Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 54
  1. #31
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    1,511
    Quote Originally Posted by HeatFan:29172074
    Quote Originally Posted by YAALREADYKNO View Post
    Iverson one finals appearance and a league MVP
    Nash also had an MVP (2 actually) but Iverson taking the 76ers to the Finals almost by himself was impressive. Even won a game in LA against Shaq and Kobe by himself (of course he had a pretty good defensive team to help). Nash was more of a facilitator and Iverson was more of a scorer.

    I would have to go with Iverson. As an owner, he would always make my team competitive with a shot of making it far in the playoffs if he is hot and would also make attendance better (which means more $$$). Nash was very good but even of very good teams really didn't get very far (not really sure why).
    Two words

    Western conference


    Welcome to Good Boogie, home of the Good Boogie

    Boogie Cousins for MVP 2015

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Flock of Sheep No.97 near BAAA BAA lane
    Posts
    9,357
    It depends if I need a scorer or a smart play maker.

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Phoenix, AZ
    Posts
    1,507
    For me, it's Nash, and it isn't close.

    People want to talk about Iverson being "So much better" than Nash, "if you watch games and don't just use numbers". That line of reasoning is always a cop out. Numbers don't lie. Yes, they need to be used in context, and they need to be combined with what you see, but ignoring them all together because they don't favor your preference, is ignorant.

    Iverson was a "better" scorer, albeit incredibly inefficient. He absolutely was a nightmare to guard. The problem is, that even as hard as he was to guard, he didn't score very efficiently at all.

    Iverson may have been the better defender when considering outright physical ability, but he couldn't guard his own position, and he gambled way too often. (Even though he could because of the incredible defensive team that was built around him.) Nash has been a smarter defender. (Very often at the top of the league in charges drawn.)

    Nash was a better facilitator, passer, floor general, leader, team mate.

    Nash also shot the ball incredibly well, anywhere on the floor. When they needed him to score because others were struggling, he did so with great efficiency.

    Scoring is not the only thing that makes players great. Nash was better than AI in almost everything involved in playing the game of basketball at a high level, other than scoring.

    **On a side note....whoever said that Nash never took his teams very far....are you kidding? He went to the Western Conference Finals and lost to teams that would have ousted that Sixers team at any point they would have played them. Nash played in a much more difficult conference, against much better competition in the playoffs, than AI ever did.
    Last edited by MassoDio; 10-24-2014 at 07:01 PM.
    Basset Life


  4. #34
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    LA
    Posts
    45,101
    Quote Originally Posted by MassoDio View Post
    For me, it's Nash, and it isn't close.

    People want to talk about Iverson being "So much better" than Nash, "if you watch games and don't just use numbers". That line of reasoning is always a cop out. Numbers don't lie. Yes, they need to be used in context, and they need to be combined with what you see, but ignoring them all together because they don't favor your preference, is ignorant.

    Iverson was a "better" scorer, albeit incredibly inefficient. He absolutely was a nightmare to guard. The problem is, that even as hard as he was to guard, he didn't score very efficiently at all.

    Iverson may have been the better defender when considering outright physical ability, but he couldn't guard his own position, and he gambled way too often. (Even though he could because of the incredible defensive team that was built around him.) Nash has been a smarter defender. (Very often at the top of the league in charges drawn.)

    Nash was a better facilitator, passer, floor general, leader, team mate.

    Nash also shot the ball incredibly well, anywhere on the floor. When they needed him to score because others were struggling, he did so with great efficiency.

    Scoring is not the only thing that makes players great. Nash was better than AI in almost everything involved in playing the game of basketball at a high level, other than scoring.

    **On a side note....whoever said that Nash never took his teams very far....are you kidding? He went to the Western Conference Finals and lost to teams that would have ousted that Sixers team at any point they would have played them. Nash played in a much more difficult conference, against much better competition in the playoffs, than AI ever did.
    You're a man of elegant taste

  5. #35
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Minnesota, Brooklyn Park
    Posts
    388
    This is easily Iverson and it's not even close lol.

    Only forums like this one would actually consider Nash, but in real life I don't think anyone in their right mind would put Nash in the same tier as Iverson.

  6. #36
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    12,166
    Quote Originally Posted by Chronz View Post
    Do you ever have an argument that doesn't consist of you telling people your eyes are more important than the combination of other peoples eyeballs + objectivity ?


    If AI was so ungaurdable, why did he miss so many shots? He was hard working, but its better to work smart than work hard. Nash has taken care of his body diligently, honed a skillset not based on athleticism, both have contributed to him being an MVP at an age where AI was declining.
    First off efficiency doesn't = better player. That's something the stat sheet guys still can't comprehend.

