Better Career: Iverson or Nash

[JordansBulls]

Who has had the better career thus far?

Iverson or Nash

[Baller 24]

Nash -- 2 MVPs, 2nd in MVP voting in '07. His '05-'07 seasons are incredibly rare, and his offensive impact during those years was huge considering the success they enjoyed. He didn't make it to the finals, but the east v west argument can clearly be used in this regard.

[guy1]

AI easily IMO. Before Nash went to PHX in 05, he was a scrub or a borderline all-star. AI has been a superstar almost since day 1.

[JordansBulls]

How is it easily if neither player has done something more significant over the other?

Nash has 2 MVP's, Iverson has 1 MVP.
Nash made the conference finals twice and Iverson has made the finals once (which means conference finals once). Iverson has led in scoring, while Nash has led in Assists.

I used these two guys because:
1) They were in the same draft class
2) Primes came at different times
3) Both have been elite for a few years.

[guy1]

How is it easily if neither player has done something more significant over the other?

Nash has 2 MVP's, Iverson has 1 MVP.
Nash made the conference finals twice and Iverson has made the finals once (which means conference finals once). Iverson has led in scoring, while Nash has led in Assists.

I used these two guys because:
1) They were in the same draft class
2) Primes came at different times
3) Both have been elite for a few years.

Because Nash has been irrelevant and nowhere near a star player for about 2/3 of his career. AI on the other hand has been a dominant player from the beginning of his career. Nash has 2 MVPs, but so what? At least one of them was undeserved, and although you can make an argument and say the same thing about AI's MVP, it definitely wasn't anywhere close to as undeserving.

[rrravenred]

Interesting comparision. It's actually quite close, as AI's peak has taken up a greater proportion of his career, but is in most regards a "lesser" peak. I don't discount his finals appearance, albeit with a talented (defensive) team, but apart from the past couple of years, he has been a low-percentage chucker with an iffy commitment to the team. However, the man is a relentless scorer, can dish and has that inspirational will-to-win that energises a stadium.

OTOH, Nash was a "good" player until he got to Phoenix, where everything came together to make him one of the best players in the league (with, admittedly, some nice weapons for this consummate PG to work with). Team player, career-maker (in the same way as JKidd, in some ways). In terms of career, Nash's two MVPs do weigh heavily, although their validity has been questioned (a lot of the time by Kobe fanbois, but I digress).

Both have been excellent playoff performers, capable of elevating their game if required.

I probably lean slightly towards Nash, but I'm aware that this might be partially a reaction to AI's "talkin' 'bout practice" rep, which shouldn't necessarily impact this comparision. AI has had extended excellence in a variety of systems, whilst Nash's game only flowered in a perfect storm of D'Antoni's system and full-court finishers like Stat and Marion.

Aagh. Can't decide.

[SpeedyG]

This has to be AI easily. Nash has been in the league 13 years now. The first two were spent as a reserve, the next two as a borderline starter, the next four as a borderline all-star, and then his peak (and now we're seeing his decline already).

AI has been a top player for most of his career, he's taken his team farther than Nash has with considerably less talent on his team than what Nash has had. Both have won MVP.

Really, the keyword here is "career". In most cases, Nash will lose out against equally talented players who had primes that could match (even arguably) Nash's prime simply because he doesn't have longevity/sustained power as a top player.

[Kabookalu]

AI easily IMO. Before Nash went to PHX in 05, he was a scrub or a borderline all-star. AI has been a superstar almost since day 1.

Why do people think that Nash was an average player before playing for Phoenix? He was always this great but his playmaking abilities weren't as recognized because the system limited his contributions but he has always been a good scorer and shooter, in fact that was what he was known for before signing with Phoenix again. He was a two time all star in Dallas and two time 3rd All NBA, scrub and borderline all star he was not, he was already a star before coming to Phoenix.

