PDA

View Full Version : Where do you rank Iverson All-Time?



Pages : [1] 2

lol, please
01-14-2018, 01:53 AM
Where do you rank the Iconic cross-over king All-Time? Where is his place among the greats?


https://thumbs.gfycat.com/MajorBeneficialAngwantibo-max-1mb.gif

More-Than-Most
01-14-2018, 01:56 AM
not in the top 30. Overrated as hell in all honesty.

Jeffy25
01-14-2018, 02:12 AM
Top 75ish

Jets012
01-14-2018, 02:14 AM
Not in my top 70

WaDe03
01-14-2018, 03:00 AM
30+ easily.

jaydubb
01-14-2018, 03:27 AM
#84

Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk

Jamiecballer
01-14-2018, 05:52 AM
this is one of those guys, hell maybe the only guy - whose influence on the culture of the game and the players was huge - and will be largely forgotten by the fans in 15-20 years.

top 10 talent and quite possibly the worst teammate in the history of the sport.

Heediot
01-14-2018, 07:30 AM
this is one of those guys, hell maybe the only guy - whose influence on the culture of the game and the players was huge - and will be largely forgotten by the fans in 15-20 years.

top 10 talent and quite possibly the worst teammate in the history of the sport.

That's a bit harsh. Yeah at the end of his career his ego got the best of him as he didn't want to settle for a reduced role. Are there any sources that said AI was a bad team mate or guys didn't want to play with him pre-detroit days?

KnicksorBust
01-14-2018, 08:15 AM
#84

Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk

I have him top 83. Stop underrating him.

warfelg
01-14-2018, 09:27 AM
I put him in the 25-40 range. The only man that could stop AI was AI.

KnicksorBust
01-14-2018, 10:38 AM
I put him in the 25-40 range. The only man that could stop AI was AI.

From his accomplishments... scoring titles...allstar games...allnba teams...league mvp... he should be top 60. I dont think I could get him near top 30 though.

Jamiecballer
01-14-2018, 12:02 PM
That's a bit harsh. Yeah at the end of his career his ego got the best of him as he didn't want to settle for a reduced role. Are there any sources that said AI was a bad team mate or guys didn't want to play with him pre-detroit days?Harsh? Have you seen a more selfish player on the court? How about his dedication/interest in practice?

I legit shot milk out my nose when I read that while I was eating breakfast.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-J120A using Tapatalk

warfelg
01-14-2018, 02:03 PM
From his accomplishments... scoring titles...allstar games...allnba teams...league mvp... he should be top 60. I dont think I could get him near top 30 though.

Iíll try to find the quotes but thereís quite a few guys that said that about AI being the only person able to stop AI. Thatís why I do put him higher. If he wanted to get to the rim he could get there. I would have loved to see him in his prime playing with these wing rules.

Shammyguy3
01-14-2018, 02:52 PM
Top-100

europagnpilgrim
01-14-2018, 03:13 PM
Top 5 of his era, easily

tredigs
01-14-2018, 05:40 PM
Top 5 of his era, easily

Don't be bashful. You have him as top 20 player of all time. Expound on it.

Heediot
01-14-2018, 07:25 PM
Harsh? Have you seen a more selfish player on the court? How about his dedication/interest in practice?

I legit shot milk out my nose when I read that while I was eating breakfast.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-J120A using Tapatalk

No one's denying he's selfish. I know you have biases towards a certain way players and teams should play. He has his flaws with his shot selection and the practice incident, but I bet he has his backers too. The plays hard and leaves it all on the court chasing loose balls and flying all over the court. Calling him the worst team mate ever is a huge exaggeration. Like I said I might be missing something and am willing to concede of you just provide me sources. We all heard the practice soundbyte and the former mvp soundbyte, but I need more.

LA_Raiders
01-14-2018, 07:35 PM
Not sure, dude was great in his era, but did not play for long imo. Top 50

ewing
01-14-2018, 08:29 PM
Harsh? Have you seen a more selfish player on the court? How about his dedication/interest in practice?

I legit shot milk out my nose when I read that while I was eating breakfast.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-J120A using Tapatalk

No one wants to hear about you shooting your milk


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Chronz
01-14-2018, 09:07 PM
Top 60 or 50 if I want to be generous

WaDe03
01-14-2018, 10:30 PM
Top 5 of his era, easily

That wasn't the question.

Jamiecballer
01-15-2018, 12:01 AM
No one's denying he's selfish. I know you have biases towards a certain way players and teams should play. He has his flaws with his shot selection and the practice incident, but I bet he has his backers too. The plays hard and leaves it all on the court chasing loose balls and flying all over the court. Calling him the worst team mate ever is a huge exaggeration. Like I said I might be missing something and am willing to concede of you just provide me sources. We all heard the practice soundbyte and the former mvp soundbyte, but I need more.

Meh, I wouldn't call it biases. I've seen what works and what does not for the most part. Just look at the way the game has evolved the last 5 years - all of the sudden we have remembered that moving the ball around until it finds an open man (regardless of who it finds) is more effective than isolating the games top scoring talents over and over. Of course the Spurs were successful in indoctrinating this mindset for the past 20 years or so but did so in the post Jordan years that were characterized by an endless line of college players trying to 'be like mike'.

It seems to have taken the brilliance and flashy play of the Warriors to remind everyone of what we always knew - that nothing disrupts defenses the way multiple passes does and the best shot is the open one. The fans fell for the Jordan clones and their ball pounding says but the players, the guys who play ball all their lives should not be given a free pass. Dumb basketball IS selfish basketball and nobody personified this in the history of the game moreso than Iverson as far as I'm concerned.

I'm curious though what it takes to get a selfish rep in your eyes. Do you need to hear testimonials from players, or read of 'incidents'? I'm genuinely curious.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-J120A using Tapatalk

Jamiecballer
01-15-2018, 12:01 AM
No one wants to hear about you shooting your milk


Sent from my iPhone using TapatalkLol perve

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-J120A using Tapatalk

mightybosstone
01-15-2018, 12:23 AM
Top 60 or 50 if I want to be generous

This. I don't think he belongs anywhere near the top 30. But regardless of how bad his advanced numbers look, I think he deserves more credit than posters saying he's top 80 or top 100. The guy was an MVP and a four-time scoring champ who took an underwhelming Sixers team to the Finals. And he was All-NBA seven times. That at least warrants him being in the top 50-60 conversation.

mightybosstone
01-15-2018, 12:28 AM
Top 5 of his era, easily

Assuming we limit the conversation to guys who came into the league in the late 90s and played through the late 2000s, who of these guys was he better than?

- Shaquille O'Neal
- Kobe Bryant
- Kevin Garnett
- Dirk Nowitzki
- Steve Nash
- Jason Kidd
- Paul Pierce
- Ray Allen

Hawkeye15
01-15-2018, 12:33 AM
I would probably argue against him until around 45-50, then give up cause it's close enough to accurate

jaydubb
01-15-2018, 01:03 AM
I think he'd be ranked somewhere around where Charles Barkley is. Around the 40-50 range or so. Both were undersized players that excelled at their positions but failed to actually win a championship. I do think both would be considered higher on most people's list had they won a couple championships (and both being just a couple inches taller woulda helped too)

Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk

LOb0
01-15-2018, 01:30 AM
This. I don't think he belongs anywhere near the top 30. But regardless of how bad his advanced numbers look, I think he deserves more credit than posters saying he's top 80 or top 100. The guy was an MVP and a four-time scoring champ who took an underwhelming Sixers team to the Finals. And he was All-NBA seven times. That at least warrants him being in the top 50-60 conversation.


I think he was the worst MVP in history as well.

europagnpilgrim
01-15-2018, 03:06 AM
Assuming we limit the conversation to guys who came into the league in the late 90s and played through the late 2000s, who of these guys was he better than?

- Shaquille O'Neal
- Kobe Bryant
- Kevin Garnett
- Dirk Nowitzki
- Steve Nash
- Jason Kidd
- Paul Pierce
- Ray Allen

How about you just hear it from the first player you have on your list, Diesel

https://youtu.be/SBZ2jlhwpR0

make sure you run and tell everybody who has him in the 50-60 range, Shaq and Lebron are dumb when it comes to judging Iverson as a ball player

europagnpilgrim
01-15-2018, 03:08 AM
That wasn't the question.

https://youtu.be/SBZ2jlhwpR0

You cant handle TheAnswer

Jeffy25
01-15-2018, 03:11 AM
How about you just hear it from the first player you have on your list, Diesel

https://youtu.be/SBZ2jlhwpR0

make sure you run and tell everybody who has him in the 50-60 range, Shaq and Lebron are dumb when it comes to judging Iverson as a ball player

Appeals to authority make horrible arguments. Especially when it comes from peers.

europagnpilgrim
01-15-2018, 03:14 AM
Top 5 of his era, could score in so many different ways it wasn't funny, that good since HighSchool

https://youtu.be/SC2ma6teI0Q

tredigs
01-15-2018, 03:17 AM
I think he was the worst MVP in history as well.

Shaq was an incredible force on the court.


He's also a complete clown as an analyst and would have been fired the moment he stepped on set if he did not have his pedigree. Looking forward to your Paul Pierce hot take next...

europagnpilgrim
01-15-2018, 03:19 AM
I am taking the 99' version Iverson over your favorite guard

https://youtu.be/3rQ32xftPQE

tredigs
01-15-2018, 03:20 AM
I am taking the 99' version Iverson over your favorite guard

https://youtu.be/3rQ32xftPQE

Does it also come with the #1 defense in the league who completely carried them on that end? Because that's the only version of AI I want.

europagnpilgrim
01-15-2018, 03:31 AM
Appeals to authority make horrible arguments. Especially when it comes from peers.

so who would you believe yourself who watched him play on tv or some who played against him for years? Iverson wasn't a media darling so it wouldn't fit Shaq to put him that high, he could have easily said top 20 and not top 5, just like Lebron said he was the pound for pound ''greatest''

I just find it comical that guys who actually play in the nba against those players would be on the other side of the fence than those on the outside looking in who think Iverson is around the 50's range but you have 2 living legends who say different, I am not buying what you are selling

Duncan spoke highly as well of Iverson, says he was top 10, and not of his era

I guess it takes psd to figure out where Iverson ranks because its too much of a stock market when it comes to him, up and down

psd is the place to find out where Iverson ranks since the actual coaches and players don't have a clue

now Chuck Daly said he was top 10 all time as well, does he qualify as his peer or his teacher?

Jeffy25
01-15-2018, 03:35 AM
so who would you believe yourself who watched him play on tv or some who played against him for years? Iverson wasn't a media darling so it wouldn't fit Shaq to put him that high, he could have easily said top 20 and not top 5, just like Lebron said he was the pound for pound ''greatest''

I just find it comical that guys who actually play in the nba against those players would be on the other side of the fence than those on the outside looking in who think Iverson is around the 50's range but you have 2 living legends who say different, I am not buying what you are selling

Duncan spoke highly as well of Iverson, says he was top 10, and not of his era

I guess it takes psd to figure out where Iverson ranks because its too much of a stock market when it comes to him, up and down

psd is the place to find out where Iverson ranks since the actual coaches and players don't have a clue

now Chuck Daly said he was top 10 all time as well, does he qualify as his peer or his teacher?

Nobody, that's a God awful, subjective way to measure value and talent.

It's one of the worst argument fallacies out there.

https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority

europagnpilgrim
01-15-2018, 03:35 AM
Does it also come with the #1 defense in the league who completely carried them on that end? Because that's the only version of AI I want.

he contributed on that with steals, steals is apart of defense right? or not when it comes to Iverson?

does offense count for him or against him? did that team carry him to a # 1 ranked offense or top 5? how good is a player who avg 6.8ppg for his career is? and 3ppg pre Iverson, did he carry Iverson as well or is the nba game just played on defensive side?

can some expert on here tell me where does ERIC SNOW and AARON MCKIE rank all time because some on here say Iverson is in the 80 or 60 or 50ish range, where would you rank his core players, would they even qualify on the top 200 list?

I need a quick education on that from anyone on here, ASAP

europagnpilgrim
01-15-2018, 03:38 AM
Nobody, that's a God awful, subjective way to measure value and talent.

It's one of the worst argument fallacies out there.

https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority

What ranking would have been fair so you could agree with Shaq

Argument from authority? turn on the game film and refresh your memory, Iverson showcased what he could do, its not my fault Lebron and Shaq feel he did as well, their words not mine, and damn sure not yours

now I grant you the authority to argue some more

measuring value is what the person sees in whatever floats its boat, talent is something that just jumps off the screen when you are watching on tv or make you pay and go see them play live, that's Iverson right there, his talent was all world and his value was to the GLeaguers and sixers franchise he carried for 10yrs, even stevie wonder can see that

tredigs
01-15-2018, 03:46 AM
he contributed on that with steals, steals is apart of defense right? or not when it comes to Iverson?

does offense count for him or against him? did that team carry him to a # 1 ranked offense or top 5? how good is a player who avg 6.8ppg for his career is? and 3ppg pre Iverson, did he carry Iverson as well or is the nba game just played on defensive side?

can some expert on here tell me where does ERIC SNOW and AARON MCKIE rank all time because some on here say Iverson is in the 80 or 60 or 50ish range, where would you rank his core players, would they even qualify on the top 200 list?

I need a quick education on that from anyone on here, ASAP
Top 5 offense? Their offense wasn't remotely close to top 5. Wasn't even top 10. Granted, they did scrape out impressive wins over the 45-55 win Bucks and Raptors before being demolished in the Finals by the Lakers. So there is that. Nobody is guilty of saying the East is bad for a legacy.

And no bud, steals don't matter much in the grand scheme of team defense.

Jeffy25
01-15-2018, 03:54 AM
What ranking would have been fair so you could agree with Shaq

Argument from authority? turn on the game film and refresh your memory, Iverson showcased what he could do, its not my fault Lebron and Shaq feel he did as well, their words not mine, and damn sure not yours

now I grant you the authority to argue some more

measuring value is what the person sees in whatever floats its boat, talent is something that just jumps off the screen when you are watching on tv or make you pay and go see them play live, that's Iverson right there, his talent was all world and his value was to the GLeaguers and sixers franchise he carried for 10yrs, even stevie wonder can see that

Talent is worthless when it doesn't translate to success.

jaydubb
01-15-2018, 04:35 AM
so who would you believe yourself who watched him play on tv or some who played against him for years? Iverson wasn't a media darling so it wouldn't fit Shaq to put him that high, he could have easily said top 20 and not top 5, just like Lebron said he was the pound for pound ''greatest''

I just find it comical that guys who actually play in the nba against those players would be on the other side of the fence than those on the outside looking in who think Iverson is around the 50's range but you have 2 living legends who say different, I am not buying what you are selling

Duncan spoke highly as well of Iverson, says he was top 10, and not of his era

I guess it takes psd to figure out where Iverson ranks because its too much of a stock market when it comes to him, up and down

psd is the place to find out where Iverson ranks since the actual coaches and players don't have a clue

now Chuck Daly said he was top 10 all time as well, does he qualify as his peer or his teacher? OK, shaq and Duncan and others rank Iverson very favorably, but where do you rank Iverson all time?

Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk

Chronz
01-15-2018, 04:59 AM
Top 5 offense? Their offense wasn't remotely close to top 5. Wasn't even top 10. Granted, they did scrape out impressive wins over the 45-55 win Bucks and Raptors before being demolished in the Finals by the Lakers. So there is that. Nobody is guilty of saying the East is bad for a legacy.

And no bud, steals don't matter much in the grand scheme of team defense.
There was nothing remotely impressive about AI barely surviving the east and being outplayed by e every star. He's just lucky his defense pulled through for his midget ***

Chronz
01-15-2018, 05:02 AM
Top 5 of his era, could score in so many different ways it wasn't funny, that good since HighSchool

https://youtu.be/SC2ma6teI0Q

Nah. High school ai would've spent the year on the ir. You ignoring physical maturity keeps you ignorant

Chronz
01-15-2018, 05:03 AM
OK, shaq and Duncan and others rank Iverson very favorably, but where do you rank Iverson all time?

Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk

Show me there legit ranking from today. Just for ***** and giggles

LOb0
01-15-2018, 05:16 AM
There was nothing remotely impressive about AI barely surviving the east and being outplayed by e every star. He's just lucky his defense pulled through for his midget ***

"But he dragged a team of bums to the finals"


Classic idiot that knows nothing about basketball response.

Chronz
01-15-2018, 05:36 AM
"But he dragged a team of bums to the finals"


Classic idiot that knows nothing about basketball response.

I remember when I used to think the DPOY, 6moy, coy and the best role players in the conference meant you had nothing but bums around you. As I grew up, I realized it was AI that was the problem. Dude isn't as good as his popularity suggested

Heediot
01-15-2018, 08:35 AM
Meh, I wouldn't call it biases. I've seen what works and what does not for the most part. Just look at the way the game has evolved the last 5 years - all of the sudden we have remembered that moving the ball around until it finds an open man (regardless of who it finds) is more effective than isolating the games top scoring talents over and over. Of course the Spurs were successful in indoctrinating this mindset for the past 20 years or so but did so in the post Jordan years that were characterized by an endless line of college players trying to 'be like mike'.

It seems to have taken the brilliance and flashy play of the Warriors to remind everyone of what we always knew - that nothing disrupts defenses the way multiple passes does and the best shot is the open one. The fans fell for the Jordan clones and their ball pounding says but the players, the guys who play ball all their lives should not be given a free pass. Dumb basketball IS selfish basketball and nobody personified this in the history of the game moreso than Iverson as far as I'm concerned.

I'm curious though what it takes to get a selfish rep in your eyes. Do you need to hear testimonials from players, or read of 'incidents'? I'm genuinely curious.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-J120A using Tapatalk

I think ball movement is really valuable but isolation plays and players also serve their purpose. The KD pull up 3 in the finals at Cleveland was a dagger. Kyries shot over Curry for the title. If Ball movement was everything, a team like the Milsap/Horford hawks would have made the finals or won the title. I think the Raps are going to get exposed again, even with the change toward that style of play in the playoffs. It still comes down to talent and who can make the big shots. The end of games is an ISO fest 80 percent of the time. Well oiled machine offenses can build big leads and it won`t have to come down to that. But you can also build big leads like the LeBron heat with defense and a crazy transition-iso team. OKC was an ISO team with KD that held their own but they choked it away against the record breaking GS (ball movement team). It wasn`t due to style of play. There`s more then one way to skin a cat. I think it boils down to who plays better when it matters most in clutch situations.

As for AI, back then there was no advanced stats and trackers telling players their sweet spots and such. Guys like AI had defined roles, the coaches wanted him to chuck the ball. Just the ball in his hands put a lot of pressure on defenses back then. Players had more defined roles back in the 90's early 00s. I think his team mates understood that and they got a long fine. Even a chucker like Melo has his supporters in today's game like Porzy. I don't think he was a bad team mate until the point where he didn't want to come off the bench. But for all his off the court distractions, I didn't here much about him being a cancer. Larry Brown the most impatient coach in NBA history had his longest tenure with AI, he even lauds Iverson's leadership abilities. There has to some merit in that. I think the only time you can call him a real bad team mate is at the end of his career when he didn`t want to come off the Bench.

warfelg
01-15-2018, 08:52 AM
As for AI, back then there was no advanced stats and trackers telling players their sweet spots and such. Guys like AI had defined roles, the coaches wanted him to chuck the ball. Just the ball in his hands put a lot of pressure on defenses back then. Players had more defined roles back in the 90's early 00s. I think his team mates understood that and they got a long fine. Even a chucker like Melo has his supporters in today's game like Porzy. I don't think he was a bad team mate until the point where he didn't want to come off the bench. But for all his off the court distractions, I didn't here much about him being a cancer. Larry Brown the most impatient coach in NBA history had his longest tenure with AI, he even lauds Iverson's leadership abilities. There has to some merit in that. I think the only time you can call him a real bad team mate is at the end of his career when he didn`t want to come off the Bench.

And that's what I hate. We're applying what we know now to what he did then.

I think we've hit a point where AI is getting so hated he might be underrated at this point.

ManningToTyree
01-15-2018, 09:06 AM
Right around 50

bagwell368
01-15-2018, 10:49 AM
Out of the top 100.

Volume scorer - of all the players that held the ball as much as him he is by far the least effective scorer (using averages of the time)

Too short to be SG, not good enough passer to be PG. Generally meh->poor defense.

Forced his way out of cities and contracts. Behavior problems. Fake injuries.

What winning culture?

What's with this "fashion leader" crap - what does that matter?

Terminally overrated by those that love highlight film and only understand scoring.

bagwell368
01-15-2018, 10:53 AM
I think he'd be ranked somewhere around where Charles Barkley is. Around the 40-50 range or so. Both were undersized players that excelled at their positions but failed to actually win a championship. I do think both would be considered higher on most people's list had they won a couple championships (and both being just a couple inches taller woulda helped too)

Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk

Barkley is a top 20, he mashes AI.

bagwell368
01-15-2018, 11:05 AM
I think he was the worst MVP in history as well.

Not sure about that. Bullets had a certain overweight Center that won as a rookie - either he or Rose was the youngest ever to win. Unseld had the 2nd lowest WS/48 ever, the lowest was Cowens who I saw up close and his WS/48 was depressed by the amount of time he was on the floor. Unseld was a vacuum rebounder but 13.8 PPG? Voters were sick of Bill and Wilt winning every year (9 of the previous 10).

So no.

Forever35
01-15-2018, 11:38 AM
I put him in the 25-40 range. The only man that could stop AI was AI.

Yup... IMO toughest player in the last 20 years... 41mpg with Philly... 10 straight seasons at 40+mpg... :speechless:

Practice... :D

Forever35
01-15-2018, 11:45 AM
And that's what I hate. We're applying what we know now to what he did then.

I think we've hit a point where AI is getting so hated he might be underrated at this point.

People think of cornrows, baggy clothes and tattoos when it comes to AI... He was one hell of a player... I trust Larry Brown's opinion about AI...

Brown says, ďThere were things that he did that drove me crazy, off of the court. But there was never a lack of respectÖ Itís never easy for an unbelievable talent like Allen to play for someone like me"...

bootsy
01-15-2018, 12:00 PM
Out of the top 100.

Volume scorer - of all the players that held the ball as much as him he is by far the least effective scorer (using averages of the time)

Too short to be SG, not good enough passer to be PG. Generally meh->poor defense.

Forced his way out of cities and contracts. Behavior problems. Fake injuries.

What winning culture?

What's with this "fashion leader" crap - what does that matter?

Terminally overrated by those that love highlight film and only understand scoring.
This is absurd. Ah bagwell at his usual ignorant self. Staying with his standards.:facepalm:

What I want to know is post 100 players that are better in this thread. Post them here.

jaydubb
01-15-2018, 12:28 PM
Barkley is a top 20, he mashes AI.Top 20 for Charles Barkley? Idk bout that.. I could see top 30, but top 20 would be pushing it imo. I do agree out of the two, Barkley should be ranked higher though.

Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk

europagnpilgrim
01-15-2018, 12:35 PM
"But he dragged a team of bums to the finals"


Classic idiot that knows nothing about basketball response.

I wouldn't say bums, but by nba standard avg to GLeaguers is pretty much it

classic experts who think they know but have no clue, ''but the defense carried him'', before realizing that Snow and Mckie avg like 13ppg combined for their careers, then the classic experts say Iverson was a ballhog, until further realizing those 13ppg was his core for 7yrs while other players on Iverson level has had way more better team talent in prime/young age

I am still waiting for the rankings of Snow and Mckie on your all time list, anybody on here can post it because its a OPEN INVITE for all, so I can laugh my *** off because you will be embarrassed from the outcome of where they rank, especially if you got Iverson in the bottom 50-80 range

europagnpilgrim
01-15-2018, 12:42 PM
Out of the top 100.

Volume scorer - of all the players that held the ball as much as him he is by far the least effective scorer (using averages of the time)

Too short to be SG, not good enough passer to be PG. Generally meh->poor defense.

Forced his way out of cities and contracts. Behavior problems. Fake injuries.

What winning culture?

What's with this "fashion leader" crap - what does that matter?

Terminally overrated by those that love highlight film and only understand scoring.


by far the least support inefficient support cast, Snow avg 3ppg before teaming with Iverson on his own, Mckie had a career high 10ppg pre Iverson on his own and was getting around 4ppg when he arrived to Philly

that's whats so funny about you fake experts, you sit up here and say how inefficient he was but hold none of his mates accountable for being so god awful on the offensive end, when it comes to Iverson on here its like only defense matters and the defense that carried him was all that mattered even though he led the league in steals, but on the flip side he is working with career 6ppg guys and not one time did they ever avg 20ppg on their own, closest they ever got was playing with Iverson and they maxed out around 12-13ppg, so by using the same rules applied to Lebron and Stockton and Nash, Iverson actually made his mates '''better'''

Iverson was underrated then and way worse now, especially by those who start watching ball in 08' and now a decade later they think they know about ''basketball'', as if volume shooters don't exist now, Spurs play more hero ball now more than ever


1. Volume passer = some one who just passes and passes and passes and might even pass up a sure 2pts to pass and get the assist, you make it seem like doing something in volume for the team is a bad thing, well its not

2. of course he was too short to be SG, why do you think Lebron said he played like he was a 6'8'' guard but only stood at 5'10''? he should have stayed at PG and of course he can pass especially if he has 2 other HOF'ers to lean on, that's basic sense but he never had that luxury in philly, only time he could rest was the 2-3minutes per game or in street clothes injured, league leader in steals 3 straight seasons, CP3 or any other Guard does it they are elite or real good, Iverson does it he sucks, I get it

3. He never wanted to leave that horribly built team in p hilly which was his other weaknesses besides his natural height and being in a big mans league, he told philly he wanted to play smaller/faster as a team and they should go in that direction or maybe he should find elsewhere, after enduring 10yrs of carrying a team I think a player should be able to call a minor shot like play style, the same small ball/fast pace they play now Iverson wanted it back then, his intelligence is underrated as well, well I guess everybody injury is fake because I don't know any player who would miss a playoff game if healthy, does it dawn on you that we can say the same thing about every player? Iverson got out of what contract? Pistons and Grizz? you count those teams on his resume as far as what he really was about? a 33yr old player?

4. what winning players did he have on that roster? besides a HOF coach for 6yrs what did he have that was proven or HOF worthy on his side? and during that 6yr run he had his most success because of the dynamic of the coach/player, now add 2 more HOF'ers to that squad during that weak east and they would have ran the table that decade until about 08', from 99-2008

then it would have just been I don't like the way he dresses, he's a thug and we are corporate league nerds so we cant relate, if AI had rings that would be the only excuse because that is pretty much all he didn't accomplish as a player, so its funny when people say he wasn't successful, its because you put too much stock in rings and not the deciding factors of the actual ring, which starts from the owner/gm building correctly

europagnpilgrim
01-15-2018, 01:06 PM
Top 5 offense? Their offense wasn't remotely close to top 5. Wasn't even top 10. Granted, they did scrape out impressive wins over the 45-55 win Bucks and Raptors before being demolished in the Finals by the Lakers. So there is that. Nobody is guilty of saying the East is bad for a legacy.

And no bud, steals don't matter much in the grand scheme of team defense.

You cant even comprehend to basic grammar

Of course that offense wasn't remotely close to top 5 and that was my main reason for bringing that up to counter your defense talk, Iverson contributed way way more defensively to this defensively built team than Mckie/Snow and their combined career 12-13ppg, so Iverson carried a way bigger load on that end then they did on the flip side because steals do matter in the grand scheme of things

steals and deflections and getting 50/50 balls and boxing out and giving effort and playing collectively and communication and so on and on matter in the grand scheme of defense, as does cutting and screening matters as much on offense, it just gets put on Iverson in a different light than others

lol, please
01-15-2018, 01:11 PM
Top 5 of his era, could score in so many different ways it wasn't funny, that good since HighSchool

https://youtu.be/SC2ma6teI0QHow many shot attempts did he take in order to hit 46?

Sent from my Note 8 using Tapatalk

europagnpilgrim
01-15-2018, 01:15 PM
How many shot attempts did he take in order to hit 46?

Sent from my Note 8 using Tapatalk

How many times would you forcibly run the offense through Snow and Mckie for shots to get 46pts, who would you want on that roster taking those other shots, are you mistaking those two for KD/Klay that your boy Curry is rolling with? and I notice how you didn't mention the actual arsenal he put on display because you know that was a hell of a show he put on with the variety of ways he scored, what a force

europagnpilgrim
01-15-2018, 01:21 PM
How many shot attempts did he take in order to hit 46?

Sent from my Note 8 using Tapatalk

18 for 36 FG, 8 for 8 FT and the game went into OT and he played 52 out of a possible 53minutes, I am going to star calling Iverson the LilDipper, he is the guard version of Wilt, its official psd

Now look at those 36FG attempts and that's the reason why I said he was options 1-3 for that team legit, those 36 attempts are not by force or ballhog but how the team was horribly offensively built, it had no balance, 1 scorer and 14 Robersons/hustle guys, you are not going to be successful for a stretch depending on that type of recipe, he had that type of pressure to shoot game in and out and yet the fake experts fault him for doing what was best for that team in that era he played in, sucked for Iverson

Don't laugh or spit your milk up but this was his support in the starting lineup, these are the career numbers of the core he played with for most part, it was interchangeable pieces all the time, seeing that is was no stability and just musical chairs with average players replacing average players, a pattern of management being mediocre, nothing more nor less

T.HILL = Roberson-defender- 9ppg career
G.LYNCH = Roberson-defender- 6.6ppg
T.RATLIFF - Athletic Roberson-defender - 7ppg
A.MCKIE - Roberson - defender - 7ppg

IVERSON = Franchise-carry the load - 26.7ppg

bench
J. JONES - Athletic wing - 7ppg
old man T.KUKOC -Facilitator/Secondary scorer 11.6ppg
K.OLLIE - Roberson- defender - 3.8ppg
T. MCCULLOUGH - Bigfoot/wasted space - N/A

the bench combined for an electric groundbreaking ''8'' total points, and for most part in all of nba history we all know you win big/titles with a damn good bench

once people wrap their brains around this type of squad that Iverson had for 7yrs then it would I hope ease the disgust they have for such a ballhog

if you really look at that roster what nba legend past or present could have done much with that? put Curry or Jordan or Lebron or Wilt on that team and what do they do with that roster? be for real with yourself

a team of Curry/Lynch/Mckie/Hill/Ratliff wouldn't be contenders in any era and the only chance they would have to be at least a slight thought is probably in the 70's era where it was more wide open but they still wouldn't be no supreme major threat, just a thought, about Curry that is and how sweet that 3pt shot is,nothing more nor less

europagnpilgrim
01-15-2018, 02:02 PM
I remember when I used to think the DPOY, 6moy, coy and the best role players in the conference meant you had nothing but bums around you. As I grew up, I realized it was AI that was the problem. Dude isn't as good as his popularity suggested


What happened to that same DPOY pushing 35-36yrs of age the following the year the league went to 3sec def. rule and that aged reigning DPOY couldn't just cement post himself in the paint? and he was a massive fit downgrade from the way more younger and athletic rim protector/dunker in Ratliff, even Kukoc was a decent piece until he just Hoffa disappeared for strange reasons, 6th man of the year put up 11.7ppg so either you are just overrating Mckie to piss on Iverson which is utterly ignorant to say the least ,the only legit ounce of weight you can carry is the HOF/COY in Brown, which by building a young foundation was the perfect match, until the 97 and 98' drafts happened and you f'ed the process up, as we all witnessed for most part

Dude's management couldn't match the roster with their popular and on the court deadly franchise player

I still think having a DPOY/6MOY/COY is very vital, but its levels to those, just because those players win those awards doesn't mean others aren't worthy, and if you do a one on one comparison with each 6MOY I bet Mckie will rank in your lower half, easily, same with Mutombo, he won that award on rep, it works that way sometimes, Brown was legit COY, and seeing that Shaq had Kobe and Iverson had Mckie and Iverson sat out final 5games that year and they finished with same w-l record I would give Iverson the edge on that, as I would have the year prior in 00', Iverson was battling Duncan/Shaq for league MVP, both were the most dominant bigs of their era, easily

as I grew up I realized it was the management that was the problem, dude was as good as advertised and his televised games proved it, regardless how weak the team was he was the show, the LilDipper

ballallday
01-15-2018, 02:03 PM
"a team of Curry/Lynch/Mckie/Hill/Ratliff wouldn't be contenders in any era"

Come on man, are we really saying Iverson and the Sixers were contenders every year? They had one good run in a weak east and got smoked in the finals 4-1 because running everything through Iverson only worked for one game until lakers made adjustments. ISO ball even for Kobe only worked so much, teams adjust and figure out it. Probably why Kobe doesn't register on peoples top 10. Being a good basketball player and getting ranked high includes being a good team make, making team mates better, etc.

So yes maybe curry could have done the same since he is a better passer / team mate then iverson. Keep in mind his 3 ball is historically great. Iversons historically great stat is chucking shots per min.

Also Sixers were a Vince carter fade away from being eliminated (iversons banner year). If that shot didn't back rim no one would be rating AI in top 100. Speaking of which I would take Vince carter all time over Iverson all time and Vince doesn't get half the love AI gets despite being a far more superior player inside and out, team mate and btw still on the court making his team better. Where is iverson? Broke and being a hype man before Sixers games.

This Iverson love fest is a little much for those saying top 30. give me a break.

europagnpilgrim
01-15-2018, 02:29 PM
"a team of Curry/Lynch/Mckie/Hill/Ratliff wouldn't be contenders in any era"

Come on man, are we really saying Iverson and the Sixers were contenders every year? They had one good run in a weak east and got smoked in the finals 4-1 because running everything through Iverson only worked for one game until lakers made adjustments. ISO ball even for Kobe only worked so much, teams adjust and figure out it. Probably why Kobe doesn't register on peoples top 10. Being a good basketball player and getting ranked high includes being a good team make, making team mates better, etc.

So yes maybe curry could have done the same since he is a better passer / team mate then iverson. Keep in mind his 3 ball is historically great. Iversons historically great stat is chucking shots per min.

Also Sixers were a Vince carter fade away from being eliminated (iversons banner year). If that shot didn't back rim no one would be rating AI in top 100. Speaking of which I would take Vince carter all time over Iverson all time and Vince doesn't get half the love AI gets despite being a far more superior player inside and out, team mate and btw still on the court making his team better. Where is iverson? Broke and being a hype man before Sixers games.

This Iverson love fest is a little much for those saying top 30. give me a break.

I have spoke on this many of times about the team not being structured to contend but it was because of Iverson that they had a punchers chance

once again only thing that Vince has or had on Iverson was height and jumping ability, other than that he did nothing better, and if my aunt had balls, well you should know the rest

Iverson banner year was ROY and then getting that inept offensive team to 99' playoffs topped off with the 01' banner year you are referring to, so he had a few banner years

Shaq and those Lakers smoked everyone for 3 straight seasons, that 1 lone victory in 01' against Lakers was by the Iverson led Sixers, so Duncan who is the greatest powerforward ever by all you experts couldn't muster up 1 victory? while the biggest inefficient ballhog in history according to you experts could? I get it now

this hate fest is exactly what I admire about Iverson, he never won a title so why so much hate? shouldn't we want the player who doesn't have a title to win one, regardless of what KD did it was nice to see a player of his generation get his first ring, no different than in NFL right now where I would want one of those teams who hasn't won a title to get one, not the same repeat over and over, that's not what moves the needle for me

best players of their generation in the top 5 realm should at least get 1 ring since they carry the league business wise in a big way, and for most part they get it right but miss with a few legends here and there, Iverson is one of them, so be it

jaydubb
01-15-2018, 03:25 PM
Lol... I think Allen iversons mom has an account here on psd...

Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk

Jeffy25
01-15-2018, 04:35 PM
How many times would you forcibly run the offense through Snow and Mckie for shots to get 46pts, who would you want on that roster taking those other shots, are you mistaking those two for KD/Klay that your boy Curry is rolling with? and I notice how you didn't mention the actual arsenal he put on display because you know that was a hell of a show he put on with the variety of ways he scored, what a force

It's about possessions when you speak about efficiency.

https://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/PHI/2001.html#per_poss::none

Aaron McKie took half as many shots per possession, scored half as many points per possession, and still managed more assists and had half the usage.

We can talk about how he created scoring all day. But he still took dumb shot after dumb shot. The majority of the shots he took in his career were 2 pointers, longer than 16 feet out. No other volume guard did that, they all either shoot 3's or get up close to the basket (except Kobe). He ignored open team mates, settling for a dump deep range jumper instead of hitting an open team mate. Even AI's highlights, you see him shooting a dumb shot with an open team mate in the corner.

Eric Snow was a career .402 shooter 10-16 feet, and .403 shooter from 16 feet plus. Meanwhile, AI was .383 from 10-16, and .397 from 16+. Taken that shot contested, while having Snow open from mid range isn't creating a necessary shot that no one else on the court can hit.

He can draw defenders, and that's great for a play maker. But to simply not pass?

And lol, he has a career .401 FG% in the playoffs. The only two players with a worse career playoff field goal percentage is Jason Kidd and Bob Cousy.

C-Dub
01-15-2018, 07:14 PM
prolly 1st all time. right in front of tmac and vc.

flea
01-15-2018, 08:04 PM
I don't know, maybe as high as 45 and as low as 65. I'd put him right around Tony Parker in terms of guards. Never developed a floor game like Parker but was a much better all-around scorer with a much higher peak. Decline was precipitous which is in keeping with a player reliant on physical ability.

Seems to get very overrated or very underrated depending on who is doing the talking. He is much better than the Carmelo Anthony of guards, but he is not as good as the more all-around guards of his era like Kidd or even Billups.

basch152
01-15-2018, 08:05 PM
what a shocker, 99% of people know that a bad defender and teammate player whose only skill was the ability to score at an incredibly inefficient rate is not as good as people like to make him out to be.

I always say what happened to detroit/Denver when Chauncey and Iverson were traded is really, really telling.

Denver went from a first round exit two years in a row(winning 1, ONE GAME in those two series') with AI, to taking the Lakers to 6 games in the conference finals with chauncey.

meanwhile, Detroit went from 6 straight conference finals, two final appearances, 1 championship, who took the KG/pierce/allen celtics to 6 in the conference finals, and a 4-0 record that year with chauncey to a 39 win team that got swept in the first round. that's a difference of 20 wins. TWENTY.

Chauncey was THAT much better of a player than Iverson.

and don't tell me the ******** line that AI was old, he was still averaging 26 a game in Denver while having to share the ball with melo.

flea
01-15-2018, 08:16 PM
what a shocker, 99% of people know that a bad defender and teammate player whose only skill was the ability to score at an incredibly inefficient rate is not as good as people like to make him out to be.

I always say what happened to detroit/Denver when Chauncey and Iverson were traded is really, really telling.

Denver went from a first round exit two years in a row(winning 1, ONE GAME in those two series') with AI, to taking the Lakers to 6 games in the conference finals with chauncey.

meanwhile, Detroit went from 6 straight conference finals, two final appearances, 1 championship, who took the KG/pierce/allen celtica to 6, and a 4-0 record that year with chauncey to a 39 win team that got swept in the first round. that's a difference of 20 wins. TWENTY.

Chauncey was THAT much better of a player than Iverson.

and don't tell me the ******** line that AI was old, he was still averaging 26 a game in Denver while having to share the ball with melo.

There was a lot more to that situation than a simple 1:1 comparison and it is true that AI had lost a step by his Denver days. However I think most teams Billups played for (including late career stint in LA) show his value. He was just a late bloomer, like a lot of great NBA PGs.

basch152
01-15-2018, 08:26 PM
There was a lot more to that situation than a simple 1:1 comparison and it is true that AI had lost a step by his Denver days. However I think most teams Billups played for (including late career stint in LA) show his value. He was just a late bloomer, like a lot of great NBA PGs.

it isn't a 1:1 trade, but even at that stage trading a supposedly top 30 player of all time for a Chauncey billups shouldn't result in Detroit completely collapsing and Denver being several times better.

like I said, AI the previous year was still averaging 26 a game and had pretty easily the most efficient year of his career.

you could argue that that was AIs best year.

hugepatsfan
01-15-2018, 08:42 PM
He was a better talent than individual player. He could do AMAZING things on the court but he had obvious flaws:

1) high volume shooter on low efficiency
2) not much of an off-ball game
3) not a creator for others as much as he just got assists from handling the ball so much
4) poor defender that couldn't really match up anyone because he was undersized

None of that takes away from the amazing talent he was and why he was so iconic but it made it tough to fit him in a team concept. That's why, for as amazing a talent as he was, he only had one playoff run past the second round I believe.

Shammyguy3
01-15-2018, 08:54 PM
I think he'd be ranked somewhere around where Charles Barkley is. Around the 40-50 range or so. Both were undersized players that excelled at their positions but failed to actually win a championship. I do think both would be considered higher on most people's list had they won a couple championships (and both being just a couple inches taller woulda helped too)

Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk I would say Barkley more than excelled at his position. He is one of the most efficient volume scorers of all time. Iverson was the opposite except for the volume, which was actually greater.

Barkely is arguably top-20. Iverson? Arguably top-100.

FlashBolt
01-15-2018, 09:17 PM
Iverson is a simple case of where his ranking got boosted because he was on a team that allowed him to score - the only thing he could actually do. Heck, which NBA player can't score if you give them enough shots? If you forced Iverson to do anything else, what do you think he excels at? He's not a good defender, passer, leader, or playmaker. His cultural impact is top 10 but his actual NBA ranking is far below that. IMO, top 45-60 and that is being generous. Casual fans love the guy because he's fun to watch. Real true basketball fans dislike his game as heck because efficiency is what wins games. Euro defends the guy like mad but I have not heard a single argument. He talks about AI's team being bad.. Can someone remind him that AI won two NBA playoffs series shooting 34% and 40%. How do you win games playing that awful?

flea
01-15-2018, 09:21 PM
Iverson is a simple case of where his ranking got boosted because he was on a team that allowed him to score - the only thing he could actually do. Heck, which NBA player can't score if you give them enough shots? If you forced Iverson to do anything else, what do you think he excels at? He's not a good defender, passer, leader, or playmaker. His cultural impact is top 10 but his actual NBA ranking is far below that. IMO, top 45-60 and that is being generous. Casual fans love the guy because he's fun to watch. Real true basketball fans dislike his game as heck because efficiency is what wins games. Euro defends the guy like mad but I have not heard a single argument. He talks about AI's team being bad.. Can someone remind him that AI won two NBA playoffs series shooting 34% and 40%. How do you win games playing that awful?

One of the gutsiest series I've seen Lebron play he should 39% in.

basch152
01-15-2018, 09:41 PM
One of the gutsiest series I've seen Lebron play he should 39% in.

LeBron is a great defender, playmaker, passer, etc.

he effects the game in ways other than scoring.

AI only effected the game by scoring, and he did it at a horrible efficiency.

AI scoring inefficiently means he was sucking at his one job. LeBron scoring inefficiently means he was sucking at 1 of his 5 jobs.

they weren't winning those games because of AI. they won through excellent team defense.

flea
01-15-2018, 09:44 PM
AI wasn't close to an inefficient player. For one he played his prime in the toughest defensive era the majority of us here have ever seen, so his 42% or whatever with the Sixers is better than it looks. For another, he was a playmaker and a better passer than he's being given credit for. He just wasn't a PG and never developed into a guy that could reliably make those decisions on the floor.

basch152
01-15-2018, 09:48 PM
AI wasn't close to an inefficient player. For one he played his prime in the toughest defensive era the majority of us here have ever seen, so his 42% or whatever with the Sixers is better than it looks. For another, he was a playmaker and a better passer than he's being given credit for. He just wasn't a PG and never developed into a guy that could reliably make those decisions on the floor.

he was inefficient.

and him not being a PG is one of the main reasons he was so ****ing terrible. he was a SG in a PG body.

so you have a SG that literally is incapable of defending his position because he's so small, who also is terrible at playmaking.

and no, he was not a good playmaker.

he occasional made plays, but it's completely expected at his insane usage rate. any PG/SG would do the same with that usage.

but he still wasn't good at it.

FlashBolt
01-15-2018, 09:50 PM
AI wasn't close to an inefficient player. For one he played his prime in the toughest defensive era the majority of us here have ever seen, so his 42% or whatever with the Sixers is better than it looks. For another, he was a playmaker and a better passer than he's being given credit for. He just wasn't a PG and never developed into a guy that could reliably make those decisions on the floor.

For someone who applauds the Spurs every chance he gets, you sure as heck contradict yourself with AI. Makes zero sense.

flea
01-15-2018, 09:52 PM
For someone who applauds the Spurs every chance he gets, you sure as heck contradict yourself with AI. Makes zero sense.

Who doesn't applaud the Spurs? What does that have to do with AI? I'm just pointing out that people overstate their case when they call him inefficient and a bad passer. He was neither, even if he was not a terribly efficient scorer or a great passer.

flea
01-15-2018, 09:52 PM
he was inefficient.

and him not being a PG is one of the main reasons he was so ****ing terrible. he was a SG in a PG body.

so you have a SG that literally is incapable of defending his position because he's so small, who also is terrible at playmaking.

and no, he was not a good playmaker.

he occasional made plays, but it's completely expected at his insane usage rate. any PG/SG would do the same with that usage.

but he still wasn't good at it.

Let me guess, you started watching the NBA when Lebron went to Miami.

FlashBolt
01-15-2018, 09:53 PM
Who doesn't applaud the Spurs? What does that have to do with AI? I'm just pointing out that people overstate their case when they call him inefficient and a bad passer. He was neither, even if he was not a terribly efficient scorer or a great passer.

1) Because Spurs and Iverson are the complete opposite in terms of basketball style.
2) He was inefficient and he wasn't a good passer at all.
3) Which part of his game was he actually elite at?

flea
01-15-2018, 10:01 PM
1) Because Spurs and Iverson are the complete opposite in terms of basketball style.
2) He was inefficient and he wasn't a good passer at all.
3) Which part of his game was he actually elite at?

The "Spurs" style today is totally opposite from what it was 5 years ago, which is completely different from what it was 10 years before that when it was all Duncan. What does any of that have to do with AI?

AI was a top-end scorer whose floor game was below average. He wasn't a legend except for what he did in NBA marketing but he was a good #1 scorer compared to his peers. Yes streaky, yes small, but I don't see anyone complaining about Curry's D even though I think AI's was better. He was what he was, you don't accomplish what he did by being bad at basketball which is what some here seem to believe.

basch152
01-15-2018, 10:04 PM
so I'm looking at the 00-01 season, and here are the FG% of the top guards/SF

AI 42%
Stackhouse 40%
Kobe 46.4%
Carter 46%
tmac 45.7%
Pierce 45.4%
Jamison 44.2%
Marbury 44.1%
Gary Payton 45.6%
Glenn Robinson 46.8%
ray Allen 48%
Michael Finley 45.8%
Jalen rose 45.7%
stojakovic 47%
Steve Francis 45.1%
Jason Terry 43.6%
Mobley 43.4%
Washburn 41.3%
Reggie Miller 44%
Allan houston 44.9%
cassell 47.4%
rip 43.8%
sprewell 43%
Odom 46%

this isn't advanced stats, but the guy has the worse efficiency of all the guys except one of the all time checkers in Jerry Stackhouse and a few meh players.

don't act like his 42% was the average.

basch152
01-15-2018, 10:08 PM
Let me guess, you started watching the NBA when Lebron went to Miami.

ive been watching since the 90s. and i very vividly remember AI being an inneficient chucker.

pretty much everything backs that up. problem is his play style made many fans of his and convincing a fan that what they thought is wrong is basically impossible.

flea
01-15-2018, 10:16 PM
So do you think people like Steve Francis and Marbury were better than AI? What are we talking about here?

For his Sixers career, AI was 44.5% from 2 point land and VC was 46.1% (less volume) in the same period, which oddly enough is exactly what Russell Westbrook has put up (46.1% 2PT) to date in his career in a much easier era for guards. I don't think Westbrook is particularly efficient but I'd never call him "an inefficient player."

For what it's worth I don't even like AI, just correcting wrongs.

basch152
01-15-2018, 10:24 PM
So do you think people like Steve Francis and Marbury were better than AI? What are we talking about here?

For his Sixers career, AI was 44.5% from 2 point land and VC was 46.1% (less volume) in the same period, which oddly enough is exactly what Russell Westbrook has put up (46.1% 2PT) to date in his career in a much easier era for guards. I don't think Westbrook is particularly efficient but I'd never call him "an inefficient player."

For what it's worth I don't even like AI, just correcting wrongs.

no, both Francis and Marbury were also inefficient chuckers that never translated to many wins.

AI would be in the same situation as them if he didn't land on a great defensive team that masked his many weaknesses and allowed him to be one of the bigger checkers in NBA history.

as for carter, he was also efficient from 3 and actually WAS a playmaker that got his teammates involved more, efficiency is more acceptable when it's not your only role on the team.

and yes, Westbrook is another inefficient chucker, he's a giant stat padder and another player who gets insane stats but they never translate to wins.

flea
01-15-2018, 10:25 PM
no, both Francis and Marbury were also inefficient chuckers that never translated to many wins.

AI would be in the same situation as them if he didn't land on a great defensive team that masked his many weaknesses and allowed him to be one of the bigger checkers in NBA history.

as for carter, he was also efficient from 3 and actually WAS a playmaker that got his teammates involved more, efficiency is more acceptable when it's not your only role on the team.

and yes, Westbrook is another inefficient chucker, he's a giant stat padder and another player who gets insane stats but they never translate to wins.

So is every scorer "inefficient" if they aren't getting to rim like Lebron or shooting like Curry, or both like Durant?

FlashBolt
01-15-2018, 10:53 PM
The "Spurs" style today is totally opposite from what it was 5 years ago, which is completely different from what it was 10 years before that when it was all Duncan. What does any of that have to do with AI?

AI was a top-end scorer whose floor game was below average. He wasn't a legend except for what he did in NBA marketing but he was a good #1 scorer compared to his peers. Yes streaky, yes small, but I don't see anyone complaining about Curry's D even though I think AI's was better. He was what he was, you don't accomplish what he did by being bad at basketball which is what some here seem to believe.

AI's top end scorer label is based purely on volume. Like I said, many NBA players taking 24 shots per game would be able to drop 30. It's just not a great system of NBA that wins games. AI's D wasn't that much better than Curry.. I'm not sure what you watched but AI was not capable of guarding much so he played passing lanes. With Snow on the team as well, who do you think guards the other guards? AI? C'mon. I'm not saying he is bad. I'm saying he was inefficient and a volume scorer. He wasn't elite at anything other than putting the ball in the hoop.. and that was a product of possessions rather than elite scoring ability - a guy like KD or Jordan. Anyhow, we can disagree here. There are going to be two types of people in regards to AI: Those who dislike his style of inefficiency and those who respect his stature as an NBA player to where they may overlook his actual results.

Jeffy25
01-16-2018, 02:14 AM
AI wasn't close to an inefficient player. For one he played his prime in the toughest defensive era the majority of us here have ever seen, so his 42% or whatever with the Sixers is better than it looks. For another, he was a playmaker and a better passer than he's being given credit for. He just wasn't a PG and never developed into a guy that could reliably make those decisions on the floor.