    But to your question yes I have a argument but let's be real you've heard it all before. Led the league in scoring and steals. Took a garbage team to the Finals and singlehandedly took a game from a Lakers team that should've swept the entire playoffs. Allstar MVP, if you care about those sort of things. On and on and on.

    And on a side note it appears you feel Nash's MVPs were legit. I certainly do not, but I guess that's a different debate.....
    Last edited by Tony_Starks; 10-25-2014 at 06:14 AM.

  7. #37
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    12,166
    Quote Originally Posted by AIverson View Post
    This is easily Iverson and it's not even close lol.

    Only forums like this one would actually consider Nash, but in real life I don't think anyone in their right mind would put Nash in the same tier as Iverson.
    Lol I don't even think Steve Nash himself entertains the notion that he was better than Iverson.

  8. #38
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    143
    It's totally Steve Nash. He worked harder and he was smart. Don't let these last two or three years of his career redefine him.

  9. #39
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    LA
    Posts
    4,336
    Nash all day. His three and FT % poops on Iverson's. I want Nash's iq and Court Vision as well.

  10. #40
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Cincinnati, OH
    Posts
    4,960
    My pick: Nash. Great passer, shooter, court vision.

    Iverson was a scorer, more killer instinct. Like a little Kobe.

    But Nash...hands down. Both should've won a title, though.


    6/15/19...when my wish became a reality.

  11. #41
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Houston Tx
    Posts
    646
    I'm going with A.I. Nash is a one deminsional player per offense no defense . A.i. can carry a team on his back

  12. #42
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    LA
    Posts
    45,101
    Quote Originally Posted by Tony_Starks View Post
    First off efficiency doesn't = better player. That's something the stat sheet guys still can't comprehend.
    First off, I dont care about strawman arguments, being more efficient isn't something someone has to apologize for so lets stick to things that help your argument. This would be like me saying scoring volume doesn't = better player. Thats essentially what you're telling us.

    But to your question yes I have a argument but let's be real you've heard it all before. Led the league in scoring and steals. Took a garbage team to the Finals and singlehandedly took a game from a Lakers team that should've swept the entire playoffs. Allstar MVP, if you care about those sort of things. On and on and on.
    LOL so in other words you want people to disregard certain aspects of statistics (aspects that actual statisticians get paid by the NBA to assess) in favor of scoring and steals ? LMFAO sorry bro, but when it comes to stats, Ill stick to the methods employed by those within the NBA, and they certainly dont cherry pick the way you do.

    You mention steals as if that offsets the fact that the guy couldn't defend his own position. That AI led a crap team is pure myth created by those who think scoring is the only aspect of the game that a player can contribute. News flash, we saw AI with crap teams, he missed the playoffs with them. So spare me this imaginary world where a single player has complete control over his teams destiny. Those Lakers would have swept the playoffs if they weren't forced to wait for AI's Sixers to finish off those inferior teams he struggled with. AI had the best support in the conference and still almost failed to get it done.


    And on a side note it appears you feel Nash's MVPs were legit. I certainly do not, but I guess that's a different debate.....
    How little you know. Shaq deserved the first one, Dirk or KG deserved the 2nd and then Nash deserved the one Dirk got, thats always been my stance.

    How are they not legit? AI's isnt legit either if thats the case. Only with Nash he has an extra MVP to boot.

  13. #43
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    44,373
    Quote Originally Posted by Tony_Starks View Post
    Iverson. Nash was a superior point guard but AI was a way way way better player.

    Also led the league in steals multiple times btw.
    And is also has one of the highest FGA/G in NBA history, and among the lowest FG% of anyone on the FGA/G list after 1980. His APG, and assists given how much he held the ball are also among the worst ever seen.

    AI was also a blight on his team and to his coaches, never heard to many complaints about Nash in that regard.
    I am not a con artist! I am a businessman! I have a big brain and I'm good at making deals! People are just jealous of my BIG BRAIN! BAD!

    Guess who? The future X-Presdent...

  14. #44
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    8,117
    Nash, not even close. AI is so overrated, he's a ESPN highlight machine that kids like to watch.

  15. #45
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    4
    Firstly, to answer the question: Nash. Get past the numbers and look at the intangibles that Nash brought. That having been said, doesn't comparing Nash and Iverson beg the question: Is Kevin Johnson not the perfect mix between the two of them?? Nash wishes he had KJ's athleticism, and Iverson wishes (all at least should) that he had KJ's sense of the PG position

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •