2017 Isaiah Thomas is better than any version of Iverson.

[permaximum]

In light of the information in my previous post and reading some posts here I can safely say Iverson is the most underrated player today.

[OkcSinceSGA]

I think Iverson is one of the most overrated players of all time...and this still makes me cringe. But what else would you expect from someone who thinks Blake Griffin is a top 5 player in the league?

Let your arguments do the talking. No need to lie about what I said. What I actually said was Blake this season was in 10-15 range but has been top 5 discussion worthy in two MVP run years and top 10 every other year of his career.

[permaximum]

If you haven't watched Iverson and have no clue about very advanced analytics stuff you can look at achivements of the both players.

Allen Iverson

First Ballot Hall of Famer
No 1. Pick of the 1996 Draft
NBA Most Valuable Player (2001)
NBA Finals (1)
NBA Final Wins (1)
11× NBA All-Star (2000–2010)
2× NBA All-Star Game MVP (2001, 2005)
3× All-NBA First Team (1999, 2001, 2005)
3× All-NBA Second Team (2000, 2002, 2003)
All-NBA Third Team (2006)
NBA Rookie of the Year (1997)
NBA Rookie Challenge MVP (1997)
4× NBA scoring champion (1999, 2001, 2002, 2005)
3× NBA steals leader (2001–2003)
No. 3 retired by Philadelphia 76ers
Consensus first-team All-American (1996)
First-team All-Big East (1996)
2× Big East Defensive Player of the Year (1995, 1996)

Isaiah Thomas

?

In 2001, the best teammate of Iverson was 35-year old Mutombo (whom Sixers got by trading better Ratliff mid-season) whose offense was non-existent. In playoffs, Iverson won against Reggie Miller- Jermaine O'Neal duo in his prime, Vince Carter in his prime, Ray Allen - Sam Cassel - Glenn Robinson trio in his prime.

Don't believe the East was weak then argument. Lakers with Shaq and Kobe in their primes swept every team in the West but Iverson's historical performance won a game at LA which no team from the West could do until then. Other games were close too until the very last minutes of the games. Iverson was inceredibly unlucky that he and his team faced the best playoff team of all-time with all those injuries.

[og15]

I'm not sure if this has already been mentioned, but Iverson took his team to the NBA Finals and won the first game against the Lakers. He did so with a weaker team than the one IT currently is on. Let's see how far IT takes his team this year (so far he's been great).

Why would this be the comparison though when the Sixers didn't have to face a LeBron led team? I'm not going to say a team like the current Cavs because the East was all one man teams in the early 2000's, but there was no one man team with a similar supporting cast to the Sixers led by a player the caliber of LeBron in the East.

1. The Celtics haven't faced the Cavs yet this year, so like I said: "Let's see how far IT takes his team this year (so far he's been great)".

2. The 2000-2001 Sixers did face good teams during the playoffs. Reggie Miller/Jermaine O'Neal Pacers, Vince Carter's Raptors and Milwaukee with Ray Allen/Sam Cassell/Glenn Robinson.

So far the Celtics played a bad Bulls team and a solid Wizards team.

3. Iverson's team had a 35 year old Mutombo and Aaron McKie as his best teammates.

How far you're able to lead your team in the playoffs does matter.

I didn't say they didn't face above average to good teams, I never argued that. None of those teams come close to facing a team with LeBron + similar supporting cast to the early 2000's East teams. So let's say the Celtics get to the ECF, and the Cavs win and also get to the ECF, your argument will be that "well Iverson's team went further, so he's better"?

Isn't a big intellectually dishonest in a discussion if we ignore context and circumstances and just assume that end results are solely due to the caliber and impact of the best player? I know this is the fan favorite thing to do, but every time we take it to it's logical conclusion it fails.

So in that same light how do you then reconcile the fact that outside of the finals run, no Iverson team ever went past the second round? We're any even close? Can't remember. Why couldn't someone then just say "well he just got lucky one year". If they did say that, most people would scorn and would probably, and rightly say that the teams he was on for the most part weren't strong enough, or that he got injured which hurt seeding, or that when he played with someone like Carmelo, the opponents were stronger or maybe even say that the fits on his teams weren't the best for him, etc, etc.

So I hope we won't have context in one situation but conveniently ignore it in another. I say this because this consistently happens, context only applies when people are positive to the argument, but then blanket statements are now king when they aren't. So I guess we'll see.

Btw, I'm not even necessarily arguing that IT is "better" than AI, though I do think it is a solid discussion to have. I'm just not a fan of most of the blanket statement lines of reasoning people selectively employ.

[Duke4life831]

Yes he is. I only read the first few pages but the only arguments I saw for AI were all off of perception and nothing really anything to do with stats. The argument I see the most for people defending AI is he would live at the line in todays game and would have a good TS% because of that. Go see how AI's TS% ranked among guards while he played, he was consistently ranked in the 20s and 30s for TS% for just guards. While IT was the elite of the elite when it came to TS% for guards, the dude was even slightly above Curry when it came to TS% this year. In 2001 when AI won MVP, he ranked 29th out of guards for TS%. IT's WS/48 this year was .234, AI's was .190. IT also had an advantage in PER and BPM. Per 36 assists for IT was 6.3 while AI's was 3.9 while both averaged 2.9 TOs.

Statistically speaking IT just had a better year than AI ever had. And its not just stats either, IT also carried a very undermanned team to the #1 seed (just like AI did) and IT has flat out dominated 4th quarters all year long.

[Dan Z]

I didn't say they didn't face above average to good teams, I never argued that. None of those teams come close to facing a team with LeBron + similar supporting cast to the early 2000's East teams. So let's say the Celtics get to the ECF, and the Cavs win and also get to the ECF, your argument will be that "well Iverson's team went further, so he's better"?

Isn't a big intellectually dishonest in a discussion if we ignore context and circumstances and just assume that end results are solely due to the caliber and impact of the best player? I know this is the fan favorite thing to do, but every time we take it to it's logical conclusion it fails.

So in that same light how do you then reconcile the fact that outside of the finals run, no Iverson team ever went past the second round? We're any even close? Can't remember. Why couldn't someone then just say "well he just got lucky one year". If they did say that, most people would scorn and would probably, and rightly say that the teams he was on for the most part weren't strong enough, or that he got injured which hurt seeding, or that when he played with someone like Carmelo, the opponents were stronger or maybe even say that the fits on his teams weren't the best for him, etc, etc.

So I hope we won't have context in one situation but conveniently ignore it in another. I say this because this consistently happens, context only applies when people are positive to the argument, but then blanket statements are now king when they aren't. So I guess we'll see.

Btw, I'm not even necessarily arguing that IT is "better" than AI, though I do think it is a solid discussion to have. I'm just not a fan of most of the blanket statement lines of reasoning people selectively employ.

Talk about selective reasoning...you're talking about things that haven't happened yet. The Celtics are currently up 2-0 against Washington, but the series isn't over...Washington still has a chance.

I get it, Iverson didn't face a Lebron type of player, but he's still a good player and there's a reason why he's in the hall of fame. IT has years to go.

[B-Ball Freak]

I think Iverson would do better than IT in this era....dude would get soooo many FTs

[Mk0]

Different eras, different rules


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

Handchecking has made a pretty big comeback the last 2 or 3 years. Almost never see it called.

IT had a hell of a game but he got some of the softest calls I have seen since the D-Whistle Finals.

I wouldn't make the handcheck argument on this one. Wall got handchecked into oblivion last night. IT not so much. Saying that Handchecking has made a pretty big impact doesn't support your argument when the guy you are arguing for is getting the Harden calls.

* I have no horse in this race. Just an impartial observer. IT is without a doubt one of the top performers in these playoffs.

[og15]

I didn't say they didn't face above average to good teams, I never argued that. None of those teams come close to facing a team with LeBron + similar supporting cast to the early 2000's East teams. So let's say the Celtics get to the ECF, and the Cavs win and also get to the ECF, your argument will be that "well Iverson's team went further, so he's better"?

Isn't a big intellectually dishonest in a discussion if we ignore context and circumstances and just assume that end results are solely due to the caliber and impact of the best player? I know this is the fan favorite thing to do, but every time we take it to it's logical conclusion it fails.

So in that same light how do you then reconcile the fact that outside of the finals run, no Iverson team ever went past the second round? We're any even close? Can't remember. Why couldn't someone then just say "well he just got lucky one year". If they did say that, most people would scorn and would probably, and rightly say that the teams he was on for the most part weren't strong enough, or that he got injured which hurt seeding, or that when he played with someone like Carmelo, the opponents were stronger or maybe even say that the fits on his teams weren't the best for him, etc, etc.

So I hope we won't have context in one situation but conveniently ignore it in another. I say this because this consistently happens, context only applies when people are positive to the argument, but then blanket statements are now king when they aren't. So I guess we'll see.

Btw, I'm not even necessarily arguing that IT is "better" than AI, though I do think it is a solid discussion to have. I'm just not a fan of most of the blanket statement lines of reasoning people selectively employ.

Talk about selective reasoning...you're talking about things that haven't happened yet. The Celtics are currently up 2-0 against Washington, but the series isn't over...Washington still has a chance.

I get it, Iverson didn't face a Lebron type of player, but he's still a good player and there's a reason why he's in the hall of fame. IT has years to go.

You keep saying things that aren't even been argued? Who said Iverson didn't play any good teams? Who said Iverson isn't a good player? All I'm saying is that the whole premise of "well this player went further" is in itself flawed as it lacks context, and yes, I am projecting. Washington is most likely to tie the series 2-2 after 4 games based on history of similar series' and Boston has not won. Even Cleveland hasn't won yet, things happen, I'm just worried about the arguments without good context already being brought into the mix. So we'll see...

[Dan Z]

Talk about selective reasoning...you're talking about things that haven't happened yet. The Celtics are currently up 2-0 against Washington, but the series isn't over...Washington still has a chance.

I get it, Iverson didn't face a Lebron type of player, but he's still a good player and there's a reason why he's in the hall of fame. IT has years to go.

You keep saying things that aren't even been argued? Who said Iverson didn't play any good teams? Who said Iverson isn't a good player? All I'm saying is that the whole premise of "well this player went further" is in itself flawed as it lacks context, and yes, I am projecting. Washington is most likely to tie the series 2-2 after 4 games based on history of similar series' and Boston has not won. Even Cleveland hasn't won yet, things happen, I'm just worried about the arguments without good context already being brought into the mix. So we'll see...

Again it does matter how far a player takes his team. Why do you think so many people discuss the importance of winning a championship? Of course Iverson didn't win one, but he got to the finals. That matters.

I get that you're not saying Iverson is no good, but you started this thread to discuss if IT is better than him, and right now the answer is no. Could he be in the future? Sure, but I can't predict the future...nobody can.

[Duke4life831]

Talk about selective reasoning...you're talking about things that haven't happened yet. The Celtics are currently up 2-0 against Washington, but the series isn't over...Washington still has a chance.

I get it, Iverson didn't face a Lebron type of player, but he's still a good player and there's a reason why he's in the hall of fame. IT has years to go.

You keep saying things that aren't even been argued? Who said Iverson didn't play any good teams? Who said Iverson isn't a good player? All I'm saying is that the whole premise of "well this player went further" is in itself flawed as it lacks context, and yes, I am projecting. Washington is most likely to tie the series 2-2 after 4 games based on history of similar series' and Boston has not won. Even Cleveland hasn't won yet, things happen, I'm just worried about the arguments without good context already being brought into the mix. So we'll see...

Again it does matter how far a player takes his team. Why do you think so many people discuss the importance of winning a championship? Of course Iverson didn't win one, but he got to the finals. That matters.

I get that you're not saying Iverson is no good, but you started this thread to discuss if IT is better than him, and right now the answer is no. Could he be in the future? Sure, but I can't predict the future...nobody can.

He can correct me if Im wrong. But I dont think the OP is even saying IT is better than AI. I think he is just saying that IT this year just had a better year than any of AI's seasons. I think IT would have to do this for a few more years and be consistent. But its completely in bounds to say that IT just had a better season than AI ever did.

[Dan Z]

You keep saying things that aren't even been argued? Who said Iverson didn't play any good teams? Who said Iverson isn't a good player? All I'm saying is that the whole premise of "well this player went further" is in itself flawed as it lacks context, and yes, I am projecting. Washington is most likely to tie the series 2-2 after 4 games based on history of similar series' and Boston has not won. Even Cleveland hasn't won yet, things happen, I'm just worried about the arguments without good context already being brought into the mix. So we'll see...

Again it does matter how far a player takes his team. Why do you think so many people discuss the importance of winning a championship? Of course Iverson didn't win one, but he got to the finals. That matters.

I get that you're not saying Iverson is no good, but you started this thread to discuss if IT is better than him, and right now the answer is no. Could he be in the future? Sure, but I can't predict the future...nobody can.

He can correct me if Im wrong. But I dont think the OP is even saying IT is better than AI. I think he is just saying that IT this year just had a better year than any of AI's seasons. I think IT would have to do this for a few more years and be consistent. But its completely in bounds to say that IT just had a better season than AI ever did.

You mean better than the year Iverson won the MVP and took his team to the finals?

[og15]

So his biggest strength was scoring but he missed shots at an alarming rate. And other than one great defensive team coached by a HOFer, he never had any team success. Yet he was a great player.