Let's not run around just making up stats

2/3/FT
League shooting - 16/17 - .457%/.358%/.772%
13/14 - .454/.360/.756
10/11 - .459/.358/.763
07/08 - .457/.362/.755
04/05 - .447/.356/.756
01/02 - .445/.354/.752
98/99 - .437/.339/.728
95/96 - .462/.367/.740

That big drop in 98/99 was an outlier (99/00 - .449/.353/.750 - 97/98 - .450/.346/.737)


For the most part, the league still has the same shooting percentages. It's simply the pace and volume of 3's that has changed. The very most you could argue is maybe 10%, and that would be a stretch.

In total, the league from 96/97-09/10 shot .4501/.3551/.7505
Totals are 1,211,880/2,262,248 FG
185,490/522,360 - 3
21,086/28,096 - FT

AI's career shooting is so bad compared to the rest of the league that he literally lowers is .003 at both 2's and 3's lmao. Over 2.6 million field goal attempts, AI took 20K of them, and he was so bad he lowered the leagues averages




Basically, the league throughout AI's career shot .450/.355/.750
This past year, the league shot .457/.358/.772

It hasn't really changed that much.

aman_13
01-16-2018, 02:24 AM
I'll say this about Iverson's efficiency, it was much harder for a smaller guard to be effecient during his time.

Jeffy25
01-16-2018, 02:25 AM
So is every scorer "inefficient" if they aren't getting to rim like Lebron or shooting like Curry, or both like Durant?

There are plenty of efficient volume scorers at the guard position.


Here are a few in the last 25 years

Lillard - 17.6 FGA - .565 TS%
Irving - 17.4 FGA - .565 TS%
Wade - 17.1 FGA - .558 TS%
Curry - 16.8 FGA - .619 TS%
Richmond - 16.3 FGA - .557 TS%
Klay Thompson - 15.7 FGA - .574 TS%
Harden - 15.1 FGA - .608 TS%
Redd - 15.0 FGA - .558 TS%

I just grabbed 15 FGA per game, and a .555 TS%

There are a lot more guys if you expand to 13 FGA or .550 TS%

Iverson took 21.8 FGA at .518 TS% :facepalm:


Jordan is the only other player to take 20 shots per game since then, who was a career .569 TS% (.580 for his Chicago years).

valade16
01-16-2018, 02:57 PM
Here are the Top scorers by PPG with their TS% in 2000-2001 (besides Shaq):

Allen Iverson, 31.1 PPG, .518 TS%
Jerry Stackhouse, 29.8 PPG, .521 TS%
Kobe Bryant, 28.5 PPG, .552 TS%
Vince Carter, 27.6 PPG, .551 TS%
Chris Webber, 27.1 PPG, .516 TS%
Tracy McGrady, 26.8 PPG, .521 TS%
Paul Pierce, 25.3 PPG, .562 TS%
Antawn Jamison, 24.9 PPG, .499 TS%

There are only 3 guys who are noticeably higher than AI in terms of scoring efficiency and even then, they aren't exactly setting the world on fire by todays standards. It was much harder for a #1 scoring option to do so efficiently, and the efficiency of the league in general was down.

I know Jeffy would have you believe that the entire league shooting 45.7% today vs 44.9% back then wasn't that big a deal, but that is a massive difference for an entire league to be averaging.

Consider in terms of % the league today is shooting like the current San Antionio Spurs whereas the league back then is shooting like the current Sacramento Kings.


Now look at AI's teammates in Philly:

George Lynch .490 TS% career
Aaron McKie .514 TS% career
Eric Snow .492 TS% career
Toni Kukoc .532 TS% career
Tyrone Hill .544 TS% career
Jumaine Jones .512 TS% career

So who exactly was the efficient players on Philly outside AI? As crazy as it is to think about, AI scoring was among the most efficient players Philly could muster at that time. And I know the argument that Philly built around Ai's scoring and put defenders around to cater to AI. But my point is, if Philly could, they would have surrounded him with efficient defenders. They didn't want their other players to be so inefficient scoring the ball.


Iverson had below average inefficiency in an era that had below average inefficiency, so his efficiency looks downright putrid today, but he wasn't nearly as bad as people are making out. Look at many of the players who peaked around that time:

Jason Kidd .507 TS%
Gary Payton .528 TS%
Chris Webber .513 TS%
Grant Hill .543 TS% (prior to his injuries and resurgence as a role player in later years)
Tracy McGrady .519 TS%
Vince Carter .536 TS%
Kevin Garnett .543 TS% (In Minnesota)

Heck, even superstars like Duncan didn't have the greatest TS% (.551)

That's like 3/4 of the superstars of that era all having below average scoring efficiency by todays standards. Consider that AI's TS% went from .505 from 97-04 to .540 from 05-10.

He got more efficient as he got older and broke down, that generally doesn't happen to stars, but it did to him and it's mainly because the league stopped being so stifling due to the rules.


Considering AI's FT rate was .410 and the top Free throw rates nowadays for such drivers is .500, it's likely AI's efficiency increases in this era that is specifically designed to allow driving G's like him to flourish, especially if modern analytics would mold his floor game to take less long 2's.

Yes, AI was generally inefficient, but it's not nearly as bad as his detractors make out given the context of when he played.

bootsy
01-16-2018, 03:34 PM
Still waiting for bugwell's 100(at least) players that are better than Iverson.:oldguy:

TheDish87
01-16-2018, 04:13 PM
he is in the 35-45 range WITHOUT A DOUBT

Jeffy25
01-16-2018, 07:16 PM
I know Jeffy would have you believe that the entire league shooting 45.7% today vs 44.9% back then wasn't that big a deal, but that is a massive difference for an entire league to be averaging.



It really isn't. The league varies more than that year by year. You have a league that takes 210K field goal attempts per year. That's 1000 less field goals over the course of the full season, by 30 teams, or 2/5ths of a field goal per game.

AI shot so badly, that he literally lowered the leagues average field goal shooting each year by more than a fraction of a percent.

That's rather incredible.

There are plenty of good volume scoring guards. AI was absolutely not one of them.

There isn't another guard with a .518 TS% to play in the league since the 80's that took 16 FGA per game. And he took 21.8.

The active players that his TS compares to are John Wall (15.8 FGA/G), D'Angelo Russell (13.1 FGA/G), Brandon Jennings (13.0 FGA/G), Avery Bradley (11.3 FGA/G), Jordan Crawford, Lonzo Ball, and Michael Carter Williams.

John Wall is the only credible player on this list. And he still takes 6 less shots per game.

Chronz
01-16-2018, 07:52 PM
he is in the 35-45 range WITHOUT A DOUBT

Damn. List em.

Are they all Sixers?

valade16
01-16-2018, 07:52 PM
It really isn't. The league varies more than that year by year. You have a league that takes 210K field goal attempts per year. That's 1000 less field goals over the course of the full season, by 30 teams, or 2/5ths of a field goal per game.

AI shot so badly, that he literally lowered the leagues average field goal shooting each year by more than a fraction of a percent.

That's rather incredible.

There are plenty of good volume scoring guards. AI was absolutely not one of them.

There isn't another guard with a .518 TS% to play in the league since the 80's that took 16 FGA per game. And he took 21.8.

The active players that his TS compares to are John Wall (15.8 FGA/G), D'Angelo Russell (13.1 FGA/G), Brandon Jennings (13.0 FGA/G), Avery Bradley (11.3 FGA/G), Jordan Crawford, Lonzo Ball, and Michael Carter Williams.

John Wall is the only credible player on this list. And he still takes 6 less shots per game.

It really is. And the league doesn't vary more than that year by year, it does so over time. Here are the numbers you posted:


16/17 - .457%/.358%/.772%
16
15
13/14 - .454/.360/.756
13
12
10/11 - .459/.358/.763
10
09
07/08 - .457/.362/.755
07
06
04/05 - .447/.356/.756
04
03
01/02 - .445/.354/.752
01
00
98/99 - .437/.339/.728
98
97
95/96 - .462/.367/.740

So if you want to claim there are wild variations in the FG% year to year, fill in the gaps and point out where they occur because looking at the years separated by the years you didn't show, it seems pretty gradual and coincides strongly with rule changes and innovations in style of play (96 had a shorter 3pt line, 99-05 slow play and defensive heavy rules, 08 and beyond opening up of the game).

As for your comment about AI being the only Guard to shoot .518 and take over 16 FGA a game since the 60's, I'll counter that with:

Tracy McGrady 16.4 FGA, .519 TS%

Is T-Mac somehow exempt from this scoring efficiency scorn everyone has for AI? Because he was basically as inefficient and shot nearly as much. Also a big surprise, he happened to peak at the exact same time as AI.

If you look at the lowest TS% for players all-time you find a bunch of guys who peaked at that exact time in NBA history with bad TS% (as I pointed out: T-Mac, Kidd, GP, C-Webb, VC, etc.).

And people want to sit here and act like it's a coincidence that so many all-time greats had low TS% around that time. Like everyone just got worse at shooting for some reason.


Was AI inefficient? Yes. But he was inefficient in an inefficient era so his inefficiency looks worse than it was.

Consider in 2001 AI's TS% of .518 was 174th in the league (of all players, even those that played 10 minutes all season) by BB-Ref. In 2017 it would be 314th.

The 314th best TS% in 2001 was .472. In 2017 the 174th was .555. That's a massive difference in efficiency top to bottom.


Would AI be as inefficient in today's league? Not a chance. He'd be more efficient simply because the league nowadays is more efficient overall. Due to the rules he'd have more leeway and he would be sent to the line more often. Due to analytics, he would be taking less long 2's. If you think that AI in today's league would have the exact same TS% as he did in his heyday... you're doing it wrong.

Jeffy25
01-16-2018, 08:05 PM
It really is. And the league doesn't vary more than that year by year, it does so over time. Here are the numbers you posted:


16/17 - .457%/.358%/.772%
16
15
13/14 - .454/.360/.756
13
12
10/11 - .459/.358/.763
10
09
07/08 - .457/.362/.755
07
06
04/05 - .447/.356/.756
04
03
01/02 - .445/.354/.752
01
00
98/99 - .437/.339/.728
98
97
95/96 - .462/.367/.740

So if you want to claim there are wild variations in the FG% year to year, fill in the gaps and point out where they occur because looking at the years separated by the years you didn't show, it seems pretty gradual and coincides strongly with rule changes and innovations in style of play (96 had a shorter 3pt line, 99-05 slow play and defensive heavy rules, 08 and beyond opening up of the game).

As for your comment about AI being the only Guard to shoot .518 and take over 16 FGA a game since the 60's, I'll counter that with:

Tracy McGrady 16.4 FGA, .519 TS%

Is T-Mac somehow exempt from this scoring efficiency scorn everyone has for AI? Because he was basically as inefficient and shot nearly as much. Also a big surprise, he happened to peak at the exact same time as AI.

If you look at the lowest TS% for players all-time you find a bunch of guys who peaked at that exact time in NBA history with bad TS% (as I pointed out: T-Mac, Kidd, GP, C-Webb, VC, etc.).

And people want to sit here and act like it's a coincidence that so many all-time greats had low TS% around that time. Like everyone just got worse at shooting for some reason.


Was AI inefficient? Yes. But he was inefficient in an inefficient era so his inefficiency looks worse than it was.

Consider in 2001 AI's TS% of .518 was 174th in the league (of all players, even those that played 10 minutes all season) by BB-Ref. In 2017 it would be 314th.

The 314th best TS% in 2001 was .472. In 2017 the 174th was .555. That's a massive difference in efficiency top to bottom.


Would AI be as inefficient in today's league? Not a chance. He'd be more efficient simply because the league nowadays is more efficient overall. Due to the rules he'd have more leeway and he would be sent to the line more often. Due to analytics, he would be taking less long 2's. If you think that AI in today's league would have the exact same TS% as he did in his heyday... you're doing it wrong.

Sure

16/17 - .457%/.358%/.772%
15/16 - .452/.354/.757
14/15 - .449/.350/.750
13/14 - .454/.360/.756
12/13 - .453/.359/.753
11/12 - .448/.349/.752
10/11 - .459/.358/.763
09/10 - .461/.355/.759
08/09 - .459/.367/.771
07/08 - .457/.362/.755
06/07 - .458/.358/.752
05/06 - .454/.358/.745
04/05 - .447/.356/.756
03/04 - .439/.347/.752
02/03 - .442/.349/.758
01/02 - .445/.354/.752
00/01 - .443/.354/.748
99/00 - .449/.353/.750
98/99 - .437/.339/.728
97/98 - .450/.346/.737
96/97 - .455/.360/.738
95/96 - .462/.367/.740


Several years have variables, the average bears out. It's nominal. .08% to overall field goal shooting varies all the time in individual years. The league is basically shooting what it did percentage wise in the late 90's.

Jeffy25
01-16-2018, 08:09 PM
It really is. And the league doesn't vary more than that year by year, it does so over time. Here are the numbers you posted:


16/17 - .457%/.358%/.772%
16
15
13/14 - .454/.360/.756
13
12
10/11 - .459/.358/.763
10
09
07/08 - .457/.362/.755
07
06
04/05 - .447/.356/.756
04
03
01/02 - .445/.354/.752
01
00
98/99 - .437/.339/.728
98
97
95/96 - .462/.367/.740

So if you want to claim there are wild variations in the FG% year to year, fill in the gaps and point out where they occur because looking at the years separated by the years you didn't show, it seems pretty gradual and coincides strongly with rule changes and innovations in style of play (96 had a shorter 3pt line, 99-05 slow play and defensive heavy rules, 08 and beyond opening up of the game).

As for your comment about AI being the only Guard to shoot .518 and take over 16 FGA a game since the 60's, I'll counter that with:

Tracy McGrady 16.4 FGA, .519 TS%

Is T-Mac somehow exempt from this scoring efficiency scorn everyone has for AI? Because he was basically as inefficient and shot nearly as much. Also a big surprise, he happened to peak at the exact same time as AI.

If you look at the lowest TS% for players all-time you find a bunch of guys who peaked at that exact time in NBA history with bad TS% (as I pointed out: T-Mac, Kidd, GP, C-Webb, VC, etc.).

And people want to sit here and act like it's a coincidence that so many all-time greats had low TS% around that time. Like everyone just got worse at shooting for some reason.


Was AI inefficient? Yes. But he was inefficient in an inefficient era so his inefficiency looks worse than it was.

Consider in 2001 AI's TS% of .518 was 174th in the league (of all players, even those that played 10 minutes all season) by BB-Ref. In 2017 it would be 314th.

The 314th best TS% in 2001 was .472. In 2017 the 174th was .555. That's a massive difference in efficiency top to bottom.


Would AI be as inefficient in today's league? Not a chance. He'd be more efficient simply because the league nowadays is more efficient overall. Due to the rules he'd have more leeway and he would be sent to the line more often. Due to analytics, he would be taking less long 2's. If you think that AI in today's league would have the exact same TS% as he did in his heyday... you're doing it wrong.

And McGrady wasn't on purpose, I literally put basketball reference index at .518. That's why he didn't show. It wasn't a purposeful omission.

valade16
01-16-2018, 08:25 PM
Sure

16/17 - .457%/.358%/.772%
15/16 - .452/.354/.757
14/15 - .449/.350/.750
13/14 - .454/.360/.756
12/13 - .453/.359/.753
11/12 - .448/.349/.752
10/11 - .459/.358/.763
09/10 - .461/.355/.759
08/09 - .459/.367/.771
07/08 - .457/.362/.755
06/07 - .458/.358/.752
05/06 - .454/.358/.745
04/05 - .447/.356/.756
03/04 - .439/.347/.752
02/03 - .442/.349/.758
01/02 - .445/.354/.752
00/01 - .443/.354/.748
99/00 - .449/.353/.750
98/99 - .437/.339/.728
97/98 - .450/.346/.737
96/97 - .455/.360/.738
95/96 - .462/.367/.740

Several years have variables, the average bears out. It's nominal. .08% to overall field goal shooting varies all the time in individual years. The league is basically shooting what it did percentage wise in the late 90's.

There are only 3 times the league had a variable rate as big as the difference between AI's time and the current NBA. 2 of those are the beginning of AI's peak and the end of it and the other appears to be an aberration.

Even looking at the variance we see a pretty strong corollary that the rule changes and style of play definitely impacted the FG% of the league from 99-05.

Looking at your list above, I have bolded the 5 lowest FG% years in the NBA.

99, and 01-04 are the lowest. That is literally smack dab in the time I'm talking about. Are you suggesting that the rules didn't have an effect on the efficiency of the league at that time despite your data showing clearly the league's efficiency was down during that time?

valade16
01-16-2018, 08:26 PM
And McGrady wasn't on purpose, I literally put basketball reference index at .518. That's why he didn't show. It wasn't a purposeful omission.

Sorry, I didn't mean to insinuate that you did it on purpose, I assumed you conducted your search by putting in AI's TS%. I was just trying to point out that there are other's who are considered all-time great players who were as inefficient scoring-wise from beyond the 60's. In fact, most of them happen to have peaked from 99-05, which further reinforces my point.

Jeffy25
01-16-2018, 09:08 PM
Sorry, I didn't mean to insinuate that you did it on purpose, I assumed you conducted your search by putting in AI's TS%. I was just trying to point out that there are other's who are considered all-time great players who were as inefficient scoring-wise from beyond the 60's. In fact, most of them happen to have peaked from 99-05, which further reinforces my point.

Absolutely.

And I did.

We have both debated enough over the years to respect each other and know that neither of us manipulate or are egregious with information.

Jeffy25
01-16-2018, 09:11 PM
There are only 3 times the league had a variable rate as big as the difference between AI's time and the current NBA. 2 of those are the beginning of AI's peak and the end of it and the other appears to be an aberration.

Even looking at the variance we see a pretty strong corollary that the rule changes and style of play definitely impacted the FG% of the league from 99-05.

Looking at your list above, I have bolded the 5 lowest FG% years in the NBA.

99, and 01-04 are the lowest. That is literally smack dab in the time I'm talking about. Are you suggesting that the rules didn't have an effect on the efficiency of the league at that time despite your data showing clearly the league's efficiency was down during that time?

when I get home, I'll total those numbers from those years if you like.

valade16
01-16-2018, 09:34 PM
Absolutely.

And I did.

We have both debated enough over the years to respect each other and know that neither of us manipulate or are egregious with information.

Yeah, I knew you didn't do it on purpose because I would have went about searching for that information the exact same way :laugh2:

bagwell368
01-16-2018, 10:43 PM
This is absurd. Ah bagwell at his usual ignorant self. Staying with his standards.:facepalm:

What I want to know is post 100 players that are better in this thread. Post them here.



Start with looking at the WS48 career list. Your hero is #228. If we toss out 127 guys ahead of him for short careers, he ends up at 101. Bill Cartright is ahead of him. I'll give you AI is better than Mr. Bill.

I'm not wasting my time for a list for tools that issue threats and insults.

AI = no title, no money, no brains, no class - bum.

bagwell368
01-16-2018, 11:05 PM
AI wasn't close to an inefficient player. For one he played his prime in the toughest defensive era the majority of us here have ever seen, so his 42% or whatever with the Sixers is better than it looks. For another, he was a playmaker and a better passer than he's being given credit for. He just wasn't a PG and never developed into a guy that could reliably make those decisions on the floor.

5th all time in USG, led league in FGA 4 times, 11 times top 10.

22nd all time in FGA, 13th all time in FGmissed (40 more would make him 11th all time).

He never broke the top 10 in any shooting % stats in any season

His closest WS comps are: Eddie Jones (#117 WS/48), Jeff Hornacek (#87 WS/48), Hersey Hawkins (#173 WS/48) - and of course AI #228 - yeah boy that's got TOP 100 written all over it.

You claim he was a good passer? I must have missed that game. He passed when he got in trouble mostly. He's not a PG? Well he sure as hell wasn't a SG on defense.

bootsy
01-16-2018, 11:09 PM
Start with looking at the WS48 career list. Your hero is #228. If we toss out 127 guys ahead of him for short careers, he ends up at 101. Bill Cartright is ahead of him. I'll give you AI is better than Mr. Bill.

I'm not wasting my time for a list for tools that issue threats and insults.

AI = no title, no money, no brains, no class - bum.

LOL what a cop out, I'm not looking for WD40 or WS48's list. I'm looking for YOUR LIST. WTF is WS48? If I don't know what it is it isn't worth looking at and if you are mentioning it it definitely isn't worth looking out.

Another lol at mentioning no title, no money, etc. That sounds like the real reason. AI stiffed you for an autograph or something. Those are not valid reasons why he isn't a top 50/100. Those are your sour grapes having ***** reasons. What a loser you are.

That's like me saying Jeff Bagwell = big headed, roided up, cheater with no title (which he is) who weaseled his way into a Hall of Fame he has no business being in. Your opinions still and always will suck. AI is a top 50 player, Jeff deal with it and show WS48 up you know where.

So until we get that list of 100 better players don't come on here talking about WD48 bs. Since you want to make the claim that AI isn't a top 100 player PRODUCE YOUR LIST.

bagwell368
01-17-2018, 12:02 AM
LOL what a cop out, I'm not looking for WD40 or WS48's list. I'm looking for YOUR LIST. WTF is WS48? If I don't know what it is it isn't worth looking at and if you are mentioning it it definitely isn't worth looking out.

You don't know what WS/48 is? I like to discuss issues with educated folks.


Another lol at mentioning no title, no money, etc. That sounds like the real reason. AI stiffed you for an autograph or something. Those are not valid reasons why he isn't a top 50/100. Those are your sour grapes having ***** reasons. What a loser you are.

I've been a fan since 1965, a player and a coach. His game isn't for me. Maybe for an ill schooled fan boy he's special. Sour grapes? I don't like his game, that's what this thread is for.


That's like me saying Jeff Bagwell = big headed, roided up, cheater with no title (which he is) who weaseled his way into a Hall of Fame he has no business being in. Your opinions still and always will suck. AI is a top 50 player, Jeff deal with it and show WS48 up you know where.

Oh I'm so injured... This is the level of your argument?


So until we get that list of 100 better players don't come on here talking about WD48 bs. Since you want to make the claim that AI isn't a top 100 player PRODUCE YOUR LIST.

I don't take orders from the likes of you. Why should I produce my list for you? You won't agree with it - besides your list is shorter, let's see your list. Then I'll make my list from there (assuming you didn't make some other ridiculous faux pas like AI).

ewing
01-17-2018, 12:08 AM
All I know is that Ricky Rubio is better the Kyrie Irving


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

bootsy
01-17-2018, 12:15 AM
You don't know what WS/48 is? I like to discuss issues with educated folks.



I've been a fan since 1965, a player and a coach. His game isn't for me. Maybe for an ill schooled fan boy he's special. Sour grapes? I don't like his game, that's what this thread is for.



Oh I'm so injured... This is the level of your argument?



I don't take orders from the likes of you. Why should I produce my list for you? You won't agree with it - besides your list is shorter, let's see your list. Then I'll make my list from there (assuming you didn't make some other ridiculous faux pas like AI).

I DON'T CARE ABOUT WD48!! What I asked you is for YOUR LIST. NOT WD48's list. I will continue to ask you to produce a list of 100 or more players that are better than Iverson. You he is out of the top 100 well then give a list of players that you think are better not who WD48 thinks are better. You are unable to produce this list because you can't and you rely on some other list.

Jeffy25
01-17-2018, 01:26 AM
Start with looking at the WS48 career list. Your hero is #228. If we toss out 127 guys ahead of him for short careers, he ends up at 101. Bill Cartright is ahead of him. I'll give you AI is better than Mr. Bill.

I'm not wasting my time for a list for tools that issue threats and insults.

AI = no title, no money, no brains, no class - bum.

If we make the list

20K minutes
WS of 80.00


That leaves us with 143 players all-time

He is 121st in that group at .126

121st in TS at .518

82nd in total Win Shares at 99.0

And if we add in playoffs

192 players have played 2500 playoff minutes (AI at 3200)

Iverson is 124th at 7.3 WS (tied with Eddie Jones and Kenyon Martin)
121st in WS/48
172nd in TS LMAO

LOb0
01-17-2018, 01:45 AM
I have a question, I'd really liked to of made a thread of this:


Who is the worst player you'd take before you'd pick Iverson?

I mean guys like Billups level I'd take in a heart beat over AI. I'm really debating if I'd take Iverson before someone like Z-bo even. AI is just such a determent it feels like.

lol, please
01-17-2018, 02:16 AM
I have a question, I'd really liked to of made a thread of this:


Who is the worst player you'd take before you'd pick Iverson?

I mean guys like Billups level I'd take in a heart beat over AI. I'm really debating if I'd take Iverson before someone like Z-bo even. AI is just such a determent it feels like.What if you had Iverson instead of Kyrie this season

Sent from my Note 8 using Tapatalk

LOb0
01-17-2018, 02:18 AM
What if you had Iverson instead of Kyrie this season

Sent from my Note 8 using Tapatalk

I'd be horrified.

Also that sig post is the dumbest thing is history lol, holy hell.

Jeffy25
01-17-2018, 03:28 AM
All I know is that Ricky Rubio is better the Kyrie Irving


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

None of the things that we are qualifying as important show Rubio as superior to Irving.

Rubio can't shoot, and doesn't shoot like a volume scoring guard. He playmakes and passes.

ewing
01-17-2018, 08:09 AM
I DON'T CARE ABOUT WD48!! What I asked you is for YOUR LIST. NOT WD48's list. I will continue to ask you to produce a list of 100 or more players that are better than Iverson. You he is out of the top 100 well then give a list of players that you think are better not who WD48 thinks are better. You are unable to produce this list because you can't and you rely on some other list.

Wd48 is failed 48th try at a spray lube for home jobs. They later decided to go with number 40


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

ewing
01-17-2018, 08:41 AM
None of the things that we are qualifying as important show Rubio as superior to Irving.

Rubio can't shoot, and doesn't shoot like a volume scoring guard. He playmakes and passes.