Anyways this is a hard choice between these two are two of my favourite players of all time but I'll give the edge of Nash. His peak years were just incredible and it helps that he has an extra MVP over him too though what really sells it for me is that Nash has always been on a team that was a threat to contend for the title (save for his early Dallas years and rookie year). The only time that Iverson was on a team that was really a legit contender was his MVP year.

[guy1]

AI easily IMO. Before Nash went to PHX in 05, he was a scrub or a borderline all-star. AI has been a superstar almost since day 1.

Why do people think that Nash was an average player before playing for Phoenix? He was always this great but his playmaking abilities weren't as recognized because the system limited his contributions but he has always been a good scorer and shooter, in fact that was what he was known for before signing with Phoenix again. He was a two time all star in Dallas and two time 3rd All NBA, scrub and borderline all star he was not, he was already a star before coming to Phoenix.

Anyways this is a hard choice between these two are two of my favourite players of all time but I'll give the edge of Nash. His peak years were just incredible and it helps that he has an extra MVP over him too though what really sells it for me is that Nash has always been on a team that was a threat to contend for the title (save for his early Dallas years and rookie year). The only time that Iverson was on a team that was really a legit contender was his MVP year.

In the first 4 years of his career, he was a role player/scrub. He averaged 3ppg/2apg, 9ppg/3apg, 8ppg/6apg, 9ppg/5apg. During the same time, AI was winning scoring titles and leading teams to the playoffs. In the next 4 years, he was a borderline all-star. He made it two out of the four years. My definition of a borderline all-star is someone who when healthy has an arguable case for an all-star spot but is definitely not a lock. Nash has far from a lock those years. The reason I think its easily AI is cause from 1997-2004, he was clearly the better player by a ridiculously wide margin. From 05-08, I'd give Nash the edge, but not by anywhere near of a margin that AI had on Nash before. Throw in the fact that the current Suns are showing how much Mike D'Antoni was responsible for the Suns and Nash's success, which is implying that Nash was arguably more a product of the system, and I think its easily AI.

[Fobbie]

look like tmac v stockton part 2. better career gimme AI. guy did it since day 1 when he came into the league. It took nash couple seasons before he started to flourish, heck u could even say its due to the system.

[conleyorbust]

I'm a big fan of AI but its gotten harder to make up excuses for why his teams aren't good since he left Philly and you could use the "he doesn't have enough talent around him" argument.

These guys are very similar in a few ways (great passion for the game, limited in certain respects on D) but very different in that Nash's impact in his prime always seemed greater than you'd expect and AI's impact always seems less than you'd expect.

I take Nash as he's been the engine of one of the most successful teams of the era.

[guy1]

I'm a big fan of AI but its gotten harder to make up excuses for why his teams aren't good since he left Philly and you could use the "he doesn't have enough talent around him" argument.

These guys are very similar in a few ways (great passion for the game, limited in certain respects on D) but very different in that Nash's impact in his prime always seemed greater than you'd expect and AI's impact always seems less than you'd expect.

I take Nash as he's been the engine of one of the most successful teams of the era.

You seem to talking more about prime though. I have no problem with someone saying Nash had a better prime. But no way has he had a better career. He was completely irrelevant for a 3rd of his career.

[Cammo101]

Nash has the better accolades. AI though has probably been the better player.

[RayAllen]

I'm a big fan of AI but its gotten harder to make up excuses for why his teams aren't good since he left Philly and you could use the "he doesn't have enough talent around him" argument.

These guys are very similar in a few ways (great passion for the game, limited in certain respects on D) but very different in that Nash's impact in his prime always seemed greater than you'd expect and AI's impact always seems less than you'd expect.

I take Nash as he's been the engine of one of the most successful teams of the era.

You seem to talking more about prime though. I have no problem with someone saying Nash had a better prime. But no way has he had a better career. He was completely irrelevant for a 3rd of his career.

