Better Career: Iverson or Nash

Moderators: penbeast0, trex_8063, PaulieWal, Doctor MJ, Clyde Frazier

Better Career: Iverson or Nash

Iverson
20
45%
Nash
24
55%
 
Total votes: 44

Fobbie
Sixth Man
Posts: 1,947
And1: 225
Joined: Jun 22, 2008

Re: Better Career: Iverson or Nash 

Post#21 » by Fobbie » Wed Dec 17, 2008 1:07 am

Nash is that you brah??

I think your missing the point of the OP. He ask who has the better overall career. AI started the day he was draft, Nash career started when he was traded to the Mavs. The OP question wasn't Better Peak, Iverson or Nash, It was better career. Thus there is nothing wrong with using overall career number. Career means from start to finish, yet your skipping Nash first couple of year because he was backup. That makes no sense, so now we're comparing a full AI career to 3/4 of Nash career?This is simple, career gimme AI; prime gimme Nash.
User avatar
Baller 24
RealGM
Posts: 16,637
And1: 18
Joined: Feb 11, 2006

Re: Better Career: Iverson or Nash 

Post#22 » by Baller 24 » Wed Dec 17, 2008 1:36 am

Fobbie wrote:Nash is that you brah??

I think your missing the point of the OP. He ask who has the better overall career. AI started the day he was draft, Nash career started when he was traded to the Mavs. The OP question wasn't Better Peak, Iverson or Nash, It was better career. Thus there is nothing wrong with using overall career number. Career means from start to finish, yet your skipping Nash first couple of year because he was backup. That makes no sense, so now we're comparing a full AI career to 3/4 of Nash career?This is simple, career gimme AI; prime gimme Nash.


Well, I was simply stating Nash's 3 year peak value wise was terrific. I wasn't using Nash's Pre-2000 years because Guy1 stated that from 96-04 Iverson was good enough to overall surpass Nash as an overall player by a "good margin". I'm just stating this by no means is Iverson by a wide margin, when overall he was inefficient, didn't make the playoffs many times, volume scorer, an undeserved MVP, while even his playoff numbers aren't anything special. I'm basically saying, since Nash started for the Mavs in 2000, hes gotten 6 All-NBA teams, has received MVP votes 6 times, and overall his 3 year prime surpasses any of Iverson's seasons.

So alright, lets talk about entire career, Nash comes in as a backup to Jason Kidd in 1996, Iverson is drafted as the first pick in the 1996 draft by the Sixers ( a player they build around). Now lets move on, Iverson is regarded as the better player from 96-04 due to him leading a team to the finals, getting an MVP award, while shooting inefficient, doing it in the weakest conferences, being a turnover machine, and while getting scoring tittles by taking about 20-25 attempts per game. But after 2004, Nash does something pretty tremendous to shift his career around the next 3-4 seasons. I'm basically saying, career wise; even though AI played and started his career from 96; while Nash technically started to get starter minutes in 2000, Nash's prime from 2005-2007 in terms of team value is considered large enough for this to be close.

The OPs question is:
Who has had the better career thus far?

Iverson or Nash


Well, don't 2 MVPs, being 2nd in 2007, having the same team value and impact compared to the top 5 players in the league at the time, be considered good enough to make it close? I'm just trying to state Iverson doesn't get the nod easily here, when you look at everything fully this doesn't easily go to Iverson. Both came into the league at the same time, one got a head start, but still Nash career wise with the awards only comes up 1 All-NBA team short, grabs an extra MVP, and is part of the MVP Voting panel just 2 less times. And this is counting his entire career including his Dallas years, not just the Suns' years. While having enough significant team impact in Dallas for them to succeed during the regular season doesn't make him only a "borderline" all-star; So again, I'm just trying to state, that this one doesn't go to Iverson easily, and when career-wise its in Nash's favor (2 MVPs, team value, peak, 60 win seasons, 1 less NBA team, 2 less appearances on the MVP voting ballot).
dockingsched wrote: the biggest loss of the off-season for the lakers was earl clark
User avatar
SuigintouEV
General Manager
Posts: 7,939
And1: 1,555
Joined: Jun 05, 2006
Contact:
   

Re: Better Career: Iverson or Nash 

Post#23 » by SuigintouEV » Wed Dec 17, 2008 2:25 am

Allen Iverson
50 Win Seasons
00/01 Sixers - 56-26 in his fifth year and 1st MVP - All-NBA 1st team + 1st in scoring + 1st in spg
07/08 Nuggets - 50-32 in his twelveth year

Over .500 Teams
98/99 Sixers - 28-22 in his third year - All-NBA 1st Team + 4th in MVP voting + 1st in scoring
99/00 Sixers - 49-33 in his fourth year - All-NBA 2nd Team
01/02 Sixers - 43-39 in his sixth year - All-NBA 2nd Team + 1st in scoring + 1st in spg
02/03 Sixers - 48-34 in his seventh year - All-NBA 2nd Team + 1st in spg
04/05 Sixers - 43-39 in his ninth year - All-NBA 1st Team + 5th in MVP voting + 1st in scoring
06/07 Nuggets - 45-37 in his eleventh year

Sub .500 Teams
96/97 Sixers - 22-60 in his first year - All-Rookie 1st Team
97/98 Sixers - 31-51 in his second year
03/04 Sixers - 33-49 in his eigth year (injured for half the season)
05/06 Sixers - 38-44 in his tenth year - All-NBA 3rd Team

Nash
60 Win Seasons
02/03 Mavs - 60-22 in his fifth year as a starter - All NBA 3rd Team
04/05 Suns - 62-20 in his seventh year as a starter and 1st MVP - All-NBA 1st Team + 1st in apg
06/07 Suns - 61-21 in hs ninth year as a starter - All-NBA 1st Team + 2nd in MVP voting + 1st in TS% + 1st in apg

50 Win Seasons
00/01 Mavs - 53-29 in his third year as a starter + 3rd in TS%
01/02 Mavs - 57-25 in his fourth year as a starter - All-NBA 3rd Team + 4th in TS%
03/04 Mavs - 52-30 in his sixth year as a starter + 3rd in apg
05/06 Suns - 54-28 in his eighth year as a starter and 2nd MVP - All-NBA 1st Team + 1st in TS% + 1st in apg
07/08 Suns - 55-27 in his tenth year as a starter - All-NBA 2nd Team + 3rd in TS%
97/98 Suns as a backup to HoFer Jason Kidd

Sub .500 seasons
96/97 Suns as a backup to HoFer Jason Kidd
98/99 Mavs - 19-31 in his first year as a starter
99/00 Mavs - 40-42 in his second year as a starter

Winning isn't everything, but in my opinion it's as much an accolade as a scoring title - nash has consistently initiated a top 5 or so offense in the NBA. AI has consistently shot 25 times a game with not-so-great offenses. We're comparing a ridiculousy efficient guy to whom a 50 win season is pretty dissapointing and a guy who has basically struggled to get to 50 wins and widely considered tough to build around.

I like AI, but at this point, he's being seen as things such as a cancer - that is part of his career and his legacy will probably be that of a guy "who took a lot of shots and didn't have much of an impact" especially if the nuggets finish this season with more than 50 wins which is likely. Nash will be seen as basically the opposite, and in retrospect, which is what careers are made of, the guy who had a bigger impact had a better career, and that player's peak is certainly a part of that. Did he in fact have two years as a bench player? Sure. But was his impact really that much better than iverson's 22-60 and 31-51 seasons to start his career? We're not talking about a guy who led his team to nearly the playoffs a la chris paul, here. We all know guys on bad teams have inflated stats. It's like Saying SAR had a better career than Rasheed Wallace.

Oh, a few other things

Nash is 4th in active player MVP shares to AI's 7th
Nash is 6th in offensive win shares to AI's 9th
Nash is 8th in HoF probability to AI's 5th

Do note that one thing where AI really stands out is that he's 2nd all time in usage rate to nash's 202..... In that regard I guess AI has had a better career. He's dominated the ball like no other player outside of Michael Jordan and therefore been the focus of audiences everywhere whenever he's in a game.
Image
"May those who accept their fate find happiness. May those who defy it find glory."
User avatar
SpeedyG
RealGM
Posts: 15,501
And1: 1,310
Joined: Mar 07, 2003

Re: Better Career: Iverson or Nash 

Post#24 » by SpeedyG » Wed Dec 17, 2008 3:23 am

Choker wrote:
guy1 wrote: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?


No one said he was an average player. But he had a very slow start to his career. He spent two years with Phoenix as a backup to Kidd and KJ. His first two years in Dallas, he was borderline starter and was even being booed at home. Take a look at Nash's first two years in Dallas and you'll see he was a borderline starter. His numbers those first two years would be something you'd attribute to guys like Ridnour and Felton.

Then he started to pick it up and became all-star material...but certainly not a lock (which makes him border line all-star). He couldn't make it in 01 because Kidd and Payton were there. He made it in 02 and 03, but then lost out to Sam Cassell in 04. So in his four good years in Dallas, he made it to the All-star twice. And in those four years, most would be hard pressed to say that he's a top 5-6 PG in the league, and top 2-3 in his conference. Those are the definitions of a borderline all-star.
Bless the man if his heart and his land are one ~ FrancisM, R.I.P. 3/6/09
User avatar
SpeedyG
RealGM
Posts: 15,501
And1: 1,310
Joined: Mar 07, 2003

Re: Better Career: Iverson or Nash 

Post#25 » by SpeedyG » Wed Dec 17, 2008 4:35 am

Baller 24 wrote:
guy1 wrote:
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.


Regardless of what each player's role were, there's no denying that Iverson was heads and shoulders above Nash from their rookie year to 2000-2001 season (Iverson's MVP season). They also have those roles for a reason; AI was ready to carry the load, Nash was not. Had Phoenix gotten the first pick in the draft and not Philly, AI would have pushed KJ off the starting lineup, while Nash would sat and learned in Philly.

Choker wrote: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.


So what, you simply discount the first four years of Nash's career because he didn't start? He didn't start for a reason! He wasn't ready. You can make the argument that he was sitting behind Kidd in Phoenix. Who was he sitting behind in Dallas his first two years there? Fact is, Nash wasn't ready to lead a team early in his career. You can't simply take those out. That's part of his career. And because of that, he's not an all-star/superstar 3/4 of his career.

SpeedyG wrote: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)


[/quote]

No one is questioning his impact. No one is denying that he was a good player. He just wasn't a great player...yet. If you were to name the top 5 PG in the NBA at the time, most would probably say Kidd, GP, Francis, AI as the top tier from 00-03. 03-04 saw guys like Cassell and Davis emerge, who were arguably better than Nash in those years. That makes him a borderline all-star (there are 2-3 spots in each conference for PGs, and Nash always fell between 5/6 those years, thus borderline).

That's why Cuban wasn't sure about bringing him back. That's why just about everyone thought Phoenix was crazy for throwing that kind of money at him in 04. Heck, even Nash was surprised at how much money he got. Simply put, up to that point, he had shown no signs that he was a franchise type player, one that can carry his own team, like AI had so far.

Choker wrote:I also disagree with taking his team farther; 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.


The thing is, you can't penalize AI for who he had to play against. You deal with the cards you are dealt with. I also don't agree with the 2001 Sixers vs. 2006 comparison. 2001 Sixers had AI and a bunch of specialist. Nash at least had Marion, Boris who was playing out of his mind, and Amare.

Choker wrote:
guy1 wrote:
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.


And again, no one is saying he's a poor player. You guys seem to mistake people calling Nash a "borderline all-star" to mean that he's a bad player. He wasn't. It just means that at the time, he wasn't in the clear cut/top tier at his position.

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?


No one is saying that though. Again, this is a discussion on CAREER. Not a 3-4 year period of excellence. Who had the better prime is debatable. Some prefer Nash, some prefer AI. We'll call their prime years even. So then you look at the rest of it, and that's when AI clearly has the advantage on Nash.

Choker wrote: 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.


Again, no one is saying he didn't deserve those. He did. But so did 1 or 2 other PGs who didn't make it those years. The logic is this, and think of it in this manner. Last year, Chris Paul and Nash were BONAFIDE All-Stars. Deron Williams and Tony Parker didn't make it. Does that mean they didn't deserve to go? Not at all. It just meant there were two PGs who clearly deserved it over them in Paul and Nash (AI was also voted in by the fans, so that took one spot away that could have went to either DW or Tony. Either way, you can make a case that Deron and Tony deserve to equally be there.

That's all we're saying when we say that Nash, his four years in Dallas, was a border line All-star.
Bless the man if his heart and his land are one ~ FrancisM, R.I.P. 3/6/09
User avatar
Kabookalu
RealGM
Posts: 63,103
And1: 70,114
Joined: Aug 18, 2006
Location: Long Beach, California

Re: Better Career: Iverson or Nash 

Post#26 » by Kabookalu » Wed Dec 17, 2008 6:31 am

Whoa did I say all that :-?
Cowology
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 40,048
And1: 3,667
Joined: Sep 05, 2004

Re: Better Career: Iverson or Nash 

Post#27 » by Cowology » Wed Dec 17, 2008 9:05 am

Nash probably had the better peak given his 3 year run of PG dominance, although the fact AI took a team to the Finals shouldn't be completely diminished even if it did come in a weaker conference. Overall I think AI had the better career though. Nash had a lot of 'good' years prior to Phx, but AI was great for a long time.

Iverson is a very polarizing figure though. This debate is basically going to come down to guys who like AI vs. guys that think he's some sort of cancer. If you dislike AI in general then Nash is obviously going to come out ahead. If you generally like AI you will look at his relative consistency since joining the league and say that in terms of their overall careers that trumps Nash's relatively short stint among the leagues elite.
dingclancy
Analyst
Posts: 3,335
And1: 90
Joined: Feb 28, 2004
Contact:

Re: Better Career: Iverson or Nash 

Post#28 » by dingclancy » Wed Dec 17, 2008 5:00 pm

Well AI could have brought Denver out of the first round with the talent they had.

And no.... Iverson will not win with Amare/Marion/JJ
Image
guy1
Sixth Man
Posts: 1,801
And1: 117
Joined: Aug 22, 2007

Re: Better Career: Iverson or Nash 

Post#29 » by guy1 » Wed Dec 17, 2008 5:13 pm

Baller 24 wrote:
guy1 wrote:
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.


AI has been a top 10 MVP vote-getter 6 times compared to Nash's 4 times. I think thats pretty significant. They both have 3-All NBA 1st teams, but after that, AI has 3 All-NBA 2nd teams + 1 All-NBA 3rd team compared to Nash's 2 All-NBA 3rd teams + 1 All-NBA 2nd team. I think thats pretty significant. Then he has 9 All-Star appearances vs. Nash's 6. I think thats pretty significant. Accomplishment-wise, there might not be much of a difference, but watching them throughout their careers, which has been the same length, its pretty obvious at least to me who's been the more relevant player.

Baller 24 wrote: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 never put up "terrific stats" in Dallas. 18/8, which was his best season, is definitely impressive but it wasn't something to go consider that great. And it doesn't matter that Nash was 2nd fiddle to Dirk, and actually it was Finley, not Nash who was the 2nd best player on that team. If it was AI instead of Nash, Dirk would've been the 2nd fiddle, at least earlier in his career. Nash on the other hand, would not have been the 1st option in Philly, if he was in AI's place.

Baller 24 wrote: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.


What Nash did in his first year is completely overrated. Yes, they didn't make the playoffs the year before, but do you realize what happened to the Suns the year before? There two best players were bothered by injuries. Stephon Marbury missed around 50 games, and Amare missed around 30 games. They also had a coaching change in the middle of the season. The year before, when everyone was healthy, they won 44 games, made the playoffs, and took the Spurs to 6 games in the 1st round, which by the way is better then what they did against the Spurs in 05. Don't get me wrong, what Nash did was definitely impressive, and he's definitely an upgrade over Marbury, but he got way too much credit for that. They weren't a bad team at all beforehand, and you also should consider the fact that guys like Amare and Joe Johnson, who were still in their early 20s were naturally going to get better regardless. Nash probably deserved MVP consideration, mainly cause there wasn't much competition that year, and he definitely deserved 1st team, but he didn't deserve to be MVP. It should've went to Shaq. When you take into account everything that I just mentioned, Shaq improved the Heat just as much as Nash improved the Suns, and he was more dominant and put up greater stats in a slower-paced offense.

Baller 24 wrote: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.


Nash has a better case in 06 then he did in 05. But I still don't think he deserved it. Lebron deserved it more. He led a pretty crappy team as well to 50 wins while putting up historic stats, 31/7/7. I would also say Dirk deserved it more, as he averaged 27/9, which is arguably better then what Nash did, led the Mavs to 60 wins, and didn't play with another all-star.

Baller 24 wrote: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.


AI had no one on his team as close to Kobe or Robinson, or Amare or Marion when comparing it to Nash's teams. I don't think he necessarily deserved it over Shaq or Duncan, but it was not as undeserving as Nash's MVPs. The Sixers had a great defense, but no good offensive players aside from AI. He was basically their whole offense, so its hard to blame him for shooting 42% and 26 shots. You really think the team would've been better with Eric Snow or George Lynch getting a few more shots each? Probably not. Part of the reason he might've not deserved it is cause of the conference he played in, but the Sixers were still one of the best teams in the league that year, while being completely carried by one player on offense. And you got your math wrong. Teams play their own conference for 2/3 of the season not 3/4.

Baller 24 wrote: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.


He didn't become an above average player until 2001. Like I said, he was a role player/scrub for 4 years. He's played 12 full seasons, so like I said, he was a role player/scrub for a 3rd of his career, and a borderline-allstar/superstar for 2/3 of his career, not 3/4. And the below .500 records without him really shouldn't be brought up. 6 games is such a small sample that you really shouldn't expect teams to win that much when they basically have no significant time to adjust to their best player being missed.

Baller 24 wrote:
guy1 wrote: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.


Who cares if he was playing behind Kidd? You think if he was playing in Philly right away instead of AI, he would've been getting big minutes and leading the team to the playoffs? So should we just give Nash credit for things he didn't do, just cause he had to play on the bench behind Kidd? And he still wasn't playing that great in his first two years in Dallas so it doesn't matter. Why do you think that is? Cause he just wasn't that good.

Baller 24 wrote: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.


I was saying AI from 96-04 was better then Nash from 96-04 by a wide margin. I was not saying AI from 96-04 was better then Nash from 05-08 by a wide margin. And you're underestimating AI it seems. You're saying that Philly had to rely on AI's 30 shots per game to get to the Finals. And guess what? It worked. The only thing they had to rely on worked, and it was cause of AI. I'm not really going to debate with you about who's prime was better. I think its arguable. But we're talking about careers not primes.

And yes, Nash was a borderline-allstar from 02-04. Just because he deserved those spots doesn't mean he wasn't. Like I said, borderline-all-star=someone who when healthy isn't a lock for an all-star selection. Maybe you can refer to him as an "all-star" during those years, but then you have to refer to AI as a superstar, cause Nash was clearly a tier below him. It wasn't until 2005 that he was a superstar. In the earlier part of the decade, it was Shaq, Duncan, KG, AI, Kobe, Kidd, T-Mac, Vince, Webber, Dirk, Malone, Payton who were in that group, who once they became all-stars were basically locks every year when healthy. Nash didn't get in that group until 05.

Baller 24 wrote: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".



AI was a greater player by a considerably wide margin for 2/3 of their career. From 97-00, AI was an all-star, while Nash was a role player/scrub. From 01-04, AI was a superstar, while Nash was an all-star. From 05-08, Nash was the better player, by a good margin, but not nearly as much of an edge as AI had on Nash beforehand. Both were on the same tier, superstars.

Baller 24 wrote: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.


AI's been inefficient and missed the playoffs when he had bad teams. You can't seriously compare the teams that AI's been on to what Nash has been on. Nash has played on much better teams, and has never had to carry teams the way AI has had to for the majority of his career.

Baller 24 wrote: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.


I give more credit to D'Antoni, then Nash, but I've never said Nash doesn't deserve credit. What do you mean its the system not the coach? Its the coach's system. Do you see whats happening right now? Nash has never been nearly as successful without D'Antoni. Before he played for him and after he played for him. Now sure, Nash has gotten old, but he was old and slowed down last year as well, but he still put great stats and had more of an impact. While D'Antoni has made Chris Duhon look like an above average PG, after not even being able to start on a bad team last year. Right now, Nash is basically the player he was in Dallas, who is great but not anywhere nearly as great as he was with D'Antoni.

Baller 24 wrote: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.


Umm, yea. Main reason being because from 96-00, Nash was basically a roleplayer or scrub. That is enough to say AI had a wide-marginal advantage. If Eddy Curry all of a sudden becomes as good as Dwight Howard, and thats how it goes from 2009-2012, Dwight Howard is still going to have a wide-marginal advantage from 2004-2012, because he was a signficantly better player from 04-08.

Baller 24 wrote: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).


And the development of Amare and Joe Johnson had nothing to do with the team success of the Suns that year?
User avatar
rsavaj
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 24,863
And1: 2,767
Joined: May 09, 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona

Re: Better Career: Iverson or Nash 

Post#30 » by rsavaj » Wed Dec 17, 2008 6:12 pm

SDChargers#1 wrote: 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.



I really, really doubt that.
halfHAVOC
Assistant Coach
Posts: 3,864
And1: 175
Joined: Jul 19, 2006
Contact:
 

Re: Better Career: Iverson or Nash 

Post#31 » by halfHAVOC » Wed Dec 17, 2008 8:22 pm

lmao @ this thread

Iverson.......................easily like its not even funny.

i hate threads comparing nash to guys like kidd and iverson because they have done it throughout their careers while nash has only done well for a few seasons.
Stream My New Basketball Anthem "KING": https://ampl.ink/7QwkY
User avatar
CellarDoor
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 11,146
And1: 972
Joined: May 11, 2008
         

Re: Better Career: Iverson or Nash 

Post#32 » by CellarDoor » Wed Dec 17, 2008 9:18 pm

When you're looking at an entire career this has got to be AI. He hit the ground running and hasn't yet looked back. Nash can't say the same.
tsherkin wrote:You can run away if you like, but I'm not done with this nonsense, I'm going rip apart everything you've said so everyone else here knows that you're completely lacking in basic basketball knowledge...
conleyorbust
Lead Assistant
Posts: 4,837
And1: 0
Joined: May 24, 2007

Re: Better Career: Iverson or Nash 

Post#33 » by conleyorbust » Wed Dec 17, 2008 9:26 pm

If Nash had Carmelo, Camby, KMart, and J.R. or Hamilton, Prince, Sheed, and Maxiell on his team they'd be so good, man AI is so lucky that he's had such good teamates....


The teamate thing doesn't work as well anymore. AI has shown that he DOESN'T make good teams great. He can make a bad team decent. If given a perfectly constructed team of great defenders who don't want shots, he can make them a mediocre offensive team which is enough to beat a couple of half-decent teams in 7 games. Unfortunately, we've seen that he doesn't play well with other good offensive players. He and Melo didn't work well. He and Iggy didn't work well. The Pistons crew? Early but the early results aren't stunning.

Don't get me wrong, 99-00 and 00-01 were special for him but like I said, those were seasons where the rest of the team played defense and let AI take as many shots as he wanted. The teams were in the top 5 defensively but were average or below average offensively. Because of those two years, people think that all you need around AI is some talent but the fact is you need defensive talent and offensive players who are both effective and completely unselfish. The Denver team he was on was more talented that those teams, but it wasn't built for AI to run (apparently they were built for Billups to run though...); not many players in the league are like that.

Not many players in history can do what AI does but not many players in history need the "right" players around them to succeed as badly as Iverson does.

With Nash, you know he will play well with the other kids. What's the value of all of that stuff AI brings if it doesn't come with wins?
User avatar
Kabookalu
RealGM
Posts: 63,103
And1: 70,114
Joined: Aug 18, 2006
Location: Long Beach, California

Re: Better Career: Iverson or Nash 

Post#34 » by Kabookalu » Wed Dec 17, 2008 10:57 pm

In the end the way I look at this type of comparison is who do you think will be remembered more in ten years? Honestly when I try to do this, it's hard to come up with a decision. A.I. will always be remembered as a guy who defied all odds and dominated in a league filled with big men, all the things negative to his game, such as being a ballhog and cancer, will probably filter itself out in history. Nash his second stint in Phoenix will be remembered as a guy who made his teammates better that won back to back MVPs, his defensive deficiencies will be forgotten. In ten years new basketball fans will probably not know that Nash was actually a great and clutch shooter or that Iverson shot such a bad FG% throughout his career. Casual basketball fans right now probably don't even know Magic Johnson was a great scorer and only hear about his most celebrated trait, his passing and playmaking. When I think about it like this, Iverson will probably be remembered more.
guy1
Sixth Man
Posts: 1,801
And1: 117
Joined: Aug 22, 2007

Re: Better Career: Iverson or Nash 

Post#35 » by guy1 » Wed Dec 17, 2008 11:20 pm

Choker wrote:In the end the way I look at this type of comparison is who do you think will be remembered more in ten years? Honestly when I try to do this, it's hard to come up with a decision. A.I. will always be remembered as a guy who defied all odds and dominated in a league filled with big men, all the things negative to his game, such as being a ballhog and cancer, will probably filter itself out in history. Nash his second stint in Phoenix will be remembered as a guy who made his teammates better that won back to back MVPs, his defensive deficiencies will be forgotten. In ten years new basketball fans will probably not know that Nash was actually a great and clutch shooter or that Iverson shot such a bad FG% throughout his career. Casual basketball fans right now probably don't even know Magic Johnson was a great scorer and only hear about his most celebrated trait, his passing and playmaking. When I think about it like this, Iverson will probably be remembered more.


I don't think thats a great way to really look at things. Some players get overrated and more remembered then others even though they weren't as great. Nash probably won't be remembered more then AI, but he probably will be more remembered then Jason Kidd, who from a career perspective, should definitely go down as greater. Vince Carter will probably be remembered more then Dirk, even though Dirk is greater. Reggie Miller is remembered more then Clyde Drexler, but Clyde is definitely better.
User avatar
Kabookalu
RealGM
Posts: 63,103
And1: 70,114
Joined: Aug 18, 2006
Location: Long Beach, California

Re: Better Career: Iverson or Nash 

Post#36 » by Kabookalu » Thu Dec 18, 2008 4:18 am

Careers can sometimes be defined by how much they are remembered.
big123
Sixth Man
Posts: 1,892
And1: 0
Joined: Feb 03, 2008
Contact:

Re: Better Career: Iverson or Nash 

Post#37 » by big123 » Thu Dec 18, 2008 4:55 am

Iverson will definitely be remembered more. Hell, even current players are swapping up the #3 already. Wade, Paul, Stuckey etc. Iverson has changed the dynamics of the NBA since he came into the league. No comparison when it comes to who will be remembered more.
User avatar
Baller 24
RealGM
Posts: 16,637
And1: 18
Joined: Feb 11, 2006

Re: Better Career: Iverson or Nash 

Post#38 » by Baller 24 » Mon Dec 29, 2008 6:42 am

Sorry for the late reply, just been really busy.

AI has been a top 10 MVP vote-getter 6 times compared to Nash's 4 times. I think thats pretty significant. They both have 3-All NBA 1st teams, but after that, AI has 3 All-NBA 2nd teams + 1 All-NBA 3rd team compared to Nash's 2 All-NBA 3rd teams + 1 All-NBA 2nd team. I think thats pretty significant. Then he has 9 All-Star appearances vs. Nash's 6. I think thats pretty significant. Accomplishment-wise, there might not be much of a difference, but watching them throughout their careers, which has been the same length, its pretty obvious at least to me who's been the more relevant player.


But Nash has overall 2 MVPs more than him, and more active win shares overall than him. That should count for something, when we talk about career we are talking about a player that was highly inefficient, turnover prone, and unsuccessful for all but 1 season, compared to a player in his career that started out slow, but ended off phenomenally from his 2nd season in Dallas and on. You've got 2 MVPs, more active MVP win shares, and for the most part hes been a big reason to why his teams have succeed in Dallas and Phoenix.
Nash never put up "terrific stats" in Dallas. 18/8, which was his best season, is definitely impressive but it wasn't something to go consider that great. And it doesn't matter that Nash was 2nd fiddle to Dirk, and actually it was Finley, not Nash who was the 2nd best player on that team. If it was AI instead of Nash, Dirk would've been the 2nd fiddle, at least earlier in his career. Nash on the other hand, would not have been the 1st option in Philly, if he was in AI's place.


Nash was 2nd option in the seasons they succeed overall all more, especially from 01-03, where his game had more of a value compared to Michael. But he had his value overall on those Dallas teams that were pretty good.

What Nash did in his first year is completely overrated. Yes, they didn't make the playoffs the year before, but do you realize what happened to the Suns the year before? There two best players were bothered by injuries. Stephon Marbury missed around 50 games, and Amare missed around 30 games. They also had a coaching change in the middle of the season. The year before, when everyone was healthy, they won 44 games, made the playoffs, and took the Spurs to 6 games in the 1st round, which by the way is better then what they did against the Spurs in 05. Don't get me wrong, what Nash did was definitely impressive, and he's definitely an upgrade over Marbury, but he got way too much credit for that. They weren't a bad team at all beforehand, and you also should consider the fact that guys like Amare and Joe Johnson, who were still in their early 20s were naturally going to get better regardless. Nash probably deserved MVP consideration, mainly cause there wasn't much competition that year, and he definitely deserved 1st team, but he didn't deserve to be MVP. It should've went to Shaq. When you take into account everything that I just mentioned, Shaq improved the Heat just as much as Nash improved the Suns, and he was more dominant and put up greater stats in a slower-paced offense.


See, I don't know if he ultimately deserved it, but its something that can be debatable; like I said the value was his team was quite significant, regardless if Shaq measured up or not; and it showed especially in games Nash missed, where the Suns went 2-6 (the games they won weren't pretty at all), where in the games he played in their record was 60-15.

Now, the year before Marbury was traded to the Knicks in the early part of January, while Marion and Joe Johnson played the entire season. Amare was injured for about 25-30 games, yeah; but considering how they were playing before Amare's injury; it wasn't a good start at all, they were 8-10. Amare got injured about a month after, they went on a losing streak, and traded Marbury to New York. Then Amare comes back, you've got their big 3 of Joe Johnson, Marion, and Amare finishing off the last 2 months of the season. And so what happens?
--They got a 7 game losing streak
--They finish the season off 10-20



Nash has a better case in 06 then he did in 05. But I still don't think he deserved it. Lebron deserved it more. He led a pretty crappy team as well to 50 wins while putting up historic stats, 31/7/7. I would also say Dirk deserved it more, as he averaged 27/9, which is arguably better then what Nash did, led the Mavs to 60 wins, and didn't play with another all-star.


But Dirk did play with better players, LeBron did come in 2nd, but are statistics everything? LeBron led that team to 50 wins, but his cast wasn't anything of the poor. Big Z, Drew Gooden were combining for 25/18/3, and also Larry Hugues that season started the season, but ended up getting hurt. When he did get hurt, their record was exactly: 18-10, with already one 8 game winning streak, and another 6 game winning streak. They then later had a 9 game winning streak in the season which boosted their total wins by a pretty good margin, but if you look at the season splits a lot of those players stepped up overall on both ends to end the season off. I'm not calling it a great supporting cast, but I wouldn't say it was crappy.

In the '05 off season, you've got Joe Johnson and Q. Richardson traded (two guys that were big in the success of the Suns in '05). Then on the top of that, you've got Amare being out for the entire season. So that's 3 guys gone out of the starting lineup; you replace them with Raja Bell, Boris Diaw, Eddie House, James Jones, Tim Thomas, and Kurt Thomas; that's a total of 6 new guys that basically Nash utilized as key players for production.

Raja Bell the year before in Utah coming off the bench putting up 12.3 points on good percentages, then you've got Boris Diaw who really wasn't a trusted player that didn't seem to show his potential the year before, Eddie House was a 5ppg bench player, James Jones was a chucker and a scrub, Kurt Thomas was nothing more than a solid all around vet, and Tim Thomas was just another 10-12ppg guy. So that's 6 new players to replace 2 All-Stars, and 1 Starter.