Iverson was grossly overrated and your post only reaffirms my opinion

So are we just gonna ignore the fact that the Lakers teamed rolled Portland, Sacto and the Spurs while Iverson single handedly got a W in game one of the FINALS? overrated you say?

The Lakers rolled the Sixers also, so who cares?

An interesting thing to be noticed here is again how people judge the quality of teammates and the impact on winning. Both from judging a teams talent in a vacuum and not relative to their opponents and the large disregard for the impact of defense and rebounding on winning. Those of course this is not to say offense isn't important. The Sixers got to the finals because of their superior defense and rebounding to their opponents and then AI's ability to carry them to being good enough offensively.

Let's look at Iverson singlehandedly getting a win vs the Lakers. In the 2001 playoffs, Kobe did not score under 20 points in a game until game 1 of the NBA Finals. In game 1 of the NBA finals, Kobe scored 15 points in 52 minutes of play shooting 7/22 FG and committing 6 turnovers. He had a 33.4 TS% and 67 Ortg. Coming into the series he was averaging 31.6 PPG | 57.7 TS% | 120 Ortg. The Lakers lost the game by 6 points. Did Iverson carry them offensively? Absolutely. Did Iverson singlehandedly win the game? Absolutely not, why? Well if Iverson had the exact same performance, but Kobe didn't get shut down by Philly's defense, the Sixers still lose. Kobe just needed to have just a decent game, he didn't need to match his 32 PPG coming into the series in fewer minutes.

So was Iverson the primary defender on Kobe? Was Iverson the primary help defender on Kobe? Philadelphia won that game because of Iverson's offense, yes, but Philadelphia also won that game because they were the only team in the whole post-season to hold Kobe to such an atrociously bad game, and that is where those teammates and teams who people always disparage for their ability to just defend and rebound and have just decent shot creating value become very valuable.

[Jose7]

Man....lol..man.

[Duke4life831]

Again it does matter how far a player takes his team. Why do you think so many people discuss the importance of winning a championship? Of course Iverson didn't win one, but he got to the finals. That matters.

I get that you're not saying Iverson is no good, but you started this thread to discuss if IT is better than him, and right now the answer is no. Could he be in the future? Sure, but I can't predict the future...nobody can.

He can correct me if Im wrong. But I dont think the OP is even saying IT is better than AI. I think he is just saying that IT this year just had a better year than any of AI's seasons. I think IT would have to do this for a few more years and be consistent. But its completely in bounds to say that IT just had a better season than AI ever did.

You mean better than the year Iverson won the MVP and took his team to the finals?

Yes. No way in hell does AI's season in 01 comes close to winning the MVP in this season. It also looks like IT is going to lead his team to the conference finals. I dont think AI wouldve taken that 6ers team past this year's Cavs team. Again statistically speaking IT had a far superior year, while also leading his team to the #1 seed and so far a good amount of playoff success.

[og15]

Talk about selective reasoning...you're talking about things that haven't happened yet. The Celtics are currently up 2-0 against Washington, but the series isn't over...Washington still has a chance.

I get it, Iverson didn't face a Lebron type of player, but he's still a good player and there's a reason why he's in the hall of fame. IT has years to go.

You keep saying things that aren't even been argued? Who said Iverson didn't play any good teams? Who said Iverson isn't a good player? All I'm saying is that the whole premise of "well this player went further" is in itself flawed as it lacks context, and yes, I am projecting. Washington is most likely to tie the series 2-2 after 4 games based on history of similar series' and Boston has not won. Even Cleveland hasn't won yet, things happen, I'm just worried about the arguments without good context already being brought into the mix. So we'll see...

Again it does matter how far a player takes his team. Why do you think so many people discuss the importance of winning a championship? Of course Iverson didn't win one, but he got to the finals. That matters.

I get that you're not saying Iverson is no good, but you started this thread to discuss if IT is better than him, and right now the answer is no. Could he be in the future? Sure, but I can't predict the future...nobody can.

I didn't start the thread and I never once said or even suggested that IT is better than Iverson. I think you have me mixed up with the OP.

I agree that it matters, but it also matters contextually even as it matters, that's my point. Now a player who consistently takes his teams to the highest level of winning is certainly doing something right, but in Iverson's case we can't effectively use the "more winning" argument for him because we're going based on a one season sample size while the rest of his career puts him in the category of the much criticized role of not going far enough in the playoffs, and his quick downfall as the league move into more pace and space and balanced offenses was also quite disappointing.

