Allen Iverson vs Tony Parker

[Marcus]

heard Matt Harpring say during a telecast that Iverson was the "best shooter at the rim for his size, ever"

Parker is league wide considered one of if not the best PGs at finishing at the rim league wide.

Harpring speaking facts or is it debatable between him and Parker?

Also feel free to chime in other names if you got um. just remember we're talking little guys here.

[Clyde Frazier]

Unfortunately, bball ref doesn't seem to let you do a quick aggregate on shot chart shooting percentages. See "shooting" section on the player pages by year:

http://www.basketball-reference.com/pla ... sal01.html

http://www.basketball-reference.com/pla ... eto01.html

Took a quick look at a few seasons of "at the rim" percentages during iverson and parker's prime for comparison:

Iverson
01 - 66%
02 - 56%
03 - 53%
04 - 53%

Parker
06 - 69%
07 - 63%
08 - 64%
09 - 65%

It would be good if we could see iverson's percentages pre 2001 as there was a clear drop off by year as he got closer to age 30. This also might indicate the change in how the game has been called in the later 2000s to now vs. early 2000s. That said, parker is elite at the rim, and that doesn't take anything away from those absurd percentages for a guy of his size.

[CountTheirRings]

On the note of Tony Parker, I'd like to mention that I think he is criminally under-appreciated and easily one of the best point guards of this generation. His lane-creativity is especially remarkable, and his first-step speed magnifies defensive let-ups that give any resemblance of space. His ball-control is masterful and he's such an adept decision maker. Couldn't think of a better PG to run Pop's ingenious system.

On the other hand, Iverson is Iverson. IDK how reliable it is to straight-up compare FG% at the rim, considering they played in entirely different offensive systems, with a variety of different looks, and their green-lights were not comparable. Plus Iverson carried a lot more offensive load.

"best shooter at the rim" is a notably ambiguous accolade, but if I understandably reduce that to an offensive comparison of the two, I'd take AI.

Definitely "debatable between him and Parker" though.

[Quotatious]

Parker has been unbelievably consistent as a finisher at rim throughout his career - looking at bb-r's shot charts year after year, he's been pretty much a fixture for about 65% at rim every year. He shot lower than 60% just once in his career - that was his rookie season (59%).

Iverson had almost 66% in 2001, but never came close to that again, although I'd disagree with Clyde Frazier here about Iverson steadily declining in this regard after '01 - here are his numbers from 2001 to 2008 (as long as he was a star):

2001 - 65.6%
2002 - 55.6%
2003 - 52.7%
2004 - 53.2%
2005 - 54.5%
2006 - 54.9%
2007 - 57.9%
2008 - 57.6%

So there was an improvement in '07 and '08 - it might have something to do with him having a much more comfortable situation on the Nuggets, playing with Melo and other good players like Camby, Kenyon or Nene, but I wouldn't say it's because of rule changes and officiating - 2001 was already a very tough defensive year, with just 4 teams in the entire league averaging more than 100 PPG, and his efficiency at rim that year was pretty amazing for a guy his size - 66% is what prime Parker has typically been able to do.

Also, Parker is like 3 inches taller - he's 6'2'' while Iverson probably isn't even 6 feet tall, and Iverson clearly faced more defensive pressure and took more physical beating than Parker. Seeing pre-2001 Iverson's percentages would be very helpful, though I doubt he was nearly as consistent as Parker (although I think there's a chance that he had more seasons with 60+% at rim than just 2001).

[ShaqAttack3234]

Iverson was an extremely impressive finisher at the rim late 90's/early 00's, but I have to go with Parker here. His tear drop in particular has been deadly since he was a young player, and he is/was regularly one of the leaders in points in the paint. When Parker gets into the paint, you expect him to finish.

So there was an improvement in '07 and '08 - it might have something to do with him having a much more comfortable situation on the Nuggets, playing with Melo and other good players like Camby, Kenyon or Nene, but I wouldn't say it's because of rule changes and officiating - 2001 was already a very tough defensive year, with just 4 teams in the entire league averaging more than 100 PPG, and his efficiency at rim that year was pretty amazing for a guy his size - 66% is what prime Parker has typically been able to do.

Not to mention, those Sixer teams were usually slower, defensive-minded teams, while Denver played at a very fast pace so more easy baskets in transition, which help the percentage at the rim.

[Clyde Frazier]

Parker has been unbelievably consistent as a finisher at rim throughout his career - looking at bb-r's shot charts year after year, he's been pretty much a fixture for about 65% at rim every year. He shot lower than 60% just once in his career - that was his rookie season (59%).

Iverson had almost 66% in 2001, but never came close to that again, although I'd disagree with Clyde Frazier here about Iverson steadily declining in this regard after '01 - here are his numbers from 2001 to 2008 (as long as he was a star):

2001 - 65.6%
2002 - 55.6%
2003 - 52.7%
2004 - 53.2%
2005 - 54.5%
2006 - 54.9%
2007 - 57.9%
2008 - 57.6%

So there was an improvement in '07 and '08 - it might have something to do with him having a much more comfortable situation on the Nuggets, playing with Melo and other good players like Camby, Kenyon or Nene, but I wouldn't say it's because of rule changes and officiating - 2001 was already a very tough defensive year, with just 4 teams in the entire league averaging more than 100 PPG, and his efficiency at rim that year was pretty amazing for a guy his size - 66% is what prime Parker has typically been able to do.

Also, Parker is like 3 inches taller - he's 6'2'' while Iverson probably isn't even 6 feet tall, and Iverson clearly faced more defensive pressure and took more physical beating than Parker. Seeing pre-2001 Iverson's percentages would be very helpful, though I doubt he was nearly as consistent as Parker (although I think there's a chance that he had more seasons with 60+% at rim than just 2001).

Yeah, I threw that post together very quickly, so I didn't look farther than a few years. I was speculating more than anything else. He certainly had pressure taken off of him after going to DEN to play with carmelo.

I think the way in which iverson and parker got shots at the rim may have something to do with it. Iverson would do everything he could to create contact and get to the line, so I think he was putting up tougher shots. He also shot a higher volume, and when you get to his kind of volume, percentages will likely decrease. Like I said, i'd like to see how iverson fared for a few seasons prior to 2001. I'd imagine he was in the 60%+ range.

While parker can certainly absorb a lot of contact, his best quality at the rim is how elusive he is at evading defenders and finishing quickly. It happens to be one of my favorite aspects of his game, and had been underrated for years.

[picc]

Parker is the best at the rim finisher pound for pound i've ever seen. Not just his finishing ability, but how he does it while moving at such high speeds with tremendous torque. Iverson was great, but I don't feel like he's even better than Steve Nash was around the rim. Though I haven't checked the stats.

Parker is on another level imo. His own level.

[KyletheDingbat]

Iverson would put up Parker % in the Spurs system too, and maybe better. Iverson was going against teams who's entire defense was predicated on bottling him up. Parker has never faced that type of pressure. I gotta go AI here.

[Basketballefan]

I feel like we shouldn't be comparing Parker to Iverson when it comes to any aspect.

[RSCD3_]

If the spurs repeat then one could argue that Parker is very close to magic as a player and arguably better

Green/


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

[Clyde Frazier]

Scratch that about not being able to do aggregate shooting %s at the rim. Didn't notice it further down the page listed as "0-3 ft". Gives me an excuse to list lebron's absurd percentages at the rim:

This past season, he shot a career high 79.6% at the rim. From 07 to 2014, he's shot an avg of 74.6% at the rim, hitting 70+% every season.

[-Kees-]

Iverson would put up Parker % in the Spurs system too, and maybe better. Iverson was going against teams who's entire defense was predicated on bottling him up. Parker has never faced that type of pressure. I gotta go AI here.

This is kinda how I feel too.

I'll take Iverson here, even if Parker is the best right now.

Iverson was considerably smaller and played in a much tougher defensive era, especially for perimeter players. He took much more of a beating on the perimeter just to get to the hoop, then faced interior defenses that planned for him and him only, because he was the offense on most of those teams.

Basically, I see it like this. Iverson is playing 10 more MPG, shooting 10-12 more FGA per game, is about 15-20 lbs lighter, about 2-3 inches shoter, playing on a team where his 2nd best option would be 4th/5th (at best) on the Spurs, with much, much worse spacing, in an era that was much harder on perimeter players, in a league that was 5-7 PPG slower (as well as a similarily slower pace), shooting a lower FG% on average, with a head coach that is not nearly as crafty, especially on offense.

He just had too much going against him to put him still very good numbers (as mentioned above, 65% the one year closest to his prime, but still mid-high 50s later on). I'll take him as a rim finisher over Parker.

[berkkobe7]

Pair Allen Iverson and Tim Duncan and watch what happens.

[Hornet Mania]

Iverson has become criminally underrated. If anything I thought his impact would be overstated by future generations, but I suppose the stink of his last few seasons left an even more lasting impact than the sneaker hype.

Iverson was that Sixers offense. He forced the issue constantly, for better and for worse. The fact he could finish at the rim with such consistency at his size, against defense geared specifically to stop him, is a big part of what made him so amazing.

Spacing has a big effect on efficiency. The Spurs have mastered the art of spacing, they stretch defenses in all directions and set players into motion to further compound the dilemma their opponents face. Parker is a savant, one of the finest players of his generation imo, but the luxury of being part of the historically great Spurs machine is a far cry from making the best of the grind-em-down tactics Larry Brown deployed. Parker is able to find space in defenses that are straining to deny the 3, then he drops his patented floater to devastating effect. Iverson scampered his way between multiple defenders and then contorted his body in ridiculous fashion, while STILL converting at respectable clips on high volume. The man was a freak in this regard the likes of which we likely will not see again in our lifetimes.

Tony Parker arguably has more impact overall but in the very specific area of small guards finishing in the paint AI was king.

[Basketballefan]

Iverson has become criminally underrated. If anything I thought his impact would be overstated by future generations, but I suppose the stink of his last few seasons left an even more lasting impact than the sneaker hype.

Iverson was that Sixers offense. He forced the issue constantly, for better and for worse. The fact he could finish at the rim with such consistency at his size, against defense geared specifically to stop him, is a big part of what made him so amazing.

Spacing has a big effect on efficiency. The Spurs have mastered the art of spacing, they stretch defenses in all directions and set players into motion to further compound the dilemma their opponents face. Parker is a savant, one of the finest players of his generation imo, but the luxury of being part of the historically great Spurs machine is a far cry from making the best of the grind-em-down tactics Larry Brown deployed. Parker is able to find space in defenses that are straining to deny the 3, then he drops his patented floater to devastating effect. Iverson scampered his way between multiple defenders and then contorted his body in ridiculous fashion, while STILL converting at respectable clips on high volume. The man was a freak in this regard the likes of which we likely will not see again in our lifetimes.

Tony Parker arguably has more impact overall but in the very specific area of small guards finishing in the paint AI was king.

Wow you say iverson is criminally underrated then say Parker is more impactful overall. Parker wouldn't be a hall of famer if he didnt play for the Spurs. He's nowhere near Iverson as a player.

[Hornet Mania]

Iverson has become criminally underrated. If anything I thought his impact would be overstated by future generations, but I suppose the stink of his last few seasons left an even more lasting impact than the sneaker hype.

Iverson was that Sixers offense. He forced the issue constantly, for better and for worse. The fact he could finish at the rim with such consistency at his size, against defense geared specifically to stop him, is a big part of what made him so amazing.

Spacing has a big effect on efficiency. The Spurs have mastered the art of spacing, they stretch defenses in all directions and set players into motion to further compound the dilemma their opponents face. Parker is a savant, one of the finest players of his generation imo, but the luxury of being part of the historically great Spurs machine is a far cry from making the best of the grind-em-down tactics Larry Brown deployed. Parker is able to find space in defenses that are straining to deny the 3, then he drops his patented floater to devastating effect. Iverson scampered his way between multiple defenders and then contorted his body in ridiculous fashion, while STILL converting at respectable clips on high volume. The man was a freak in this regard the likes of which we likely will not see again in our lifetimes.

Tony Parker arguably has more impact overall but in the very specific area of small guards finishing in the paint AI was king.

Wow you say iverson is criminally underrated then say Parker is more impactful overall. Parker wouldn't be a hall of famer if he didnt play for the Spurs. He's nowhere near Iverson as a player.

I said Parker "arguably" has more impact. I wouldn't personally argue that Parker is superior, but I realize AI is a polarizing player and it's hardly universal on these boards that he's held in higher esteem. I assumed my glowing description of Iverson's abilities would have given away who I favored in that comparison, but perhaps I should have been more clear.

[Woodsanity]

Parker definitely does not have more impact as player than Iverson. The Spurs even without Parker are a elite team and have done great without him with him. They also won the chip this year with him crapping the bed in the playoffs. No way is Parker in the same stratosphere as Iverson in any way and I am not a fan of Iverson.

Tony Parker definitely is the better finisher but he has things a lot easier than Iverson who always had to create for himself and had little offensive help. Tony Parker plays on a great Spurs system with a lot of offensive threats which helps him greatly. Put Iverson in his place and I would be surprised if his finishing % numbers didn't skyrocket.

Parker is starting to become criminally overrated not underrated.

[Winsome Gerbil]

You do have to factor in volume/being the defensive focus when you talk about A.I. 30pt scorer vs. Parker 18pt 2nd/3rd option most of his career, but even so I don't think I ever thought of A.I. as a brilliant finisher so much as just a relentless attacker. Play after play he'd slam into the middle. Despite the obvious problems with his career, I sometimes think the pressure he put on defenses is often underrated around here. Attack attack attack, he was going to come at you and come at you and come at you.

[Pg81]

Iverson is the overall better player. Much better player.
The reason for the difference in fg% is the fact that Iverson was the sole offensive weapon of his team, whereas Tony Parker has the luxury of playing with the best pf of all time.
Iverson was also a high volume scorer.
Parker is mostly a second/third option.

[Ballerhogger]

Overall i will with Tony Parker. AI off the court issues and Practices kinda hurts is overall quality. Tony can drive to the rim just as good as AI could. He is better passer than AI was..