2017 Isaiah Thomas is better than any version of Iverson.

[HeartBreakKid]

Iverson would average 45 on 58 ts

You really know who actually follows basketball and who just gets their opinions from barbershop talk


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM mobile app

[permaximum]

Ya 33 shots on 25 shots and 43 minutes a game. Per 36 (probably the amount of minutes he would be playing if he played now) he averaged 27 ppg. IT at the age of 28 averaged 30.8 ppg (per 36) this year and did that on only 20 shots. Again I for sure think AI could average 40 a game, it just take him 30+ shots to do it.

Lol

1. You have to use per-possession stats. Iverson's teams were slower.
2. Iverson would play more than everyone in the league no matter what. Playing 10+ minutes more than the current best players instead of allowing replacement players to play is a huge contribution. Durability is a big factor and it's considered a player skill. With higher minutes and usage efficiency suffers. Iverson mostly maintained his and didn't allow crap players to play instead of him.
3. With today's rulesets and game, I was actually conservative about my prediction for 40 ppg. I should have said 45 on at least 58% TS.

1) per possession stats actually favor IT even more than the per 36. IT: 42.4 pts on 28.4 shots. AI: 39.7 pts on 30.4 shots. So IT is basically 3 points better while taking 2 less shots.
2) You think a guy like Westbrook cant play more minutes or doesnt want to? That is the way coaches coach now a days, they dont do the short rotations anymore. For instance, Lebron lead the league at 37.8 minutes a game, in 2001 37.8 minutes a game wouldve been good enough to be tied for 34th with a 30 year old Nick Van Exel. Youre going to sit here and tell me there were 30+ more guys more durable than Lebron, Russ, Wiggins, Butler and so on?
3) Ive gone over the TS% thing enough already. AI was always below average for a guard when it came to TS%. He was ranked in the 20s and 30s for guards when it came to TS% for the majority of his career. And a 58 TS% wouldve put him around 8th out of guards this year and he would be with guys like CJ and Kyrie who both flirted with 50/40/90 seasons this year.

1. You have to consider durability. I know you won't even understand what I'm saying but Iverson's per game stats has to be adjsted by the pace of the game and they should be used for comparison. That's what I meant. Because they don't play the same amount of possessions per game. With that adjustment AI and Isaiah's per game stats would even be more apart.
2. Yes I think exactly like that. Coaches are not stupid. They know basketball better than you. Player efficiency suffers when they continue to play lots of minutes and maintain their usage.
3. Wrong. In his prime Iverson's TS% was slightly better than league average. But that's not the point. The point is Iverson increases the whole team's TS% by 6-11% when he is on the floor (which is by far the best in his era) because of the double teams he got outside the 3pt line and triple - quadraple teams he got when he's inside the 3pt line. Thanks to his skills, he took insane amount of attention from defenses in a handcheck era. You just had to watch games or listen to players talk about him.

Finally if you asked Isaiah himself he would say he's not even close to AI and drop the comparison immediately.

[deezerweeze]

I missed playoff word. I'm still waking up.

Well the original post bringing up the Lakers didnt say playoff team, they just said best team of all time.

Ah. That's what I must of read. In that case, not even close. 01 Lakers were 21st ranked defense. 15 Warriors+96 Bulls far more dominant from start to finish.

They went 15-1 with a freaking 20 SRS. Who cares about the regular season? They were the most dominat postseason team ever and it's not even close.

[magicman1978]

1) per possession stats actually favor IT even more than the per 36. IT: 42.4 pts on 28.4 shots. AI: 39.7 pts on 30.4 shots. So IT is basically 3 points better while taking 2 less shots.
2) You think a guy like Westbrook cant play more minutes or doesnt want to? That is the way coaches coach now a days, they dont do the short rotations anymore. For instance, Lebron lead the league at 37.8 minutes a game, in 2001 37.8 minutes a game wouldve been good enough to be tied for 34th with a 30 year old Nick Van Exel. Youre going to sit here and tell me there were 30+ more guys more durable than Lebron, Russ, Wiggins, Butler and so on?
3) Ive gone over the TS% thing enough already. AI was always below average for a guard when it came to TS%. He was ranked in the 20s and 30s for guards when it came to TS% for the majority of his career. And a 58 TS% wouldve put him around 8th out of guards this year and he would be with guys like CJ and Kyrie who both flirted with 50/40/90 seasons this year.

1. You can't compare stats across eras like that straight up like that. Especially since small, quick perimeter players are more efficient in this era than they ever were in Iverson's
2. Playing less minutes actually helps to increase efficiency and per possession stats
3. You keep bring up CJ and Kyrie, when Iverson FTr was double those guys and would probably be even better today

We have know idea how efficient Iverson could be today. We know he peaked at 56.7%TS at 32 when he had a chance to play with better offensive players and the rules were starting to favor perimeter players more. However, the game today seems to favor quick perimeter players more than ever.

During the 12 years of Iverson's prime - 1997-2008 - there were 8 different players 6'4" and shorter that average more than 30points per 100 possessions. Only 4 times did they have a TS of 57% of better. Across 12 years! This season alone, there are 14 players 6'4" and shorter that score more than 30 points per 100 possessions and 10 of them with a TS% of 57% or better. Take that in for a moment - 10 this year vs 4 over 12 years - that's a 3000% increase.

Do I think Iverson would be as efficient as Thomas? No. But he wouldn't be the super inefficient player many seem to think he would be. I think 58% is definitely achievable considering is FT draw rate.

[RaptorRed]

All this thread did was show how favored perimeter players are in regards to rules and the shift to the 3pt line.

I can't imagine how annoying AI would be to guard with the kind of space and offense and whistles in today's NBA. Bigs can't touch him as he's doing layups? Bigs can set moving screens to get him open from 3? It'd be similar to Kyrie Irving on steroids and he'd love at the ft line. IT needs more years before we can really dig in to that comparison, imo.

I agree he needs a hell of a lot more years if we are trying to compare the two players career. But this thread is about comparing single seasons. No one is saying IT is the superior player. This is about did IT just put up a single season better than any single season AI put up. I used the Chris Johnson to Walter Payton comparison eariler. Johnson has 1 season better than any single season Payton put up, but no one is saying Johnson is the better RB.

So you agree Iverson is the better player ?

[KingDavid]

All this thread did was show how favored perimeter players are in regards to rules and the shift to the 3pt line.

I can't imagine how annoying AI would be to guard with the kind of space and offense and whistles in today's NBA. Bigs can't touch him as he's doing layups? Bigs can set moving screens to get him open from 3? It'd be similar to Kyrie Irving on steroids and he'd love at the ft line. IT needs more years before we can really dig in to that comparison, imo.

I agree he needs a hell of a lot more years if we are trying to compare the two players career. But this thread is about comparing single seasons. No one is saying IT is the superior player. This is about did IT just put up a single season better than any single season AI put up. I used the Chris Johnson to Walter Payton comparison eariler. Johnson has 1 season better than any single season Payton put up, but no one is saying Johnson is the better RB.

Ah OK, thanks for the correction.

Well there's no real dispute to straight stats. We're strictly speaking offense, right? (I think he's better on defense than advertised).

But you don't think the eras kind of skew the results a bit? How would IT fare in that era? And AI in this one? It's easier for perimeter players nowadays. IT busted his ass and used current rules to his advantage and led his team to the best record in the East.

I fell like I'm discrediting IT and I don't want to. He's had a great season.

[CarMalone]

1) per possession stats actually favor IT even more than the per 36. IT: 42.4 pts on 28.4 shots. AI: 39.7 pts on 30.4 shots. So IT is basically 3 points better while taking 2 less shots.
2) You think a guy like Westbrook cant play more minutes or doesnt want to? That is the way coaches coach now a days, they dont do the short rotations anymore. For instance, Lebron lead the league at 37.8 minutes a game, in 2001 37.8 minutes a game wouldve been good enough to be tied for 34th with a 30 year old Nick Van Exel. Youre going to sit here and tell me there were 30+ more guys more durable than Lebron, Russ, Wiggins, Butler and so on?
3) Ive gone over the TS% thing enough already. AI was always below average for a guard when it came to TS%. He was ranked in the 20s and 30s for guards when it came to TS% for the majority of his career. And a 58 TS% wouldve put him around 8th out of guards this year and he would be with guys like CJ and Kyrie who both flirted with 50/40/90 seasons this year.

1. You can't compare stats across eras like that straight up like that. Especially since small, quick perimeter players are more efficient in this era than they ever were in Iverson's
2. Playing less minutes actually helps to increase efficiency and per possession stats
3. You keep bring up CJ and Kyrie, when Iverson FTr was double those guys and would probably be even better today

We have know idea how efficient Iverson could be today. We know he peaked at 56.7%TS at 32 when he had a chance to play with better offensive players and the rules were starting to favor perimeter players more. However, the game today seems to favor quick perimeter players more than ever.

During the 12 years of Iverson's prime - 1997-2008 - there were 8 different players 6'4" and shorter that average more than 30points per 100 possessions. Only 4 times did they have a TS of 57% of better. Across 12 years! This season alone, there are 14 players 6'4" and shorter that score more than 30 points per 100 possessions and 10 of them with a TS% of 57% or better. Take that in for a moment - 10 this year vs 4 over 12 years - that's a 3000% increase.

Do I think Iverson would be as efficient as Thomas? No. But he wouldn't be the super inefficient player many seem to think he would be. I think 58% is definitely achievable considering is FT draw rate.

Iverson in today's game would probably be more efficient, but there would also be a tradeoff in his volume production. I don't see him as a 30ppg player today. I can't image a coach playing him more than 38 minutes per game especially given his history of injuries.

[permaximum]

Iverson in today's game would probably be more efficient, but there would also be a tradeoff in his volume production. I don't see him as a 30ppg player today. I can't image a coach playing him more than 38 minutes per game especially given his history of injuries.

He would still be the league leader in minutes. But let's assume he wouldn't. With the current pace of games, (the pace is significantly faster), he would easily score more than 30 ppg in 38 minutes.

[Duke4life831]

Lol

1. You have to use per-possession stats. Iverson's teams were slower.
2. Iverson would play more than everyone in the league no matter what. Playing 10+ minutes more than the current best players instead of allowing replacement players to play is a huge contribution. Durability is a big factor and it's considered a player skill. With higher minutes and usage efficiency suffers. Iverson mostly maintained his and didn't allow crap players to play instead of him.
3. With today's rulesets and game, I was actually conservative about my prediction for 40 ppg. I should have said 45 on at least 58% TS.

1) per possession stats actually favor IT even more than the per 36. IT: 42.4 pts on 28.4 shots. AI: 39.7 pts on 30.4 shots. So IT is basically 3 points better while taking 2 less shots.
2) You think a guy like Westbrook cant play more minutes or doesnt want to? That is the way coaches coach now a days, they dont do the short rotations anymore. For instance, Lebron lead the league at 37.8 minutes a game, in 2001 37.8 minutes a game wouldve been good enough to be tied for 34th with a 30 year old Nick Van Exel. Youre going to sit here and tell me there were 30+ more guys more durable than Lebron, Russ, Wiggins, Butler and so on?
3) Ive gone over the TS% thing enough already. AI was always below average for a guard when it came to TS%. He was ranked in the 20s and 30s for guards when it came to TS% for the majority of his career. And a 58 TS% wouldve put him around 8th out of guards this year and he would be with guys like CJ and Kyrie who both flirted with 50/40/90 seasons this year.

1. You have to consider durability. I know you won't even understand what I'm saying but Iverson's per game stats has to be adjsted by the pace of the game and they should be used for comparison. That's what I meant. Because they don't play the same amount of possessions per game. With that adjustment AI and Isaiah's per game stats would even be more apart.
2. Yes I think exactly like that. Coaches are not stupid. They know basketball better than you. Player efficiency suffers when they continue to play lots of minutes and maintain their usage.
3. Wrong. In his prime Iverson's TS% was slightly better than league average. But that's not the point. The point is Iverson increases the whole team's TS% by 6-11% when he is on the floor (which is by far the best in his era) because of the double teams he got outside the 3pt line and triple - quadraple teams he got when he's inside the 3pt line. Thanks to his skills, he took insane amount of attention from defenses in a handcheck era. You just had to watch games or listen to players talk about him.

Finally if you asked Isaiah himself he would say he's not even close to AI and drop the comparison immediately.

1) Yes and that is why I just showed you the per 100 Possession stats and they still favor IT.
2) So wait are you agreeing with me that players are not less durable but the coaches play deeper rotations now a days? Because that is what Im saying and that is why AI wouldnt be playing 40+ minutes a game if he played today.
3) Im just going to leave this link when it comes to his TS%. This is from his MVP season, this is the list of guards that played at least 60 games and averaged at least 30 minutes a game. He ranked 30th out of 44 guards who fit this criteria when it comes to TS%. So if we are comparing him to his peers at the time (guards that played a lot), he was below average.

http://stats.nba.com/players/advanced/#!?sort=TS_PCT&dir=-1&Season=2000-01&SeasonType=Regular%20Season&CF=GP*GE*60:MIN*GE*30&PlayerPosition=G

[permaximum]

1) per possession stats actually favor IT even more than the per 36. IT: 42.4 pts on 28.4 shots. AI: 39.7 pts on 30.4 shots. So IT is basically 3 points better while taking 2 less shots.
2) You think a guy like Westbrook cant play more minutes or doesnt want to? That is the way coaches coach now a days, they dont do the short rotations anymore. For instance, Lebron lead the league at 37.8 minutes a game, in 2001 37.8 minutes a game wouldve been good enough to be tied for 34th with a 30 year old Nick Van Exel. Youre going to sit here and tell me there were 30+ more guys more durable than Lebron, Russ, Wiggins, Butler and so on?
3) Ive gone over the TS% thing enough already. AI was always below average for a guard when it came to TS%. He was ranked in the 20s and 30s for guards when it came to TS% for the majority of his career. And a 58 TS% wouldve put him around 8th out of guards this year and he would be with guys like CJ and Kyrie who both flirted with 50/40/90 seasons this year.

1. You have to consider durability. I know you won't even understand what I'm saying but Iverson's per game stats has to be adjsted by the pace of the game and they should be used for comparison. That's what I meant. Because they don't play the same amount of possessions per game. With that adjustment AI and Isaiah's per game stats would even be more apart.
2. Yes I think exactly like that. Coaches are not stupid. They know basketball better than you. Player efficiency suffers when they continue to play lots of minutes and maintain their usage.
3. Wrong. In his prime Iverson's TS% was slightly better than league average. But that's not the point. The point is Iverson increases the whole team's TS% by 6-11% when he is on the floor (which is by far the best in his era) because of the double teams he got outside the 3pt line and triple - quadraple teams he got when he's inside the 3pt line. Thanks to his skills, he took insane amount of attention from defenses in a handcheck era. You just had to watch games or listen to players talk about him.

Finally if you asked Isaiah himself he would say he's not even close to AI and drop the comparison immediately.

1) Yes and that is why I just showed you the per 100 Possession stats and they still favor IT.
2) So wait are you agreeing with me that players are not less durable but the coaches play deeper rotations now a days? Because that is what Im saying and that is why AI wouldnt be playing 40+ minutes a game if he played today.
3) Im just going to leave this link when it comes to his TS%. This is from his MVP season, this is the list of guards that played at least 60 games and averaged at least 30 minutes a game. He ranked 30th out of 44 guards who fit this criteria when it comes to TS%. So if we are comparing him to his peers at the time (guards that played a lot), he was below average.

http://stats.nba.com/players/advanced/#!?sort=TS_PCT&dir=-1&Season=2000-01&SeasonType=Regular%20Season&CF=GP*GE*60:MIN*GE*30&PlayerPosition=G

1. Alright you don't know what I'm talking about just like I predicted.
2. You didn't even understand what I was saying. Iverson maintained his effiency although he played more and continue taking shots unlike other players. That's why he played a lot and that's why he would still play a lot.
3. Putting a criteria? Lol

[magicman1978]

Iverson in today's game would probably be more efficient, but there would also be a tradeoff in his volume production. I don't see him as a 30ppg player today. I can't image a coach playing him more than 38 minutes per game especially given his history of injuries.

A lot of the injuries were from taking hard contact when he drove to the basket. I think that decreases a bit today. But look at Westbrook - he was at 31.6pts per game at 34.6 minutes. Iverson is not the all around player Westbrook is, but I think he's at least his equal as a scorer. Having him score 30pts per game may not be the optimum scenario for the team, but he could definitely do it.

[Duke4life831]

All this thread did was show how favored perimeter players are in regards to rules and the shift to the 3pt line.

I can't imagine how annoying AI would be to guard with the kind of space and offense and whistles in today's NBA. Bigs can't touch him as he's doing layups? Bigs can set moving screens to get him open from 3? It'd be similar to Kyrie Irving on steroids and he'd love at the ft line. IT needs more years before we can really dig in to that comparison, imo.