[Wolfy1983]

When you build around a volume guy who takes 30 shots a game nearly and plays 40+ mpg, you don't add a bunch of scorers. You add a bunch of defenders, enforcers and utility guys. That's exactly what the Sixers did. As me and others are arguing here, the Sixers had a better supporting cast than the teams they played in the east. So the argument of "weak supporting cast" doesn't hold up. As for Shaq... well considering hes arguably the most physically dominant force ever, I don't think it's a knock on Mutumbo to get destroyed.

So you bring up the fact that the team had the DPOY and when I bring up Shaq, I should just ignore Shaq dominating him because he is Shaq? Yeah, that makes sense. I seem to Recall a guy named Olajuwon handling a Shaq lead team to a sweep, but you will find a way to sweep that bit of fact under the rug as well.

What lol? Shaq that year was a top 5 force of all time probably. Just because Mutombo won DPOY doesn't mean he failed because Shaq killed him. Olajuwon is arguably a top 5 all time center and much better defender in his prime than 01 Mutombo. The point was RELATIVE to the league and competition Iverson had a better supporting cast. Not sure how that got turned into Hakeem vs Shaq or Shaq vs Mutumbo lol.

Okay and? Shaq was a force since day 1 and you know exactly why Olajuwon's name was brought up in comparison, so don't act ignorant. Plus, Olajuwon's supporting cast compared to Shaq's was not as good and Hakeem still managed to take him down in 4.

[Plutonashfan]

Just when I thought I seen ever absurd topic imaginable on this board this pops up. Jesus thought you had to be at least 13 to join the forum because only someone that is young and naive would even suggest this. A.I is a hall of famer IT has zero chance at that.

[Dan Z]

You keep saying things that aren't even been argued? Who said Iverson didn't play any good teams? Who said Iverson isn't a good player? All I'm saying is that the whole premise of "well this player went further" is in itself flawed as it lacks context, and yes, I am projecting. Washington is most likely to tie the series 2-2 after 4 games based on history of similar series' and Boston has not won. Even Cleveland hasn't won yet, things happen, I'm just worried about the arguments without good context already being brought into the mix. So we'll see...

Again it does matter how far a player takes his team. Why do you think so many people discuss the importance of winning a championship? Of course Iverson didn't win one, but he got to the finals. That matters.

I get that you're not saying Iverson is no good, but you started this thread to discuss if IT is better than him, and right now the answer is no. Could he be in the future? Sure, but I can't predict the future...nobody can.

I didn't start the thread and I never once said or even suggested that IT is better than Iverson. I think you have me mixed up with the OP.

I agree that it matters, but it also matters contextually even as it matters, that's my point. Now a player who consistently takes his teams to the highest level of winning is certainly doing something right, but in Iverson's case we can't effectively use the "more winning" argument for him because we're going based on a one season sample size while the rest of his career puts him in the category of the much criticized role of not going far enough in the playoffs, and his quick downfall as the league move into more pace and space and balanced offenses was also quite disappointing.

I do have you mixed up with the original poster. Sorry about that.

I agree that Iverson wasn't a winner his entire career. At various points he had a good coach that left (Larry Brown) and dealt with injuries (and later age). What I'm saying...and have been saying is: can't we wait to discuss this until after the playoffs? What if the Wizards come back and win that series? Am I suppose to be impressed that IT beat the Bulls?

[permaximum]

Yes he is. I only read the first few pages but the only arguments I saw for AI were all off of perception and nothing really anything to do with stats. The argument I see the most for people defending AI is he would live at the line in todays game and would have a good TS% because of that. Go see how AI's TS% ranked among guards while he played, he was consistently ranked in the 20s and 30s for TS% for just guards. While IT was the elite of the elite when it came to TS% for guards, the dude was even slightly above Curry when it came to TS% this year. In 2001 when AI won MVP, he ranked 29th out of guards for TS%. IT's WS/48 this year was .234, AI's was .190. IT also had an advantage in PER and BPM. Per 36 assists for IT was 6.3 while AI's was 3.9 while both averaged 2.9 TOs.

Statistically speaking IT just had a better year than AI ever had. And its not just stats either, IT also carried a very undermanned team to the #1 seed (just like AI did) and IT has flat out dominated 4th quarters all year long.

You don't know anything about analytics.

1. Ranking 20s at guard TS% in the whole league while scoring all-time high usage rates is incredibly good, especially back then. Besides individual TS% means nothing. Iverson increased the whole team's TS% by 6-11% when he was on the floor.
2. Per/minute stats mean nothing. Iverson played for slow teams in a much more physical era. Per possession stats are more accurate.,
3. WS, PER and BPM are completely crap. Looking at MPG numbers are better than checking them.
4. Iverson's career averages are better than Isaiah's peak.

You don't know what you're even talking about