016, 03:13 PM
Easily 25/6/5 on great efficiency. He only took 13.3 shots that best season. Iverson took over 25 shots a game that year. Give Manu double the shots he easily manages what Iverson put up. But Manu is a better defender and passer. So Philly improves.

TheDish87
09-20-2016, 03:52 PM
easily? Manu had the luxury if playing with Duncan and Robinson, his efficiency would have tanked.

valade16
09-20-2016, 04:05 PM
Easily 25/6/5 on great efficiency. He only took 13.3 shots that best season. Iverson took over 25 shots a game that year. Give Manu double the shots he easily manages what Iverson put up. But Manu is a better defender and passer. So Philly improves.

There's no way that Manu could have got double his shots and maintained his efficiency. Especially considering the attention he would have faced with the supporting cast around him.

How often was Manu legitimately doubled or the defensive focus in SA? Not very often. He would be 100% of the time on that Philly team.

YAALREADYKNO
09-20-2016, 04:34 PM
Easily 25/6/5 on great efficiency. He only took 13.3 shots that best season. Iverson took over 25 shots a game that year. Give Manu double the shots he easily manages what Iverson put up. But Manu is a better defender and passer. So Philly improves.

😂😂😂 this is the most hilarious thing I've read today. The 76ers improve? Ok let's how efficient manu is with Aaron Mckie, Dikembe Mutumbo, and Eric Snow as opposed to Tim Duncan, David Robinson, and Tony Parker. You make it seem like anybody could've done what Iverson did in 01 with that team smh

Hawkeye15
09-20-2016, 04:56 PM
������ this is the most hilarious thing I've read today. The 76ers improve? Ok let's how efficient manu is with Aaron Mckie, Dikembe Mutumbo, and Eric Snow as opposed to Tim Duncan, David Robinson, and Tony Parker. You make it seem like anybody could've done what Iverson did in 01 with that team smh

Iverson could have never co-existed with much fire power early in his career, far too selfish. The Sixers were built that way for a reason.

kdspurman
09-20-2016, 05:25 PM
Idk if they're better or worse honestly. We never got to see him as the guy. But I mean, he's Harden before Harden came along. Except he played defense. He also never took games/possessions off, so he played with that same passion/fire AI did.

They're 2 different players. I think Manu's numbers surely go up across the board. Efficiency probably takes a hit, but I think people would appreciate him much more honestly.

Hawkeye15
09-20-2016, 05:55 PM
Idk if they're better or worse honestly. We never got to see him as the guy. But I mean, he's Harden before Harden came along. Except he played defense. He also never took games/possessions off, so he played with that same passion/fire AI did.

They're 2 different players. I think Manu's numbers surely go up across the board. Efficiency probably takes a hit, but I think people would appreciate him much more honestly.

Manu made a huge sacrifice. He may very well have been the best SG in the game for a period of time. Or at least had a stake in that argument.

Shammyguy3
09-20-2016, 06:42 PM
easily? Manu had the luxury if playing with Duncan and Robinson, his efficiency would have tanked.

Similar to how Harden had the luxury of playing with Westbrook & Durant. Yet, when he had his own team his efficiency/scoring ability didn't miss a beat at all. Manu was a better all-around player than Harden is right now. And Manu was relied on more with the Spurs than Harden was with Westbrook & Durant.

The bolded above, Manu spent one season playing with David Robinson, when Manu was a rookie so his first year in the NBA. I don't think that's a fair evaluation by you at all.

For comparison: remember the luxury that Kobe Bryant had playing with Shaq?
Kobe with Shaq: 54.8ts% 22.3 PER 0.183 ws/48 111 ORtg 29.2usg%
Kobe post Shaq before injuries: 56.0ts% 24.0 PER 0.183 ws/48 112 ORtg 33.3usg%


Kobe was actually more efficient without Shaq. Shaq left, his efficiency rose, yet he maintained and actually improved his numbers. So why couldn't Manu?


There's no way that Manu could have got double his shots and maintained his efficiency. Especially considering the attention he would have faced with the supporting cast around him.

Says who? read the above, and then look at James Harden improving his numbers across the board with a much greater workload.


How often was Manu legitimately doubled or the defensive focus in SA? Not very often. He would be 100% of the time on that Philly team.

I don't know how often, but everyone forgets that Manu was the Spur's 2nd best player from the 02/03 - 10/11 seasons.


Idk if they're better or worse honestly. We never got to see him as the guy. But I mean, he's Harden before Harden came along. Except he played defense. He also never took games/possessions off, so he played with that same passion/fire AI did.

They're 2 different players. I think Manu's numbers surely go up across the board. Efficiency probably takes a hit, but I think people would appreciate him much more honestly.

Yup. From age 25-35 Manu averaged a 58.9ts% on a 25.0usg%. It's not like he was a 17% usage player. Simple extrapolation, even at a lower efficiency, Manu could easily maintain the production that Iverson provided. EASILY.


Manu made a huge sacrifice. He may very well have been the best SG in the game for a period of time. Or at least had a stake in that argument.

This.

IKnowHoops
09-20-2016, 08:00 PM
Manu made a huge sacrifice. He may very well have been the best SG in the game for a period of time. Or at least had a stake in that argument.

Do you remember when Manu tried to dunk on Wally Z and Wally sat him down. That really hurt Manu's feelings. His stats took a dive for a while after that. LOLOL. Wally pint his ish.

beasted86
09-20-2016, 08:13 PM
Can anyone demonstrate Manu having the ability to carry a team offensively? Even just for a couple weeks of the season? Or thru a playoff series? FIBA? Euroleague? (Latinbasket doesn't count, sorry...). Being a team's best player and carrying them is something that eluded the modern advanced stat geek.

This is opening up a whole 'nother can of worms, but I've always felt Manu was boosted up due to color/race bias.

People seem to be mistaking him for being a well rounded offensive player for being an elite talent. He was never an elite talent in discussion of best SG in the NBA unless you're extremely fan biased. I'd argue Roy had better lived longevity for at least having an ear in that discussion and he was never seriously considered at all.

Anyway, just to dabble on entertaining this idea...Iverson was an elite scorer, and his ability to draw fouls is in another dimension in comparison and what makes for the sizeable gap in being able to fit with that Sixers roster. Manu would have likely led the team to a low playoff seed and a first round exit without a major overhaul of personnel. You're not just swapping one or two complimentary players and hoping to get similar results. It'd really have to just be scrapped and purpose built around Manu to hope for close to a finals.

Chronz
09-20-2016, 08:29 PM
easily? Manu had the luxury if playing with Duncan and Robinson, his efficiency would have tanked.

Except he came off the bench, got alot of minutes without those guys (Robinson? lol, he played like 1-2 years with Manu). Its harder for guys to come off the bench and lead, guys who prove capable of that at an elite level eventually show they could have started all along ala Harden, McHale, Manu....

I look at this like James Harden+ vs AI. I say that cuz Manu was better than Harden when he was out there but had identical rates/games. It takes zero ego to be a franchise guy coming off the bench. Thats what Manu was for the Spurs, only off the bench.

valade16
09-20-2016, 08:31 PM
Says who? read the above, and then look at James Harden improving his numbers across the board with a much greater workload.

First, improving his numbers?

His TS% his final season in OKC was 66%, it was 59.8% his first year in Houston. As a scorer his efficiency went down. But then look at why his efficiency was able to stay as high as it was.

His FTA per 100 went from 9.8 his last year in OKC to 13.3 in Houston. He drove more and got to the line more, that maintained his high efficiency, even though it dropped off drastically from his last season in OKC.

Now lets compare his teammates in Houston his first season to AI's in 2000:

PPG:

Parsons 15.5
Lin 13.4
Patterson 11.6
Delfino 10.6
Asik 10.6

3PT%:

Parsons 38.5%
Marcus Morris 38.1%
Delfino 37.5%
Beverely 37.5%
Patterson 36.5%
Lin 33.9%

TS%

Parsons 58.4%
Patterson 57.1%
Asik 55.8%
Beverely 55.1%
Delfino 54.9%
Lin 53.8%
Morris 53.7%


In Houston he had offensive help from guys who could score and guys who could shoot from deep. That opened the court up for him to drive and pass the ball. Now lets look at AI's cast:

PPG:

Mutombo 11.7
McKie 11.6
Snow 9.8
Hill 9.6
Lynch 8.4
Kukoc 8.0

3PT%

Kukoc 41.0%
McKie 31.2%
Snow 26.3%
Lynch 26.3%

TS%

Mutombo 58.0%
McKie 54.9%
Kukoc 52.3%
Hill 51.5%
Lynch 49.6%
Snow 48.8%

As we can see there is NOBODY who can help him offensively and NOBODY outside Kukoc who can shoot.

So now put Manu on that team, a team with nobody who can create their own offense, nobody who can score efficiently, and nobody who can shoot from deep. He simply won't be able to drive nearly as much as he was used to. The same would apply for Harden.

Not to mention, as Chronz always points out, AI did it in a far tougher defensive era. There is no way Harden or Manu maintain their offensive efficiency in that era, let alone on that dumpster fire of an offensive team.

The only way you could think that would be to completely disregard context.

Chronz
09-20-2016, 08:31 PM
There's no way that Manu could have got double his shots and maintained his efficiency. Especially considering the attention he would have faced with the supporting cast around him.

How often was Manu legitimately doubled or the defensive focus in SA? Not very often. He would be 100% of the time on that Philly team.

Where did he say he doubles it with no loss of efficiency? Hes saying he puts up what AI did, which to me follows whats expected in the usage/efficiency department, but feel free to give us your projections.

Chronz
09-20-2016, 08:34 PM
Idk if they're better or worse honestly. We never got to see him as the guy. But I mean, he's Harden before Harden came along. Except he played defense. He also never took games/possessions off, so he played with that same passion/fire AI did.

They're 2 different players. I think Manu's numbers surely go up across the board. Efficiency probably takes a hit, but I think people would appreciate him much more honestly.

Without even trying, Manu makes them better defensively than a diminutive SG who gambled incessantly.

Chronz
09-20-2016, 08:36 PM
First, improving his numbers?

His TS% his final season in OKC was 66%, it was 59.8% his first year in Houston. As a scorer his efficiency went down. But then look at why his efficiency was able to stay as high as it was.

His FTA per 100 went from 9.8 his last year in OKC to 13.3 in Houston. He drove more and got to the line more, that maintained his high efficiency, even though it dropped off drastically from his last season in OKC.

Its best to look at FT/A per possession as its expected to go up with an increase in FG/A. IIRC, he got to the line at the same rate if not superior in OKC than he did in Houston.

valade16
09-20-2016, 08:41 PM
Where did he say he doubles it with no loss of efficiency? Hes saying he puts up what AI did, which to me follows whats expected in the usage/efficiency department, but feel free to give us your projections.

He said he would put up 25 points on "great efficiency". I'd have to hear exactly what he means by great efficiency, but I just don't believe it'd be on great efficiency given A. the tougher defensive era, B. His bigger load offensively and C. his crap supporting cast.


Without even trying, Manu makes them better defensively than a diminutive SG who gambled incessantly.

How much better? Manu was never a great defender himself and he also gambled on steals quite a bit. He's essentially a taller AI in that regard.


Its best to look at FT/A per possession as its expected to go up with an increase in FG/A. IIRC, he got to the line at the same rate if not superior in OKC than he did in Houston.

Do you have their FT/A per possession? Either way, my point stands, Harden's efficiency actually went down from his last season in OKC to his Houston years, and by quite a bit (66 to 60).


Not saying this of you, but a lot of people pointing to stats and ignoring a lot of context in this discussion.

Shammyguy3
09-20-2016, 08:47 PM
First, improving his numbers?

His TS% his final season in OKC was 66%, it was 59.8% his first year in Houston. As a scorer his efficiency went down. But then look at why his efficiency was able to stay as high as it was.

His FTA per 100 went from 9.8 his last year in OKC to 13.3 in Houston. He drove more and got to the line more, that maintained his high efficiency, even though it dropped off drastically from his last season in OKC.

His career rates as follows:
Harden in OKC: 60.5ts% 45.7% 3 point rate, free throw rate 50.3%; 118 ORtg 0.171 WS/48 20.4usg%
Harden in HOU: 60.5ts% 38.7% 3 point rate, free throw rate 55.4%; 117 ORtg 0.224 WS/48 30.2usg%

If you want to look at only his last season in OKC and his first season in HOU, by all means go ahead. I prefer to look at all the games in a sample, and it's obvious that Harden maintained his level of efficiency across the board (not just true shooting percentage) by carrying a greater load and also having to drive more and shoot open 3s less.

Dropping from a 98% A in a chemistry class to a 92% A in the second semester isn't a drastic difference. Just like looking at a 66ts% falling to a 60ts% isn't a drastic difference either.




Now lets compare his teammates in Houston his first season to AI's in 2000:

PPG:

Parsons 15.5
Lin 13.4
Patterson 11.6
Delfino 10.6
Asik 10.6

3PT%:

Parsons 38.5%
Marcus Morris 38.1%
Delfino 37.5%
Beverely 37.5%
Patterson 36.5%
Lin 33.9%

TS%

Parsons 58.4%
Patterson 57.1%
Asik 55.8%
Beverely 55.1%
Delfino 54.9%
Lin 53.8%
Morris 53.7%


In Houston he had offensive help from guys who could score and guys who could shoot from deep. That opened the court up for him to drive and pass the ball. Now lets look at AI's cast:

PPG:

Mutombo 11.7
McKie 11.6
Snow 9.8
Hill 9.6
Lynch 8.4
Kukoc 8.0

3PT%

Kukoc 41.0%
McKie 31.2%
Snow 26.3%
Lynch 26.3%

TS%

Mutombo 58.0%
McKie 54.9%
Kukoc 52.3%
Hill 51.5%
Lynch 49.6%
Snow 48.8%

As we can see there is NOBODY who can help him offensively and NOBODY outside Kukoc who can shoot.

So now put Manu on that team, a team with nobody who can create their own offense, nobody who can score efficiently, and nobody who can shoot from deep. He simply won't be able to drive nearly as much as he was used to. The same would apply for Harden.

Not to mention, as Chronz always points out, AI did it in a far tougher defensive era. There is no way Harden or Manu maintain their offensive efficiency in that era, let alone on that dumpster fire of an offensive team.

The only way you could think that would be to completely disregard context.

This isn't about Harden though. This is about Manu Ginobili. I used Harden as an example of an efficient guy coming off the bench could be ****ing phenomenal in a starting role, exactly like how Manu would if he ever had to. I then used Kobe (which you didn't bring up in your response) as a guy that was forced to carry a much larger role when Shaq left, just like Manu would be able to do if Duncan wasn't around.


I used two examples to correlate my reasoning for why Manu would make that 76ers team better and how he would produce better than Iverson did.

The bolded:

"In 1999, the league eliminated contact by a defender with his hands and forearms both in the backcourt and frontcourt, except on offensive players who caught the ball below the free throw line extended. Defenses were also prohibited from "re-routing" players off the ball. This freed up perimeter players who used screens to get open. Nor were defenders able any more to grab or impede offensive players setting screens. In 2001, the defensive three-second rule eliminated defenders camping out in the lane away from their offensive man to help."

Iverson's early career was before the rule changes. However most of his prime, including this conversation's context, was after the rule changes were implemented.


The only argument, for me, for why Iverson was a valuable player is that he was durable as heck and could play 40+ minutes every single night. Manu wasn't able to do that, or at least he never got the chance to show he could. That's not an argument that convinces me Iverson > Manu though.


Sorry but Iverson wasn't great. He was good. That's it. Give me Manu over him without question, even with the way his team was constructed.

Shammyguy3
09-20-2016, 08:51 PM
He said he would put up 25 points on "great efficiency". I'd have to hear exactly what he means by great efficiency, but I just don't believe it'd be on great efficiency given A. the tougher defensive era, B. His bigger load offensively and C. his crap supporting cast.

25 points per game on 18 shots a game. Somewhere around a 57-60+ true shooting rate. Usage anywhere from 25-30%. ORtg in the mid to high 110s. WS/48 over .200. His PER would go up at least a handful with more minutes and more field goal attempts, rebounds, assist opportunities.

valade16
09-20-2016, 08:55 PM
If you want to use Harden's rookie season by all means, but I think we all know Harden was getting more efficient in his later OKC year. I can rephrase and say Harden put up far great efficiency his final season in OKC than he ever did in Houston, especially year to year going from OKC to Houstonx

Second, 66% to 60% is a massive dropoff. The only reason it doesn't appear as big as it is is because 66% is insanely high. But if someone dropped from 60% to 54% we'd be talking about how big a drop it is.

Third there were additional rules after those that made it easier for offense's to score. It is fact AI played in a tougher defensive era than Manu and Harden did.

Many was good as well. I just don't see him being able to carry that load on such an offensively inept team. Playing with the greatest player of his generation coming off the bench is a far different beast then carrying a team with zero offensive talent.

It's not like he or the 76ers would have sucked. But there was no way they would beat the Lakers with Manu instead of AI so the best you can say is Manu would make them just as good and in my opinion, I don't think they would be quite as good.