I agree he needs a hell of a lot more years if we are trying to compare the two players career. But this thread is about comparing single seasons. No one is saying IT is the superior player. This is about did IT just put up a single season better than any single season AI put up. I used the Chris Johnson to Walter Payton comparison eariler. Johnson has 1 season better than any single season Payton put up, but no one is saying Johnson is the better RB.

So you agree Iverson is the better player ?

Yes. I havent argued against that once. All I have argued is that IT this year put up a better single season than AI ever did. That is all I have argued. IT's body of work doesnt come close to AI's.

[KingDavid]

Iverson would average 45 on 58 ts

You really know who actually follows basketball and who just gets their opinions from barbershop talk


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM mobile app

That's not a very convincing argument.

Curry had the best shooting year we've ever seen. He didn't average that many points.

Harden and Westbrook have very high levels of usage. Neither of them scored that much.

If you need to score 45ppg for your team to win games (that is the goal, is it not?) in today's nba, your team is trash and very predictable. It would be the easiest team to defend. Again, that total is a hair under half the league average for team scoring. Half the league average. That means if any role players have an off night, you likely lose. Teams would let AI do as he pleases against one defender and lock down the rest of the team. That'll work for a few games, but he'd burn out real quick. Scoring doesn't work like this in today's NBA. Not to mention freezing out your teammates.

No, AI would be Irving on steroids and a great defender. He'd be able to lead the league in scoring if he wanted to as well, just not 45ppg against 2017 nba teams unless he likes losing. I think he'd be very efficient and use the space given to perimeter players to torch teams from outside, fastbreaks, or finish in the lane and draw tons of fouls.

[permaximum]

I agree he needs a hell of a lot more years if we are trying to compare the two players career. But this thread is about comparing single seasons. No one is saying IT is the superior player. This is about did IT just put up a single season better than any single season AI put up. I used the Chris Johnson to Walter Payton comparison eariler. Johnson has 1 season better than any single season Payton put up, but no one is saying Johnson is the better RB.

So you agree Iverson is the better player ?

Yes. I havent argued against that once. All I have argued is that IT this year put up a better single season than AI ever did. That is all I have argued. IT's body of work doesnt come close to AI's.

First he has to be in first team All-NBA, let alone becoming an MVP before you argue for it. The voters for these awards watch a lot of games from all teams that year unlike you. They know better than looking at FG% or it's variants and claiming Chandler is the best of all time. How many NBA games have you watched between 1996-2006?

[Duke4life831]

1. You have to consider durability. I know you won't even understand what I'm saying but Iverson's per game stats has to be adjsted by the pace of the game and they should be used for comparison. That's what I meant. Because they don't play the same amount of possessions per game. With that adjustment AI and Isaiah's per game stats would even be more apart.
2. Yes I think exactly like that. Coaches are not stupid. They know basketball better than you. Player efficiency suffers when they continue to play lots of minutes and maintain their usage.
3. Wrong. In his prime Iverson's TS% was slightly better than league average. But that's not the point. The point is Iverson increases the whole team's TS% by 6-11% when he is on the floor (which is by far the best in his era) because of the double teams he got outside the 3pt line and triple - quadraple teams he got when he's inside the 3pt line. Thanks to his skills, he took insane amount of attention from defenses in a handcheck era. You just had to watch games or listen to players talk about him.

Finally if you asked Isaiah himself he would say he's not even close to AI and drop the comparison immediately.

1) Yes and that is why I just showed you the per 100 Possession stats and they still favor IT.
2) So wait are you agreeing with me that players are not less durable but the coaches play deeper rotations now a days? Because that is what Im saying and that is why AI wouldnt be playing 40+ minutes a game if he played today.
3) Im just going to leave this link when it comes to his TS%. This is from his MVP season, this is the list of guards that played at least 60 games and averaged at least 30 minutes a game. He ranked 30th out of 44 guards who fit this criteria when it comes to TS%. So if we are comparing him to his peers at the time (guards that played a lot), he was below average.

http://stats.nba.com/players/advanced/#!?sort=TS_PCT&dir=-1&Season=2000-01&SeasonType=Regular%20Season&CF=GP*GE*60:MIN*GE*30&PlayerPosition=G

1. Alright you don't know what I'm talking about just like I predicted.
2. You didn't even understand what I was saying. Iverson maintained his effiency although he played more and continue taking shots unlike other players. That's why he played a lot and that's why he would still play a lot.
3. Putting a criteria? Lol

What are you talking about then? You were talking about the pace of the game being different and he played with a slower pace and thats why I cant use per 36. So thats why I used per 100 possessions, that isnt a per game stat it is a per possession stat, so it takes out the difference in pace. If you mean something else, what do you mean then.