Thatís why he is better. Idk Iím just trying to learn here


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

bagwell368
01-17-2018, 08:44 AM
Here are a few guys that I put over AI, certain overly emotional posters might disagree with:

Mo Cheeks
Lenny Wilkins
KJ
Sam Jones
Rice
Moncrief
Dumars
Hardaway

Saw them all play, and with no special need to fill I'd take them over AI. Now if you need a ball dominant, volume scoring guard that doesn't play much D, nor pass that well, should have done serious jail time, and forced his way out off of several teams - well then he's your guy.

A good lesson here in how letting subjective preference turns ones judgement and behavior into mush.

thapastime7
01-17-2018, 10:09 AM
My top 10 list but its my list. As player of his size I admired his game growing up. I was the kid with the cut up tube sock and headband. I loved that guy fire but i hated his ego he caused himself years in the league.

bootsy
01-17-2018, 10:24 AM
Here are a few guys that I put over AI, certain overly emotional posters might disagree with:

Mo Cheeks
Lenny Wilkins
KJ
Sam Jones
Rice
Moncrief
Dumars
Hardaway

.

That's not a 100 and lol none of those players were better than Iverson. Rice? Glen Rice? In the words of John McEnroe 'you can't be serious'.

warfelg
01-17-2018, 10:45 AM
That's not a 100 and lol none of those players were better than Iverson. Rice? Glen Rice? In the words of John McEnroe 'you can't be serious'.

Iím still trying to get over the fact his list is literally WS/48 with no context.

That would make his top 5, in order:
Chris Paul
Michael Jordan
David Robinson
Wilt Chamberlain
Neil Johnston

bootsy
01-17-2018, 11:06 AM
Iím still trying to get over the fact his list is literally WS/48 with no context.

That would make his top 5, in order:
Chris Paul
Michael Jordan
David Robinson
Wilt Chamberlain
Neil Johnston

:facepalm: It's not surprising that guy is always coming up with ridiculous websites/formulas and other crap that don't make any sense. Just saw you don't like Iverson. You think he's a 'thug' or you don't like how he dressed or whatever but don't take that out on what he did on the court. bagwell you sound absolutely pathetic. Glen Rice? Joe Dumars? Cmon dude the game is up.

basch152
01-17-2018, 11:12 AM
:facepalm: It's not surprising that guy is always coming up with ridiculous websites/formulas and other crap that don't make any sense. Just saw you don't like Iverson. You think he's a 'thug' or you don't like how he dressed or whatever but don't take that out on what he did on the court. bagwell you sound absolutely pathetic. Glen Rice? Joe Dumars? Cmon dude the game is up.

what he did in the court was inefficiently score, while being terrible at every other job a basketball player is supposed to do.

bootsy
01-17-2018, 12:22 PM
what he did in the court was inefficiently score, while being terrible at every other job a basketball player is supposed to do.

What he did on the court is score. Whether you want to call it inefficient is irrelevant. Michael Jordan, Russell Westbrook ,Kevin Durant, Kobe Bryant etc. inefficiently scored too but they are still the best players/options on the court.

valade16
01-17-2018, 01:04 PM
Here are a few guys that I put over AI, certain overly emotional posters might disagree with:

Mo Cheeks
Lenny Wilkins
KJ
Sam Jones
Rice
Moncrief
Dumars
Hardaway

Saw them all play, and with no special need to fill I'd take them over AI. Now if you need a ball dominant, volume scoring guard that doesn't play much D, nor pass that well, should have done serious jail time, and forced his way out off of several teams - well then he's your guy.

A good lesson here in how letting subjective preference turns ones judgement and behavior into mush.

Lenny Wilkens (as well as others on your list) has both a lower TS% and a lower WS/48 than AI.

My only point in bringing that up is you used both those as arguments against AI. If you think Lenny can be better than AI despite inferior numbers there, then it's perfectly reasonable for others to believe AI is better than certain players if he has inferior TS% and WS/48 numbers.

lol, please
01-17-2018, 02:01 PM
I DON'T CARE ABOUT WD48!! What I asked you is for YOUR LIST. NOT WD48's list. I will continue to ask you to produce a list of 100 or more players that are better than Iverson. You he is out of the top 100 well then give a list of players that you think are better not who WD48 thinks are better. You are unable to produce this list because you can't and you rely on some other list.WS/48 is a metric that measures how many win shares a player contributed to over 48 minutes of game time.

Sent from my Note 8 using Tapatalk

basch152
01-17-2018, 02:17 PM
What he did on the court is score. Whether you want to call it inefficient is irrelevant. Michael Jordan, Russell Westbrook ,Kevin Durant, Kobe Bryant etc. inefficiently scored too but they are still the best players/options on the court.

and this is incredibly low basketball IQ.

if the only thing you are good at is scoring, and you do it so incredibly inefficiently, you are more often than not harming your team more than helping.

it's EXACTLY why the superstar lineup of melo/pg/Westbrook isn't going far.

2 out of the 3 of them can only score. nothing else but stat pad.

it's why love has never been great on the cavs. his main job is to score. but when you have LeBron and kyrie/it holding the ball most the time, his main strength is wasted.

love would improve almost any team he's put on. but he's just a waste there.

bootsy
01-17-2018, 03:19 PM
WS/48 is a metric that measures how many win shares a player contributed to over 48 minutes of game time.

Sent from my Note 8 using Tapatalk

Like I said worthless.

Chronz
01-17-2018, 03:21 PM
Like I said worthless.
All stats are. Especially the ones I've seen AI fan boys bring up

bootsy
01-17-2018, 03:21 PM
and this is incredibly low basketball IQ.

if the only thing you are good at is scoring, and you do it so incredibly inefficiently, you are more often than not harming your team more than helping.

it's EXACTLY why the superstar lineup of melo/pg/Westbrook isn't going far.

2 out of the 3 of them can only score. nothing else but stat pad.

it's why love has never been great on the cavs. his main job is to score. but when you have LeBron and kyrie/it holding the ball most the time, his main strength is wasted.

love would improve almost any team he's put on. but he's just a waste there.

You mentioned scoring not me with 'what he did in the court was inefficiently score'. That's what you said so my reply was based off of what you said. So you if I have low basketball IQ(which I don't) then you have low IQ period. Not many great scorers were extremely efficient great scorers unless you were a center. So making this argument again doesn't carry much weight. 'Hey AI was an inefficient scorer'. Well he's got plenty of players in line with him. Not wasting my time going back and forth with you. You think Iverson was an inefficient scorer, I say who the **** cares. You don't think he's a great player, I do.

TheDish87
01-17-2018, 03:45 PM
Here are a few guys that I put over AI, certain overly emotional posters might disagree with:

Mo Cheeks
Lenny Wilkins
KJ
Sam Jones
Rice
Moncrief
Dumars
Hardaway

Saw them all play, and with no special need to fill I'd take them over AI. Now if you need a ball dominant, volume scoring guard that doesn't play much D, nor pass that well, should have done serious jail time, and forced his way out off of several teams - well then he's your guy.

A good lesson here in how letting subjective preference turns ones judgement and behavior into mush.

oh come on dude. be a bigger hater.

TheDish87
01-17-2018, 03:46 PM
what he did in the court was inefficiently score, while being terrible at every other job a basketball player is supposed to do.

lololol

bagwell368
01-17-2018, 04:15 PM
That's not a 100 and lol none of those players were better than Iverson. Rice? Glen Rice? In the words of John McEnroe 'you can't be serious'.

I was looking at guards/SF in the vicinity of where Iverson belongs. I guess that was too subtle for you. None of those guys rank higher than about 90.

Not a big fan of Rice, but his peak from '93 thru '00 was better than anything Iverson ever did.

bagwell368
01-17-2018, 04:18 PM
Iím still trying to get over the fact his list is literally WS/48 with no context.

That would make his top 5, in order:
Chris Paul
Michael Jordan
David Robinson
Wilt Chamberlain
Neil Johnston

I wouldn't put Neil in the top 100, but the worst of the rest are in the top 25. I'm a busy guy. Since you guys want a list so bad I'll make one, but probably not until tomorrow.

bagwell368
01-17-2018, 04:21 PM
:facepalm: It's not surprising that guy is always coming up with ridiculous websites/formulas and other crap that don't make any sense. Just saw you don't like Iverson. You think he's a 'thug' or you don't like how he dressed or whatever but don't take that out on what he did on the court. bagwell you sound absolutely pathetic. Glen Rice? Joe Dumars? Cmon dude the game is up.

No question Dumars was a better player and certainly less divisive in and out of the locker room. Go back to your mom's basement and cuddle up with your AI wear.

Only website I ever mentioned was a wiki which outlines the criminal history of your binky and his various moves to get out of situations he didn't like.

Never mind the fact the clown was 5th all time in holding the ball and his shooting percentage is anything but dominant.

warfelg
01-17-2018, 04:27 PM
I wouldn't put Neil in the top 100, but the worst of the rest are in the top 25. I'm a busy guy. Since you guys want a list so bad I'll make one, but probably not until tomorrow.

So right away it puts a fallacy in your argument that your list would be based on WS/48 right? And Paul above Jordan?

It was your words that said:

Start with looking at the WS48 career list.

Are Jimmy Jones and Mark Price really people you want to use as high up because of that list in all time players?

europagnpilgrim
01-17-2018, 04:33 PM
I wouldn't put Neil in the top 100, but the worst of the rest are in the top 25. I'm a busy guy. Since you guys want a list so bad I'll make one, but probably not until tomorrow.


You must be a real busy guy to think G Rice is on the level of Iverson, if Iverson was Rice height it would have been a damn shame how much more dominant he would have truly been, Rice at Iverson height would be D Fisher, not bad but nowhere near 1st ballot HOF'er, just Rice isn't first ballot

you are so such a busy guy how do you have time to actually watch players perform?

Jamiecballer
01-17-2018, 04:35 PM
:facepalm: It's not surprising that guy is always coming up with ridiculous websites/formulas and other crap that don't make any sense. Just saw you don't like Iverson. You think he's a 'thug' or you don't like how he dressed or whatever but don't take that out on what he did on the court. bagwell you sound absolutely pathetic. Glen Rice? Joe Dumars? Cmon dude the game is up.Unless we are talking Glen rice jr, absolutely, sign me up. Joe Dumars, not so sure.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-J120A using Tapatalk

warfelg
01-17-2018, 04:35 PM
what he did in the court was inefficiently score, while being terrible at every other job a basketball player is supposed to do.

I want to give you two players and you tell me what you think of how they stack up:

STAT
PLAYER A
PLAYER B


PER
18.4
20.9


TS%
61.4
51.8


ORB%
2.2
2.2


DRB%
7.8
8.1


TRB%
5.1
5.1


AST%
14.4
28.8


STL%
1.6
2.7


BLK%
0.4
0.3


TOV%
10.5
12.2


USG%
21.6
31.8


WS/48
.176
.126


BPM
3.3
2.7



How do you feel those two stack up? Player B a little less efficient, but overall does a little more for his team no?

Jamiecballer
01-17-2018, 04:36 PM
What he did on the court is score. Whether you want to call it inefficient is irrelevant. Michael Jordan, Russell Westbrook ,Kevin Durant, Kobe Bryant etc. inefficiently scored too but they are still the best players/options on the court.Ok wow, now it all makes sense. 2, maybe 3 of those guys are anything but as scorers

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-J120A using Tapatalk

europagnpilgrim
01-17-2018, 04:46 PM
No question Dumars was a better player and certainly less divisive in and out of the locker room. Go back to your mom's basement and cuddle up with your AI wear.

Only website I ever mentioned was a wiki which outlines the criminal history of your binky and his various moves to get out of situations he didn't like.

Never mind the fact the clown was 5th all time in holding the ball and his shooting percentage is anything but dominant.

You sound like a mad banker who finally got caught lying to people about mortgage and credit card loans

Dumars? less divisive makes you a better player or more of a 'yes' man so people can feel comfortable around you? Jordan must fall way low on your list since he choked his teammates and had another teammate threaten to break his legs if Jordan did something to him

criminal history? now I am starting to think you really are a commercial corporate banker

Iverson has never been convicted of rape/selling drugs etc, he did get locked up on bogus charges when he was a junior in HS, but other than that he wasn't getting his PacMan Jones on like you are trying to put it, did he hang around guys he grew up with? I am sure he did just as you hang around the nerds or tough guys you came up around, human nature

the various moves to get out of what situations? goodbye mr. banker

its always the criminals that always throw the stone and claim that's the real criminal over there

you go by eye test on judging these players, the most dominant best are obvious and it sure as hell doesn't take no WS48 or whatever nerd stat you are trying to put out there

so you base a player on shooting percentage but not his support cast? once again you must be too busy to watch basketball, it helps a lot to watch and not rely on empty numbers, who would you rather have holding the ball, Iverson or Mckie?

I bet you think Mckie is better as well, man you are what psd needs, keep it coming when you are not too busy with your banking buddies

ewing
01-17-2018, 04:53 PM
You sound like a mad banker who finally got caught lying to people about mortgage and credit card loans

Dumars? less divisive makes you a better player or more of a 'yes' man so people can feel comfortable around you? Jordan must fall way low on your list since he choked his teammates and had another teammate threaten to break his legs if Jordan did something to him

criminal history? now I am starting to think you really are a commercial corporate banker

Iverson has never been convicted of rape/selling drugs etc, he did get locked up on bogus charges when he was a junior in HS, but other than that he wasn't getting his PacMan Jones on like you are trying to put it, did he hang around guys he grew up with? I am sure he did just as you hang around the nerds or tough guys you came up around, human nature

the various moves to get out of what situations? goodbye mr. banker

its always the criminals that always throw the stone and claim that's the real criminal over there

you go by eye test on judging these players, the most dominant best are obvious and it sure as hell doesn't take no WS48 or whatever nerd stat you are trying to put out there

so you base a player on shooting percentage but not his support cast? once again you must be too busy to watch basketball, it helps a lot to watch and not rely on empty numbers, who would you rather have holding the ball, Iverson or Mckie?

I bet you think Mckie is better as well, man you are what psd needs, keep it coming when you are not too busy with your banking buddies

Fantastic post


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

europagnpilgrim
01-17-2018, 04:55 PM
All stats are. Especially the ones I've seen AI fan boys bring up


the most important stat trumps all that AI backlashers seem to cover up the window curtains and run for the closet is, THE ROSTER

that is a ''stat'' that trumps all

Mckie and Snow say hello

how much ''worth'' was AI actual roster? i'll wait since I sure you wont have ''TheAnswer''

europagnpilgrim
01-17-2018, 05:01 PM
5th all time in USG, led league in FGA 4 times, 11 times top 10.

22nd all time in FGA, 13th all time in FGmissed (40 more would make him 11th all time).

He never broke the top 10 in any shooting % stats in any season

His closest WS comps are: Eddie Jones (#117 WS/48), Jeff Hornacek (#87 WS/48), Hersey Hawkins (#173 WS/48) - and of course AI #228 - yeah boy that's got TOP 100 written all over it.

You claim he was a good passer? I must have missed that game. He passed when he got in trouble mostly. He's not a PG? Well he sure as hell wasn't a SG on defense.

played with Snow and Mckie for 7 out of 10yrs in Philly, they both avg around 5-7ppg for entire career

meaning somebody had to shoot the damn ball when you have backcourt mates who cant score consistently to alleviate pressure off Iverson, and your frontcourt maxed out around 8-11ppg for careers

that's a lot of shots that need to be taken because usually a true contender has 3 guys capable of getting 20ppg each or 2 guys who can each go for 30 on any given night

that's why I know you guys don't know jack **** about basketball because you are over ranking his GLeague support cast

its like you would get mad at Westbrook last year for hogging the ball but fail to realize he lost his main help/core that he had and it was him and Dipo, which I guess at that time he didn't trust but still Dipo was around 18ppg or so, which was way better what AI had but I am using Westbrook as example for right now and how his usage was real high and he ran PG while AI only did that for 3yrs in Philly, he was SG the other 7 with the worst support scoring cast ever for a superstar first 10yrs

europagnpilgrim
01-17-2018, 05:09 PM
If we make the list

20K minutes
WS of 80.00


That leaves us with 143 players all-time

He is 121st in that group at .126

121st in TS at .518

82nd in total Win Shares at 99.0

And if we add in playoffs

192 players have played 2500 playoff minutes (AI at 3200)

Iverson is 124th at 7.3 WS (tied with Eddie Jones and Kenyon Martin)
121st in WS/48
172nd in TS LMAO

and this is the reason we don't judge players off these numbers, judge as we don't judge players based on ring total, this only fits a person agenda when It favors what they are looking to do and give them a faÁade edge on a debate

being dominant is just that, I don't need to see Wilt TS or Win shares to know how dominant he was, I can just look at his numbers and whatever film they have right now and see that

E Jones had 3 other all stars one season and didn't make the Finals, KMart was solid

give Iverson 3 other all stars in his youth and boy you got trouble but it never happened so I have to use what did and Iverson had GLeaugers in the Finals, and they improved annually up until that max out point of 01', nothing wrong with maxing out with GLeaguers while E Jones couldn't get to the finals with VanExel/Bryant/Shaq and KMart got his shine on with Kidd getting his 15 and 9 or so per game, none could carry a team/load like Iverson

just like Lebron said, he played like he was 6'8''

lol, please
01-17-2018, 05:15 PM
No question Dumars was a better player and certainly less divisive in and out of the locker room. Go back to your mom's basement and cuddle up with your AI wear.

Only website I ever mentioned was a wiki which outlines the criminal history of your binky and his various moves to get out of situations he didn't like.

Never mind the fact the clown was 5th all time in holding the ball and his shooting percentage is anything but dominant.http://replygif.net/i/265.gif

Sent from my Note 8 using Tapatalk

europagnpilgrim
01-17-2018, 05:20 PM
None of the things that we are qualifying as important show Rubio as superior to Irving.

Rubio can't shoot, and doesn't shoot like a volume scoring guard. He playmakes and passes.

you just value volume over passers like Stockton and Nash

I value combo who can do both like Iverson/Jordan/Oscar/Lebron/Wilt

Rubio couldn't shoot preNBA and now like what 10yrs into the league he still cant, Rubio was high volume over passer preNBA and he is that 10yrs or whatever later

no he quasi playmakes, and just overly high volume passes

players who do both at high level equal are my style

like a J Kidd mixed with Iverson, that's my style of a player right there

Kidd cant score like Iverson but Iverson can pass and create like Kidd

you cant force Kidd to score big if needed consistently, you can get Iverson to pass as seeing his 16 assists in game 7 playoffs because the team needed and he was getting ''Jordan'' rules ran on him

were they running Jordan rules on him because he had no help or because Iverson was that good? or little of both?

did the Pistons run the rules on Jordan because he had no help or because Jordan was that good or a little of both?

europagnpilgrim
01-17-2018, 05:24 PM
I like how I mention Iverson support cast and then the others on here start bringing up other players WS48 stats to compare to Iverson

and not one time did Snow or Mckie make the list yet

so they may not even be top 300

that is props to Iverson for having such a horrible core for 7yrs

I am still waiting on the list where Mckie/Snow ranks, not E Jones or Rice or any other players, just Snow and Mckie and the rest of Iverson 10yr '''Sixers''' roster

just focus on that BAGWELL227 and JEFFYMIX, give me the rankings on those players so we can all have another big *** laugh on you two behalf

bagwell368
01-17-2018, 10:00 PM
So right away it puts a fallacy in your argument that your list would be based on WS/48 right? And Paul above Jordan?

Do you have a comprehension issue? Where did I say Paul is above Jordan. Also Paul is still mid career, his numbers are liable to go down.

There is no one way to rate players. There is looking at them vs the era they played in. There are standard and advanced stats. There is looking at them with different combinations of players with them. Winning, playoff performance, etc.

Don't try and box me in.

bagwell368
01-17-2018, 10:03 PM
I like how I mention Iverson support cast and then the others on here start bringing up other players WS48 stats to compare to Iverson

and not one time did Snow or Mckie make the list yet

so they may not even be top 300

that is props to Iverson for having such a horrible core for 7yrs

I am still waiting on the list where Mckie/Snow ranks, not E Jones or Rice or any other players, just Snow and Mckie and the rest of Iverson 10yr '''Sixers''' roster

just focus on that BAGWELL227 and JEFFYMIX, give me the rankings on those players so we can all have another big *** laugh on you two behalf

There is no question that AI passed on his worst 5 FGA per game and distributed the ball instead his team would have done better. Somehow he couldn't manage to do that.

Now obviously any big shooter tosses out their worst 5 shots they'll do better, but the other guys that held and shot as much or more then him were more dominant and more effective than AI - by eye and by stat.

bagwell368
01-17-2018, 10:07 PM
You must be a real busy guy to think G Rice is on the level of Iverson, if Iverson was Rice height it would have been a damn shame how much more dominant he would have truly been, Rice at Iverson height would be D Fisher, not bad but nowhere near 1st ballot HOF'er, just Rice isn't first ballot

you are so such a busy guy how do you have time to actually watch players perform?

You might want to rewrite this as it's very poorly put together.

As far as watching, I go back to 1965.

Maybe I went to far with Rice, but I put down what 5 or 6 other names, no criticism for them? Good , that good because most of the guys are under 100 all time.

bagwell368
01-17-2018, 10:09 PM
I like how I mention Iverson support cast and then the others on here start bringing up other players WS48 stats to compare to Iverson

and not one time did Snow or Mckie make the list yet

A few years ago I went to AI's best couple of years, and his WS48 numbers was in the middle of the rosters.

Try looking at that. Then work on writing cohesive paragraphs and posts.

Chronz
01-17-2018, 10:17 PM
I want to give you two players and you tell me what you think of how they stack up:

STAT
PLAYER A
PLAYER B


PER
18.4
20.9


TS%
61.4
51.8


ORB%
2.2
2.2


DRB%
7.8
8.1


TRB%
5.1
5.1


AST%
14.4
28.8


STL%
1.6
2.7


BLK%
0.4
0.3


TOV%
10.5
12.2


USG%
21.6
31.8


WS/48
.176
.126


BPM
3.3
2.7



How do you feel those two stack up? Player B a little less efficient, but overall does a little more for his team no?

Player b is alot less efficient. Is there any thing in his past that might lead you to believe he could be more efficient with a reduced role? Cuz that's not a guarantee, some guys sole value is to prop up a bad team while others are championship caliber players.

Who were they tho

Chronz
01-17-2018, 10:22 PM
There is no question that AI passed on his worst 5 FGA per game and distributed the ball instead his team would have done better. Somehow he couldn't manage to do that.

Now obviously any big shooter tosses out their worst 5 shots they'll do better, but the other guys that held and shot as much or more then him were more dominant and more effective than AI - by eye and by stat.
True, even when he was in Denver, the guy drove the coaching staff mad with his lack of passing, they had to get him a point guard to play with, I still remember old man Carter having to defend way bigger players cuz AI was a tweaner. It got so bad they tried making jr Smith into more of a pg. I vividly remember denbutsue complaining that AI had so much potential as a passer, he would just never sustain it. Basically what was said about AI from day 1 to the end, the guy never learned the skills a player his height needed. It's why cp3 is FAR superior, he's adapted his game in ways AI never could. AI and melo truly deserved each other.

warfelg
01-17-2018, 10:33 PM
Player b is alot less efficient. Is there any thing in his past that might lead you to believe he could be more efficient with a reduced role? Cuz that's not a guarantee, some guys sole value is to prop up a bad team while others are championship caliber players.

Who were they tho

Reason I put that out there was the statement of "Iverson was only an inefficient scorer", so I wanted to put up someone that was only a scorer but I've hear a lot of people say this guy was better:

Player A is Reggie Miller
Player B is Allen Iverson

mike_noodles
01-17-2018, 10:42 PM
Iíd put him inside the top 10 of most fun individuals to watch. He was so entertaining. Iím not sure where he goes all time, but he is better than some are giving credit for.

Chronz
01-17-2018, 11:03 PM
Iíd put him inside the top 10 of most fun individuals to watch. He was so entertaining. Iím not sure where he goes all time, but he is better than some are giving credit for.

Is he better than Gary Payton?

ewing
01-17-2018, 11:08 PM
You might want to rewrite this as it's very poorly put together.

As far as watching, I go back to 1965.

Maybe I went to far with Rice, but I put down what 5 or 6 other names, no criticism for them? Good , that good because most of the guys are under 100 all time.

Wait, your old? Did you coach hs basketball? Iím sorry. Iíll never question you again


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

ewing
01-17-2018, 11:11 PM
Reason I put that out there was the statement of "Iverson was only an inefficient scorer", so I wanted to put up someone that was only a scorer but I've hear a lot of people say this guy was better:

Player A is Reggie Miller
Player B is Allen Iverson

Reggie Miller had a better career and really donít think that can be questioned. AI had a higher peak.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

warfelg
01-17-2018, 11:13 PM
Reggie Miller had a better career and really donít think that can be questioned. AI had a higher peak.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That wasn't really the point. The point was that if you want to call AI a one dimensional inefficient scorer, then you might want the whole picture if you list someone like Miller above him.

Chronz
01-18-2018, 12:33 AM
AI vs Reggie Miller personified the debate between usage vs efficiency. Reggie might've been most efficient go to scorer for a team in league history. MJ was around that level of efficiency but on ridiculously high usage so it was clear he shared the best traits of both.

I honestly don't know who was better between the 2 but I do know old *** Reggie outplayed Iverson in all their series against each other.

The pacers were elite offensively during this time period so it's hard to blame Reggie, no way Iverson could play with that level of efficiency imo

TheDish87
01-18-2018, 10:14 AM
Reggie Miller had a better career and really donít think that can be questioned. AI had a higher peak.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

see i think Reggie overrated and not top 50. If he didnt have some historic plays in his career i dont think hed be viewed as one either.

YAALREADYKNO
01-18-2018, 11:29 AM
Top 40-50

Jamiecballer
01-18-2018, 12:27 PM
AI vs Reggie Miller personified the debate between usage vs efficiency. Reggie might've been most efficient go to scorer for a team in league history. MJ was around that level of efficiency but on ridiculously high usage so it was clear he shared the best traits of both.