Chronz
09-20-2016, 08:56 PM
Do you remember when Manu tried to dunk on Wally Z and Wally sat him down. That really hurt Manu's feelings. His stats took a dive for a while after that. LOLOL. Wally pint his ish.

Remember Manu's block?

valade16
09-20-2016, 08:57 PM
25 points per game on 18 shots a game. Somewhere around a 57-60+ true shooting rate. Usage anywhere from 25-30%. ORtg in the mid to high 110s. WS/48 over .200. His PER would go up at least a handful with more minutes and more field goal attempts, rebounds, assist opportunities.

I don't see how the 76ers score more than 70 pts a game if Manu's USG is 25-30. He would need a far higher usage in that offense.

Shammyguy3
09-20-2016, 09:14 PM
I don't see how the 76ers score more than 70 pts a game if Manu's USG is 25-30. He would need a far higher usage in that offense.

What you forget is that Iverson from 99-06
- used up 35.0% of the team's possessions when he was on the floor
- only managed to score 29.6 points a game
- took 24.7 shots a game, he had 3.7 turnovers per game.
- Over 28 possessions to score 29.6 points a game.
- He scored 1.05 points per possession.
- His ORtg was a mediocre 104 points per 100 possessions.

Manu's prime from 2005-2011,
- used up 26.3% of the team's possessions when he was on the floor
- only managed to score 16.8 points a game
- took 11.7 shots a game, he had 2.2 turnovers per game.
- Only 15 possessions to score 16.8 points a game.
- He scored 1.12 points per possession.
- His ORtg was an elite 116 points per 100 possessions.


I mean, c'mon man. You may not think the 0.07 points per possession is a big difference, but it is. Over the course of an entire season, that's hundreds of points.

If both players played a full NBA season, they would take up over 1,000 possessions. Manu would take up 1,230 possessions at his rate, and Iverson 2,296 (simply 82 games times # possessions/game used).

Iverson would score 2,411 points in the season over 2,296 possessions.
Manu would score 1,378 points in the season over 1,230 possessions.

So, Allen Iverson uses up an additional 1,066 possessions to score only 1,033 points. Less than 1 point per possession. With Manu, he needs only 2,153 possessions to score the same number of points. That's 143 extra possessions Manu gives a team with his efficiency extrapolated.




If that was too long, you didn't read it:
Manu could easily up his usage rate and outdo Iveron's awful efficiency. Even if Manu's true shooting rate dropped to 53%, he would save the 76ers quantifiable possessions game to game and over the course of 5 seasons? That's nearly a full 1/2 season of basketball possessions he gives you.

valade16
09-20-2016, 09:34 PM
^ the difference in those PPP is not as massive as you suggest. For 2,296 possession that's the difference of 2,411 points or 2,572 points.

For 1,000 possessions it's only 70 more points. And again, that's assuming that Manu is able to score at the same level as he did playing next to Tim Duncan, coming off the bench, in a weaker defensive era.

I think his PPP goes down given his atrocious supporting cast. So that closes the gap slightly. Then consider that he won't use as many possessions and it's probable that AI produces more points for those 76ers did than Manu would.

And again, I find your analysis of "take Manu's X stats and apply them to AI's 76ers and assume X stars stay the same" to be just completely misguided.

So long as we're saying F context, extrapolate Boban's stats to playing with the Rocket's 90's supporting cast and suddenly he's better than Hakeem.

You've yet to give me a compelling reason why Manu's efficiency wouldn't decrease given all the factors working against him in such a shift.

I agree Manu would be more efficient than AI in Philly, but efficiency isn't the end all be all. I don't think his overall impact would drastically improve the team.

valade16
09-20-2016, 09:36 PM
Not to mention BBall-Ref shows AI's points per 100 possessions at his peak being higher than Manu's and his TO's being the same.

kdspurman
09-20-2016, 09:46 PM
Remember Manu's block?

Far more impressive than whatever Wally did lol. He's had many but I think I know what you're referring to.

Chronz
09-20-2016, 10:29 PM
Far more impressive than whatever Wally did lol. He's had many but I think I know what you're referring to.

If this were any other forum I would dumb it down, but here, I expect our lil family to be up on game

More-Than-Most
09-20-2016, 10:44 PM
with that 01 team they would have been better defensively for sure. The question is how does manu and AI fit under the cap in their primes? could we fit manu and another good player instead of iverson for the price of iverson? because then its a no brainer

europagnpilgrim
09-20-2016, 11:34 PM
Put The Answer on those Spurs teams and he has 5 rings and much better efficient numbers across the board, not that it would make him any better but those 5 rings would throw a monkey wrench in the all time best ever rankings, then it would be well he had Duncan/Drob/Pop so he should have won those rings

The Answer played half his career hurt/injured, he was just tougher than a rusty nail and loved to play ball

Ginobili was good but to be game planned for at Jordan rules level for seasons and playoffs its even more tougher than most think, it has nothing to do with numbers but more so his willingness to shoot 30x per game because that's what it would have taken and I don't think Manu was selfish enough to do that and relying on Snow/Mckie wont get it done either, Mil/Toronto would have mopped them, I even think Pacers win that series also and I don't think they have a number 1 seed either

people forget The Answer sat out the final 5 games to rest up for the playoffs and Sixers were sitting on 56 wins, its only at most a handful of players who could have done what he did and Manu is not on that short list

YAALREADYKNO
09-21-2016, 02:00 AM
Iverson could have never co-existed with much fire power early in his career, far too selfish. The Sixers were built that way for a reason.

So tell me why when he had some offensive help in melo he shot over 45% and avg over 7apg. It's like some of y'all act like Iverson having to be selfish was all on him. If you're next best offensive teammate can only get you 11ppg don't you think you'd almost have to be a little more selfish?

Iverson even told Stephen A this when people in the media were being like you guys. He told him he passes the ball but nobody wants to take a shot and by the time the ball gets back to him he has no choice but to try to make something happen. Ya act like Iverson was playing on the 04 Suns or the current Warriors smh. The 76ers had success by having Iverson take majority of the shots. You really think if Iverson tried to share the ball with that team they would've been just as successful? Smh

FlashBolt
09-21-2016, 03:21 AM
So tell me why when he had some offensive help in melo he shot over 45% and avg over 7apg. It's like some of y'all act like Iverson having to be selfish was all on him. If you're next best offensive teammate can only get you 11ppg don't you think you'd almost have to be a little more selfish?

Iverson even told Stephen A this when people in the media were being like you guys. He told him he passes the ball but nobody wants to take a shot and by the time the ball gets back to him he has no choice but to try to make something happen. Ya act like Iverson was playing on the 04 Suns or the current Warriors smh. The 76ers had success by having Iverson take majority of the shots. You really think if Iverson tried to share the ball with that team they would've been just as successful? Smh

Just think of Iverson's mentality. He asked: "How will me going to practice help my teammates get better?" That's who Iverson was. Denver actually played better when they traded Iverson for Billups. Why did they trade Iverson? Well, the thing was they believed Iverson was going to be a 2nd option player behind Carmelo and play more of a PG. Guess what? It worked for awhile until AI started reverting back to old AI and Nuggets were left dry and this team, there was ZERO defense to make up for AI's ISO-ball. It's why Lakers destroyed the Nuggets. Nuggets also found a gem in Nene with pick-and-rolls because Billups wanted to help others get their shots -- something AI never tried to do. Billups was more of a leader than AI ever was but the most telling part was Denver traded AI because they were frustrated that his progression from SG to PG did not translate. Denver was 1-8 with AI in the playoffs (getting destroyed handily). But with Billups, Denver reached the WCF and fought hard. (Game 1 was literally a back-and-forth matchup so it could have easily gone to a game 7). But Pistons got the better player in Iverson and thus, should be a better team, right? Yeah, no.. Pistons with AI were a 44% win team (25-57). Without, they were a 56% win team (14-25). There's a pattern here and it's that AI's game was all about AI. AI. AI.