He maintained his efficiency and thats why he played a lot? No he played a lot because it was normal for star players to play 40+ minutes a game back in the early 2000s. He had multiple seasons where his TS% was below 50%. I wouldnt call that maintaining his efficiency.

Yes I put a criteria, Im not going to rank him with guys that played only 2 games. You want to make it 50 games and guys that played only 20 minutes sure go ahead. All I was saying is, when you compare him to his peers, again other guards that played a lot, his TS% was below average with those guys.

[Duke4life831]

So you agree Iverson is the better player ?

Yes. I havent argued against that once. All I have argued is that IT this year put up a better single season than AI ever did. That is all I have argued. IT's body of work doesnt come close to AI's.

First he has to be in first team All-NBA, let alone becoming an MVP before you argue for it. The voters for these awards watch a lot of games from all teams that year unlike you. They know better than looking at FG% or it's variants and claiming Chandler is the best of all time. How many NBA games have you watched between 1996-2006?

What?

AI's 01 season, wouldnt even be top 3 or 5 this year for the MVP race. AI that year wouldnt have been 1st team all NBA this year.

[Duke4life831]

All this thread did was show how favored perimeter players are in regards to rules and the shift to the 3pt line.

I can't imagine how annoying AI would be to guard with the kind of space and offense and whistles in today's NBA. Bigs can't touch him as he's doing layups? Bigs can set moving screens to get him open from 3? It'd be similar to Kyrie Irving on steroids and he'd love at the ft line. IT needs more years before we can really dig in to that comparison, imo.

I agree he needs a hell of a lot more years if we are trying to compare the two players career. But this thread is about comparing single seasons. No one is saying IT is the superior player. This is about did IT just put up a single season better than any single season AI put up. I used the Chris Johnson to Walter Payton comparison eariler. Johnson has 1 season better than any single season Payton put up, but no one is saying Johnson is the better RB.

Ah OK, thanks for the correction.

Well there's no real dispute to straight stats. We're strictly speaking offense, right? (I think he's better on defense than advertised).

But you don't think the eras kind of skew the results a bit? How would IT fare in that era? And AI in this one? It's easier for perimeter players nowadays. IT busted his ass and used current rules to his advantage and led his team to the best record in the East.

I fell like I'm discrediting IT and I don't want to. He's had a great season.

Im talking overall season not just offense. I also agree that you cant compare stats straight up. I just think people are drastically over estimating the difference. If its so much easier for guards to score, why havent we seen guards put up gaudy scoring seasons. Curry last year put up one of the most efficient and electrifying offensive seasons we have seen in a long time and he still averaged just 30 ppg.

[casketball]

Member when Lebron got tapped in the face by Tristan Thompson and he acted like he got taken out by a sniper? I remember.

And that has to do with...? Kinda pathetic deflection there my friend.

Ton of Cavs fans in here whining about Isaiah getting undeserved calls. Lebron is the king of that.

That said, it's part of the game that stars who play in traffic get calls.

[KokoKaizer]

Different era.

Different rules. It's easier now to scores when you are a skilled perimeter player so I can't imagine what Iverson would do in todays NBA.

He would kill it.

So definitely AI. But Thomas is a good player on is own

[OsuCavsfan103]

Member when Lebron got tapped in the face by Tristan Thompson and he acted like he got taken out by a sniper? I remember.

And that has to do with...? Kinda pathetic deflection there my friend.

Ton of Cavs fans in here whining about Isaiah getting undeserved calls. Lebron is the king of that.

That said, it's part of the game that stars who play in traffic get calls.

Haha yeah right, LeBron doesn't get calls he should all the time. He gets treated differently bc of his size and strength.

You argument was one call, in one game last year, that had nothing to do with Boston. Weak sir.