I agree with guy1. People seem to be confusing Prime with Career. Nash definetly had the better prime but AI has been a playing great basketball for 10+ years .

[SDChargers#1]

This is Iverson, and quite easily. Iverson is one of the greatest scorers of all time, and probably the greatest under 6 foot player in the history of the league.

Nash, had 3 great seasons, but couldn't even get his team (that had Amare and Marion) to the finals. If you gave prime Iverson Amare and Marion, plus the year with Joe Johnson he would definitely make it to the finals, and very likely win the whole thing.

Iverson is also a better defender (granted he isn't a good defender, but he is at least average, better than Nash's terrible defense).

[rrravenred]

This is Iverson, and quite easily. Iverson is one of the greatest scorers of all time, and probably the greatest under 6 foot player in the history of the league.

I have to take brief issue with this. He's fantastic looking at PPG, but given that he has a geniunely atrocious FG% during his most 'productive" years it's hard to call him a great scorer.

His height is irrelevant to this comparision. Might as well say how Spudd Webb is obviously the greatest dunker of all time due to his height.

[abcdef]

I believe Nash has been extraordinarily overrated over the past 4-5 years. I don't think he deserves the #40 ranking he got on the all time ranking thing at all; I think he belongs at least 10 spots lower, right around where AI is. The fact is, without the "run and gun" offensive system, Mark Price is a better player than he is, and D'Antoni's "run and gun" has been relegated to the trashbin of historical schemes that were offensively potent but defensively inept and unable to win in the playoffs, along with the Doug Moe Nuggets and Run TMC. These schemes tend to cause people to overrate the people in it because they are fun to watch and flashy. Honestly, I'm not sure that AI isn't overrated, but I am sure that Nash has been overrated.

[SDChargers#1]

Ugh, I don't understand why this is an argument. We are not talking about peak (even though I would still go with Iverson, but it would be much closer), we are talking about career. For their careers it isn't even close.

Career Averages:

Iverson - 27.5 ppg, 6.3 apg, 3.8 rpg, 2.2 spg

Nash - 14.3 ppg, 7.9 spg, 3.0 rpg, 0.8 spg

There is only ONE thing that Nash has over Iverson, and that is having 2 MVPs to Iverson's 1.

Can you imagine what Iverson would have done on a D'Antoni Suns team with Amare, Marion, and Joe Johnson? The fact that Nash is leading this poll is a joke.

[rrravenred]

Can you imagine what Iverson would have done on a D'Antoni Suns team with Amare, Marion, and Joe Johnson? The fact that Nash is leading this poll is a joke.

Hogged the ball, shot a low percentage and turned the ball over a lot (especially in a fast-paced system) and complained about JJ and Amare taking away his shots?

It's a reasonable comparision, and you've certainly put forward some good arguments on the basis of longevity and consistency. I find them somewhat persuasive, but not entirely.

IMO this is one of those comparisions that's really going to have to wait until both parties have retired before it can be fairly assessed. Nash's stellar seasons are still in recent memory, and AI's entry into the final phase of his career obscure his Sixer gloriess...

[Baller 24]

Because Nash has been irrelevant and nowhere near a star player for about 2/3 of his career. AI on the other hand has been a dominant player from the beginning of his career. Nash has 2 MVPs, but so what? At least one of them was undeserved, and although you can make an argument and say the same thing about AI's MVP, it definitely wasn't anywhere close to as undeserving.

I disagree, based on career accomplishments its as close as you can get:
Allen Iverson

Code: Select all

All-NBA Teams:
1998-99 NBA All-NBA (1st)
1999-00 NBA All-NBA (2nd)
2000-01 NBA All-NBA (1st)
2001-02 NBA All-NBA (2nd)
2002-03 NBA All-NBA (2nd)
2004-05 NBA All-NBA (1st)
2005-06 NBA All-NBA (3rd)


MVP Voting:

Code: Select all

1996-97 NBA 0.001 (17)
1998-99 NBA 0.270 (4)
1999-00 NBA 0.109 (7)
2000-01 NBA 0.904 (1)
2001-02 NBA 0.023 (9)
2002-03 NBA 0.070 (6)
2004-05 NBA 0.189 (5)
2005-06 NBA 0.001 (10)

All-Star games:

Code: Select all

2000 NBA
2001 NBA
2002 NBA
2003 NBA
2004 NBA
2005 NBA
2006 NBA
2007 NBA
2008 NBA

Steve Nash:

All-NBA Teams:

Code: Select all

2001-02 NBA All-NBA (3rd)
2002-03 NBA All-NBA (3rd)
2004-05 NBA All-NBA (1st)
2005-06 NBA All-NBA (1st)
2006-07 NBA All-NBA (1st)
2007-08 NBA All-NBA (2nd)

MVP Voting:

Code: Select all

2001-02 NBA 0.004 (14)
2002-03 NBA 0.001 (11)
2004-05 NBA 0.839 (1)
2005-06 NBA 0.739 (1)
2006-07 NBA 0.785 (2)
2007-08 NBA 0.014 (9)

All-Star Games:

Code: Select all

2002 NBA
2003 NBA
2005 NBA
2006 NBA
2007 NBA
2008 NBA

Despite the early success, and advantages Allen Iverson had of being built around by a franchise, he only has one extra All-NBA Team over Nash, while also in the MVP voting process, again despite the early success and advantages of Iverson, hes only been counted in the MVP voting face two extra times. Nash came into the league as a back-up to Jason Kidd; Allen Iverson came into the league as the first pick in the 1996 NBA draft to specifically to be built around.

Again, Steve Nash was always 2nd fiddle to Dirk when he arrived to Dallas, he still put up some terrific statistics, but he wasn't a first option player; yet he still got recognition, because his impact in Dallas winning was considered pretty big.

Nash does have 2 MVPs, but consider the following for 2004-2005:
- Nash came onto a Suns team that didn't make the playoffs; while early season predictions had them going to the playoffs, but as lower 6-8 seed.
- Team Impact; Nash's team impact was significantly higher in terms of value then any of the other candidates, as in games Nash missed, the Suns went 2-6; but in games Nash did play the Suns went 60-15.
- 2nd place was Shaq, it was a close MVP voting race yes, but many thought the development of Wade was pretty significant along with Shaq for most of Miami's success. Shaq's impact on the court was pretty much exactly the same as Wade as they both had a tied ---- 10.9 win shares in '05.

For 2005-2006:
- Well, consider the following: his best player Amare was out for more then 95% of the season, the Suns traded Joe Johnson, Q. Richardson (2 players that were a big help in that system) for the following: Raja Bell, Boris Diaw; while they acquired 4 guys that would be key additions to their team Tim Thomas, Eddie House, James Jones, and Kurt Thomas. So aside from Marion you've got a completely new group of guys to work with, Amare (Nash's best player) obviously goes down; people again doubt he does many of the things he did since Amare was the player where Nash got the most assist off of. So again, he leads that team to a 4th seed, a 54-28 record overall, averages 18.8, 10.5, 4.5 on the very rare 50%/40%/90% shooting; in games he doesn't play 0-3 record, signifying his team impact.

Now for people consider Nash's MVP undeserved, but Allen Iverson is in the same boat, I'd say not as deserving as Nash. In 2001, you've got Allen Iverson who leads his team to the best record in the east; but was the MVP deserving when you shoot 31pts, 42%, took 25.5 shots a game. ---Now, over him you've got Tim Duncan and Shaq, both of whom came behind Iverson; had a legitimate shot at it, and were both more at least equal value while putting up better overall statistics. Especially after the fact that MVP is given during the first round of he playoffs, I don't see a legitimate claim for Allen Iverson to win it over his counterparts, because he played in a relatively weak conference and 3/4 of his games were against the eastern conference.

In 2007, Nash came in 2nd to Dirk. 61-21 record overall with Amare back, Nash's impact still remains significant (2-4 without him), while he had the best offensive rating in the league that season.

Nash was an all-star/superstar for about 3/4 of his career, he came into the league in 1996; but was a back up point guard until the year 2000, where he finally started in games, and his impact was shown to be pretty big even with Dirk.

This has to be AI easily. Nash has been in the league 13 years now. The first two were spent as a reserve, the next two as a borderline starter, the next four as a borderline all-star, and then his peak (and now we're seeing his decline already).

AI has been a top player for most of his career, he's taken his team farther than Nash has with considerably less talent on his team than what Nash has had. Both have won MVP.

Nash wasn't a full time starter until the 2000 NBA season, until he started in games in 2000, his impact was felt, I wouldn't call him a borderline all star. He was 2nd behind Dirk in win shares for his team 8.6, 10.1, 11.8. 9.1; while again being regarded as an overall lethal offensive weapon, even in his Dallas days, I'd definitely not call him a borderline all-star, as he had a lot to do with his teams uprising in the early 2000s.
Offensive Rating:

Code: Select all

2000-01 NBA 114.8 (8)
2001-02 NBA 118.5 (9)
2002-03 NBA 117.9 (6)
2003-04 NBA 119.8 (5)
2004-05 NBA 123.4 (4)
2005-06 NBA 121.2 (4)


I also disagree with taking his team farther; Allen Iverson played in the eastern conference at one of its weakest points in league history, as a 56-26 team in first place, he faced the following to get to the playoffs:
41-41 Pacers Defensive Rating: 11th, Offensive Rating: 15th won 3-1
47-35 Raptors Defensive Rating: 15th, Offensive Rating: 8th won 4-3
52-30 Bucks, Offensive Rating 1st, Defensive Rating: 20th won 4-3
Lost in the finals to the 2001 Lakers (4-1)

Compare that to Nash, he led his team in 2005 to a 62-20 record; while in games he didn't play the team was 2-6; where in games he did play the team was 60-15. Anyways, he faced the following teams to get to the western conference finals:
45-37 Grizzlies, Defensive Rating: 5th, Offensive Rating: 18th Swept
58-24 Mavericks, Defensive Rating: 9th, Offensive Rating: 4th Won 4-2
Lost to the 59-23 Spurs, Defensive Rating: 1st, Offensive Rating: 8th Lost 4-1

Then lets move on, compare that to 2006:
45-37 Lakers, Won 4-3
47-35 Clippers, Won 4-3
Lost to the 60-22 Mavericks in the WCF

My point is, the Suns played much better overall competition compared to what Iverson had to go through, the Suns of 2006 are similar to a way to the Sixers in 2001, as they have somewhat limited talent, 7 new players, while one being a superior offensive team, and the other being a superior defensive team.

In the first 4 years of his career, he was a role player/scrub. He averaged 3ppg/2apg, 9ppg/3apg, 8ppg/6apg, 9ppg/5apg. During the same time, AI was winning scoring titles and leading teams to the playoffs. In the next 4 years, he was a borderline all-star. He made it two out of the four years. My definition of a borderline all-star is someone who when healthy has an arguable case for an all-star spot but is definitely not a lock. Nash has far from a lock those years. The reason I think its easily AI is cause from 1997-2004, he was clearly the better player by a ridiculously wide margin. From 05-08, I'd give Nash the edge, but not by anywhere near of a margin that AI had on Nash before. Throw in the fact that the current Suns are showing how much Mike D'Antoni was responsible for the Suns and Nash's success, which is implying that Nash was arguably more a product of the system, and I think its easily AI.

Again, Nash was playing behind MVP candidate Jason Kidd his first 3 years, he got traded to Dallas where he came off the bench. Not until 2000, he started to be a regular in the rotation, I wouldn't all him a borderline all-star, he had an offensive rating in the top 10 every single year since 2000.

Nash impact even on the Dallas team was pretty big, the year before he was a starter in 99-00 the Mavericks record was 40-42. The year after: 53-29, where Dirk's development was big, but Nash came right behind Dirk in win shares, he had impact on that team. The 2002 Mavs: 57-25, In 2003: 60-22 again Dirk had his fair share, but Nash was right behind him in double-digit win shares. The 2004 Mavericks were a pretty poorly assembled team overall, they really didn't enjoy as much success with Dirk starting at center, and a ton of players that have the demand for the ball. Nash deserved to be an all-star, he had his impact on the team winning the way it did from 00-03, he wasn't a poor overall player by any means.

So again, what did Allen Iverson do in the early part of his career that Nash's 3-4 year prime doesn't surpass him?

Code: Select all

FG%   3PT%  FT%  TRB   AST  STL    TO   PPG
.416   .341   .702   4.1   7.5   2.1   4.4   23.5
.461   .298   .729   3.7   6.2   2.2   3.1   22.0
.412   .291   .751   4.9   4.6   2.3   3.5   26.8
.421   .341   .713   3.8   4.7   2.1   3.3   28.4
.420   .320   .814   3.8   4.6   2.5   3.3   31.1
.398   .291   .812   4.5   5.5   2.8   4.0   31.4
.414   .277   .774   4.2   5.5   2.7   3.5   27.6
.387   .286   .745   3.7   6.8   2.4   4.4   26.4

Those are Iverson's statistics from 1996-2004, where did Iverson did do so good that he surpassed by a wide margin Nash? Lets see, for the most part of his career from 96-04, Iverson was a turnover machine, he shot the ball terribly from every angle to get his high number of points, and besides the 2001 season, there isn't anything that speaks out for itself to clearly give him the advantage due to the years he played from 96-04. Because now, look at the playoffs:

Code: Select all

 FG%   3PT% PPG  TRB   AST
.411  .283   28.5   4.1   4.9   1998-1999
.384   .308   26.2   4.0   4.5   1999-2000
.389   .338   32.9   4.7   6.1   2000-2001
.381   .333   30.0   3.6   4.2   2001-2002
.416   .345   31.7   4.3   7.5   2002-2003
 

The 2000/2001 season, the year he got to the finals, he was taking over 30 shots a game to get his 32ppg. He had a hot game every now and then, and it was the main thing Philly was relying on throughout the playoffs. Now again, what was so significant from the seasons listed that made his career by a wide margin overall better than Nash. Again, from 96-04, these were his awards:

Code: Select all

1998-99 NBA All-NBA (1st)
1999-00 NBA All-NBA (2nd)
2000-01 NBA All-NBA (1st)
2001-02 NBA All-NBA (2nd)
2002-03 NBA All-NBA (2nd)


Code: Select all

MVP voting:
1996-97 NBA 0.001 (17)
1998-99 NBA 0.270 (4)
1999-00 NBA 0.109 (7)
2000-01 NBA 0.904 (1)
2001-02 NBA 0.023 (9)
2002-03 NBA 0.070 (6)

So I'm not seeing the significant reasoning behind his career being so much better; Nash got drafted onto a team that had Jason Kidd, he gets traded to the Mavs where it takes Nelson a year to realize his potential. After that, he wasn't a borderline all-star, he deserved those spots. He was a key to their success every year, his impact showed to be enough during that 4 year stay.

Now, from 2004-2008, his impact and peak was so good in terms of leading his team, that I really don't know how its a large margin in Iverson's favor. You've got 2 MVPs in '05 and '06, then you've got 2nd in MVP voting in '07, while still throughout '08 maintaining terrific statistical awareness.

Code: Select all

 FG%   3PT%  FT%  TRB   AST  STL    TO   PPG
.487   .406   .895   3.2   7.3   1.0   2.9   15.6
.483   .455   .887   3.1   7.7   0.6   2.8   17.9
.465   .413   .909   2.9   7.3   1.0   2.3   17.7
.470   .405   .916   3.0   8.8   0.9   2.7   14.5
.502   .431   .887   3.3   11.5   1.0   3.3   15.5
.512   .439   .921   4.2   10.5   0.8   3.5   18.8
.532   .455   .899   3.5   11.6   0.8   3.8   18.6
.504   .470   .906   3.5   11.1   0.7   3.6   16.9


That's 2000-2008, during this span Nash got again:

Code: Select all

2001-02 NBA All-NBA (3rd)
2002-03 NBA All-NBA (3rd)
2004-05 NBA All-NBA (1st)
2005-06 NBA All-NBA (1st)
2006-07 NBA All-NBA (1st)
2007-08 NBA All-NBA (2nd)

Code: Select all

2001-02 NBA 0.004 (14)
2002-03 NBA 0.001 (11)
2004-05 NBA 0.839 (1)
2005-06 NBA 0.739 (1)
2006-07 NBA 0.785 (2)
2007-08 NBA 0.014 (9)


So right off the back, since the year Iverson has 1 extra All-NBA team, and has been recognized as an MVP candidate 2 extra times. Nash since the year 2000, has 6 all-nba teams (1 less than AI), and has been an MVP candidate 6 times ( 2 less than Iverson).

So I'm still not seeing where Iverson did good enough to surpass Nash's overall status as an NBA player by a "wide margin".

Since the year 2000, Nash has had significant impact on the Mavs success winning: 53-29, 57-25, 60-22, 52-30, while each year clearly displaying his team impact. During this span I wouldn't call him a borderline all-star, when you are a big part of your teams success, you deserve to be an all-star.

Now Allen Iverson has been to the playoffs 8 times in his career, Nash has been to the playoffs every year except 99-00 a team that had Dirk and Finley, including all 8 years since 2000 (since Nash didn't have the same impact before 2000).

2000-2008 Playoffs for Nash:

Code: Select all

FG%   3PT%  FT%  PPG  TRB   AST
.417   .410   .882   13.6   3.2   6.4
.432   .444   .971   19.5   4.0   8.8
.447   .487   .873   16.1   3.5   7.3
.386   .375   .889   13.6   5.2   9.0
.520   .389   .919   23.9   4.8   11.3
.502   .368   .912   20.4   3.7   10.2
.463   .487   .891   18.9   3.2   13.3
.457   .300   .917   16.2   2.8   7.8


Again, I don't see the significant amount of success Iverson statistically or award wise had over Nash to surpass him by a "wide margin". Iverson's been inefficient, missed the playoffs plenty of times, and especially after considering the fact that Nash since 2000 was a good player, and had impact on his team, while clearly having a 3-year peak that offensively and team impact wise is enough to surpass any of Iverson's seasons.

So the success goes to Mike D'Antoni, but not the player who fit perfectly, and the player that was the perfect leader? Not sure about this one, I think its the system more than the coach that Nash "led" his team to flourish in.

Anyways, I don't see the wide-marginal advantage from 96-04 that Iverson "clearly" has over Nash; I really don't see it, statistically it doesn't look good, award wise it wasn't anything special, in the playoffs hes been inefficient as well as the regular season. Nash had quite the impact on the Mavericks from 00-04, but he was playing superstar basketball from 04-08. He was clearly putting up a peak that overall surpasses any of Iverson's years. Its rare to find a player that does 18/11 on 50% FG//40% PT// 90% FT while having a terrific turnover ratio. Nash's MVP's might be considered by some as undeserved, but in '06 that was his, he did a really great job with new players on his team, and '05 I've argued my case in why his team value was so big in his teams success (2-6 record without him, 60-15 record with him), while Shaq (who came in second) was questioned by many that the development of Wade may have had something to do with the team success of the Heat that year (since both had the same win shares 10.9). If anything, its the other way around, where Iverson's MVP was more undeserving than Nash's when you've got prime Shaq/Duncan playing at the same time representing the same value to team success, but overall much better statistically.

look like tmac v stockton part 2. better career gimme AI. guy did it since day 1 when he came into the league. It took nash couple seasons before he started to flourish, heck u could even say its due to the system.

Look above what he did from day 1 that makes his career significantly overall better.

This is Iverson, and quite easily. Iverson is one of the greatest scorers of all time, and probably the greatest under 6 foot player in the history of the league.

Nash, had 3 great seasons, but couldn't even get his team (that had Amare and Marion) to the finals. If you gave prime Iverson Amare and Marion, plus the year with Joe Johnson he would definitely make it to the finals, and very likely win the whole thing.

Iverson is also a better defender (granted he isn't a good defender, but he is at least average, better than Nash's terrible defense).

Ehh...volume scorers yeah, Nash's 3 great seasons statistically were better than any of Iverson's that peak value wise was all Nash by a wide margin over Iverson. Again, read above to why Iverson made it to the finals, and why Nash didn't; and I disagree that Iverson can run Amare, Marion, and Johnson the same way Nash did, as Iverson demands the ball a lot, and egos collide. Iverson is the better defender, but not by a "large margin", Iverson got those steals, but his defense is considered nothing more than average.

Ugh, I don't understand why this is an argument. We are not talking about peak (even though I would still go with Iverson, but it would be much closer), we are talking about career. For their careers it isn't even close.

Career Averages:

Iverson - 27.5 ppg, 6.3 apg, 3.8 rpg, 2.2 spg

Nash - 14.3 ppg, 7.9 spg, 3.0 rpg, 0.8 spg

There is only ONE thing that Nash has over Iverson, and that is having 2 MVPs to Iverson's 1.

Can you imagine what Iverson would have done on a D'Antoni Suns team with Amare, Marion, and Joe Johnson? The fact that Nash is leading this poll is a joke.

Nash's 3 year peak was widely regarded as better value wise; why bring in career averages when Nash was a backup point guard to Jason Kidd early one. Peak Nash is 18/11/4/50%/40%/90% compared to Iverson who's something along the 30/6/3 mark but did you forget the shooting percentages ranging from 38-42%, 28-35% ? yeah guess so...

Iverson demands the ball and is a sloppy ball handler compared to Nash, he'd probably average 4.0+ (maybe even that's an understatement) under Mike D'Antoni's offense where the pace is fast, and the demand of the ball is a lot. Furthermore, Iverson also is not near the passer Nash is, you have to give up the ball, and take less shots for your team to succeed, not the other way around. Iverson is incredibly inefficient in his prime shooting the ball, while Nash is one of the best all around. I really can't imagine Nash with Marion, Johnson, and Amare, keeping everyone happy, leading and running the offense efficiently; there is no indication by evidence that Iverson > Nash in the Suns' offense. It'd be a horrible mess---that's it. There really is no proof, egos clash, ball handling is bad, coach is upset, running the offense sucks, Iverson takes too much shots. Iverson is one of the hardest players to build around.

Again, to the Iverson supporters, I really don't see where Iverson has a "wide marginal advantage" over Nash career wise, especially from the 96-04 seasons that Guy listed. It really is close than most thing, and I'd say its VERY close. In conclusion, Nash was a big part of the early Dallas teams success, and wasn't a borderline all-star, his last 3-4 years at prime form are statistically better than any of Iverson's. 2 MVPs, 2007 2nd in MVP voting, led his team to two 60 win seasons, averaged the rare 18/11/50/40/90, in 2006 when people claimed the Suns don't have the talent, he bounced back minus Amare, and 7 new players to win 54 games and get to the conference finals. Iverson got to the finals yes, but in historically one of the weakest conferences ever, while going through not the same kind of talent to get there.