FlashBolt
09-21-2016, 03:34 AM
Just to add, when Iverson was traded to the Pistons, there were already reports about him being frustrated that his #3 jersey was being used by Stuckey. Pistons opted to bench Iverson and he said he'd rather retire than come off the bench. That's the player HE was. Do you want to continue to Memphis? He was brought in to come off the bench (something Lionel Hollins didn't want because he wanted to develop Conley+Mayo instead). Iverson played three games (all losses), complained about minutes, said he should be starting over Conley or Mayo, and when given an ultimatum from Hollins: Come off the bench or leave, Allen Iverson opted to leave. At that time, everyone knew AI was past his peak but one person didn't or refused to acknowledge it, and that was AI. There's a very clear pattern here and that's that wherever AI went, there was baggage and drama. When AI leaves, teams get better. You tell me why that is.

kdspurman
09-21-2016, 07:17 AM
Put The Answer on those Spurs teams and he has 5 rings and much better efficient numbers across the board, not that it would make him any better but those 5 rings would throw a monkey wrench in the all time best ever rankings, then it would be well he had Duncan/Drob/Pop so he should have won those rings

The Answer played half his career hurt/injured, he was just tougher than a rusty nail and loved to play ball

Ginobili was good but to be game planned for at Jordan rules level for seasons and playoffs its even more tougher than most think, it has nothing to do with numbers but more so his willingness to shoot 30x per game because that's what it would have taken and I don't think Manu was selfish enough to do that and relying on Snow/Mckie wont get it done either, Mil/Toronto would have mopped them, I even think Pacers win that series also and I don't think they have a number 1 seed either

people forget The Answer sat out the final 5 games to rest up for the playoffs and Sixers were sitting on 56 wins, its only at most a handful of players who could have done what he did and Manu is not on that short list

So what year would they have won it that they didn't with AI? (Manu has 4 rings) You forget that personality and lockerroom chemistry matters a ton here. So saying AI would have more rings with a unit that thrived on being tight nit and family like + ego less seems far fetched to me.

Btw, what Manu did against a defensive monster like the 05 pistons was something that could not be easily replicated. I like Iverson believe me, but I don't think he could've did what Manu did that series

YAALREADYKNO
09-21-2016, 07:53 AM
Just think of Iverson's mentality. He asked: "How will me going to practice help my teammates get better?" That's who Iverson was. Denver actually played better when they traded Iverson for Billups. Why did they trade Iverson? Well, the thing was they believed Iverson was going to be a 2nd option player behind Carmelo and play more of a PG. Guess what? It worked for awhile until AI started reverting back to old AI and Nuggets were left dry and this team, there was ZERO defense to make up for AI's ISO-ball. It's why Lakers destroyed the Nuggets. Nuggets also found a gem in Nene with pick-and-rolls because Billups wanted to help others get their shots -- something AI never tried to do. Billups was more of a leader than AI ever was but the most telling part was Denver traded AI because they were frustrated that his progression from SG to PG did not translate. Denver was 1-8 with AI in the playoffs (getting destroyed handily). But with Billups, Denver reached the WCF and fought hard. (Game 1 was literally a back-and-forth matchup so it could have easily gone to a game 7). But Pistons got the better player in Iverson and thus, should be a better team, right? Yeah, no.. Pistons with AI were a 44% win team (25-57). Without, they were a 56% win team (14-25). There's a pattern here and it's that AI's game was all about AI. AI. AI.

Billups's game was a better fit for Denver obviously because he was a natural pg. Denver should've known AI isn't a pg and he had his most success at SG but ya wanna keep talking how AI was inefficient in his 6ers days but look at that team. As soon as he pgot to Denver he shot a higher FG% and avg more assists once he had some offensive help. You can't honestly sit here and try to say that the 6ers would've had the same amount of success if Iverson was trying to get the rest of those guys involved more. Put Billups on those 6ers team and they don't get any better. That team needed Iverson to do what he did. It seems like y'all hold Iverson accountable for his teammates inability to shoot or score the basketball. It would be one thing if he was doing that back in 01 and they were losing but he got them all the way to the NBA finals yet we're supposed to act like anybody could duplicate what AI did that year just because they shot a higher fg% and was better at getting others involved while playing with much better teammates? Please. As great as manu was in his prime it didn't hurt the fact he was playing with Duncan who demanded double teams and a guy like Tony Parker who also puts pressure on Defenses. Going into a game against the 6ers u knew Iverson was the only threat and he still did what he did.

Hawkeye15
09-21-2016, 09:51 AM
So tell me why when he had some offensive help in melo he shot over 45% and avg over 7apg. It's like some of y'all act like Iverson having to be selfish was all on him. If you're next best offensive teammate can only get you 11ppg don't you think you'd almost have to be a little more selfish?

Iverson even told Stephen A this when people in the media were being like you guys. He told him he passes the ball but nobody wants to take a shot and by the time the ball gets back to him he has no choice but to try to make something happen. Ya act like Iverson was playing on the 04 Suns or the current Warriors smh. The 76ers had success by having Iverson take majority of the shots. You really think if Iverson tried to share the ball with that team they would've been just as successful? Smh

now you are talking about later AI though..

Once he realized that people were actually not out to **** him, he accepted coaching. Iverson can say whatever he likes, the dude was a me first, second, and third player his first 6-7 years in the league.

Btw, Denver was better off when they traded AI for Billups.

Iverson just didn't get the "team" mentality. Ever.

TheDish87
09-21-2016, 10:21 AM
Just to add, when Iverson was traded to the Pistons, there were already reports about him being frustrated that his #3 jersey was being used by Stuckey. Pistons opted to bench Iverson and he said he'd rather retire than come off the bench. That's the player HE was. Do you want to continue to Memphis? He was brought in to come off the bench (something Lionel Hollins didn't want because he wanted to develop Conley+Mayo instead). Iverson played three games (all losses), complained about minutes, said he should be starting over Conley or Mayo, and when given an ultimatum from Hollins: Come off the bench or leave, Allen Iverson opted to leave. At that time, everyone knew AI was past his peak but one person didn't or refused to acknowledge it, and that was AI. There's a very clear pattern here and that's that wherever AI went, there was baggage and drama. When AI leaves, teams get better. You tell me why that is.

what does any of this have to do with the topic?

valade16
09-21-2016, 10:32 AM
I will say I don't think the Spurs get better if it were a switch. No way AI accepts coming off the bench.

Hawkeye15
09-21-2016, 10:41 AM
I will say I don't think the Spurs get better if it were a switch. No way AI accepts coming off the bench.

that is a certainty. Plus, Manu drove Pop's nuts with his early shot clock jumpers, and out of control drives. Imagine how he would have dealt with AI. he would have had him traded haha

YAALREADYKNO
09-21-2016, 11:02 AM
now you are talking about later AI though..

Once he realized that people were actually not out to **** him, he accepted coaching. Iverson can say whatever he likes, the dude was a me first, second, and third player his first 6-7 years in the league.

Btw, Denver was better off when they traded AI for Billups.

Iverson just didn't get the "team" mentality. Ever.

Do the 01 76ers get better if Iverson tries to instead of trying to score all the time try to get his teammates involved more? Please be objective here too

Hawkeye15
09-21-2016, 11:10 AM
Do the 01 76ers get better if Iverson tries to instead of trying to score all the time try to get his teammates involved more? Please be objective here too

No, they don't. The thing is, they built that team around what Iverson was. Had he been more unselfish, and a better defender, that team looks different. I alluded to that in my first post, this thread question is irrelevant, because with any other superstar wing, the Sixers have a different roster makeup.

Chronz
09-21-2016, 11:10 AM
Between he and TP, who checks Kobe?

Hawkeye15
09-21-2016, 11:11 AM
Between he and TP, who checks Kobe?

Bowen. AI would have needed to come off the bench, just like Manu did. I am sure that would be just fine with AI......

YAALREADYKNO
09-21-2016, 11:18 AM
No, they don't. The thing is, they built that team around what Iverson was. Had he been more unselfish, and a better defender, that team looks different. I alluded to that in my first post, this thread question is irrelevant, because with any other superstar wing, the Sixers have a different roster makeup.

Thank you. All I've been saying

R. Johnson#3
09-21-2016, 11:19 AM
If peak Ginobli replaced AI on the Sixers then his career would've been over 7 or 8 years ago. There are very few players who could shoulder the load that AI did for 40+ minutes a game every year for a decade. IMO if you put just about anyone else outside of the all time greats on those Sixer teams then they'd be absolute crap.

mrblisterdundee
09-21-2016, 11:32 AM
First of all, any comparison of Manu Ginobili and Allen Iverson has to be on a per-36 minute basis. Second, Ginobili's style of more team-oriented basketball wouldn't have worked as well on such an offensively crappy 76ers team. A team like that takes someone willing to jack shots all day, like Iverson or Kobe Bryant.

YAALREADYKNO
09-21-2016, 11:34 AM
If peak Ginobli replaced AI on the Sixers then his career would've been over 7 or 8 years ago. There are very few players who could shoulder the load that AI did for 40+ minutes a game every year for a decade. IMO if you put just about anyone else outside of the all time greats on those Sixer teams then they'd be absolute crap.

But ginobili is more efficient and can get his teammates involved more so hed make them better...