I mean to start the season off, I don't think it was expected of this team to be once again in championship contention, especially with some of the players that were replaced, including Nash missing his biggest and most lethal offensive weapon in Amare. He stepped up, 18/11/4/50%/40%/90%, and took them to a 54 win season. He won the voting by a pretty fair margin, wasn't close what so ever.


AI had no one on his team as close to Kobe or Robinson, or Amare or Marion when comparing it to Nash's teams. I don't think he necessarily deserved it over Shaq or Duncan, but it was not as undeserving as Nash's MVPs. The Sixers had a great defense, but no good offensive players aside from AI. He was basically their whole offense, so its hard to blame him for shooting 42% and 26 shots. You really think the team would've been better with Eric Snow or George Lynch getting a few more shots each? Probably not. Part of the reason he might've not deserved it is cause of the conference he played in, but the Sixers were still one of the best teams in the league that year, while being completely carried by one player on offense. And you got your math wrong. Teams play their own conference for 2/3 of the season not 3/4.


Ehh, look at is this way:
You've got Shaq and Duncan leading their teams to similar records in a much tougher conference, then you've also got the Lakers who finished the last 50-60 games with something amazing, I forget exactly. Then you've got both of them putting up much dominant and effective stats.

Compare that to Nash, where he may have not been putting up a high number of points, but his value and overall impact to the team was considered just as big to Shaq; if not better. Shaq did something like 22/11, Nash was 16/11/50%/40%/90%, where his team impact measured to be significantly greater if not just as good. Then you can also bring in the tougher conference when debating Nash v AI MVP awards.
He didn't become an above average player until 2001. Like I said, he was a role player/scrub for 4 years. He's played 12 full seasons, so like I said, he was a role player/scrub for a 3rd of his career, and a borderline-allstar/superstar for 2/3 of his career, not 3/4. And the below .500 records without him really shouldn't be brought up. 6 games is such a small sample that you really shouldn't expect teams to win that much when they basically have no significant time to adjust to their best player being missed.


Ehh, I don't think he was average, in 2000-2001 he was still giving you 15.6, 7.7, 48%, 40%, but most importantly served to be valued, especially after the season before Nash wasn't a starter, Dirk was shaping into his form, and Finley was playing just like he usually did. In '02 though Nash was pretty much on par in terms of impact and had every bit to do with the Mavs success, since 2000 though, it can be argued from 2000-2008 that Nash's last 3 seasons were so good in terms of value, success, and even statistically it could be considered that Nash from 2000-2008 was the better player in this decade.

Who cares if he was playing behind Kidd? You think if he was playing in Philly right away instead of AI, he would've been getting big minutes and leading the team to the playoffs? So should we just give Nash credit for things he didn't do, just cause he had to play on the bench behind Kidd? And he still wasn't playing that great in his first two years in Dallas so it doesn't matter. Why do you think that is? Cause he just wasn't that good.


Nash's game from 1999-2000 improved drastically the year after. He had impact on how well the Mavs succeeded from 01-03. So, yes his first year wasn't good, he was a bench player; but the season when Don Nelson trusted him, he showed up, and the 2 years after, his value to the teams success was close to on par with Dirk. Now, Iverson was drafted out of college as the first pick on an 18 win team, he was a arguably a top 3 prospect coming out of college that year. I'm not discounting Nash not playing starter minutes from 96-00, no; but when you didn't get more success as a valued player, just as much recognition, I don't find it in favor of Iverson "easily".

I was saying AI from 96-04 was better then Nash from 96-04 by a wide margin. I was not saying AI from 96-04 was better then Nash from 05-08 by a wide margin. And you're underestimating AI it seems. You're saying that Philly had to rely on AI's 30 shots per game to get to the Finals. And guess what? It worked. The only thing they had to rely on worked, and it was cause of AI. I'm not really going to debate with you about who's prime was better. I think its arguable. But we're talking about careers not primes.


Alright, when we are talking about careers, aren't you suppose to go over the entire career. From 96-04, yes Iverson I'd say was better, but check this out during those years he made it to the playoffs only 5 times. In his rookie year, despite his team acquiring him the team only won 22 games. That's only a 4 games increase from the season before, and even then the season before Philly didn't have Coleman the entire year. So in 1997, AIs rookie year his supporting cast was: Jerry Stackhouse, Derrick Coleman, and Clarence Weatherspoon whom all at the time were good/decent players for the exception of Stackhouse who provided 20+ points. But, yet only a 4 game increase? to make it into the playoffs, you needed 44 wins that year, but with all the talent, plus AI; why only a 4 game increase? IMO talent wise, that team is good enough to at least give you 32 wins. Yeah him taking 30 shots a game worked, but he was inefficient, and did it when the eastern conference was at its weakest point. I'm not taking it away from him, but it should be a factor at least when considering how and why he got to where he was. Also, something else to note was, besides that 2001 season, any of the other seasons under Larry Brown, his team wasn't ever a top 5 defense, or for that matter even top 10. Primes is arguable from 1 standpoint, but from another in terms of team success and consistency I really think its in favor of Nash.
AI was a greater player by a considerably wide margin for 2/3 of their career. From 97-00, AI was an all-star, while Nash was a role player/scrub. From 01-04, AI was a superstar, while Nash was an all-star. From 05-08, Nash was the better player, by a good margin, but not nearly as much of an edge as AI had on Nash beforehand. Both were on the same tier, superstars.