I honestly don't know who was better between the 2 but I do know old *** Reggie outplayed Iverson in all their series against each other.

The pacers were elite offensively during this time period so it's hard to blame Reggie, no way Iverson could play with that level of efficiency imo

agreed. reggie miller looks even better in hindsight when you look at some the advanced stats.

europagnpilgrim
01-18-2018, 12:31 PM
There is no question that AI passed on his worst 5 FGA per game and distributed the ball instead his team would have done better. Somehow he couldn't manage to do that.

Now obviously any big shooter tosses out their worst 5 shots they'll do better, but the other guys that held and shot as much or more then him were more dominant and more effective than AI - by eye and by stat.

once again you tap dance around the pocket about the ranking on those players, where do they sit? c'mon you been watching the game since 65' so you should know where they rank especially since Iverson is not in your top 100, c'mon BAGS, show me the conviction of your eye test, those expert eyes of yours

he did distribute the ball, I just told you that Snow was avg 3ppg pre Iverson and maxed out at 12 and 13ppg in seasons with Iverson, that's a 9-10ppg increase playing with Iverson, so how could he manage to do what you claim he didn't do? c'mon man your eyes are better than that, or maybe they are fading from watching so many players/games since 65'

of course if any shooter tosses out their worst 5 shots they would do better and Iverson did just that but you must have had your Roddy Piper black shades one which clouded your vision

heres a Iverson example of that: he left Philly for Denver via trade where he avg anywhere from 23-25+ shots per game for his career there and in his 1 full season in Denver he shots 18 shots per game, now I am not a math expert but that looks like at least a 5 shot decrease, and that 5 shot decrease came because instead of Snow and Mckie combining for 20-22ppg you had Melo over there who could get 30ppg and I think was avg like 34ppg prior to the trade for AI

once again you are making Iverson look good with your ''bankers gone mad'' hate mental

distribute the ball to who? Geiger or McCullough or Dalembert or who? and by the way all those players got overpaid playing ''for'' Iverson, and you can take that to the eye and stat '''bank'''

europagnpilgrim
01-18-2018, 12:42 PM
True, even when he was in Denver, the guy drove the coaching staff mad with his lack of passing, they had to get him a point guard to play with, I still remember old man Carter having to defend way bigger players cuz AI was a tweaner. It got so bad they tried making jr Smith into more of a pg. I vividly remember denbutsue complaining that AI had so much potential as a passer, he would just never sustain it. Basically what was said about AI from day 1 to the end, the guy never learned the skills a player his height needed. It's why cp3 is FAR superior, he's adapted his game in ways AI never could. AI and melo truly deserved each other.

its hard to change what you are after 10 years of doing it, its hard to adapt with a team for 1 year, you guys act like he stayed in Denver for 7yrs, he was there trade deadline, and 1 full season

they could have moved Kleiza for Artest at that time and the team wanted to so they could have Artest/AI in the backcourt, which would have been a massive upgrade over Carter

where does Carter rank all time? old man carter, not Vince

CP3 is not adapting his game from what I watch, he is shooting way more than usual but the system calls for it and CP3 is a capable scorer as I have stated but he loves to over pass

if CP3 is far superior then where is his finals trip? he never had a AI moment/game 1 finals and I root for both players equally, CP3 plays the way he plays because of Iverson, his words not mine

but his words don't matter when it comes to Iverson

AI and Melo truly deserved each other, 50 win 8th seed in only season together and led the league as scoring duo and Iverson was most efficient he had ever been after finally getting a young stud to lean on

what do you mean by skills? he was stupid skilled, from his nba scouting report rookie year day 1, go check it out, its hard being a player his actual height since he doesn't play to his height, go ask Lebron who said he play like he 6'8'', that's a whole foot taller than what he is so it might have been hard for him to learn your way which is probably talking about small guys who played small like Nash,Stockton and other over passers, Rubio and whoever else

Iverson and Melo were the scorers on that team, JR was a baby trying to find his way, and Carter/Camby/Martin are not what I would call go to guys but maybe you do, oh well

europagnpilgrim
01-18-2018, 12:46 PM
agreed. reggie miller looks even better in hindsight when you look at some the advanced stats.

no he doesn't because you cant factor in the more usage could lead to less being efficient, when Miller went up against those Bulls they needed him to go ape crazy and I remember correctly J Rose was looking more of the franchise guy than Miller in those series, he looked to be the better or no less equal to Miller

europagnpilgrim
01-18-2018, 12:51 PM
You might want to rewrite this as it's very poorly put together.

As far as watching, I go back to 1965.

Maybe I went to far with Rice, but I put down what 5 or 6 other names, no criticism for them? Good , that good because most of the guys are under 100 all time.

If Iverson was Rice height he would be what Lebron said he played like, actually 6'8'' and with his athletic ability/skill/killer instinct/attack motor it would have been scary to see AI at that height, Rice at 5'10'' would have been Fredette or Redick, good knock down shooter off screens, I know what the hell I am talking about so maybe you need to re read it and take those black shades off when you do to see more clearly

europagnpilgrim
01-18-2018, 12:55 PM
I get it, you guys value and love over passers because that's the style you play or you are only capable of playing like that, I can play like Kidd or Iverson, given the scenario

I am pretty sure guys on here who do nothing but rebound love Drummond and B Russell and Rodman and all those other premier rebounders past and present

and I don't knock over passers but its the reason why Stockton has no rings in 2 finals trips, because Malone needed scoring help and Stockton was too busy trying to collect assists, so now I am going to do like you guys are start punishing players for over passing looking for that elusive dime

that's inefficient to over pass or only pass when it leads to an assist, I am docking points to all over passing PG's past and present from now on, inefficient over passing ball dominators

JAZZNC
01-18-2018, 01:01 PM
So after 12 pages, what Iím seeing is a couple 76er fan boys and one incoherent lunatic that just posts McKie and Snow over and over are the only ones who donít think AI was a detriment to winning. Got it.

valade16
01-18-2018, 01:16 PM
So after 12 pages, what Iím seeing is a couple 76er fan boys and one incoherent lunatic that just posts McKie and Snow over and over are the only ones who donít think AI was a detriment to winning. Got it.

Certainly not, I'm neither a 76er fan boy nor someone who repeated McKie or Snow over and over and I think you're a ****ing moron if you think AI was a flat out detriment to winning.

I also posted a ton of stats showing the decreased scoring efficiency of the era in which AI peaked which explains his incredibly low TS%, but it seems as if facts and data and context are just pissing into the void on this debate, which is sad. Ironically, the most fanatical blind lunatics in this debate are those that hate AI, all stats and context be damned.

basch152
01-18-2018, 01:39 PM
So after 12 pages, what Iím seeing is a couple 76er fan boys and one incoherent lunatic that just posts McKie and Snow over and over are the only ones who donít think AI was a detriment to winning. Got it.

that about sums it up

basch152
01-18-2018, 01:43 PM
Certainly not, I'm neither a 76er fan boy nor someone who repeated McKie or Snow over and over and I think you're a ****ing moron if you think AI was a flat out detriment to winning.

I also posted a ton of stats showing the decreased scoring efficiency of the era in which AI peaked which explains his incredibly low TS%, but it seems as if facts and data and context are just pissing into the void on this debate, which is sad. Ironically, the most fanatical blind lunatics in this debate are those that hate AI, all stats and context be damned.

no, AI had low efficiency in his era even.

again, AI had arguably his best, most efficient year his last season in Denver.

so if AI wasn't a detriment, give just one reason why Denver was suddenly a great team pushing for a finals appearance with Chauncey, and the pistons went from a near 60 win conference finals team, to a sub 40 win first round exit team with AI.

you guys can't give a satisfactory answer to this.

but the answer is simple - a player like Chauncey who improves his teammates, plays great defense, and fills all the small parts for your team will ALWAYS be a better player than a player who can't do anything well other than score.

this is why AI isn't even close to a top 50 all time player.

ewing
01-18-2018, 01:50 PM
no he doesn't because you cant factor in the more usage could lead to less being efficient, when Miller went up against those Bulls they needed him to go ape crazy and I remember correctly J Rose was looking more of the franchise guy than Miller in those series, he looked to be the better or no less equal to Miller

Miller is one of the few stars that was better in the post season. Plus he was good in big moments (historically good).

Jamiecballer
01-18-2018, 01:51 PM
once again you tap dance around the pocket about the ranking on those players, where do they sit? c'mon you been watching the game since 65' so you should know where they rank especially since Iverson is not in your top 100, c'mon BAGS, show me the conviction of your eye test, those expert eyes of yours

he did distribute the ball, I just told you that Snow was avg 3ppg pre Iverson and maxed out at 12 and 13ppg in seasons with Iverson, that's a 9-10ppg increase playing with Iverson, so how could he manage to do what you claim he didn't do? c'mon man your eyes are better than that, or maybe they are fading from watching so many players/games since 65'



you continue to ask this question because you fail to realize why the organization identified and kept those players (snow, mckie) during AI's tenure. as soon as you get that the question will be irrelevant but i will help you along here.

Jim Jackson
Jerry Stackhouse
Tim Thomas
Larry Hughes
Raja Bell
Glenn Robinson
John Salmons
Kyle Korver

All of these guys were offensive minded guards or swingmen. In other words all competition with Iverson for touches. None of them really thrived with the exception of Korver, the one guy who excels without the ball in his hands. Not only did they not thrive, they pretty much all had short tenures in Philly. Why do you think that was?

Snow and McKie were desirable pieces to a team that didn't particularly trust the restraint and decision making of their chucking superstar. So it doesn't matter if they are the #699th and #912th of all-time. They were there and it was for the most part Iverson's doing.

ewing
01-18-2018, 01:52 PM
Certainly not, I'm neither a 76er fan boy nor someone who repeated McKie or Snow over and over and I think you're a ****ing moron if you think AI was a flat out detriment to winning.

I also posted a ton of stats showing the decreased scoring efficiency of the era in which AI peaked which explains his incredibly low TS%, but it seems as if facts and data and context are just pissing into the void on this debate, which is sad. Ironically, the most fanatical blind lunatics in this debate are those that hate AI, all stats and context be damned.

I enjoyed your posting

valade16
01-18-2018, 01:58 PM
no, AI had low efficiency in his era even.

again, AI had arguably his best, most efficient year his last season in Denver.

so if AI wasn't a detriment, give just one reason why Denver was suddenly a great team pushing for a finals appearance with Chauncey, and the pistons went from a near 60 win conference finals team, to a sub 40 win first round exit team with AI.

you guys can't give a satisfactory answer to this.

but the answer is simple - a player like Chauncey who improves his teammates, plays great defense, and fills all the small parts for your team will ALWAYS be a better player than a player who can't do anything well other than score.

this is why AI isn't even close to a top 50 all time player.

First Bolded: I never said anything different, in fact what I said earlier in the thread is:

"AI was an inefficient player in an inefficient era, so his inefficiency is magnified when compared to other eras."

Second Bolded: To start with, a single season and that single instance doesn't definitively prove anything. Amare went down and the Suns won more games and did just as well. Guess Amare was a scrub who sucks. The Bulls won 3 less games without MJ, guess MJ wasn't that good. There are many instances in history where a team did better or as good without a star player, doesn't mean those star players aren't good.

But part of the reason for your question is because the 2 years the Nuggets had AI they faced the Champion Spurs and the Finals Lakers in their first matchup.

Those Spurs had the best SRS in the league at 8.35 and the Lakers were 3rd at 7.35. The 2 teams the Billups Nuggets played in the 1st and 2nd Rounds had an SRS of 1.41 and 1.68. In fact, the Billups Nuggets lost to the same Lakers team the AI Nuggets lost to the year prior. In other words, if AI's Nuggets faced NO and Dallas in the first 2 rounds they'd have gone to the WCF and if the Billups Nuggets had faced the Lakers in the first round, they'd have been 1st round exits...

In fact the 2008 Nuggets SRS was 3.74 with AI and 3.12 with Billups.

Or maybe the fact that in 2008 the West had 8 teams finish with 50 wins and in 2009 it only had 6 teams finish with 50 wins.

In short, there were a ton of different reasons why, none of which have to do with "AI sucks"

valade16
01-18-2018, 02:09 PM
you continue to ask this question because you fail to realize why the organization identified and kept those players (snow, mckie) during AI's tenure. as soon as you get that the question will be irrelevant but i will help you along here.

Jim Jackson
Jerry Stackhouse
Tim Thomas
Larry Hughes
Raja Bell
Glenn Robinson
John Salmons
Kyle Korver

All of these guys were offensive minded guards or swingmen. In other words all competition with Iverson for touches. None of them really thrived with the exception of Korver, the one guy who excels without the ball in his hands. Not only did they not thrive, they pretty much all had short tenures in Philly. Why do you think that was?

Snow and McKie were desirable pieces to a team that didn't particularly trust the restraint and decision making of their chucking superstar. So it doesn't matter if they are the #699th and #912th of all-time. They were there and it was for the most part Iverson's doing.

I'm sorry was that list intended to show us all the great scoring help they gave AI and he torpedoed their success?

Jim Jackson - career .511 TS%
Jerry Stackhouse - career .524 TS%
Tim Thomas - career .535 TS% (career 11.5 PPG scorer. It's pretty laughable you'd insinuate he was some scoring help)
Larry Hughes - career .488 TS%
Glenn Robinson - career .529 TS%
John Salmons - .career .529 TS% (career 9.3 PPG scorer. It's pretty laughable you'd insinuate he was some scoring help)
Kyle Korver - played with AI for a sum total of 3 seasons as an UDFA

But the cherry on top of your list is Raja Freakin' Bell. Seriously? You're going to try to argue the 76ers surrounded AI with other great scorers and he couldn't make it work and your example is Raja Bell.

If anything you've strongly proved the point that Philly's FO was incapable of getting decent scoring help for AI. They have a combined 5 all-star appearances between them and 0 All-NBA selections.


Is your argument really "the 76ers gave AI Tim Thomas, Raja Bell and John Salmons, they tried to surround him with quality scorers?"

basch152
01-18-2018, 02:13 PM
First Bolded: I never said anything different, in fact what I said earlier in the thread is:

"AI was an inefficient player in an inefficient era, so his inefficiency is magnified when compared to other eras."

Second Bolded: To start with, a single season and that single instance doesn't definitively prove anything. Amare went down and the Suns won more games and did just as well. Guess Amare was a scrub who sucks. The Bulls won 3 less games without MJ, guess MJ wasn't that good. There are many instances in history where a team did better or as good without a star player, doesn't mean those star players aren't good.

yes, amare was yet another player who was only good at scoring a d never helped adding wins.

and are you ****ing serious with MJ? You can't be this dumb.

yeah, they won 3 less games without MJ, then they lost in the 2nd round after winning 3 straight championships.

then they lost 8 MORE games, and MJ came back after about 2 years off and still led that 47 win team to the conference finals.

then in his first full year back led them to the best record in NBA history and 3 straight championships.

that's quite a huge goddamn difference.

2nd round loss vs 6 championships with.

compared two AI who gets eliminated in the first round two years in a row where the same team led by Chauncey went to the conference finals.


Those Spurs had the best SRS in the league at 8.35 and the Lakers were 3rd at 7.35. The 2 teams the Billups Nuggets played in the 1st and 2nd Rounds had an SRS of 1.41 and 1.68. In fact, the Billups Nuggets lost to the same Lakers team the AI Nuggets lost to the year prior. In other words, if AI's Nuggets faced NO and Dallas in the first 2 rounds they'd have gone to the WCF and if the Billups Nuggets had faced the Lakers in the first round, they'd have been 1st round exits...

In fact the 2008 Nuggets SRS was 3.74 with AI and 3.12 with Billups.

Or maybe the fact that in 2008 the West had 8 teams finish with 50 wins and in 2009 it only had 6 teams finish with 50 wins.

In short, there were a ton of different reasons why, none of which have to do with "AI sucks"

the pistons led by Chauncey the year before took the Cavs to 6 in the conference finals, while the AI pistons winning 20 less games were swept in the first round by the same team.

a huge goddamn difference.

the AI led nuggets won 1 game in two series vs the Lakers and spurs.

the Chauncey led nuggets beat the 50 win mavs in 5 games, and the 49 win hornets in 5 games, then lost to the same Lakers that swept AIs nuggets in 6 games.

it definitely appears the AI led teams were FAR worse than they were with Chauncey.

again, if AI is even close to a top 50 all time player this shouldn't be happening.

valade16
01-18-2018, 02:29 PM
yes, amare was yet another player who was only good at scoring a d never helped adding wins.

and are you ****ing serious with MJ? You can't be this dumb.

yeah, they won 3 less games without MJ, then they lost in the 2nd round after winning 3 straight championships.

then they lost 8 MORE games, and MJ came back after about 2 years off and still led that 47 win team to the conference finals.

then in his first full year back led them to the best record in NBA history and 3 straight championships.

that's quite a huge goddamn difference.

2nd round loss vs 6 championships with.

compared two AI who gets eliminated in the first round two years in a row where the same team led by Chauncey went to the conference finals.

the pistons led by Chauncey the year before took the Cavs to 6 in the conference finals, while the AI pistons winning 20 less games were swept in the first round by the same team.

a huge goddamn difference.

the AI led nuggets won 1 game in two series vs the Lakers and spurs.

the Chauncey led nuggets beat the 50 win mavs in 5 games, and the 49 win hornets in 5 games, then lost to the same Lakers that swept AIs nuggets in 6 games.

it definitely appears the AI led teams were FAR worse than they were with Chauncey.

again, if AI is even close to a top 50 all time player this shouldn't be happening.

He did not lead them to the Eastern Finals, they lost in the 2nd Round to the Magic. The same round Pippen led them to the year before.

In fact, they didn't win a title in MJ's return until they added Dennis Rodman the next year. According to your principle of "player added + changes to success = all success attributable to that player" then Dennis Rodman is the reason they won 72 games and the title the next year, not MJ, since they lost with MJ but won with Rodman. My point is, that is a stupid way to compare players.

Second Bolded, it wasn't the same damn team first off. It actually had a different Head coach (Flip Saunders for Chauncey and Michael "who" Curry for AI's team). But beyond that the 2008 squad got a combined 308 starts out of Richard Hamilton, Tayshaun Prince, Rasheed Wallace and Antonio McDyess. The AI version got a combined 226 out of them. Not to mention that was an out of his prime AI who was clearly not the same player. They would have undoubtedly done better than they did if they had 23 year old AI and not 33 year old AI.

But yes, I believe that Pistons team was better with Chauncey than AI. But that does not mean AI sucks.

TheDish87
01-18-2018, 02:30 PM
I'm sorry was that list intended to show us all the great scoring help they gave AI and he torpedoed their success?

Jim Jackson - career .511 TS%
Jerry Stackhouse - career .524 TS%
Tim Thomas - career .535 TS% (career 11.5 PPG scorer. It's pretty laughable you'd insinuate he was some scoring help)
Larry Hughes - career .488 TS%
Glenn Robinson - career .529 TS%
John Salmons - .career .529 TS% (career 9.3 PPG scorer. It's pretty laughable you'd insinuate he was some scoring help)
Kyle Korver - played with AI for a sum total of 3 seasons as an UDFA

But the cherry on top of your list is Raja Freakin' Bell. Seriously? You're going to try to argue the 76ers surrounded AI with other great scorers and he couldn't make it work and your example is Raja Bell.

If anything you've strongly proved the point that Philly's FO was incapable of getting decent scoring help for AI. They have a combined 5 all-star appearances between them and 0 All-NBA selections.


Is your argument really "the 76ers gave AI Tim Thomas, Raja Bell and John Salmons, they tried to surround him with quality scorers?"

dont forget Matt Harpring!

basch152
01-18-2018, 02:34 PM
He did not lead them to the Eastern Finals, they lost in the 2nd Round to the Magic. The same round Pippen led them to the year before.

In fact, they didn't win a title in MJ's return until they added Dennis Rodman the next year. According to your principle of "player added + changes to success = all success attributable to that player" then Dennis Rodman is the reason they won 72 games and the title the next year, not MJ, since they lost with MJ but won with Rodman. My point is, that is a stupid way to compare players.

Second Bolded, it wasn't the same damn team first off. It actually had a different Head coach (Flip Saunders for Chauncey and Michael "who" Curry for AI's team). But beyond that the 2008 squad got a combined 308 starts out of Richard Hamilton, Tayshaun Prince, Rasheed Wallace and Antonio McDyess. The AI version got a combined 226 out of them. Not to mention that was an out of his prime AI who was clearly not the same player. They would have undoubtedly done better than they did if they had 23 year old AI and not 33 year old AI.

But yes, I believe that Pistons team was better with Chauncey than AI. But that does not mean AI sucks.

yeah I was wrong about the conference finals, but either way, 3 straight finals with MJ, second round exit without. they had a second round exit when he came back, but he had been out of basketball for almost 2 years.

point is, they were clearly FAR worse without him.

and yes, Detroit was clearly better with Chauncey. As was Denver.

again, if AI were so good his team's wouldn't be so much better with Chauncey over him, and AI was still playing hjos best basketball in Denver and they were still better with Chauncey.

this simply shouldn't be happening if AI is an all time great.

valade16
01-18-2018, 02:43 PM
yeah I was wrong about the conference finals, but either way, 3 straight finals with MJ, second round exit without. they had a second round exit when he came back, but he had been out of basketball for almost 2 years.

point is, they were clearly FAR worse without him.

and yes, Detroit was clearly better with Chauncey. As was Denver.

again, if AI were so good his team's wouldn't be so much better with Chauncey over him, and AI was still playing hjos best basketball in Denver and they were still better with Chauncey.

this simply shouldn't be happening if AI is an all time great.

You just applied context to why the Bulls couldn't win a title when MJ came back but could the year after when they added Rodman. I would ask you also apply context to the Chauncey/AI parallel you are harping on.

Was Denver better with Chauncey? The numbers actually say they were worse or the same.

2008 Nuggets:
3.74 SRS
110 Ortg
106.3 Drtg
+3.7 rtg Diff.
110.7 PPG
107 Pts Allowed Per Game
+3.7 Pt Diff.

2009 Nuggets:
3.12 SRS
110.4 Ortg
106.8 Drtg
+3.6 rtg Diff.
104.3 PPG
100.9 Pts Allowed Per Game
+3.4 Pt. Diff.


Seems like the main difference is the Chauncey Nuggets won 4 more games in a weaker Western Conference and played 2 mediocre teams in the 1st and 2nd rounds and eventually lost to the same Lakers team that beat the AI Nuggets in the first round the year before.

basch152
01-18-2018, 02:50 PM
You just applied context to why the Bulls couldn't win a title when MJ came back but could the year after when they added Rodman. I would ask you also apply context to the Chauncey/AI parallel you are harping on.

Was Denver better with Chauncey? The numbers actually say they were worse or the same.

2008 Nuggets:
3.74 SRS
110 Ortg
106.3 Drtg
+3.7 rtg Diff.
110.7 PPG
107 Pts Allowed Per Game
+3.7 Pt Diff.

2009 Nuggets:
3.12 SRS
110.4 Ortg
106.8 Drtg
+3.6 rtg Diff.
104.3 PPG
100.9 Pts Allowed Per Game
+3.4 Pt. Diff.


Seems like the main difference is the Chauncey Nuggets won 4 more games in a weaker Western Conference and played 2 mediocre teams in the 1st and 2nd rounds and eventually lost to the same Lakers team that beat the AI Nuggets in the first round the year before.


like I said, mj had been out of basketball for almost 2 full years. that's the difference.

again, 3 championships with MJ, then 2 second round exits, one without him, one with him after 2 years out of basketball.

you say Denver beat two mediocre teams but they were a 50 win mavs led by nowitzski and a 49 win hornets led by cp3, and they beat both in 5. do you really think that same team led by AI even win these series, let alone in 5 games each?

because nothing I saw back then made me think they would've been capable of doing that.

then they took the Lakers to 6 in the CF who had swept the nuggets with ai in the first round the previous year.

the nuggets were just better with Chauncey.

but again, AI played some of his best basketball in Denver.

if he is even close to a top 50 player then this should not even be a discussion. Denver should have gotten a lot worse with Chauncey. not better.

AI arguably went down the next year in Detroit, but they still shouldn't have been 20 wins worse and a first round sweep, compared to a conference finals 6 game loss against the same team that swept ai.

valade16
01-18-2018, 02:59 PM
like I said, mj had been out of basketball for almost 2 full years. that's the difference.

again, 3 championships with MJ, then 2 second round exits, one without him, one with him after 2 years out of basketball.

you say Denver beat two mediocre teams but they were a 50 win mavs led by nowitzski and a 49 win hornets led by cp3, and they beat both in 5. do you really think that same team led by AI even win these series, let alone in 5 games each?

because nothing I saw back then made me think they would've been capable of doing that.

then they took the Lakers to 6 in the CF who had swept the nuggets with ai in the first round the previous year.

the nuggets were just better with Chauncey.

but again, AI played some of his best basketball in Denver.

if he is even close to a top 50 player then this should not even be a discussion. Denver should have gotten a lot worse with Chauncey. not better.

AI arguably went down the next year in Detroit, but they still shouldn't have been 20 wins worse and a first round sweep, compared to a conference finals 6 game loss against the same team that swept ai.

Well statistically they were fairly mediocre. Yes, I think it's probable the AI Nuggets defeat both of those teams, as virtually every statistical measure said they were the better team.

At this point you're just repeating what you said previously. I said my piece and showed you the numbers. If you have to fall back on the same arguments you made previously, then it seems our conversation is at an end.

basch152
01-18-2018, 03:10 PM
Well statistically they were fairly mediocre. Yes, I think it's probable the AI Nuggets defeat both of those teams, as virtually every statistical measure said they were the better team.

At this point you're just repeating what you said previously. I said my piece and showed you the numbers. If you have to fall back on the same arguments you made previously, then it seems our conversation is at an end.

because it didn't counter anything.

like I said.

Detroit with Chauncey- 59 wins loss in CF in 6 to Cavs

with AI - 39 wins sweep in first round to same team

Denver with Chauncey - loss in CF in 6 to Lakers

AI - swept in first round by same team.

and like i said, denver AI was arguably playing thr best ball of his career.

I've seen nothing from you that explains a supposedly top 50 all time player getting swept by a team that took 6 games to beat the same team but with a player no one ever would call top 50 all time chauncey.

because the only reason is that AI is very clearly not a top 50 all time player.

how many other players considered worthy of a top 50 placement managed to get out of the first round only 3 times?

especially when playing with another player of similar talent in melo?

the thing, most people that know basketball know that players like melo and AI will ALWAYS be able to put up top 50 all time numbers, but their wins never translate - because having only the ability to score usually doesn't help to win many games unless you're surrounded by defenders and rebounders that can make up your weaknesses. which is what happened the one year AI escaped the 2nd round. and with melo with Chauncey who covered his weaknesses.

because Chauncey helped win more than...well honestly, both ai and melo combined ever did.

valade16
01-18-2018, 03:38 PM
because it didn't counter anything.

like I said.

Detroit with Chauncey- 59 wins loss in CF in 6 to Cavs

with AI - 39 wins sweep in first round to same team

Denver with Chauncey - loss in CF in 6 to Lakers

AI - swept in first round by same team.

and like i said, denver AI was arguably playing thr best ball of his career.

I've seen nothing from you that explains a supposedly top 50 all time player getting swept by a team that took 6 games to beat the same team but with a player no one ever would call top 50 all time chauncey.

because the only reason is that AI is very clearly not a top 50 all time player.

how many other players considered worthy of a top 50 placement managed to get out of the first round only 3 times?

especially when playing with another player of similar talent in melo?

the thing, most people that know basketball know that players like melo and AI will ALWAYS be able to put up top 50 all time numbers, but their wins never translate - because having only the ability to score usually doesn't help to win many games unless you're surrounded by defenders and rebounders that can make up your weaknesses. which is what happened the one year AI escaped the 2nd round. and with melo with Chauncey who covered his weaknesses.

because Chauncey helped win more than...well honestly, both ai and melo combined ever did.

It countered literally everything you said. It's not my fault you're so rabid and biased you won't listen to any new information.

If you want to look at why the Nuggets got swept by the Lakers with AI and not Chauncey, maybe look at Melo's 22 PPG on 36% shooting in the AI series vs his 27 PPG on 49% shooting in the Chauncey series.

The most interesting part of your argument seems to be that because Chauncey did better with Denver and Detroit than AI and Chauncey is not a Top 50 player ever, AI can't be either.

... but what if Chauncey were a top 50 level player ever?

Chauncey is:

42nd in total Win Shares
47th in WS/48
60th in VORP


He was listed as the 87th best player of all-time by ESPN.

He may not be a Top 50 player of all-time, but he's fairly close and you can definitely argue him as coming Top 50.

And again, this is you taking him and comparing him to an aging AI to determine Chauncey was better despite statistics saying the Nuggets were no better with Chauncey.

As for the 2nd bolded, there are a number of great players I could name: Tracy McGrady, Dominique Wilkins, Alex English, George Gervin, Bob Lanier, and Grant Hill. Heck, Vince Carter and Chris Paul have only done it 4 times ever.

Jamiecballer
01-18-2018, 03:47 PM
I'm sorry was that list intended to show us all the great scoring help they gave AI and he torpedoed their success?No, it was not. Shame you went to all that trouble.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-J120A using Tapatalk

valade16
01-18-2018, 03:58 PM
No, it was not. Shame you went to all that trouble.

It's a shame anyone had to read your post to be honest. Thankfully you appear to be backing off the misguided point you attempted to make.

Jamiecballer
01-18-2018, 04:10 PM
It's a shame anyone had to read your post to be honest. Thankfully you appear to be backing off the misguided point you attempted to make.

seriously? i know 2 things about you - first, that you are very smart. second, that you are like a handful of others on this forum who will write a 2 page essay of a post responding to things that aren't even said. based on that, why would i even bother responding with more than a sentence to someone who a) couldn't be bothered to carefully read what was said; and b) twisted what was said to try and make the person look foolish.

what i said was very clear, it did not need your creative interpretation dude. so how about instead of responding with 'ok, then tell me what you meant then' - you just read it (for the first time) without attempting to read between the lines, huh?

actually better yet, next time you catch yourself starting a post with 'so is your point......' slow the **** down.

valade16
01-18-2018, 04:24 PM
seriously? i know 2 things about you - first, that you are very smart. second, that you are like a handful of others on this forum who will write a 2 page essay of a post responding to things that aren't even said. based on that, why would i even bother responding with more than a sentence to someone who a) couldn't be bothered to carefully read what was said; and b) twisted what was said to try and make the person look foolish.

what i said was very clear, it did not need your creative interpretation dude. so how about instead of responding with 'ok, then tell me what you meant then' - you just read it (for the first time) without attempting to read between the lines, huh?

actually better yet, next time you catch yourself starting a post with 'so is your point......' slow the **** down.

I know exactly what your post said:

In other words all competition with Iverson for touches. None of them really thrived with the exception of Korver, the one guy who excels without the ball in his hands. Not only did they not thrive, they pretty much all had short tenures in Philly. Why do you think that was?

You are saying they didn't thrive next to AI because they also needed the ball in their hands to score and they had short tenures in Philly because they were shipped out to accommodate AI.

What that analysis leaves out is that they didn't particularly thrive anywhere else for any duration of time, they were equally as inefficient as AI, and they had short tenures in Philly because they were simply not that good.


I agree with you that my response to your flippant response was harsher than I intended, and for that I apologize.

But the idea that Philly's roster was a result of them having ship out all their quality talent and scorers around AI conveniently ignores the fact that the guys they got rid of simply weren't very good.

europagnpilgrim
01-18-2018, 04:29 PM
because it didn't counter anything.

like I said.

Detroit with Chauncey- 59 wins loss in CF in 6 to Cavs

with AI - 39 wins sweep in first round to same team

Denver with Chauncey - loss in CF in 6 to Lakers

AI - swept in first round by same team.

and like i said, denver AI was arguably playing thr best ball of his career.

I've seen nothing from you that explains a supposedly top 50 all time player getting swept by a team that took 6 games to beat the same team but with a player no one ever would call top 50 all time chauncey.

because the only reason is that AI is very clearly not a top 50 all time player.

how many other players considered worthy of a top 50 placement managed to get out of the first round only 3 times?

especially when playing with another player of similar talent in melo?

the thing, most people that know basketball know that players like melo and AI will ALWAYS be able to put up top 50 all time numbers, but their wins never translate - because having only the ability to score usually doesn't help to win many games unless you're surrounded by defenders and rebounders that can make up your weaknesses. which is what happened the one year AI escaped the 2nd round. and with melo with Chauncey who covered his weaknesses.

because Chauncey helped win more than...well honestly, both ai and melo combined ever did.

If Detroit was the same team then why break up the Billups squad? Lebron in 07' broke the spirit of that core, didn't Wallace sign with the Bulls at this point? wasn't C Webber on that 07 or 08' squad? the broken down version of Webber and he retired the following season correct? didn't Nene and KMart come back healthy when Billups was there and JR finally was that 6th man award material? I mean at least break it down right and winning 4 more games is nothing really of a big deal, unless you are the 8th seed and those games matter more to try and get in, but Cavs were the better team last year and Boston finished with 1st seed, 50 to 54 games is not that big of a deal if you are trying to compare players, especially a 33yr old run into the ground AI,not the 2000 version where they almost actually had him, then those Pistons teams would have went to more Finals with that version

and another thing is how can a player get drafted to a 18 win team and by year 5 make the Finals and won 56 games with GLeaguers not a success? he played his youth/prime/best years with Mckie and Snow for 7 yet you got guys like Kobe and Russell who had Shaq and KD for like 8yrs, while KD/Russ went to the same amount of Finals as Iverson/Snow, so how is maxing out your prime with GLeaguers a bad career? I admit he was stuck on stupid with loyalty for that franchise but lets not act like a little guy can sustain longer than a bigger player, especially one who took a beating like he was Shaq size on the court, once you look at both sides that's when you see the picture way more clearer


Tweet
Facebook Messenger
PinterestPinterest
@EmailEmail
įprint
£comment

Allen Iverson calls his one season in Detroit the "worst year of my career" and claims team officials and coach Michael Curry "lied" to him about coming off the bench instead of starting.



"They told me, straight up, 'Allen, we would never disrespect you or your career like that,' by making me come off the bench," Iverson said in an interview with ESPN.com Page 2 columnist Scoop Jackson. "That's what they told me to my face. And after that, I never thought about it again. I just went back to playing. Then, they came to me saying that they felt it would be in the 'best interest of the team' if I came off of the bench behind Rip [Richard Hamilton].



"... After that, they told me that if I didn't come off the bench, the team was going to lie down on [not play with] me. ... When he told me that, that's when I felt that this was the worst career move I'd ever made and it was the worst year of my career."

Iverson said when he was traded from Denver to Detroit on Nov. 3, 2008, he was happy. "I talked to Mo [his uncle/manager Gary Moore]. We both felt like it was going to be a good situation."

It deteriorated when Iverson said he heard whispers the team wanted him to come off the bench. He had started 824 of 829 career games before last season.

"If you are a head coach and you feel strongly about this," Iverson told Jackson, "what would make you think that I want to be around these guys? Especially if you are telling me that they don't want to be around me like that?"

Iverson continued: "I'd never been on a team where a coach told me the guys gave up on me. You know what I mean? And I kept this under wraps the whole time ... because I didn't want to bad-mouth any of those guys.

"... I don't have [anything] bad to say about the organization, especially Joe [Dumars, the team president]. I never had a problem with Joe. He's a stand-up person that I have love for and respect. He was not part of any of the problems I had in Detroit.

"But for [the coach] to tell me these things and for him to go back on his word like that, it was the hardest and the roughest season I've ever had."

Iverson missed 16 games near the end of the season with a back injury, then came back for three games and was used off the bench by Curry. He missed the final seven games and the Pistons' playoff series with Cleveland.

Curry was fired by the Pistons on July 1 after one season.

The Pistons, reached by ESPN.com, declined comment. Curry could not be reached for comment.

Iverson signed a one-year, $3.1 million deal with Memphis in September. Memphis opens the season at home Oct. 28 against Detroit.

In the interview, Iverson told Jackson he's in a "lose-lose" situation in Memphis if the Grizzlies don't win, but he's not going to "allow that to happen."

"I gotta win games," he said. "Because if we lose games and I score a lot, they going to say I'm scorin' too much. If we lose games and I don't score a lot, they gonna say I'm not scoring enough. It's a lose-lose, unless we win. So all I can do is huddle up with these guys and try to win basketball games."

Iverson said he expects Memphis, which won 24 games last season and had the league's fifth-worst record, to be a playoff contender.

"I'm not going to be content and happy with [just making the playoffs]," he said. "And I want them to know that. Yeah, we [can] get into the playoffs -- God forbid somebody knocks us out -- then, yeah, it'll be a successful season for them, but not for me.

"I'm going to let guys know that I'm not here to just go to the playoffs. I believe in these dudes here. All I want them to do is trust me and trust that I'll do everything the right way and lead them to where we need to be."

Iverson also said he has nothing to prove -- to the media or to critical fans.






"There's nothing that sells good about Allen Iverson if it's something positive about Allen Iverson," he said with a laugh. "You know, you don't want to hear about how much money I donate to the Boys and Girls Clubs of America or to AIDS awareness or to give out scholarships, you don't want to hear about that.

"So when I said, 'It's personal,' I meant it's not personal to me as far as people saying what they've been saying about me, about me losing a step and this that and a third. It's personal on a level to where I can have fun again playing basketball. Not worry about, 'Oh, he should start or he shouldn't start,' and all of that nonsense. I'm talking about going to practice -- yeah, I said practice -- and have fun and come out of practice happy, go to games happy, leave the arena win or lose happy.

"Man, again, I'm 34 years old -- I don't want to be going to do what I love to do and it's hurting me. Like every time I show up to games I got an attitude all the time. I don't want that. So when I said, 'It's personal,' I mean as far as me wanting to have fun again and have that love for the game all over again."

europagnpilgrim
01-18-2018, 04:44 PM
if my team told me they would quit on me if I don't come off the bench for Stuckey who was coming off the bench for Billups when he was there and it was a straight up swap I would have did just like Iverson and took my ball and went home

Dumars loved Stuckey so much that he benched Iverson for him really and not RIP then shipped Stuckey off to Indy or wherever because he loved him so dearly, AI was blackballed day 1 now that I think about it, Stern hated him but loved making money off of him in his Sixers tenure, regardless if AI won or not he was box office cash money post Jordan era, with the game to match

europagnpilgrim
01-18-2018, 04:53 PM
I'm sorry was that list intended to show us all the great scoring help they gave AI and he torpedoed their success?

Jim Jackson - career .511 TS%
Jerry Stackhouse - career .524 TS%
Tim Thomas - career .535 TS% (career 11.5 PPG scorer. It's pretty laughable you'd insinuate he was some scoring help)
Larry Hughes - career .488 TS%
Glenn Robinson - career .529 TS%
John Salmons - .career .529 TS% (career 9.3 PPG scorer. It's pretty laughable you'd insinuate he was some scoring help)
Kyle Korver - played with AI for a sum total of 3 seasons as an UDFA

But the cherry on top of your list is Raja Freakin' Bell. Seriously? You're going to try to argue the 76ers surrounded AI with other great scorers and he couldn't make it work and your example is Raja Bell.

If anything you've strongly proved the point that Philly's FO was incapable of getting decent scoring help for AI. They have a combined 5 all-star appearances between them and 0 All-NBA selections.


Is your argument really "the 76ers gave AI Tim Thomas, Raja Bell and John Salmons, they tried to surround him with quality scorers?"

I keep telling these Iverson bashing experts that the further they dig into this guys roster is will become more of a joke about this inefficient scorer he was, they act like those other players were PER dominant players but were worse than Iverson, its one thing to be inefficient and score 20ppg and another to be inefficient avg 5ppg, give me the 20ppg

and to even think about the Harprings and K Thomas and M Jackson who all had basically career years with Iverson

and I wonder where those players rank on their all time list as well,very low I know e specially the way they ''rank'' players

and to make it even more comical is how they fail to realize that Stackhouse should have been 6th man to score off bench but they didn't do it, they had Bowen who could have done same for them as he did with Spurs but they gave up on him too early, T Thomas never should have been drafted over TMAC, a player that you build around Iverson, HOF caliber talent preNBA, same as Iverson, not T Thomas

Stackhouse scoring punch off bench and Bowen tough d/corner 3 guy is how you build teams around franchise players like Iverson, then you draft 2 more HOF'ers and maybe flip Stackhouse for defense/big since his scoring would become less needed with the surplus of talent just acquired, its really abc until the politics get involved

G Robinson came over from the Spurs and won a title with the Spurs and didn't even play, hell he barely played with Iverson because of some heel problem/injury

Hughes played well with Wizards post Iverson because he had 2 other all stars rolling his way and wasn't even needed by Sixers and should have rolled with Dirk or Pierce in the draft

he would have been better off mentioning broken down Webber and a young athletic Iggy, and that still would be super comical

Jeffy25
01-18-2018, 05:07 PM
and this is the reason we don't judge players off these numbers, judge as we don't judge players based on ring total, this only fits a person agenda when It favors what they are looking to do and give them a faÁade edge on a debate

being dominant is just that, I don't need to see Wilt TS or Win shares to know how dominant he was, I can just look at his numbers and whatever film they have right now and see that

E Jones had 3 other all stars one season and didn't make the Finals, KMart was solid

give Iverson 3 other all stars in his youth and boy you got trouble but it never happened so I have to use what did and Iverson had GLeaugers in the Finals, and they improved annually up until that max out point of 01', nothing wrong with maxing out with GLeaguers while E Jones couldn't get to the finals with VanExel/Bryant/Shaq and KMart got his shine on with Kidd getting his 15 and 9 or so per game, none could carry a team/load like Iverson

just like Lebron said, he played like he was 6'8''

None of what you just said in your ramble addressed your first sentence at all.

valade16
01-18-2018, 05:09 PM
It's pretty obvious AI would shoot a lot on any team and would have generally below average efficiency while doing so.

Jeffy25
01-18-2018, 05:24 PM
you just value volume over passers like Stockton and Nash

No, and if you think that, your ability to read is incredibly low.


I value combo who can do both like Iverson/Jordan/Oscar/Lebron/Wilt
One of these guys doesn't fit in with the others lol.


Rubio couldn't shoot preNBA and now like what 10yrs into the league he still cant, Rubio was high volume over passer preNBA and he is that 10yrs or whatever later
He is a different archetype, completely.


Kidd cant score like Iverson but Iverson can pass and create like Kidd
Career AST%
Kidd - 38.5
AI - 28.8

Career assists to turnover ratio
Kidd - 3.02
AI - 1.72

Kidd also couldn't shoot, but the idea that AI could play make for others like Kidd could is an absolute joke. And you have to know that.



you cant force Kidd to score big if needed consistently, you can get Iverson to pass as seeing his 16 assists in game 7 playoffs because the team needed and he was getting ''Jordan'' rules ran on him
Jason Kidd had 16 assists in a game 53 times in his career.
Iverson did it 3 times in his career.

This is regular season and post-season combined.



were they running Jordan rules on him because he had no help or because Iverson was that good? or little of both?
Iverson shot 8 for 27 in that game lmao, while Aaron McKie scored more points in less minutes while taking 11 less shots.

You are completely blind in your homerism.

Jamiecballer
01-18-2018, 05:37 PM
I know exactly what your post said:

In other words all competition with Iverson for touches. None of them really thrived with the exception of Korver, the one guy who excels without the ball in his hands. Not only did they not thrive, they pretty much all had short tenures in Philly. Why do you think that was?

You are saying they didn't thrive next to AI because they also needed the ball in their hands to score and they had short tenures in Philly because they were shipped out to accommodate AI.

What that analysis leaves out is that they didn't particularly thrive anywhere else for any duration of time, they were equally as inefficient as AI, and they had short tenures in Philly because they were simply not that good.


I agree with you that my response to your flippant response was harsher than I intended, and for that I apologize.

But the idea that Philly's roster was a result of them having ship out all their quality talent and scorers around AI conveniently ignores the fact that the guys they got rid of simply weren't very good.

right, but you ignore the context of the previous posts. this guy has been harping (as apposed to Harpring) on Snow and McKie till the cows come home. my response to him is that Snow and McKie were exactly what philly wanted to counteract the unrestrained play of their enigmatic star. guys who could score the basketball came through. they don't have to be stars to be above snow and mckie in europilgrims eyes i assume. they figured out what it took to try and build around AI. and regardless of how their careers turned out i'm guessing even said poster would take every one of them in a pick up game over Snow and McKie. So it has nothing to do with how effective those players were, unless you believe that Snow and McKie were not given prominent roles for the fact that they played D and gave philly a brain on the floor at the point of attack. A way to protect themselves from Allen being Allen so to speak. Allen had no right to complain (or his fans) since his game and way of playing pretty much limited Phillies options.

valade16
01-18-2018, 06:06 PM
right, but you ignore the context of the previous posts. this guy has been harping (as apposed to Harpring) on Snow and McKie till the cows come home. my response to him is that Snow and McKie were exactly what philly wanted to counteract the unrestrained play of their enigmatic star. guys who could score the basketball came through. they don't have to be stars to be above snow and mckie in europilgrims eyes i assume. they figured out what it took to try and build around AI. and regardless of how their careers turned out i'm guessing even said poster would take every one of them in a pick up game over Snow and McKie. So it has nothing to do with how effective those players were, unless you believe that Snow and McKie were not given prominent roles for the fact that they played D and gave philly a brain on the floor at the point of attack. A way to protect themselves from Allen being Allen so to speak. Allen had no right to complain (or his fans) since his game and way of playing pretty much limited Phillies options.

I would agree with that with the caveat that those were the exact type of players Philly wanted to get around AI, but they didn't necessarily want those exact players, they were just forced to use them because they were the best version of that type of player they could reasonably afford or get. If Philly could have upgraded those 2 they would have in a heartbeat.

Jamiecballer
01-18-2018, 06:41 PM
I would agree with that with the caveat that those were the exact type of players Philly wanted to get around AI, but they didn't necessarily want those exact players, they were just forced to use them because they were the best version of that type of player they could reasonably afford or get. If Philly could have upgraded those 2 they would have in a heartbeat.Theoretically yes. I'm not sure that type of player existed though.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-J120A using Tapatalk

YAALREADYKNO
01-18-2018, 06:54 PM
If Detroit was the same team then why break up the Billups squad? Lebron in 07' broke the spirit of that core, didn't Wallace sign with the Bulls at this point? wasn't C Webber on that 07 or 08' squad? the broken down version of Webber and he retired the following season correct? didn't Nene and KMart come back healthy when Billups was there and JR finally was that 6th man award material? I mean at least break it down right and winning 4 more games is nothing really of a big deal, unless you are the 8th seed and those games matter more to try and get in, but Cavs were the better team last year and Boston finished with 1st seed, 50 to 54 games is not that big of a deal if you are trying to compare players, especially a 33yr old run into the ground AI,not the 2000 version where they almost actually had him, then those Pistons teams would have went to more Finals with that version

and another thing is how can a player get drafted to a 18 win team and by year 5 make the Finals and won 56 games with GLeaguers not a success? he played his youth/prime/best years with Mckie and Snow for 7 yet you got guys like Kobe and Russell who had Shaq and KD for like 8yrs, while KD/Russ went to the same amount of Finals as Iverson/Snow, so how is maxing out your prime with GLeaguers a bad career? I admit he was stuck on stupid with loyalty for that franchise but lets not act like a little guy can sustain longer than a bigger player, especially one who took a beating like he was Shaq size on the court, once you look at both sides that's when you see the picture way more clearer


Tweet
Facebook Messenger
PinterestPinterest
@EmailEmail
įprint
£comment

Allen Iverson calls his one season in Detroit the "worst year of my career" and claims team officials and coach Michael Curry "lied" to him about coming off the bench instead of starting.



"They told me, straight up, 'Allen, we would never disrespect you or your career like that,' by making me come off the bench," Iverson said in an interview with ESPN.com Page 2 columnist Scoop Jackson. "That's what they told me to my face. And after that, I never thought about it again. I just went back to playing. Then, they came to me saying that they felt it would be in the 'best interest of the team' if I came off of the bench behind Rip [Richard Hamilton].



"... After that, they told me that if I didn't come off the bench, the team was going to lie down on [not play with] me. ... When he told me that, that's when I felt that this was the worst career move I'd ever made and it was the worst year of my career."

Iverson said when he was traded from Denver to Detroit on Nov. 3, 2008, he was happy. "I talked to Mo [his uncle/manager Gary Moore]. We both felt like it was going to be a good situation."

It deteriorated when Iverson said he heard whispers the team wanted him to come off the bench. He had started 824 of 829 career games before last season.

"If you are a head coach and you feel strongly about this," Iverson told Jackson, "what would make you think that I want to be around these guys? Especially if you are telling me that they don't want to be around me like that?"

Iverson continued: "I'd never been on a team where a coach told me the guys gave up on me. You know what I mean? And I kept this under wraps the whole time ... because I didn't want to bad-mouth any of those guys.

"... I don't have [anything] bad to say about the organization, especially Joe [Dumars, the team president]. I never had a problem with Joe. He's a stand-up person that I have love for and respect. He was not part of any of the problems I had in Detroit.

"But for [the coach] to tell me these things and for him to go back on his word like that, it was the hardest and the roughest season I've ever had."

Iverson missed 16 games near the end of the season with a back injury, then came back for three games and was used off the bench by Curry. He missed the final seven games and the Pistons' playoff series with Cleveland.

Curry was fired by the Pistons on July 1 after one season.

The Pistons, reached by ESPN.com, declined comment. Curry could not be reached for comment.

Iverson signed a one-year, $3.1 million deal with Memphis in September. Memphis opens the season at home Oct. 28 against Detroit.

In the interview, Iverson told Jackson he's in a "lose-lose" situation in Memphis if the Grizzlies don't win, but he's not going to "allow that to happen."

"I gotta win games," he said. "Because if we lose games and I score a lot, they going to say I'm scorin' too much. If we lose games and I don't score a lot, they gonna say I'm not scoring enough. It's a lose-lose, unless we win. So all I can do is huddle up with these guys and try to win basketball games."

Iverson said he expects Memphis, which won 24 games last season and had the league's fifth-worst record, to be a playoff contender.

"I'm not going to be content and happy with [just making the playoffs]," he said. "And I want them to know that. Yeah, we [can] get into the playoffs -- God forbid somebody knocks us out -- then, yeah, it'll be a successful season for them, but not for me.

"I'm going to let guys know that I'm not here to just go to the playoffs. I believe in these dudes here. All I want them to do is trust me and trust that I'll do everything the right way and lead them to where we need to be."

Iverson also said he has nothing to prove -- to the media or to critical fans.






"There's nothing that sells good about Allen Iverson if it's something positive about Allen Iverson," he said with a laugh. "You know, you don't want to hear about how much money I donate to the Boys and Girls Clubs of America or to AIDS awareness or to give out scholarships, you don't want to hear about that.

"So when I said, 'It's personal,' I meant it's not personal to me as far as people saying what they've been saying about me, about me losing a step and this that and a third. It's personal on a level to where I can have fun again playing basketball. Not worry about, 'Oh, he should start or he shouldn't start,' and all of that nonsense. I'm talking about going to practice -- yeah, I said practice -- and have fun and come out of practice happy, go to games happy, leave the arena win or lose happy.

"Man, again, I'm 34 years old -- I don't want to be going to do what I love to do and it's hurting me. Like every time I show up to games I got an attitude all the time. I don't want that. So when I said, 'It's personal,' I mean as far as me wanting to have fun again and have that love for the game all over again."

Well said. The first part

europagnpilgrim
01-18-2018, 07:42 PM
No, and if you think that, your ability to read is incredibly low.

One of these guys doesn't fit in with the others lol.


He is a different archetype, completely.


Career AST%
Kidd - 38.5
AI - 28.8

Career assists to turnover ratio
Kidd - 3.02
AI - 1.72

Kidd also couldn't shoot, but the idea that AI could play make for others like Kidd could is an absolute joke. And you have to know that.



Jason Kidd had 16 assists in a game 53 times in his career.
Iverson did it 3 times in his career.

This is regular season and post-season combined.



Iverson shot 8 for 27 in that game lmao, while Aaron McKie scored more points in less minutes while taking 11 less shots.

You are completely blind in your homerism.

1. you do value over passers or guys you say play the lowkey way, set screens, do fake media interviews seeming likeable, you like those style of players, Duncanish

2. All of those players can do both equally, one might be required more than the other but they are capable of getting pts or assists at high level

3. He is different, in age, game the same pre nba and current, overpasser who cant shoot to save his life, its a reason why I say you area who you area coming into the nba, your type of guy who you would rank high as hell if he had a damn ring, you would sware Rubio was better than Zeke and Iverson if he had a ring

4. This clearly went over your head, I was speaking in terms of actually focusing on overpassing he could get dimes like that but his team wasn't built like that so he had to shoot/score, Kidd cant score like that even if it was depended on him just based on his overpassing/assists game, not talking about assist pct or scoring games of 40, I am talking about who can do both equally, Iverson can, Kidd cant

its like me posting Iverson 40 and 50 pt games and saying how many does Kidd have? at least Iverson posted 16 assists 3 times while Kidd has how many 40/50pt games? i'll wait for your expert advice

5. the more you guys keep talking about this the more you are going to look basketballbrainfroze, of course he had to shoot 27x that game and had to go into assist mode and drop 16 dimes as well, doing both as I said he could do equally if needed, and how dare you bring up Mckie and his 11 shots less, imagine if that was TMAC as Iverson sidekick and TMAC could actually get those 11 more shots and decrease Iverson by 11 and you got 8 for 16 from the field, much more ''efficient'' right?

europagnpilgrim
01-18-2018, 07:56 PM
Theoretically yes. I'm not sure that type of player existed though.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-J120A using Tapatalk

they actually did in the draft but sixers wiffed on those draft picks, its damn true the draft can make or break a franchise, just look at Sixers from 96-98 and the OKC from 07-09' for proof

europagnpilgrim
01-18-2018, 08:00 PM
It's pretty obvious AI would shoot a lot on any team and would have generally below average efficiency while doing so.

how many times he shoot on the all star 'team', I mean you put it out there so I might as well see if this is true or not

its pretty obvious if Iverson had 2 other HOF'ers on his team in his youth/prime he wouldn't avg 25shots per game, he even said this going to Memphis when they had Gay/Mayo/Randolph, he was like with these scorers on the team don't expect me to take 20-25 shots because its not needed

but hey lets ignore the obvious and just go with what we know, Iverson shot a lot while having the legendary sidekicks of Snow/Mckie, or how about Lynch as his sidekick at 8ppg for his career, I bet if Curry played with 8ppg scorers you would be telling him to shoot and shoot regardless of efficiency

europagnpilgrim
01-18-2018, 08:04 PM
None of what you just said in your ramble addressed your first sentence at all.


People don't use WS/VORP and whatever else alphabets they can come up to try and put player a over player b? it happens on here all the time and rings as well, Jordan is the media goat because of 6 rings yet Russell has almost double the amount

your one liners are starting to get Chronzish

basch152
01-18-2018, 08:06 PM
It countered literally everything you said. It's not my fault you're so rabid and biased you won't listen to any new information.

If you want to look at why the Nuggets got swept by the Lakers with AI and not Chauncey, maybe look at Melo's 22 PPG on 36% shooting in the AI series vs his 27 PPG on 49% shooting in the Chauncey series.

The most interesting part of your argument seems to be that because Chauncey did better with Denver and Detroit than AI and Chauncey is not a Top 50 player ever, AI can't be either.

... but what if Chauncey were a top 50 level player ever?

Chauncey is:

42nd in total Win Shares
47th in WS/48
60th in VORP


He was listed as the 87th best player of all-time by ESPN.

He may not be a Top 50 player of all-time, but he's fairly close and you can definitely argue him as coming Top 50.

And again, this is you taking him and comparing him to an aging AI to determine Chauncey was better despite statistics saying the Nuggets were no better with Chauncey.

As for the 2nd bolded, there are a number of great players I could name: Tracy McGrady, Dominique Wilkins, Alex English, George Gervin, Bob Lanier, and Grant Hill. Heck, Vince Carter and Chris Paul have only done it 4 times ever.

outside of Gervin none of this guys are considered top 50.

they're top 50 PEAK players. sure. but that's about it.

also, I would take every single one of those players over AI.

and no, your stats didn't show anything.

AI was still playing peak basketball in Denver.

again, if he were anywhere near a top 50 player the teams with him wouldn't have imploded and went way further with Chauncey.

again, it shouldn't even be arguable, denver should have been WAY better with AI than without. not kinda statistically better but incapable of winning more than one game in the playoffs.

Chronz
01-18-2018, 08:08 PM
agreed. reggie miller looks even better in hindsight when you look at some the advanced stats.
That might explain why an efficiency God was not even considered a lock for an all star team. I used to loathe Reggie but maybe it was my bias against twig boys. Tbh, if not for sites like apbr I might've never realized his greatness just cuz nobody celebrated him. I get a similar feeling with guys I have so little footage of from the golden days, guys like Chet walker were likely the Reggie/harden of their era. To be so devastatingly efficient as a wing without 3pters yet being known as a marksman, I can only imagine what that looked like on a consistent basis. Maybe the mid range truly is a lost art

Chronz
01-18-2018, 08:13 PM
So after 12 pages, what Iím seeing is a couple 76er fan boys and one incoherent lunatic that just posts McKie and Snow over and over are the only ones who donít think AI was a detriment to winning. Got it.

I don't know if it's the fact that I've debated with this guy so long that I understand him or if y'all are just getting dumber/cockier cuz I understand the dudes argument plenty. I just think it's as dumb as it was back in the day.

europagnpilgrim
01-18-2018, 08:20 PM
I don't know if it's the fact that I've debated with this guy so long that I understand him or if y'all are just getting dumber/cockier cuz I understand the dudes argument plenty. I just think it's as dumb as it was back in the day.

so you over ranked his support cast back then and as well as now, sounds about right

the reason why I am going to bring up Mckie and Snow forever is because you guys are mistaking those players as high level talent or HOF'ers, they would be if this was the GLeague, they would make all GLeague, 2nd or 3rd team

and I feel the same way as you do, those players were avg then and avg now from my nba standards of balling

valade16
01-18-2018, 08:27 PM
outside of Gervin none of this guys are considered top 50.

they're top 50 PEAK players. sure. but that's about it.

also, I would take every single one of those players over AI.

and no, your stats didn't show anything.

AI was still playing peak basketball in Denver.

again, if he were anywhere near a top 50 player the teams with him wouldn't have imploded and went way further with Chauncey.

again, it shouldn't even be arguable, denver should have been WAY better with AI than without. not kinda statistically better but incapable of winning more than one game in the playoffs.

First Bolded: Not true. ESPN's top 100 list had CP3 at 29th, Nique was 44th, Gervin 47th. Guys like English and T-Mac were in the low 60's as well.

Second Bolded: Not true. His peak PER seasons in Philly was 25.9, 24.0, 23.2 and 22.2. His PER in Denver was 18.4 and 20.9. His peak WS/48 seasons in Philly were .190, .173, .165. His WS/48 in Denver was .163 and .105. His VORP highs were 5.1, 5.0, 4.6, 4.3, 4.2. His Denver VORP was 3.1 and 1.3. His highest AST% in Philly were 37.6%, 34.9%, 34.4%, 33.6%, 30.6%. His Denver % were 28.3% and 27.4%. His Stl% in Philly was 3.5%, 3.4%, 3.2%, 3.1%, 3.0%. His Denver number was 2.2%.

He was very clearly an inferior player in Denver to what he was at his peak. I know his TS% went up, but you may be surprised to learn there is more to basketball than simply how efficiently you can score...

Third Bolded: Why would you think this? You act like Chauncey Billups was the next Eric Snow. Chauncey is an all-time great in his own right.


My stats have refuted everything you continue to regurgitate. I know you like to dog on AI for his low FG%, but the % of times you've been correct in this thread is not much better than AI's FG%...

Chronz
01-18-2018, 08:31 PM
its hard to change what you are after 10 years of doing it, its hard to adapt with a team for 1 year, you guys act like he stayed in Denver for 7yrs, he was there trade deadline, and 1 full season

they could have moved Kleiza for Artest at that time and the team wanted to so they could have Artest/AI in the backcourt, which would have been a massive upgrade over Carter

where does Carter rank all time? old man carter, not Vince

CP3 is not adapting his game from what I watch, he is shooting way more than usual but the system calls for it and CP3 is a capable scorer as I have stated but he loves to over pass

if CP3 is far superior then where is his finals trip? he never had a AI moment/game 1 finals and I root for both players equally, CP3 plays the way he plays because of Iverson, his words not mine

but his words don't matter when it comes to Iverson

AI and Melo truly deserved each other, 50 win 8th seed in only season together and led the league as scoring duo and Iverson was most efficient he had ever been after finally getting a young stud to lean on

what do you mean by skills? he was stupid skilled, from his nba scouting report rookie year day 1, go check it out, its hard being a player his actual height since he doesn't play to his height, go ask Lebron who said he play like he 6'8'', that's a whole foot taller than what he is so it might have been hard for him to learn your way which is probably talking about small guys who played small like Nash,Stockton and other over passers, Rubio and whoever else

Iverson and Melo were the scorers on that team, JR was a baby trying to find his way, and Carter/Camby/Martin are not what I would call go to guys but maybe you do, oh well

I remember that Kleiza deal. Three clippers had a similar rumor and we never traded for him either, I never understood why, then I saw him in a supporting role for both the rockets and the Lakers. Dude was prolly done. It's not easy to be an efficient winner, AI needed more help than most stars because he was inefficient on BOTH ends. I'll gladly take Billups over him (remember his 40pt explosions). That guy was a true winner and a guy you could play anywhere. He was like the anti Iverson in what a winner he was. There are many more like him. AI can't be built around, he's best suited off the bench like a Louis Williams

Cute that Bron thought that, wish he had facts or if he had cited anything substantial. Unfortunately AI wasn't 6 8, he should've known his midget *** would take a pounding, had cp3 never gotten injured he would still be torching it today, as is, he's adapted to remain relevant. If you don't see the major difference in his game today than even 6 years ago then I can't help you but even CP3 would agree with me. Wake me up when ao checks his ego like that.

His teammates were chosen because he wasn't a pg, after so many failed attempts and guys *****ing about playing with him, you kind of have to go a selfless route. He was never going to change and even when he finally got to lean on a young buck, he was still not passing enough. It's been true of him from day 1. He never adapted, never improved his range or defense. He wasn't ousted by the NBA, he just never checked his ego

Chronz
01-18-2018, 08:34 PM
First Bolded: Not true. ESPN's top 100 list had CP3 at 29th, Nique was 44th, Gervin 47th. Guys like English and T-Mac were in the low 60's as well.

Second Bolded: Not true. His peak PER seasons in Philly was 25.9, 24.0, 23.2 and 22.2. His PER in Denver was 18.4 and 20.9. His peak WS/48 seasons in Philly were .190, .173, .165. His WS/48 in Denver was .163 and .105. His VORP highs were 5.1, 5.0, 4.6, 4.3, 4.2. His Denver VORP was 3.1 and 1.3. His highest AST% in Philly were 37.6%, 34.9%, 34.4%, 33.6%, 30.6%. His Denver % were 28.3% and 27.4%. His Stl% in Philly was 3.5%, 3.4%, 3.2%, 3.1%, 3.0%. His Denver number was 2.2%.

He was very clearly an inferior player in Denver to what he was at his peak. I know his TS% went up, but you may be surprised to learn there is more to basketball than simply how efficiently you can score...

Third Bolded: Why would you think this? You act like Chauncey Billups was the next Eric Snow. Chauncey is an all-time great in his own right.


My stats have refuted everything you continue to regurgitate. I know you like to dog on AI for his low FG%, but the % of times you've been correct in this thread is not much better than AI's FG%...
I'd argue it was some of his best basketball. PER overstates usage and I'd be curious how much his teams defensive ranks aided his rate of ws, by that I mean far beyond his actual contributions . I'll check the numbers later but does ows rank higher with that mix of usage n efficiency


Don't know **** about vorp tho

Jeffy25
01-18-2018, 08:42 PM
People don't use WS/VORP and whatever else alphabets they can come up to try and put player a over player b? it happens on here all the time and rings as well, Jordan is the media goat because of 6 rings yet Russell has almost double the amount

your one liners are starting to get Chronzish

Here is the beauty.

You don't need advanced metrics to see why AI sucks all time. He was an inefficient chucker, and you don't need advanced numbers to qualify that.

And I see little reason give you longer explanations, you don't read or sustain conversations.

Chronz
01-18-2018, 08:42 PM
Well said. The first part

AI was done. Every team he joined thereafter was best with him off the bench, just like Melo today, he refuses to adapt.

valade16
01-18-2018, 08:47 PM
I'd argue it was some of his best basketball. PER overstates usage and I'd be curious how much his teams defensive ranks aided his rate of ws, by that I mean far beyond his actual contributions . I'll check the numbers later but does ows rank higher with that mix of usage n efficiency

Don't know **** about vorp tho

Well you'd be arguing it because of his decreased volume of shots and his increased efficiency shooting the basketball, but outside of that was he better at anything else? He didn't try nearly as much defensively and certainly didn't play the passing lanes as well. In terms of as a passer, he was not a markedly more willing passer, he simply didn't have the ball as much because of Melo.

Chronz
01-18-2018, 08:48 PM
no he doesn't because you cant factor in the more usage could lead to less being efficient, when Miller went up against those Bulls they needed him to go ape crazy and I remember correctly J Rose was looking more of the franchise guy than Miller in those series, he looked to be the better or no less equal to Miller

Those were the bulls tho. I don't recall many teams pushing them to the brink the way Reggies pacers did.

J rose sucked balls, he just had the ball so much he fooled guys like you.

Chronz
01-18-2018, 08:52 PM
Well you'd be arguing it because of his decreased volume of shots and his increased efficiency shooting the basketball, but outside of that was he better at anything else? He didn't try nearly as much defensively and certainly didn't play the passing lanes as well. In terms of as a passer, he was not a markedly more willing passer, he simply didn't have the ball as much because of Melo.
Yeah but having the ball less is precisely something he would not relent to back in the day. Defensively he was worse but he was more of a pg these days so it was alil better.

Idk, I just remember actually liking to watch ai in Denver and the few years before the trade. He did develop more pg skills, just not in line with his physical decline

Jeffy25
01-18-2018, 08:53 PM
1. you do value over passers or guys you say play the lowkey way, set screens, do fake media interviews seeming likeable, you like those style of players, Duncanish
Yeah, non flashy, fundamental players are likeable. They also tend to be much more efficient and valuable.



2. All of those players can do both equally, one might be required more than the other but they are capable of getting pts or assists at high level
No. He couldn't do it equally. He wouldn't and refused to do it. He is 33% less capable than Kidd as a playmaker.


3. He is different, in age, game the same pre nba and current, overpasser who cant shoot to save his life, its a reason why I say you area who you area coming into the nba, your type of guy who you would rank high as hell if he had a damn ring, you would sware Rubio was better than Zeke and Iverson if he had a ring

Where in any of my post history, do you think I value rings for individual player accomplishments? I'm the biggest anti-ring proponent on this site when it comes to all time rankings.

AI was just an inefficient chucker. That's it.



4. This clearly went over your head, I was speaking in terms of actually focusing on overpassing he could get dimes like that but his team wasn't built like that so he had to shoot/score, Kidd cant score like that even if it was depended on him just based on his overpassing/assists game, not talking about assist pct or scoring games of 40, I am talking about who can do both equally, Iverson can, Kidd cant

Over passing?

Kidd was an awful shooter, so he focused on getting other players open shots. He made a hall of fame career out of it. It's not over passing if you can't shoot. AI couldn't shoot btw.



its like me posting Iverson 40 and 50 pt games and saying how many does Kidd have? at least Iverson posted 16 assists 3 times while Kidd has how many 40/50pt games? i'll wait for your expert advice
Kidd had 2, Iverson had 89

yet Kidd took 30 FGA in a game twice
While Iverson did that 117 times


5. the more you guys keep talking about this the more you are going to look basketballbrainfroze, of course he had to shoot 27x that game and had to go into assist mode and drop 16 dimes as well, doing both as I said he could do equally if needed, and how dare you bring up Mckie and his 11 shots less, imagine if that was TMAC as Iverson sidekick and TMAC could actually get those 11 more shots and decrease Iverson by 11 and you got 8 for 16 from the field, much more ''efficient'' right?

Iverson had to miss 19 field goals so his team could squeak out a one point victory, while McKie only missed 8 shots and scored more points?

Do you hear yourself?

Chronz
01-18-2018, 09:01 PM
if my team told me they would quit on me if I don't come off the bench for Stuckey who was coming off the bench for Billups when he was there and it was a straight up swap I would have did just like Iverson and took my ball and went home

Dumars loved Stuckey so much that he benched Iverson for him really and not RIP then shipped Stuckey off to Indy or wherever because he loved him so dearly, AI was blackballed day 1 now that I think about it, Stern hated him but loved making money off of him in his Sixers tenure, regardless if AI won or not he was box office cash money post Jordan era, with the game to match

Yeah he was wrong about stuckey but there were some Detroit fans who thought he could develop into a poor man's wade and to his credit, he eventually had some good years.

I would've ran AI to the ground but iirc, him playing was pissing off rip, dude was prolly just upset that he lost Billups but I can't blame him cuz AI takes up his shots.

That's the thing you guys don't get, sure Iverson never got the secondary star, and sure those guys played better in some ways with Iverson, but unless you were the ultimate team guy, you prolly didn't enjoy playing with Iverson.

That's fine if you're an elite player, just not if you're a basic star like Iverson

Chronz
01-18-2018, 09:07 PM
First Bolded: I never said anything different, in fact what I said earlier in the thread is:

"AI was an inefficient player in an inefficient era, so his inefficiency is magnified when compared to other eras."

Second Bolded: To start with, a single season and that single instance doesn't definitively prove anything. Amare went down and the Suns won more games and did just as well. Guess Amare was a scrub who sucks. The Bulls won 3 less games without MJ, guess MJ wasn't that good. There are many instances in history where a team did better or as good without a star player, doesn't mean those star players aren't good.

But part of the reason for your question is because the 2 years the Nuggets had AI they faced the Champion Spurs and the Finals Lakers in their first matchup.

Those Spurs had the best SRS in the league at 8.35 and the Lakers were 3rd at 7.35. The 2 teams the Billups Nuggets played in the 1st and 2nd Rounds had an SRS of 1.41 and 1.68. In fact, the Billups Nuggets lost to the same Lakers team the AI Nuggets lost to the year prior. In other words, if AI's Nuggets faced NO and Dallas in the first 2 rounds they'd have gone to the WCF and if the Billups Nuggets had faced the Lakers in the first round, they'd have been 1st round exits...

In fact the 2008 Nuggets SRS was 3.74 with AI and 3.12 with Billups.

Or maybe the fact that in 2008 the West had 8 teams finish with 50 wins and in 2009 it only had 6 teams finish with 50 wins.

In short, there were a ton of different reasons why, none of which have to do with "AI sucks"

When were the suns better without Amare? Bulls lost less games but the story runs deeper than that for them.

AI was immensely inefficient. Run that same experiment you ran only incorporate turnovers and offensive rebounds. You could take it further and just jot down their offensive rtg vs league averages with their usage% next to it, just as a cursory glance at offensive load. You'll find there's a bigger difference between tmac and Iverson than ts% alone can detect

The nuggets were better and far more playoff oriented. I'll check the numbers later but I would agree we overrate Chauncey nuggets.

Jamiecballer
01-19-2018, 02:39 PM
so you over ranked his support cast back then and as well as now, sounds about right

the reason why I am going to bring up Mckie and Snow forever is because you guys are mistaking those players as high level talent or HOF'ers, they would be if this was the GLeague, they would make all GLeague, 2nd or 3rd team

and I feel the same way as you do, those players were avg then and avg now from my nba standards of balling

AHA! average! you just said it! you just undermined your own argument man :)

if those backcourt players are average and you keep harping on them then what is the problem here? average backcourt mates, and supremely talented defensive players in the front court sounds like it should be a recipe for a pretty good run of success. maybe not championship level success but better than the success he had for sure.

flea
01-19-2018, 06:16 PM
Certainly not, I'm neither a 76er fan boy nor someone who repeated McKie or Snow over and over and I think you're a ****ing moron if you think AI was a flat out detriment to winning.

I also posted a ton of stats showing the decreased scoring efficiency of the era in which AI peaked which explains his incredibly low TS%, but it seems as if facts and data and context are just pissing into the void on this debate, which is sad. Ironically, the most fanatical blind lunatics in this debate are those that hate AI, all stats and context be damned.


It really is. And the league doesn't vary more than that year by year, it does so over time. Here are the numbers you posted:


16/17 - .457%/.358%/.772%
16
15
13/14 - .454/.360/.756
13
12
10/11 - .459/.358/.763
10
09
07/08 - .457/.362/.755
07
06
04/05 - .447/.356/.756
04
03
01/02 - .445/.354/.752
01
00
98/99 - .437/.339/.728
98
97
95/96 - .462/.367/.740

So if you want to claim there are wild variations in the FG% year to year, fill in the gaps and point out where they occur because looking at the years separated by the years you didn't show, it seems pretty gradual and coincides strongly with rule changes and innovations in style of play (96 had a shorter 3pt line, 99-05 slow play and defensive heavy rules, 08 and beyond opening up of the game).

As for your comment about AI being the only Guard to shoot .518 and take over 16 FGA a game since the 60's, I'll counter that with:

Tracy McGrady 16.4 FGA, .519 TS%

Is T-Mac somehow exempt from this scoring efficiency scorn everyone has for AI? Because he was basically as inefficient and shot nearly as much. Also a big surprise, he happened to peak at the exact same time as AI.

If you look at the lowest TS% for players all-time you find a bunch of guys who peaked at that exact time in NBA history with bad TS% (as I pointed out: T-Mac, Kidd, GP, C-Webb, VC, etc.).

And people want to sit here and act like it's a coincidence that so many all-time greats had low TS% around that time. Like everyone just got worse at shooting for some reason.


Was AI inefficient? Yes. But he was inefficient in an inefficient era so his inefficiency looks worse than it was.

Consider in 2001 AI's TS% of .518 was 174th in the league (of all players, even those that played 10 minutes all season) by BB-Ref. In 2017 it would be 314th.

The 314th best TS% in 2001 was .472. In 2017 the 174th was .555. That's a massive difference in efficiency top to bottom.


Would AI be as inefficient in today's league? Not a chance. He'd be more efficient simply because the league nowadays is more efficient overall. Due to the rules he'd have more leeway and he would be sent to the line more often. Due to analytics, he would be taking less long 2's. If you think that AI in today's league would have the exact same TS% as he did in his heyday... you're doing it wrong.

Good posts. Amazing how the AI discussion has evolved. I was a guy calling him an overrated chucker 10 years ago when the crowd then annointed him 3rd best SG all time. Now I'm the guy defending him because he objectively wasn't an inefficient player overall nor was he a detriment to winning.

Sure his scoring wasn't terribly efficient, but he was pretty much it for his team and he won his conference as the clear-cut best player on a team of role players. Sure the East was weak then (no weaker than Lebron's reign, though) and sure it was a different era but he was still All NBA 8 times. Maybe he didn't deserve his MVP or some of his All NBA selections but some in here act like he deserved none of them and that the Sixers would have been better off with a player like Kemba Walker (lol no).

Chronz
01-19-2018, 06:29 PM
Good posts. Amazing how the AI discussion has evolved. I was a guy calling him an overrated chucker 10 years ago when the crowd then annointed him 3rd best SG all time. Now I'm the guy defending him because he objectively wasn't an inefficient player overall nor was he a detriment to winning.

Sure his scoring wasn't terribly efficient, but he was pretty much it for his team and he won his conference as the clear-cut best player on a team of role players. Sure the East was weak then (no weaker than Lebron's reign, though) and sure it was a different era but he was still All NBA 8 times. Maybe he didn't deserve his MVP or some of his All NBA selections but some in here act like he deserved none of them and that the Sixers would have been better off with a player like Kemba Walker (lol no).

It was weaker bro. AI doesn't get past several eastern contenders in most years, hell, he was pushed to the brink by every team as it was. AI won series cuz his defensive support was elite. I've seen plenty guys play more valiantly in defeat, including the stars that outplayed AI that same run

flea
01-19-2018, 06:46 PM
It was weaker bro. AI doesn't get past several eastern contenders in most years, hell, he was pushed to the brink by every team as it was. AI won series cuz his defensive support was elite. I've seen plenty guys play more valiantly in defeat, including the stars that outplayed AI that same run

Then how was the offense not putrid? If he hurt his team offensively and clearly nobody else on his team could do much of anything offensively then how did they miraculously end up in the top half in offense and make a Finals run?

I'm not saying AI carried that team, far from it, but he was definitely the best. Maybe a prime Deke would have been better than prime AI, but not mid 30s Deke.

Jeffy25
01-19-2018, 09:57 PM
Good posts. Amazing how the AI discussion has evolved. I was a guy calling him an overrated chucker 10 years ago when the crowd then annointed him 3rd best SG all time. Now I'm the guy defending him because he objectively wasn't an inefficient player overall nor was he a detriment to winning.

Sure his scoring wasn't terribly efficient, but he was pretty much it for his team and he won his conference as the clear-cut best player on a team of role players. Sure the East was weak then (no weaker than Lebron's reign, though) and sure it was a different era but he was still All NBA 8 times. Maybe he didn't deserve his MVP or some of his All NBA selections but some in here act like he deserved none of them and that the Sixers would have been better off with a player like Kemba Walker (lol no).

So what about this information?


They were better when he left for Denver (went from 5-12 at the time of the trade to 30-35 after he left) and returned to a .500 team after he was gone for the next two seasons, after being a .452% winning team the three years prior.

I hate to break this to every one, but AI's lifetime wins vs loses in regular season games is 458-448. That's a .5055%. His teams, while he was on their rosters, was 552-538, that's a .5064%

They were 104-90 without him (.536)

The only year that his team sucked while he sat was in 02

The year he showed up in Denver? They were 14-9 (.608%), before they got him, and finished out 31-28, 26-24 in the games he played in (.520%)

It isn't just the bad shooting. His teams were literally better without him.


Chauncy Billups, undoubtedly, helped these same teams significantly more.

Jeffy25
01-19-2018, 10:17 PM
Then how was the offense not putrid? If he hurt his team offensively and clearly nobody else on his team could do much of anything offensively then how did they miraculously end up in the top half in offense and make a Finals run?

I'm not saying AI carried that team, far from it, but he was definitely the best. Maybe a prime Deke would have been better than prime AI, but not mid 30s Deke.

Maybe his team mates weren't that bad?

For his career, he has a 105 ORtg, the league average throughout his career was 106.04

Even in his big seasons, where they managed to rank barely inside the top 15 in ORtg, AI was barely reaching league average numbers.

If you want to qualify a different stat for offensive ranks, by all means. That's just how basketball reference qualifies it. And that has AI as below the league average.

So either his team mates weren't nearly as bad as people like to pretend, or his teams overall offensively were never that great any way.

Btw. Just for fun. Here are the 76ers teams year by year, and how that compares to the league average

I've bolded the years he was below his teams average

96/97 - PHI- 104.6 ORtg - 21st - Iverson - 104
97/98 - PHI - 102.8 ORtg - 21st - Iverson - 109
98/99 - PHI - 99.9 ORtg - 23rd - Iverson - 105
99/00 - PHI - 101.5 ORtg - 25th - Iverson - 101
00/01 - PHI - 103.6 ORtg - 13th - Iverson - 106
01/02 - PHI - 102.1 ORtg - 23rd - Iverson - 101
02/03 - PHI - 105.0 ORtg - 11th - Iverson - 103
03/04 - PHI - 99.1 ORtg - 26th - Iverson - 96
04/05 - PHI - 103.5 ORtg - 24th - Iverson - 105
05/06 - PHI - 106.00 ORtg - 15th - Iverson - 111
06/07 - DEN - 107.6 ORtg - 8th - Iverson - 106
07/08 - DEN - 110.0 ORtg - 11th - Iverson - 115

After this it's a year in Detroit, and a half a year in Philly, as a shell of his former self

What years was he carrying this Philly offense?
They reached as high as 13th out of 29 teams one year, and a year where they reached 11th out of 29 teams, while he was below the league average in ORtg

FlashBolt
01-20-2018, 04:54 AM
So far, from this thread, I've seen a verbal and factual beatdown of AI that should put to rest how "great" he actually is. Social media would destroy him for his inefficiency but because stats don't matter back then, his cultural presence overcame his actual NBA ability. As proven continuously, AI's team won primarily due to defense - something AI should not get credit for. What AI gets credit for is being able to have the energy and heart to muster up points despite his size. That, will always be his two greatest assets. But in terms of actual ranking and NBA talent, he simply was overrated and still is. If your only defense for AI was his teammates were bad, please tell me which one of Vince's or Ray Allen's teammates were any better. Only AI could win a series shooting 33% and below 40% but his team "sucks." Yes, they sucked offensively but they more than made that up defensively. And the fact they had a winning record when AI was out in their only notable season shows a lot of how this team still managed to win games.

KingstonHawke
01-20-2018, 06:48 AM
I chose top 30, but really he might be more like top 40 to me, it's hard to say without actually making a ranking. Also, it's hard to judge him against some of the current PGs because I feel like they still have some longevity to put in. But long story short, I think most people underrate Iverson because of his personality. Nash won two MVPs and was NEVER as good as Iverson at the exact same time they were playing. I put Iverson above every retired PG other than Magic. I don't even see how someone could justify ranking Stockton or Payton above him. 33 pts and 7.4 assist are crazy numbers. And coming on garbage teams. Imagine how unstoppable he'd of been playing with some of the superstars these other PGs had. Stoudmire, Malone, Kemp... wish he and Webber got together sooner.

basch152
01-20-2018, 08:55 AM
I chose top 30, but really he might be more like top 40 to me, it's hard to say without actually making a ranking. Also, it's hard to judge him against some of the current PGs because I feel like they still have some longevity to put in. But long story short, I think most people underrate Iverson because of his personality. Nash won two MVPs and was NEVER as good as Iverson at the exact same time they were playing. I put Iverson above every retired PG other than Magic. I don't even see how someone could justify ranking Stockton or Payton above him. 33 pts and 7.4 assist are crazy numbers. And coming on garbage teams. Imagine how unstoppable he'd of been playing with some of the superstars these other PGs had. Stoudmire, Malone, Kemp... wish he and Webber got together sooner.

people who don't understand basketball really shouldn't. e allowed to post. smh

Chronz
01-20-2018, 02:03 PM
I chose top 30, but really he might be more like top 40 to me, it's hard to say without actually making a ranking. Also, it's hard to judge him against some of the current PGs because I feel like they still have some longevity to put in. But long story short, I think most people underrate Iverson because of his personality. Nash won two MVPs and was NEVER as good as Iverson at the exact same time they were playing. I put Iverson above every retired PG other than Magic. I don't even see how someone could justify ranking Stockton or Payton above him. 33 pts and 7.4 assist are crazy numbers. And coming on garbage teams. Imagine how unstoppable he'd of been playing with some of the superstars these other PGs had. Stoudmire, Malone, Kemp... wish he and Webber got together sooner.
Nash was easily better and AI wouldn't get as much out of his teammates since he was far more turnover prone and far less of a weapon off the ball given his lack of size and range

europagnpilgrim
01-20-2018, 03:14 PM
So what about this information?




Chauncy Billups, undoubtedly, helped these same teams significantly more.


By the time Iverson was shipped out of Philly they had maxed him out as far as his best/prime/top/youth years and he was Sixers wasted goods by then, what do you expect out of a lil guy who had to do what he did offensively for 10 yrs to do? just rebuild and start over with Iggy and Korver?

Chauncey helped win 4 more games with Denver and last I checked if you don't reach the Finals all that other stuff really don't matter

Chauncey was a journey man before landing in Detroit so I am sure he helped out quite a few teams prior to Detroit, right? I could use the same and say Billups benefited from having a elite super defense so he could just be rendered to hit big timely shots, and not worry about shooting volume because he had RIP there to get 20ppg if needed

Billups was 3rd pick overall to a lottery team and ended up doing what with that team? Iverson was drafted by a 18 win team and instead of drafting the right way they fumbled that ball and then to add on they went and acquired GLeaugers as his core,Mckie and Snow

Iverson went from 18 win team to almost 50 win team by year 4, with Lynch/Snow/Mckie as mates, Billups wouldn't do better

its me saying if that Detroit trade went through in 2000 with Iverson they win 3 rings in that run of 6 straight ECF trips because they were actually better defensively and RIP/SHEED/BEN/PRINCE would have been plenty for AI to get by with in that Eastern climate at that time

europagnpilgrim
01-20-2018, 03:24 PM
Nash was easily better and AI wouldn't get as much out of his teammates since he was far more turnover prone and far less of a weapon off the ball given his lack of size and range


you guys are so comical I sware, AI wouldn't get as much out of his teammates? Marion/Amare couldn't do what they do without Nash? are you joking or serious?

once again go look at Snow number pre Iverson and tell me how Iverson didn't max out Snow to his ability, Nash has played with way more overall team talent in his career and how many Finals does he have? Nash was easily better with better team overall and didn't reach a Finals not one time, won back to back MVP's where both were laughed at by true ball players'

lack of size, no doubt, Iverson was pulling from 30ft nothing but nylon since HS, a reporter spoke how he use to pull up every game with range to let everybody know he was there

you better go back and watch some Iverson film because you are mistaking him for some other player, Lebron is more turnover prone than Nash, and Nash and Kidd are up there for turnovers because they have the ball so damn much and looking for an assist it is bound to happen, same with Iverson or Lebron who do so much for the offense to work that turnovers will be apart of that, big deal

Iverson might have a 5 turnover game, so what, Lebron had a 8 turnover, so what, that's only 1 or 2 per quarter and since they are like 90+pct of the team offense that is a miracle that they didn't turnover the ball more

its like the AI efficient talk, I feel its the team around him that was inefficient which hurt him more than it was him hurting those 5ppg scorers, once again you are praising Nash for playing with all star caliber players and knocking Iverson for not turning mckie/snow into allstars, you are blinded by your Iverson disgust

europagnpilgrim
01-20-2018, 03:39 PM
I remember that Kleiza deal. Three clippers had a similar rumor and we never traded for him either, I never understood why, then I saw him in a supporting role for both the rockets and the Lakers. Dude was prolly done. It's not easy to be an efficient winner, AI needed more help than most stars because he was inefficient on BOTH ends. I'll gladly take Billups over him (remember his 40pt explosions). That guy was a true winner and a guy you could play anywhere. He was like the anti Iverson in what a winner he was. There are many more like him. AI can't be built around, he's best suited off the bench like a Louis Williams

Cute that Bron thought that, wish he had facts or if he had cited anything substantial. Unfortunately AI wasn't 6 8, he should've known his midget *** would take a pounding, had cp3 never gotten injured he would still be torching it today, as is, he's adapted to remain relevant. If you don't see the major difference in his game today than even 6 years ago then I can't help you but even CP3 would agree with me. Wake me up when ao checks his ego like that.

His teammates were chosen because he wasn't a pg, after so many failed attempts and guys *****ing about playing with him, you kind of have to go a selfless route. He was never going to change and even when he finally got to lean on a young buck, he was still not passing enough. It's been true of him from day 1. He never adapted, never improved his range or defense. He wasn't ousted by the NBA, he just never checked his ego

The team needed that toughness and defense/proven vet over a avg unproven Kleiza is all I am saying, a Artest/Iverson/Melo/KMart/Camby and healthy Nene/Smith is upgrade and at that time was there for the taking, they even talked about Heinrich who would have been a upgrade at PG over Carter because his size would at least allow him to guard SG so Iverson could guard the PG's but oh well it didn't happen, Nene and Iverson had real good chemistry down that 07' stretch and he missed the following year with cancer to something, KMart was still recovering from that injury and by 09' he was more ready/stronger


You wish Lebron had facts about his idol? of course it was his honest opinion, nothing factual just like you say Nash was better than Iverson, that's your opinion, and don't use stats to back that up, use the team roster for that, Nash had ''better'' rosters, from Mavs to Suns to Lakers, easily

reason Lebron said he play like he was 6'8'' is because the guy would drive and finish on Shaq at the rim and he has caught a halfcourt pass and dunked it in game, that is stuff that guys like Lebron height does, not a 5'10'' guy, and not a flash in the pan play, for years he did it, more earlier in his career until he had to shoot 30x a game and he stopped dunking as much and focused on that patented floater in the paint

his teammates were chosen by who? Iverson or management? Iverson cried on draft night when the team passed on Pierce, so was it Iverson job to select or management? Iverson would have been the PG if they had Shaq and TMac in the frontcourt, what guys were *****ing?can you come with some facts or are we going to take you at your word like we did with Lebron about Iverson? if you are talking about Stackhouse he doesn't count, but you make it seem like he ran off prime HOF'ers to get his shots, which is so far from the truth

tell me when a player avg almost 27ppg and 7apg and 2spg and the next year is told to come off the bench and lets see his reaction, and the team won 50 games, and you don't make not one all nba team, only excuse they would have is well Iverson you are entering your 13th season so we want to go young, but you don't bench that type of production for Stuckey, I could see Memphis doing what they did with Conley who was better than Stuckey but still nothing special then nor now

Iverson didn't have to work on nothing, he just had to maintain it, he could do it all coming into the league, tis why we harp about his height, that was his only weakness, which was a strength as well, but a weakness when comparing to the bigger dominant players, I don't compare Iverson to Nash, more like Zeke, Nash is not on those players level, cut the madness out Chronz, you know better so do better

europagnpilgrim
01-20-2018, 03:59 PM
Nash was in his like 9th or 10th season and won mvp, Kobe was in his 12th season

who was the better player? both had slow careers to start but came on strong later

to me if you are truly mvp/dominant it shows day 1, not 20k days later

Nash was the same overpasser who could shoot the ball coming out of SClara or wherever he went, and the same in the league until injuries go the best of him, backing up J Kidd until he got his chance to shine, Kobe backed up Jones until he got his chance to shine, and both these players to me are over ranked by the masses in general, backup for years turned starter,congratulations to those players who work hard to get more minutes, should of done it day 1 if you were truly that good, and this dates back all the way to Wilt era, if you are that good and one of the all time best it shows day 1

Jamiecballer
01-20-2018, 04:07 PM
By the time Iverson was shipped out of Philly they had maxed him out as far as his best/prime/top/youth years and he was Sixers wasted goods by then, what do you expect out of a lil guy who had to do what he did offensively for 10 yrs to do? just rebuild and start over with Iggy and Korver?

Chauncey helped win 4 more games with Denver and last I checked if you don't reach the Finals all that other stuff really don't matter

Chauncey was a journey man before landing in Detroit so I am sure he helped out quite a few teams prior to Detroit, right? I could use the same and say Billups benefited from having a elite super defense so he could just be rendered to hit big timely shots, and not worry about shooting volume because he had RIP there to get 20ppg if needed

Billups was 3rd pick overall to a lottery team and ended up doing what with that team? Iverson was drafted by a 18 win team and instead of drafting the right way they fumbled that ball and then to add on they went and acquired GLeaugers as his core,Mckie and Snow

Iverson went from 18 win team to almost 50 win team by year 4, with Lynch/Snow/Mckie as mates, Billups wouldn't do better

its me saying if that Detroit trade went through in 2000 with Iverson they win 3 rings in that run of 6 straight ECF trips because they were actually better defensively and RIP/SHEED/BEN/PRINCE would have been plenty for AI to get by with in that Eastern climate at that timeThe early 2000's pistons aren't the pistons if they have Iverson so it's a stupid thing to say. He's the antithesis of their entire reason for succeeding.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-J120A using Tapatalk

Chronz
01-20-2018, 04:34 PM
you guys are so comical I sware, AI wouldn't get as much out of his teammates? Marion/Amare couldn't do what they do without Nash? are you joking or serious?
You're trolling. Neither of them were about **** until Nash showed up. Both were lesser versions of themselves without his vision



once again go look at Snow number pre Iverson and tell me how Iverson didn't max out Snow to his ability,

Lol snow was buried in a deep guard rotation in Seattle and spent his prime years in Philly. His numbers are nothing to brag about, you know what I'll remember snow for, being the guy Kobe once said was the hardest to back down, sneaky strong. It's partly why he was a great defender for so long (way better defensively than AI) and that has nothing to do with playing alongside Iverson since AI NEEDED that kind of backcourt partner defensively.



Nash has played with way more overall team talent in his career and how many Finals does he have?

I'm not stupid enough to ignore competition bro. Nash pushed superior teams to the brink whereas AI was embarrassed by every teams star player and barely scraped bye.



Nash was easily better with better team overall and didn't reach a Finals not one time, won back to back MVP's where both were laughed at by true ball players'
Bball players tend to be stupid, its why they aren't trusted to run actual squads.



lack of size, no doubt, Iverson was pulling from 30ft nothing but nylon since HS
If that were true, why did he miss so many?



a reporter spoke how he use to pull up every game with range to let everybody know he was there

To which every defense laughed, cuz he didn't scare no one.



you better go back and watch some Iverson film because you are mistaking him for some other player, Lebron is more turnover prone than Nash, and Nash and Kidd are up there for turnovers because they have the ball so damn much and looking for an assist it is bound to happen, same with Iverson or Lebron who do so much for the offense to work that turnovers will be apart of that, big deal
Seen the film, it was ugly and boring to me. Gimme high iq basketball instead. Bron? Far more efficient. Kidd? Far better defensively. Nash? Far better vision and shooting.




Iverson might have a 5 turnover game, so what, Lebron had a 8 turnover, so what, that's only 1 or 2 per quarter and since they are like 90+pct of the team offense that is a miracle that they didn't turnover the ball more
Except it's not a miracle and we can actually count how often they turn it over every year of their careers.



its like the AI efficient talk, I feel its the team around him that was inefficient which hurt him more than it was him hurting those 5ppg scorers, once again you are praising Nash for playing with all star caliber players and knocking Iverson for not turning mckie/snow into allstars, you are blinded by your Iverson disgust
Nash would make his team and players more efficient cuz he had what AI never learned. How to share, how to orchestrate a team. Never learned how to shoot from range and he never learned how to value a possession. AI was a basic star period

Chronz
01-20-2018, 04:47 PM
The team needed that toughness and defense/proven vet over a avg unproven Kleiza is all I am saying, a Artest/Iverson/Melo/KMart/Camby and healthy Nene/Smith is upgrade and at that time was there for the taking, they even talked about Heinrich who would have been a upgrade at PG over Carter because his size would at least allow him to guard SG so Iverson could guard the PG's but oh well it didn't happen, Nene and Iverson had real good chemistry down that 07' stretch and he missed the following year with cancer to something, KMart was still recovering from that injury and by 09' he was more ready/stronger
Maybe teams don't pull the trigger cuz they don't think AI can get it done. Lol jk jk, but so what, they needed more than just toughness (which is why Billups made them better than Iverson) they needed shooting (which is the other reason Billups made them better).



You wish Lebron had facts about his idol? of course it was his honest opinion, nothing factual just like you say Nash was better than Iverson, that's your opinion, and don't use stats to back that up, use the team roster for that, Nash had ''better'' rosters, from Mavs to Suns to Lakers, easily
So? Lots of superior players had better rosters, AI doesn't get extra credit for losing so miserably.



reason Lebron said he play like he was 6'8'' is because the guy would drive and finish on Shaq at the rim and he has caught a halfcourt pass and dunked it in game, that is stuff that guys like Lebron height does, not a 5'10'' guy, and not a flash in the pan play, for years he did it, more earlier in his career until he had to shoot 30x a game and he stopped dunking as much and focused on that patented floater in the paint
Except he wasn't 68 and didn't finish like one. I don't give a **** if he did make a few of his attempts, he CLEARLY missed a **** ton of shots, dude should've perfected the outside game if he wanted to lead.



his teammates were chosen by who?

The guys closest to him and found it best to surround him with team players.



Iverson or management Iverson cried on draft night when the team passed on Pierce, so was it Iverson job to select or management? Iverson would have been the PG if they had Shaq and TMac in the frontcourt, what guys were *****ing?can you come with some facts or are we going to take you at your word like we did with Lebron about Iverson? if you are talking about Stackhouse he doesn't count, but you make it seem like he ran off prime HOF'ers to get his shots, which is so far from the truth
No, I just know he pissed teammates and coaches off, fans of his team that I respected had an issue with his ball hoggery, AND the stats depict a basic star. Sorry, can't ignore all that just cuz you like midgets.




tell me when a player avg almost 27ppg and 7apg and 2spg and the next year is told to come off the bench and lets see his reaction, and the team won 50 games, and you don't make not one all nba team, only excuse they would have is well Iverson you are entering your 13th season so we want to go young, but you don't bench that type of production for Stuckey, I could see Memphis doing what they did with Conley who was better than Stuckey but still nothing special then nor now
Except the team played better with Conley and AI averaging that doesn't mean **** in a new year. That's how quickly players can decline, especially when they were too dumb to adapt and relied soo much on just quickness. AI was sad to watch, nobody was holding him back, he was just that slow. It's why even in Philly he couldn't do ****.




Iverson didn't have to work on nothing, he just had to maintain it, he could do it all coming into the league, tis why we harp about his height, that was his only weakness, which was a strength as well, but a weakness when comparing to the bigger dominant players, I don't compare Iverson to Nash, more like Zeke, Nash is not on those players level, cut the madness out Chronz, you know better so do better
Nah, he was a bum without that first step and never developed his jumper to offset his declining athleticism. AI was too dumb to know his place

Shammyguy3
01-20-2018, 07:19 PM
I view this argument as the following: which came first, the chicken or the egg?

Option 1: Did Iverson have to take the scoring load, resulting in a relatively inefficient offensive player despite his talent, because of the teammates around him demanded him to?

Option 2: Did the 76ers have to surround Iverson with that type of roster because Iverson would demand such a scoring load, resulting in a relatively inefficient offensive player despite his talent?


To me, it is clearly option 2. Iverson's game was limited to taking a significant amount of field goal attempts. That was the only value he brought to a team. The best way to maximize that value, is to surround him with a roster that will limit the number of possessions the other team had.

Jeffy25
01-20-2018, 07:34 PM
I view this argument as the following: which came first, the chicken or the egg?

Option 1: Did Iverson have to take the scoring load, resulting in a relatively inefficient offensive player despite his talent, because of the teammates around him demanded him to?

Option 2: Did the 76ers have to surround Iverson with that type of roster because Iverson would demand such a scoring load, resulting in a relatively inefficient offensive player despite his talent?


To me, it is clearly option 2. Iverson's game was limited to taking a significant amount of field goal attempts. That was the only value he brought to a team. The best way to maximize that value, is to surround him with a roster that will limit the number of possessions the other team had.
Clearly number 2. He was a ball hog everywhere he ever played. Wake Forest, with a young Melo in Denver, with Detroit etc.

If he had changed/evolved throughout his career, that would be a different story.

Jamiecballer
01-20-2018, 09:08 PM
Clearly number 2. He was a ball hog everywhere he ever played. Wake Forest, with a young Melo in Denver, with Detroit etc.

If he had changed/evolved throughout his career, that would be a different story.Don't forget Georgetown since that's where he played

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-J120A using Tapatalk

ewing
01-21-2018, 11:00 AM
Clearly number 2. He was a ball hog everywhere he ever played. Wake Forest, with a young Melo in Denver, with Detroit etc.

If he had changed/evolved throughout his career, that would be a different story.

I think you are confusing AI and Rusty LaRue. common mistake

warfelg
01-21-2018, 11:28 AM
I view this argument as the following: which came first, the chicken or the egg?

Option 1: Did Iverson have to take the scoring load, resulting in a relatively inefficient offensive player despite his talent, because of the teammates around him demanded him to?

Option 2: Did the 76ers have to surround Iverson with that type of roster because Iverson would demand such a scoring load, resulting in a relatively inefficient offensive player despite his talent?


To me, it is clearly option 2. Iverson's game was limited to taking a significant amount of field goal attempts. That was the only value he brought to a team. The best way to maximize that value, is to surround him with a roster that will limit the number of possessions the other team had.

Itís a combo of the two. Early in his career they tried pairing him with other on ball scorers. Coleman, Hughes, Van Horn. Issue was they were too similar to AI in being on ball scorers.

So they decided to surround him with guys that didnít need the ball. Problem was they didnít surround him with guys that can play without the ball and also be effective.

I firmly believe that if they got some guys who could have done that, AIís career ends up wildly different.

JAZZNC
01-21-2018, 11:50 PM
I think you are confusing AI and Rusty LaRue. common mistake
LMAO!! I was about to correct him since I'm a Wake fan.

He played at Georgetown and if you want to see his entire playing career in a nutshell, watch the Big East championship game where he took every shot without a pass at all to end the game (missing basically all of them playing hero ball) while Ray Allen playing a team game for UConn came from behind and won the game.

Jeffy25
01-22-2018, 12:56 AM
LMAO!! I was about to correct him since I'm a Wake fan.

He played at Georgetown and if you want to see his entire playing career in a nutshell, watch the Big East championship game where he took every shot without a pass at all to end the game (missing basically all of them playing hero ball) while Ray Allen playing a team game for UConn came from behind and won the game.

This one?https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5uef8OreJPE

AI chucked some ugly *** shots in the final 5 minutes, with them leading by 6 points.

Jamiecballer
01-22-2018, 11:43 AM
LMAO!! I was about to correct him since I'm a Wake fan.

He played at Georgetown and if you want to see his entire playing career in a nutshell, watch the Big East championship game where he took every shot without a pass at all to end the game (missing basically all of them playing hero ball) while Ray Allen playing a team game for UConn came from behind and won the game.Damn, I totally want to rewatch that. You sold me.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-J120A using Tapatalk

KnicksorBust
01-22-2018, 11:46 AM
Don't forget Georgetown since that's where he played

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-J120A using Tapatalk


I think you are confusing AI and Rusty LaRue. common mistake

:laugh:

KnicksorBust
01-22-2018, 12:00 PM
Don't forget Georgetown since that's where he played

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-J120A using Tapatalk


Itís a combo of the two. Early in his career they tried pairing him with other on ball scorers. Coleman, Hughes, Van Horn. Issue was they were too similar to AI in being on ball scorers.

So they decided to surround him with guys that didnít need the ball. Problem was they didnít surround him with guys that can play without the ball and also be effective.

I firmly believe that if they got some guys who could have done that, AIís career ends up wildly different.

I think he and Keith Van Horn made a lot of sense together.