Chronz
09-21-2016, 11:48 AM
First of all, any comparison of Manu Ginobili and Allen Iverson has to be on a per-36 minute basis. Second, Ginobili's style of more team-oriented basketball wouldn't have worked as well on such an offensively crappy 76ers team. A team like that takes someone willing to jack shots all day, like Iverson or Kobe Bryant.

Manu was capable of more than he showed in San Antonio, dont mistake the ability to play off others or in a structured system as a weakness, thats what every team strives towards. Manu won with Argentina playing more as a star while playing more of a team game than AI. Hell, I personally believe if Team USA had Manu instead of AI, Duncan never quits FIBA and we come home with Gold.

Most of you ignore the evolution of AI, he himself admits how much he improved and grew as both a player and a leader, he learned how to be coached, as much as humanly possible for him. Manu prolly retires alot sooner if he went elsewhere.


I always wondered what would have become of the Nuggets if the Spurs didn't match. Would Manu have taken a back seat to Melo like he did Duncan or would he rightfully want to be known as the superior player?

Chronz
09-21-2016, 11:54 AM
Another factor, how much does playing heavy minutes alter Manu's efficiency? Does AI get more efficient with less minutes or is he one of those players who prefers to stay out there, I always felt one of AI's biggest strengths is his sheer ability to stay on the court from start to finish. Manu cant do that.


But ginobili is more efficient and can get his teammates involved more so hed make them better...

Making teammates better has more to do with the attention you draw and the touches you require. Steve Nash will always be the best at making others better to me, efficiency is a big reason for it but moreso because of the fact that everyone knew if you gave him an open look he would destroy you consistently with his jumper. You couldn't afford to go under screens the way you would want with AI, and Manu was similar but he had to get his feet set.

He MASTERED the set shot-up fake and drive, and that is what opened up his passing game. What made Manu so special was his ability to dominate both with the starters or off the bench. With the starters he would slay scrambled defenses with that upfake and with the bench players he would pick you apart in the PnR as a defacto PG opening up shots for his teammates. Just an easy player to build with


Want to know how warped basketball fans were/might still be? They used to condemn him for coming off the bench, acting as if its easy to pull off when most head coaches I've heard speak attest to how much easier it is to maximize players by giving them starting/big minute roles. I say might because I like to think we've come a long way since the cliche days.

FlashBolt
09-21-2016, 11:58 AM
Billups's game was a better fit for Denver obviously because he was a natural pg. Denver should've known AI isn't a pg and he had his most success at SG but ya wanna keep talking how AI was inefficient in his 6ers days but look at that team. As soon as he pgot to Denver he shot a higher FG% and avg more assists once he had some offensive help. You can't honestly sit here and try to say that the 6ers would've had the same amount of success if Iverson was trying to get the rest of those guys involved more. Put Billups on those 6ers team and they don't get any better. That team needed Iverson to do what he did. It seems like y'all hold Iverson accountable for his teammates inability to shoot or score the basketball. It would be one thing if he was doing that back in 01 and they were losing but he got them all the way to the NBA finals yet we're supposed to act like anybody could duplicate what AI did that year just because they shot a higher fg% and was better at getting others involved while playing with much better teammates? Please. As great as manu was in his prime it didn't hurt the fact he was playing with Duncan who demanded double teams and a guy like Tony Parker who also puts pressure on Defenses. Going into a game against the 6ers u knew Iverson was the only threat and he still did what he did.

You just said he could play PG and be efficient... The fact is, AI was an inefficient player so it would be in the best interest for a team to have him also become more of a PG-oriented player. That never happened. Yeah, you knew what you were getting from the 6er's alright... and that was you were going to get 30 shots from AI and he will drop "30" on you. Teams got better when AI left and his refusal to become more team-oriented when he had the opportunity is something he shouldn't be applauded for.

FlashBolt
09-21-2016, 11:59 AM
what does any of this have to do with the topic?

Everything?

TheDish87
09-21-2016, 12:04 PM
Everything?

you mean nothing. please explain how anything post or prior to 2001 matters here?

FlashBolt
09-21-2016, 12:07 PM
you mean nothing. please explain how anything post or prior to 2001 matters here?

Because we're comparing two vastly different players and their style of play? Proving AI was selfish with or without great teammates pretty much tells me he wasn't willing to adjust his game. He couldn't do it in Denver, Pistons, or Grizzlies.

YAALREADYKNO
09-21-2016, 12:12 PM
You just said he could play PG and be efficient... The fact is, AI was an inefficient player so it would be in the best interest for a team to have him also become more of a PG-oriented player. That never happened. Yeah, you knew what you were getting from the 6er's alright... and that was you were going to get 30 shots from AI and he will drop "30" on you. Teams got better when AI left and his refusal to become more team-oriented when he had the opportunity is something he shouldn't be applauded for.

When did I say he could play point? I said when he had an actual teammate to help take some of the defensive pressure off of him his fg% went up and so did his assists. You seriously think that 01 6ers team would've been better with Eric snow and Dikembe taking away 5-6 shots from Iverson? Iverson had to do what he had to do to win and that was to try and score all the time since he was pretty much there lone threat offensively

FlashBolt
09-21-2016, 12:17 PM
When did I say he could play point? I said when he had an actual teammate to help take some of the defensive pressure off of him his fg% went up and so did his assists. You seriously think that 01 6ers team would've been better with Eric snow and Dikembe taking away 5-6 shots from Iverson? Iverson had to do what he had to do to win and that was to try and score all the time since he was pretty much there lone threat offensively

"It's like some of y'all act like Iverson having to be selfish was all on him."

Which pretty much implies that he could play point if he had more help. And again, that 01 Sixers team was catered to Iverson's inability to play a PG-oriented game so they decided to have him handle the offense while filling his team with defense. That's what THEY decided because they were building around AI. And quite frankly, that's what AI wanted because as I said before, Denver/Pistons/Memphis were clear examples that AI was all about AI. For Christ's sake, he went into Memphis and in front of Conley/Mayo said that he should be starting over them. That's the guy who you think cared for the well being of the team?

Shlumpledink
09-21-2016, 12:20 PM
Early in his career Manu was unguardable. Pop didn't like playing him because Manu was likely to stray from their system, but Pop didn't like NOT playing him because of how good Manu was and the magical things he would accomplish. Guy was always really clutch, and very difficult to guard with his "eurostep" and efficiency from the left side. Lefties are tough to guard, especially guys with his kind of mobility, shot creating, and efficiency. We hadn't seen a lefty with those abilities before, at least not to my knowledge.

YAALREADYKNO
09-21-2016, 12:27 PM
"It's like some of y'all act like Iverson having to be selfish was all on him."

Which pretty much implies that he could play point if he had more help. And again, that 01 Sixers team was catered to Iverson's inability to play a PG-oriented game so they decided to have him handle the offense while filling his team with defense. That's what THEY decided because they were building around AI. And quite frankly, that's what AI wanted because as I said before, Denver/Pistons/Memphis were clear examples that AI was all about AI. For Christ's sake, he went into Memphis and in front of Conley/Mayo said that he should be starting over them. That's the guy who you think cared for the well being of the team?

You know you could still pass the ball even if you're not the point
Still doesn't change the fact that as soon as he had some offensive help his fg% went up and he avg more assists considering that all y'all talk about is his Ineffiency while ignoring who he had on his team and then wanna act like you could just plug anybody on that 76ers team and they'd be just as successful

FlashBolt
09-21-2016, 12:33 PM
You know you could still pass the ball even if you're not the point
Still doesn't change the fact that as soon as he had some offensive help his fg% went up and he avg more assists considering that all y'all talk about is his Ineffiency while ignoring who he had on his team and then wanna act like you could just plug anybody on that 76ers team and they'd be just as successful

You said selfish... and PG's are supposed to NOT be selfish.

BTW, Iverson actually had a better assist/minute three times before he ever got to Denver. Why are you refusing to acknowledge that teams were better WITHOUT AI and that AI wasn't willing to play a certain way for the betterment of a team? All you do is reference how small/how much heart he had in carrying a team that didn't have much offensive talent. Buddy, the TEAM was built that way because AI WANTED to play that way. And you can say he didn't all you want but his history after the Sixers was filled with AI making complaints.

YAALREADYKNO
09-21-2016, 01:01 PM
You said selfish... and PG's are supposed to NOT be selfish.

BTW, Iverson actually had a better assist/minute three times before he ever got to Denver. Why are you refusing to acknowledge that teams were better WITHOUT AI and that AI wasn't willing to play a certain way for the betterment of a team? All you do is reference how small/how much heart he had in carrying a team that didn't have much offensive talent. Buddy, the TEAM was built that way because AI WANTED to play that way. And you can say he didn't all you want but his history after the Sixers was filled with AI making complaints.