See, this is where I'm considering weather or not Nash has a big enough advantage. His value to the team was tremendous with the Suns, but it was even good in '02 and '03 (close to on par with Dirk). Alright, so from 96-00 Iverson was in the all-star game once, led a team to the playoffs twice, and for his scoring, he was one of the most inefficient players. From 00-04-- you've got Iverson
AI's been inefficient and missed the playoffs when he had bad teams. You can't seriously compare the teams that AI's been on to what Nash has been on. Nash has played on much better teams, and has never had to carry teams the way AI has had to for the majority of his career.


'96-97 could have won more than 3 extra games overall from the season before. Hes been inefficient though, and unsuccessful for the most part of his career, you trade Iverson to Denver, and he still has a problem; its not that he isn't a good player, but hes just one of the hardest players to build around.

I give more credit to D'Antoni, then Nash, but I've never said Nash doesn't deserve credit. What do you mean its the system not the coach? Its the coach's system. Do you see whats happening right now? Nash has never been nearly as successful without D'Antoni. Before he played for him and after he played for him. Now sure, Nash has gotten old, but he was old and slowed down last year as well, but he still put great stats and had more of an impact. While D'Antoni has made Chris Duhon look like an above average PG, after not even being able to start on a bad team last year. Right now, Nash is basically the player he was in Dallas, who is great but not anywhere nearly as great as he was with D'Antoni.


Even though there is the coach's system, there is also the player. Regardless of him being in a system that succeeded, you can't argue that he was the perfect player. Coming into that season he was one of the best passers in the league, but I wouldn't discount his success based on him being in the system of D'Antoni. 2006 is the perfect reason why IMO.

Umm, yea. Main reason being because from 96-00, Nash was basically a roleplayer or scrub. That is enough to say AI had a wide-marginal advantage. If Eddy Curry all of a sudden becomes as good as Dwight Howard, and thats how it goes from 2009-2012, Dwight Howard is still going to have a wide-marginal advantage from 2004-2012, because he was a signficantly better player from 04-08.


But from 1996-2000 what did Iverson do that was so much more significant to discount being a value to a successful Dallas team, overtaking 2 MVPs, and being a MUCH better player, one of the more efficient may I add in Today's game.

Like I said earlier in his rookie year even though there were some offensively talented players on that Philly squad there was only a 4 game improvement. What's the reason for that? Iverson can't with with offensively talented players, and that 2001 season is a perfect example why. He dominates the ball, and he needs it. For the most part of his career besides 2001, he has been inefficient and unsuccessful at leading his teams to anything. So from 96-00:
1997: 22 games won
1998: 31 games won; Larry Brown
1998: 28 games won; Larry Brown
2000: 49 games won; Larry Brown

So what exactly has Iverson done to be better by a wide margin of his career in 00-01. He only had 1 successful season in 2001 besides that. Where Nash from 96-00 was a bench player; but from 00-08 you've got one of the best offensive players, successful players. That's good enough IMO to overtake what Iverson did from 96-00, which was be inefficient and take his teams no where by having offensive talent.

A better question is....can rookie Nash win more than 4 games from the year before than Iverson in '97? (interesting, could be thread worthy lol).

And the development of Amare and Joe Johnson had nothing to do with the team success of the Suns that year?


Again though, look at the season before, I pointed out what Amare, Joe, and Marion were doing in Mike's system without Nash, but look at what he was doing with them.

guy1 wrote:
I don't think thats a great way to really look at things. Some players get overrated and more remembered then others even though they weren't as great. Nash probably won't be remembered more then AI, but he probably will be more remembered then Jason Kidd, who from a career perspective, should definitely go down as greater. Vince Carter will probably be remembered more then Dirk, even though Dirk is greater. Reggie Miller is remembered more then Clyde Drexler, but Clyde is definitely better.


I'm not exactly sure how to address this one; you've got Kidd and Nash IMO are better then Allen Iverson. I agree with the Reggie and Clyde thing; Miller wasn't on Drexler's level or anywhere close. But as of late; the peak of Nash has been IMO more amazing then the peak of Iverson. Iverson is terribly inefficient and just was known as a tough player to build around. And even with given talent Iverson can't succeed; while given decent talent, Iverson succeeded in a weak conference. While for Nash its the other way around.
dockingsched wrote: the biggest loss of the off-season for the lakers was earl clark
User avatar
WadeKnicks2010
Lead Assistant
Posts: 4,871
And1: 2
Joined: Jan 14, 2008
Location: NYC

Re: Better Career: Iverson or Nash 

Post#39 » by WadeKnicks2010 » Tue Dec 30, 2008 8:00 pm

Iverson easily. Nash never even made it to the Finals, despite having a far superior team for like 7 seasons than what Iverson ever did. This isn't even comparable. Just because Nash got two absolute handouts of MVPs doesn't make him better than the Answer.
User avatar
Baller 24
RealGM
Posts: 16,637
And1: 18
Joined: Feb 11, 2006

Re: Better Career: Iverson or Nash 

Post#40 » by Baller 24 » Tue Dec 30, 2008 8:13 pm

WadeKnicks2010 wrote:Iverson easily. Nash never even made it to the Finals, despite having a far superior team for like 7 seasons than what Iverson ever did. This isn't even comparable. Just because Nash got two absolute handouts of MVPs doesn't make him better than the Answer.


The conference thing can come into play here IMO. You've got Nash playing against 2-3 solid championship contenders in their way; while Iverson is cruising through the playoffs beating inferior teams overall---when may I add the eastern conference was at its weakest point.
dockingsched wrote: the biggest loss of the off-season for the lakers was earl clark

Return to Player Comparisons