Never said he was a point tho did I? I said he had to play the way he had to because nobody else was a threat offensively on that team
So according to you that 01 team would've been better off with Ginobili instead of Iverson or if Iverson would've played team ball more?

valade16
09-21-2016, 01:06 PM
We all know the 76ers were built that way because of AI's tendencies and selfishness. But now we're talking about swapping him with someone who the team isn't built around.

It's a different team now.

FlashBolt
09-21-2016, 01:12 PM
Never said he was a point tho did I? I said he had to play the way he had to because nobody else was a threat offensively on that team
So according to you that 01 team would've been better off with Ginobili instead of Iverson or if Iverson would've played team ball more?

I'm just questioning your defending of Iverson as if he could have played a certain way if he had more help. That's not true and you haven't disputed it one bit.

IKnowHoops
09-21-2016, 01:15 PM
Remember Manu's block?

On who?

TheDish87
09-21-2016, 01:36 PM
the bat

IKnowHoops
09-21-2016, 02:06 PM
the bat

ahhhhh

5ass
09-21-2016, 02:10 PM
On who?

KG I think

YAALREADYKNO
09-21-2016, 02:16 PM
I'm just questioning your defending of Iverson as if he could have played a certain way if he had more help. That's not true and you haven't disputed it one bit.

Ok so Iverson in 01 should've been like Steve Nash in 04. Instead of taking 30 shots he should've tooken 20 and let Aaron Mckie and Eric snow etc take more shots. They would've had the same amount of success then right? Because AI would be passing the ball more. Got it

Hawkeye15
09-21-2016, 02:34 PM
Ok so Iverson in 01 should've been like Steve Nash in 04. Instead of taking 30 shots he should've tooken 20 and let Aaron Mckie and Eric snow etc take more shots. They would've had the same amount of success then right? Because AI would be passing the ball more. Got it

I think the point is, AI demanded insane usage, and shots. For that reason, the team needed to be built around his strengths and weaknesses. Another player that required shots would probably not have meshed well with Iverson in his first 6-7 years. Hell, even when he did go to a team that had another scorer, he reverted back to old AI at some point, forcing the team to move him for a better fit.

Iverson was always about Iverson, and played for the name on the back of his jersey. That is why he never became an all time great imo.

R. Johnson#3
09-21-2016, 04:00 PM
But ginobili is more efficient and can get his teammates involved more so hed make them better...

I assume you didn't watch those Sixer teams AI was on. The one's with little to no offense outside of AI. Ginobli is a great player, but he would do nothing for those Sixer teams.

Hawkeye15
09-21-2016, 04:02 PM
I assume you didn't watch those Sixer teams AI was on. The one's with little to no offense outside of AI. Ginobli is a great player, but he would do nothing for those Sixer teams.

as I have stated twice now, with Manu, the Sixers build that team differently, because of his affinity for passing/including teammates. Plus, I am not sure Manu can play 40 mpg with his wrecking style.

YAALREADYKNO
09-21-2016, 04:32 PM
I think the point is, AI demanded insane usage, and shots. For that reason, the team needed to be built around his strengths and weaknesses. Another player that required shots would probably not have meshed well with Iverson in his first 6-7 years. Hell, even when he did go to a team that had another scorer, he reverted back to old AI at some point, forcing the team to move him for a better fit.

Iverson was always about Iverson, and played for the name on the back of his jersey. That is why he never became an all time great imo.

Melo is sorta the same way and it was clear Denver was building around him. And we were talking about 01. That team needed Iverson to play the way he played. Yes it catered around his strengths and weaknesses but isn't that what you do when you're trying to build around your superstar?

YAALREADYKNO
09-21-2016, 04:33 PM
I assume you didn't watch those Sixer teams AI was on. The one's with little to no offense outside of AI. Ginobli is a great player, but he would do nothing for those Sixer teams.

I know. I was being sarcastic when I said that

FlashBolt
09-21-2016, 05:44 PM
Ok so Iverson in 01 should've been like Steve Nash in 04. Instead of taking 30 shots he should've tooken 20 and let Aaron Mckie and Eric snow etc take more shots. They would've had the same amount of success then right? Because AI would be passing the ball more. Got it

I'm questioning your intellect on AI in 2001 right now. I never said AI didn't do a great job but the team was built that way because of AI's tendencies.. Yes, you build around your best player and quite frankly, it's tough to build around such a HIGH USG% player who has a ME mentality. And you might want to change your argument because I never said Manu would produce better results with the Sixers because AI is quite frankly a better player than Manu is under a team like that. But there is no doubt in my mind that Manu in the Spurs>AI in the Spurs because I don't trust AI to try and lead a team. I really hate how you ignore the type of player AI was and try to give him an excuse in regards to him being a ME player. It's documented everywhere. AI was for AI.

IKnowHoops
09-21-2016, 05:59 PM
I think AI would of done well with a good scoring Big. Like Webber, KG, Drob. They would of been able to take pressure off of each other like Kyrie does for Lebron.

FlashBolt
09-21-2016, 06:44 PM
I think AI would of done well with a good scoring Big. Like Webber, KG, Drob. They would of been able to take pressure off of each other like Kyrie does for Lebron.

Agreed.. Because KG+D-Rob are players better suited for a second option role. Disagree with Webber. He had a pretty good team with the Kings and he was always injured too.

YAALREADYKNO
09-21-2016, 09:47 PM
[QUOTE=FlashBolt;31187983]I'm questioning your intellect on AI in 2001 right now. I never said AI didn't do a great job but the team was built that way because of AI's tendencies.. Yes, you build around your best player and quite frankly, it's tough to build around such a HIGH USG% player who has a ME mentality. And you might want to change your argument because I never said Manu would produce better results with the Sixers because AI is quite frankly a better player than Manu is under a team like that. But there is no doubt in my mind that Manu in the Spurs>AI in the Spurs because I don't trust AI to try and lead a team. I really hate how you ignore the type of player AI was and try to give him an excuse in regards to him being a ME player. It's documented everywhere. AI was for AI.[/QUOTE

His ego got in the way of him being in the league a few more years but in 01 the man had to be selfish in order for that team to be successful.

TheDish87
09-22-2016, 09:56 AM
I think the point is, AI demanded insane usage, and shots. For that reason, the team needed to be built around his strengths and weaknesses. Another player that required shots would probably not have meshed well with Iverson in his first 6-7 years. Hell, even when he did go to a team that had another scorer, he reverted back to old AI at some point, forcing the team to move him for a better fit.

Iverson was always about Iverson, and played for the name on the back of his jersey. That is why he never became an all time great imo.

thats just not true. Iverson embraced this city more than any athlete that i have ever seen and bcuz of it he is arguably the most beloved Phlily athlete ever.

Mr_Jones
09-22-2016, 10:19 AM
Dude, who ****ing knows.

Hawkeye15
09-22-2016, 10:29 AM
thats just not true. Iverson embraced this city more than any athlete that i have ever seen and bcuz of it he is arguably the most beloved Phlily athlete ever.

that is his makeup thought. AI always treasured those who were loyal to him. It doesn't mean he wasn't inherently a selfish basketball player, which he was.

IKnowHoops
09-22-2016, 10:48 AM
Agreed.. Because KG+D-Rob are players better suited for a second option role. Disagree with Webber. He had a pretty good team with the Kings and he was always injured too.

Actually, they are players that never had a legitimate second option while they were in there primes and still carried there teams farther than other players who did so I would say your statement is an ignorant one.

FlashBolt
09-22-2016, 11:49 AM
Actually, they are players that never had a legitimate second option while they were in there primes and still carried there teams farther than other players who did so I would say your statement is an ignorant one.

No, they are players that are better suited for 2nd option roles which is why they never had a 2nd option player. And you saw the difference in that Tim/Pierce BOTH won rings as 1st option players while D.Rob/KG won rings as 2nd option players. And you'll see that with many players.. just like Scottie was a 2nd option player who could play 1st option.

Hawkeye15
09-22-2016, 11:52 AM
I agree D-Rob, and KG, were better suited for 2nd banana, no doubt.

JAZZNC
09-22-2016, 01:38 PM
I agree D-Rob, and KG, were better suited for 2nd banana, no doubt.

KG is the best "Draymond Green" type ever.

Chronz
09-22-2016, 01:53 PM
I agree D-Rob, and KG, were better suited for 2nd banana, no doubt.

2nd banana implies something else in my lexicon. Both were main bananas just they weren't primary options on that super elite level.

In a league where Richard Hamilton could technically be called his teams primary option, it doesn't take much to win a chip with KG/D-Rob, you just get the sense it takes alil more with him than guys like Duncan/Shaq.

Hawkeye15
09-22-2016, 02:14 PM
2nd banana implies something else in my lexicon. Both were main bananas just they weren't primary options on that super elite level.

In a league where Richard Hamilton could technically be called his teams primary option, it doesn't take much to win a chip with KG/D-Rob, you just get the sense it takes alil more with him than guys like Duncan/Shaq.

Rip was on a team that defied the norm though. Typically, only star driven teams win chips in the NBA. The Pistons had all star caliber players across basically every position, but no star.

I think an argument can be made that KG was the best player on Boston's chip team. But he was also historically dipped in the playoffs, so he clearly isn't a guy who can carry largely inferior talent to a playoff run. He is in the mold of superstars that does indeed need good firepower next to him at all times.

Shame that the big balls dance crippled Cassell in 04', I thought we had a good chance at it that year.

Chronz
09-22-2016, 02:39 PM
Rip was on a team that defied the norm though. Typically, only star driven teams win chips in the NBA. The Pistons had all star caliber players across basically every position, but no star.

My point was only that Rip wasnt even his teams 4th best player despite technically beings its #1 option. The opinion of star power holds no relevance as KG was in fact a star and an MVP of the league.

As for that argument, the term star can be subjective depending on your criteria but to me, the Pistons had stars and continued the norm of the most talented teams winning. Its out of the norm because its stars were underappreciated and their glory came in the days before people actually realized what stats are important.



I think an argument can be made that KG was the best player on Boston's chip team. But he was also historically dipped in the playoffs, so he clearly isn't a guy who can carry largely inferior talent to a playoff run. He is in the mold of superstars that does indeed need good firepower next to him at all times.
Shame that the big balls dance crippled Cassell in 04', I thought we had a good chance at it that year.

Thats kind of a contradiction to me because I feel KG did carry inferior talent, you're talking about old man Cassell as his 2nd best which is not too far off from Bron being straddled with Mo Williams a few years there (Big Z was his true best sidekick tho).

I think the Pistons crush you guys tho, definitely putting up more of a fight than an injured LA team under Kobe's reign of terror.

Hawkeye15
09-22-2016, 03:03 PM
My point was only that Rip wasnt even his teams 4th best player despite technically beings its #1 option. The opinion of star power holds no relevance as KG was in fact a star and an MVP of the league.

As for that argument, the term star can be subjective depending on your criteria but to me, the Pistons had stars and continued the norm of the most talented teams winning. Its out of the norm because its stars were underappreciated and their glory came in the days before people actually realized what stats are important.

how are you defining a #1 option? Pistons used matchups to define who how they gameplanned at times. Wasn't always the same player they ran offense for, though Rip and his constant motion kept at least a single defender from really helping.

Good point about it being in a transitional period of time, where stats were there, but not analyzed yet by the masses, including some teams. But how many teams since have had no top 5 players on a chip team?



Thats kind of a contradiction to me because I feel KG did carry inferior talent, you're talking about old man Cassell as his 2nd best which is not too far off from Bron being straddled with Mo Williams a few years there (Big Z was his true best sidekick tho).

Cassell's impact was greater than Mo, or Z. Obviously his all star nod was the "best team needs more than 1 all star", do that doesn't factor. But he was consistently good in tight games, and he really was the catalyst that saved us from going down 2-0 to Sac. He/Spree were good enough, in KG's absolute peak year, plus our defense was nasty. It's why I alluded (without saying), KG's entire career may have been different had Cassell not gotten hurt. We beat the Pistons in 2 tight games that season, and played similar to them (defense first, possession control), and I really think we may have beaten them.


I think the Pistons crush you guys tho, definitely putting up more of a fight than an injured LA team under Kobe's reign of terror.

I don't, because the matchups were not in either teams favor. What impact, outside rebounding, does Ben offer? He can't guard KG, and EJ wasn't used for anything but a flotation device on offense. Hassell did a decent job on Rip, and we were able to force the Pistons into turnovers, and limit their effectiveness in the half court.

YAALREADYKNO
09-23-2016, 08:17 AM
KG is the best "Draymond Green" type ever.

You mean draymond is the best KG type

JasonJohnHorn
09-23-2016, 08:58 AM
If you question is: What kind of number would Manu have put up on a team where where he was the primary scorer, the answer would be something like 20-5-5, or 22-6-6.

As for this team in particular, it seems like a flawed premise. That team was build around Iverson. They knew he wanted all the shots, they knew he needed to dominate the ball, and they knew he was a liability on defense, so they got guys who didn't want to shoot that much, and could hit open shots, or front court guys that could defend and rebound. How well would Manu do in that kind of situation? Hard to tell.... They would have needed another scorer because Manu isn't the ball hog that AI was, but if you upgraded Eric Snow to a guy like Mo Williams, that team is likely still in the finals.

KnicksorBust
09-23-2016, 10:52 AM
If you question is: What kind of number would Manu have put up on a team where where he was the primary scorer, the answer would be something like 20-5-5, or 22-6-6.

As for this team in particular, it seems like a flawed premise. That team was build around Iverson. They knew he wanted all the shots, they knew he needed to dominate the ball, and they knew he was a liability on defense, so they got guys who didn't want to shoot that much, and could hit open shots, or front court guys that could defend and rebound. How well would Manu do in that kind of situation? Hard to tell.... They would have needed another scorer because Manu isn't the ball hog that AI was, but if you upgraded Eric Snow to a guy like Mo Williams, that team is likely still in the finals.

That's why putting him on the Sixers is so interesting because Iverson carried the scoring load to an absurd degree. Partly because it is his style of play and partly because of the lack of offensive talent surrounding him. Manu is a stat nerd darling who some people believe cannot be properly rated based on his raw statistics because he sacrificed for the greater good. That was his situation as one of the greatest 6th men of all-time. It was what his team needed him to do and he played that role exceptionally well. Yes as a primary option he would have scored slightly more points and still been efficient. BORING! That's why that's not the question.

The real question is:

What if Manu had to go to that defensive juggernaut but offensive wasteland that was early 2000s Philly and had to score 30ppg on a nightly basis? Could he do it? How bad would his efficiency dip? Would Philly be better or worse? That's the question JJH. No changing it. :)

R. Johnson#3
09-23-2016, 12:43 PM
I know. I was being sarcastic when I said that

Didn't realize. It's hard to detect sarcasm in the NBA forum when it's flooded with threads that have no right answer.

KingstonHawke
09-23-2016, 02:02 PM
Manu wouldn't have done very good. I don't think he's a #1 option on any successful team at any point in his career. At his very best he's James Harden minus the athleticism. And James Harden at his best couldn't have done with that roster what Iverson did.

I could see Manu having an inefficient 23/4/4 type of season while playing very bad defense and at most making the first round in a weak east.

kdspurman
09-23-2016, 02:20 PM
Manu wouldn't have done very good. I don't think he's a #1 option on any successful team at any point in his career. At his very best he's James Harden minus the athleticism. And James Harden at his best couldn't have done with that roster what Iverson did.

I could see Manu having an inefficient 23/4/4 type of season while playing very bad defense and at most making the first round in a weak east.


Did you watch young Manu?

Shammyguy3
09-23-2016, 03:15 PM
And the very bad defense part too kd^

KingstonHawke
09-23-2016, 03:18 PM
Did you watch young Manu?

You think a young Manu has the same athleticism as James Harden? Are you serious? lol

I'm not sure if you're overstating Ginobili or if you're understating Harden. As much as I love Manu for being such a team player and an intelligent gutsy player. He's not all that. You swap him and Brandon Roy and the Spurs improve, Roy stays healthy, Manu doesn't, etc. He's benefited greatly from being in that situation with a PG who could always penetrate, and the top PF of all time always commanding double teams and picking up the slack on defense.

I WISH the 76ers would've lost one more game and went on to draft Duncan. People love to talk bad about Iverson. But in reality, he's one of the top guards to ever play. Ahead of Thomas. And if he played his whole career with Duncan they'd of been one of the best duos of all time. Only better duo that should've happened and didn't is Webber and Shaq.

KingstonHawke
09-23-2016, 03:21 PM
And the very bad defense part too kd^

Double your offensive usage... triple your offensive effort because now defenses are focusing on you... something has to give. Jordan isn't Jordan without Pippen being there to give him a break on defense whenever need be. That Snow and Mckie were not Pippen lol. I don't even think he stays healthy all year in that setting. Not with his play style. manu plays too much like Wade.

TheDish87
09-23-2016, 04:37 PM
You think a young Manu has the same athleticism as James Harden? Are you serious? lol

I'm not sure if you're overstating Ginobili or if you're understating Harden. As much as I love Manu for being such a team player and an intelligent gutsy player. He's not all that. You swap him and Brandon Roy and the Spurs improve, Roy stays healthy, Manu doesn't, etc. He's benefited greatly from being in that situation with a PG who could always penetrate, and the top PF of all time always commanding double teams and picking up the slack on defense.

I WISH the 76ers would've lost one more game and went on to draft Duncan. People love to talk bad about Iverson. But in reality, he's one of the top guards to ever play. Ahead of Thomas. And if he played his whole career with Duncan they'd of been one of the best duos of all time. Only better duo that should've happened and didn't is Webber and Shaq.

or we could have just drafted Pierce instead of Hughes! AI and PP would have been nasty.

Shammyguy3
09-23-2016, 07:32 PM
You think a young Manu has the same athleticism as James Harden? Are you serious? lol

I'm not sure if you're overstating Ginobili or if you're understating Harden. As much as I love Manu for being such a team player and an intelligent gutsy player. He's not all that. You swap him and Brandon Roy and the Spurs improve, Roy stays healthy, Manu doesn't, etc. He's benefited greatly from being in that situation with a PG who could always penetrate, and the top PF of all time always commanding double teams and picking up the slack on defense.

I WISH the 76ers would've lost one more game and went on to draft Duncan. People love to talk bad about Iverson. But in reality, he's one of the top guards to ever play. Ahead of Thomas. And if he played his whole career with Duncan they'd of been one of the best duos of all time. Only better duo that should've happened and didn't is Webber and Shaq.

They are similar in athleticism. Who cares if Harden is a 7/10 and Manu is a 7.2/10. Or Harden is a 6.8/10 and Manu is a 6.6/10. Their playing styles are identical with how they use change of pace more than their athleticism.

But yes, they are equally gifted athletic players. And the Roy comment, that doesn't have anything to do with this thread even if it was accurate. Roy had a degenerative knee condition, that's different than Manu's injuries.


Double your offensive usage... triple your offensive effort because now defenses are focusing on you... something has to give. Jordan isn't Jordan without Pippen being there to give him a break on defense whenever need be. That Snow and Mckie were not Pippen lol. I don't even think he stays healthy all year in that setting. Not with his play style. manu plays too much like Wade.

True, but that doesn't mean he goes from being a very good defensive player to an awful one..... which is what you suggested

JasonJohnHorn
09-24-2016, 09:20 AM
That's why putting him on the Sixers is so interesting because Iverson carried the scoring load to an absurd degree. Partly because it is his style of play and partly because of the lack of offensive talent surrounding him. Manu is a stat nerd darling who some people believe cannot be properly rated based on his raw statistics because he sacrificed for the greater good. That was his situation as one of the greatest 6th men of all-time. It was what his team needed him to do and he played that role exceptionally well. Yes as a primary option he would have scored slightly more points and still been efficient. BORING! That's why that's not the question.

The real question is:

What if Manu had to go to that defensive juggernaut but offensive wasteland that was early 2000s Philly and had to score 30ppg on a nightly basis? Could he do it? How bad would his efficiency dip? Would Philly be better or worse? That's the question JJH. No changing it. :)

GMs design teams around what they have. Manu didn't play like Iverson. Philly's GM had a helluva time building around Iverson and put an odd combination of players around him to make it work. Had Philly had Manu to start with, the GM would have had a much easier time building around him I think.

Iverson is a more impressive individual talent; Manu is a better team player. He was never even a first option, so it wouldn't be fair to expect him to step into that role. It's a loaded question that is bound to make Iverson look good, when he was the reason the GM had to put together such an odd group of players.


But Iverson is also a PG (regardless of what people say) and Manu is a SG. It'd be like asking if you put Reggie Miller on the Suns instead of Nash would they be as good? Apples and oranges.

KingstonHawke
09-24-2016, 10:35 AM
GMs design teams around what they have. Manu didn't play like Iverson. Philly's GM had a helluva time building around Iverson and put an odd combination of players around him to make it work. Had Philly had Manu to start with, the GM would have had a much easier time building around him I think.

Iverson is a more impressive individual talent; Manu is a better team player. He was never even a first option, so it wouldn't be fair to expect him to step into that role. It's a loaded question that is bound to make Iverson look good, when he was the reason the GM had to put together such an odd group of players.


But Iverson is also a PG (regardless of what people say) and Manu is a SG. It'd be like asking if you put Reggie Miller on the Suns instead of Nash would they be as good? Apples and oranges.

This just isn't true. All this nonsense about Iverson not being a team player. But look what he achieved with JR Smith, Carmelo Anthony, and Kenyon Martin all in the same lineup. Those are all volatile personalities and ridiculous shot takers at times (Smith all the time). And all he did with that unit is put up MVP like numbers running the point.

White people disparage Iverson like no other. Put Iverson on the Spurs as their 6th man with his only responsibility being scoring and that team would've won DOUBLE the championships. There's no comparison. And Iverson was better on D as well.

kdspurman
09-24-2016, 11:33 AM
You think a young Manu has the same athleticism as James Harden? Are you serious? lol

I'm not sure if you're overstating Ginobili or if you're understating Harden. As much as I love Manu for being such a team player and an intelligent gutsy player. He's not all that. You swap him and Brandon Roy and the Spurs improve, Roy stays healthy, Manu doesn't, etc. He's benefited greatly from being in that situation with a PG who could always penetrate, and the top PF of all time always commanding double teams and picking up the slack on defense.

I WISH the 76ers would've lost one more game and went on to draft Duncan. People love to talk bad about Iverson. But in reality, he's one of the top guards to ever play. Ahead of Thomas. And if he played his whole career with Duncan they'd of been one of the best duos of all time. Only better duo that should've happened and didn't is Webber and Shaq.

People define athleticism differently, but I absolutely think Manu was and felt he kept his body in great shape. Never showed up to camp overweight or any of that stuff.

And it doesn't work like that. Roy and Manu are completely different players. There's no way to say the Spurs improve or get worse with Roy.

You can say he benefited greatly from Parker/Duncan, but maybe you should watch some of his stuff from Argentina's national team. The guy was a stud and could've definitely been "the guy" somewhere. Now due to his style of play and non stop motor, he probably doesn't last as long as he did, but he definitely had the talent for it.

Pop told a story how when Manu came in the league , he was in training camp and giving 110%, diving on the floor, etc... and pop had to reel him in a little. He only knows how to play at 1 level, and it was probably a gift and a curse due to his injuries. But he is a freak competitor and his biggest critic. I think you're underrating him big time tbh

kdspurman
09-24-2016, 11:36 AM
This just isn't true. All this nonsense about Iverson not being a team player. But look what he achieved with JR Smith, Carmelo Anthony, and Kenyon Martin all in the same lineup. Those are all volatile personalities and ridiculous shot takers at times (Smith all the time). And all he did with that unit is put up MVP like numbers running the point.

White people disparage Iverson like no other. Put Iverson on the Spurs as their 6th man with his only responsibility being scoring and that team would've won DOUBLE the championships. There's no comparison. And Iverson was better on D as well.

People really think that's how this works? Manu was a better fit for the Spurs just as Iverson was a better fit for the team in question.

Iverson did not have the personality/mindset to fit in with SA like Manu did. Doubt it would've worked out as well man

KnicksorBust
09-26-2016, 11:34 AM
GMs design teams around what they have. Manu didn't play like Iverson. Philly's GM had a helluva time building around Iverson and put an odd combination of players around him to make it work. Had Philly had Manu to start with, the GM would have had a much easier time building around him I think.

Is it really that hard to build around Iverson? 4 defensive role players. Done. With Manu don't you need more offensive fire power and still the defense?


Iverson is a more impressive individual talent; Manu is a better team player. He was never even a first option, so it wouldn't be fair to expect him to step into that role. It's a loaded question that is bound to make Iverson look good, when he was the reason the GM had to put together such an odd group of players.

Hardly my intention. If anything I think some of the responses in this thread prove that people think Manu is BETTER than Hall of Famer Allen Iverson. Plus you neglect that Manu did lead the Spurs in scoring (ppg) in 2008 after they won the title.


But Iverson is also a PG (regardless of what people say) and Manu is a SG. It'd be like asking if you put Reggie Miller on the Suns instead of Nash would they be as good? Apples and oranges.

PER 36 numbers:
Reggie - 3.3 apg
Nash - 9.8 apg
Iverson - 5.4 apg
Manu - 5.4 apg

Is that really the same thing to you? :confused: