Iverson vs Nash

[prophet_of_rage]

"Raptors and Bucks were tough teams"

2001 Raptors-14th in SRS
2001 Bucks-8th in SRS

Suns playoff opponents in 2005 alone
Grizzlies-7th in SRS
Mavericks-3rd in SRS
Spurs-1st in SRS

The Raptors and Bucks were tough teams. You're being ridiculous to say they weren't. Did you watch the series?

Sent from my SM-N970W using Tapatalk

Not as tough as any teams Phoenix played

But Phoenix was a high seed against the 'tough' teams they played so they weren't underdogs.

Sent from my SM-N970W using Tapatalk

[prophet_of_rage]

Nash's off-ball D is remarkably underrated. He was not a bad team defender. He wasn't good on-ball and that's all anyone ever focuses on. There is absolutely an argument for him being a better defender than AI. Regardless, it doesn't matter, the offensive gap between these two is significantly largely than the defensive gap in favor of Nash.

There is no argument for Nash here as far as defense goes, zero argument at all.

I think Iverson’s advantage in scoring is more valuable than Nash’s advantage in play making. I trust Iversons game in the playoffs way before Nash and that’s because of Ai’s massive scoring advantage.

This is nonsense. Nash is one of the five best playmakers ever. Iverson is nowhere near a top five scorer. It is much easier to find an Iverson caliber scorer (35ppg on 51 TS% per 100) than a Nash caliber playmaker. Plus Nash is a significantly better scorer than Iverson is a playmaker. They are literal tiers apart offensively.

Is it? Who are these guys?

Sent from my SM-N970W using Tapatalk

[limbo]

Is it? Who are these guys?

Sent from my SM-N970W using Tapatalk

Jerry Stackhouse

[prophet_of_rage]

It's a comparison of the West and East. The West was tough for Phoenix not because of talent issues but because there was an inherent flaw in their system the best Western teams could exploit at any time.

The Raptors were a tough team and so were the Bucks and AI vanquished both doing all the scoring. Those teams were as tough as any in the West.

This reads like someone who will pretty much say anything on a whim to prop their guy up. What makes you think the Raptors and Bucks even come close to the bloodbath 00s West?

So Iverson's competition is:
47 win Raptors, 1.69 SRS (14th), 14th defense
52 win Bucks, 3.13 SRS (8th), 20th defense
and that's "tough." A bottom 10 defense in the league is "tough."

Meanwhile Nash goes against:
50 win '03 Blazers, 2.97 SRS (6th), 13th defense (a first round opponent that's already arguably better than both the '01 Raps and Bucks, and the Jailblazers were actually "tough")
59 win '03 Kings, 6.68 SRS (2nd), 2nd defense
60 win '03 Spurs, 5.65 SRS (3rd), 3rd defense (lost in 6)
58 win '05 Mavs, 5.86 SRS (3rd), 9th defense
59 win '05 Spurs, 7.84 SRS (1st), 1st defense (lost in 5)
60 win '06 Mavs, 5.96 SRS (3rd), 11th defense (lost in 6)
58 win '07 Spurs, 8.35 SRS (1st), 2nd defense (lost in 5)
50 win '10 Spurs, 5.07 SRS (4th), 8th defense
57 win '10 Lakers, 4.78 SRS (5th), 4th defense (lost in 6)

Pretty much every year he made it to the WCF, he was facing two teams that were better than anything Iverson EVER faced in the East. It might take the '03 Blazers 6-7 games to beat the Bucks/Raptors, but every other team here is sweeping, 5 games max.

How do we get around this that Nash had less success with a far more talented team?

Are you allergic to context or purposefully being dense? You get around it by not judging players entirely on the basis of a binary outcome that they can influence only so much. You are essentially saying "The team Iverson played on in 2001, and the ONLY playoff run of his career worth mentioning, won a whole 3 more games through the conference + NBA Finals than the 2006 and 2010 Suns that Nash was on, and for that reason, the individual player Iverson is better than the individual player Nash." That logic just doesn't make sense to me. Do you consider the 2018 Cavs as the second best team in the league that year just for making the finals?

Btw Iverson doesn't even have more success lol. It's 1MVP + 1 Finals appearance (which like I said taken into context isn't THAT impressive) vs 2 MVPs + 3 WCF as the #1 and 1 WCF as the #2 (in a historically stacked conference go against perennial contenders every year). Nash is higher on the all-time assists list than Iverson is on the all-time scorers list. The SSOL Suns inspired the offenses of today. Iverson was a revolutionary cultural guy, but on the court he fizzled in the playoffs every other year, including his Denver years.

As an (somewhat related) aside, I saw in another thread you rank Ewing > Reed on an all time centers list. How does that make sense if you value winning and rings above all? Ewing should be in the same tier as Nash/CP3 and Reed in the same as Iverson/Thomas for you. Why don't Reed's rings count in that comparison?

Because I rank according to talent as a basketball player in combination with results and context. And the ranking was Ewing at 8 and Reed at 9. Ewing holding nearly every Knick record counts for something. Ewing being a one man show that kept the Knicks in contention with the way more talented Bulls, Rockets, Spurs, Magic says a lot.

As for the Raptors and Bucks if you watched those series contemporaneously they were not pushover teams at all and one would argue more diverse and talented than the Sixers. They were more than a match for Philly.

The Suns also faced tough teams in the West but they were theoretically a tough team too. You can't argue they weren't good enough to ever get to the Finals. They never made it because they were consistently exploited coaching wise and with their system. They didn't lose because they were out talented.

What I won't do is take numbers and then go back and repaint a picture based on what I think those numbers should mean without seeing what was going on at the time.

It's ridiculous to say that Nash was more efficient than Iverson when it was Nash's jon to get the ball to scorers in a wide open system whereas Iverson was charged with scoring the ball no matter what with no spacing in isolation at 5'10 and 160 lbs in the pre-freedom of movement NBA.

So if you look at who performed their role on the team better you need a mix of considerations (reaults (stats, wins, advancement) and context (role, coaching, system, peer group, personal characteristics, talent) etc.




Sent from my SM-N970W using Tapatalk

[prophet_of_rage]

Is it? Who are these guys?

Sent from my SM-N970W using Tapatalk

Jerry Stackhouse

Seriously. How did that work out for Stackhouse the rest of his career?

Sent from my SM-N970W using Tapatalk

[prophet_of_rage]

Everybody saw Curry's efficiency fall off a cliff this year in the few games he played without legit scorers around him, right? Drayton by himself produced even less, right?

Yet Curry had to continue to try to score.

Sent from my SM-N970W using Tapatalk

[Ryoga Hibiki]

Everybody saw Curry's efficiency fall off a cliff this year in the few games he played without legit scorers around him, right? Drayton by himself produced even less, right?

Yet Curry had to continue to try to score.

Sent from my SM-N970W using Tapatalk

what kind of ridicolous take is this?
You take 5 game sample size over a career of extreme efficiency (where he didn't always play with KD), a sample size where he STILL scored above league avg efficiency with 36ptsx100poss, while Iverson was not sxoring much more than that in his prime, with worse efficiency.

You can have your own opinion, but at least try to make some valid points.

Sent from my SM-N975F using RealGM mobile app

[limbo]

Is it? Who are these guys?

Sent from my SM-N970W using Tapatalk

Jerry Stackhouse

Seriously. How did that work out for Stackhouse the rest of his career?

Sent from my SM-N970W using Tapatalk

Exactly. That's why he stopped doing it after that...

Or probably more accurately, someone told him to stop shooting so much because he clearly wasn't efficient enough to build a competent offense behind it.

Same message should've been conveyed to Iverson to an extent, except Iverson was one of the faces of the league and a global icon, so telling him to take a reduced role or put more focus on other things rather than trying to shoot and score as much as possible wasn't really going to fly.

[prophet_of_rage]

Everybody saw Curry's efficiency fall off a cliff this year in the few games he played without legit scorers around him, right? Drayton by himself produced even less, right?

Yet Curry had to continue to try to score.

Sent from my SM-N970W using Tapatalk

what kind of ridicolous take is this?
You take 5 game sample size over a career of extreme efficiency (where he didn't always play with KD), a sample size where he STILL scored above league avg efficiency with 36ptsx100poss, while Iverson was not sxoring much more than that in his prime, with worse efficiency.

You can have your own opinion, but at least try to make some valid points.

Sent from my SM-N975F using RealGM mobile app

It is a valid point. If Steph were always playing in those conditions he wouldn't be nearly as efficient. Understand the principle, without help shot creator's efficiency plummets but their shot creation remains important.

That five game sample size just shows how even the best shooter in the world can look like dog crap next to bad offensive players. Curry didn't lose any game.

It's just a highlight what happens when your role and talent changes. Iverson's efficiency went up as an older player on a better team. He didn't improve as a player.

Again context and role matters. That's all I'm saying. It can be the be all and end all to say TS% as much as it can't be to say rings. There's a larger view that has to be taken to understand why the results were achieved. Advanced stats and rings and wins are just results

Sent from my SM-N970W using Tapatalk

[prophet_of_rage]

Jerry Stackhouse

Seriously. How did that work out for Stackhouse the rest of his career?

Sent from my SM-N970W using Tapatalk

Exactly. That's why he stopped doing it after that...

Or probably more accurately, someone told him to stop shooting so much because he clearly wasn't efficient enough to build a competent offense behind it.

Same message should've been conveyed to Iverson to an extent, except Iverson was one of the faces of the league and a global icon, so telling him to take a reduced role or put more focus on other things rather than trying to shoot and score as much as possible wasn't really going to fly.

Who was going to shoot more on that team? Snow? Lynch? McKie?

He did shoot less on Denver and even less still in Detroit.

Sent from my SM-N970W using Tapatalk

[Ryoga Hibiki]

It is a valid point. If Steph were always playing in those conditions he wouldn't be nearly as efficient. Understand the principle, without help shot creator's efficiency plummets but their shot creation remains important.

That five game sample size just shows how even the best shooter in the world can look like dog crap next to bad offensive players. Curry didn't lose any game.

It's just a highlight what happens when your role and talent changes. Iverson's efficiency went up as an older player on a better team. He didn't improve as a player.

Again context and role matters. That's all I'm saying. It can be the be all and end all to say TS% as much as it can't be to say rings. There's a larger view that has to be taken to understand why the results were achieved. Advanced stats and rings and wins are just results

Sent from my SM-N970W using Tapatalk

You are:
1) taking an irrelevant sample size
2) in which Curry had scoring volume/efficiency in line with Iverson career highs
3) ignoring the rest of his career, in which he didn't always have crazy talent next to him
4) assuming nothing woould have changed in the rest of the season (this is called petitio principi, you assume what you want to demonstrate)
and you think this is making a point?

Sent from my SM-N975F using RealGM mobile app

[Hussien Fatal]

I think it’s funny how people try and discredit Iversons 2001 run by saying his competition was weak. The bucks raptors and even pacers were no pushovers and were headlined by HOF players. Iverson in his 2001 run beat arguably two of the 3 greatest shooters of all time who happen to be HOFers. As well as him beating another HOF player who was in his absolute Prime in Vince Carter who had his best season out of 22 years in 2001. Iverson faced a Reggie Miller ran Pacers team who was one year removed from making the finals themselves. Reggie was still very good at the time as he averaged 30ppg in that series vs the sixers. He then beats the Raptors in a grueling 7 games series with Vince playing better than any perimeter player in the league at the time. Vince was arguably better than Kobe at this stage of his career and he was certainly in the conversation for being a top 5 player. And finally he goes on to beat a bucks team who had a Prime Ray Allen a prime Sam Cassel and a prime Glenn Rob. That team had the best perimeter attack in the entire NBA at the time. Many people favorited the Bucks in this series due to them having much better offensive talent. But Iverson went on to score 70 points in 5 quarters of play to end the bucks handily in game 7. Iverson went thru 3 HOF players and 6 all stars before making the finals. Iverson’s 2001 run will always be special because of these circumstances.

[prophet_of_rage]

It is a valid point. If Steph were always playing in those conditions he wouldn't be nearly as efficient. Understand the principle, without help shot creator's efficiency plummets but their shot creation remains important.

That five game sample size just shows how even the best shooter in the world can look like dog crap next to bad offensive players. Curry didn't lose any game.

It's just a highlight what happens when your role and talent changes. Iverson's efficiency went up as an older player on a better team. He didn't improve as a player.

Again context and role matters. That's all I'm saying. It can be the be all and end all to say TS% as much as it can't be to say rings. There's a larger view that has to be taken to understand why the results were achieved. Advanced stats and rings and wins are just results

Sent from my SM-N970W using Tapatalk

You are:
1) taking an irrelevant sample size
2) in which Curry had scoring volume/efficiency in line with Iverson career highs
3) ignoring the rest of his career, in which he didn't always have crazy talent next to him
4) assuming nothing woould have changed in the rest of the season (this is called petitio principi, you assume what you want to demonstrate)
and you think this is making a point?

Sent from my SM-N975F using RealGM mobile app

So why even in that sample did Curry's efficiency take such a hit. Same system, start of the season?

It is a recent example of efficiency vs role.

You don’t like Curry fine take Tim Hardaway, Jr. Went from being an inefficient chucker as the man on the Knicks to a much more effective scorer in Dallas by playing with better talent and being in a lesser role.

A 5'10 160 lbs guard was responsible for scoring the majority of team's points and creating shots for that team. And he did that.

Sent from my SM-N970W using Tapatalk

[Rapcity_11]

Good question for thought:

What would guys like Lou Williams, CJ McCollum,Jamal Crawford, etc. put up in a similar situation as AI was in?

[Bidofo]

Because I rank according to talent as a basketball player in combination with results and context. And the ranking was Ewing at 8 and Reed at 9. Ewing holding nearly every Knick record counts for something. Ewing being a one man show that kept the Knicks in contention with the way more talented Bulls, Rockets, Spurs, Magic says a lot.

Fair enough. Though I’m still not sure why you would ask “How do we get around this that Nash had less success with a far more talented team?” if you take context into account like you say, the answer is pretty obvious to me.

As for the Raptors and Bucks if you watched those series contemporaneously they were not pushover teams at all and one would argue more diverse and talented than the Sixers. They were more than a match for Philly.

I didn’t challenge any of this. I actually did watch the series while it happened, though I haven’t given it a rewatch. Those teams and the Sixers were very close, and the Sixers barely outscored the other teams in both 7 game series. But I think even you see how outrageous the claim is that they were as tough as any team out West. That is what I was replying to. Do you think either of those teams beat any of the teams I listed?

The Suns also faced tough teams in the West but they were theoretically a tough team too. You can't argue they weren't good enough to ever get to the Finals. They never made it because they were consistently exploited coaching wise and with their system. They didn't lose because they were out talented.

Any conversation about cast also needs to bring up opposing competition as well. Otherwise LeBron’s 2018 playoff run should be the greatest of all time for carrying a bunch of scrubs to the Finals, but the fact that he faced a relatively meh East needs to be taken into account. So while the Suns were more talented than the Sixers, their competition was exceptionally better as well. I actually think the greatest Spurs team of all time is either the 2005 or 2007 versions, and the Suns faced both. And they lost both years because...the Spurs were the better team. In other words, the Suns weren’t good enough. Is that wrong to say? Not to mention they faced their fair share of injury problems and suspensions.

Not sure why you keep saying the Suns weren’t out talented. Duncan + Manu + Parker is a very talented core lol, plus they had arguably the GOAT coach (who in your own words, was severely out coaching MDA. Do you put any blame on Nash for this?) and a VERY strong defensive lineup. In ‘10 he faced Kobe + Pau + MWP+ + Odom. 37 year old Grant Hill played the 4th most minutes and was trying to guard Kobe. And it’s not just offensive talent, the defensive talent that other teams had was much better.

What I won't do is take numbers and then go back and repaint a picture based on what I think those numbers should mean without seeing what was going on at the time.

I don’t even know what this means lol. Again, I did see the series. We both probably haven’t seen the 2001 playoffs in its entirety since it happened, so it would be worth our time to go back and refresh our memory about what happened exactly. I’ve seen way too many people here rely on their raw memory to base their opinions, which is just not productive imo. Otherwise I can say the same things that I “saw” and we can’t have any back and forth whatsoever. If there is literally anything to suggest the Bucks/Raptors are close to the West teams, please give me some evidence that goes beyond what you saw only.

There’s no picture to be repainted. You are just grossly overestimating those 2 teams to make your point, and the reasoning is a bit muddled right now.

It's ridiculous to say that Nash was more efficient than Iverson when it was Nash's jon to get the ball to scorers in a wide open system whereas Iverson was charged with scoring the ball no matter what with no spacing in isolation at 5'10 and 160 lbs in the pre-freedom of movement NBA.

I didn’t really touch on this in my response, but it’s worth talking about. Let me just say it’s not ridiculous at all to say Nash was more efficient than Iverson because (1) he actually was, but more importantly (2) we saw Iverson on a good team where he didn’t need to chuck up shots, and not only was Nash still much more efficient, but the team noticeably improved the next year after replacing Iverson with Billups (despite Melo missing more games and playing worse than he did in the 08 RS). You can talk all about how badly Nash would do with an offensively limited roster, but how well would Iverson do with a roster like Nash had? In my mind, there is no way he matches the heights the Suns did, and I care much more about lifting a team to contender status than carrying a limited roster through tough series’ against even competition and then getting blown out by a real contender.

And even though it seems like Iverson was “carrying” much more than Nash, take this into consideration: when Iverson was on the floor, the Sixers played like the 12th best offense in the league, and the 24th with him off in 2001 (difference of +3.9 in ORTG). Nash beats that +3.9 improvement literally every year he’s in Phoenix, and some years in Dallas too. 2005 is his best, the Suns had a 120.3 ORTG when he was on (utterly ridiculous for this time period) and a 102.9 while he was off. In other words, the Suns had BY FAR the best offense in history with Nash on and the 26th best offense in the league with him off. I’m not one to take these on-off stats for face value since there’s a lot of context missing, but it puts into perspective how dominant and crucial Nash was to those teams. There is no way in hell Iverson is leading a similar offensive profile.

So if you look at who performed their role on the team better you need a mix of considerations (reaults (stats, wins, advancement) and context (role, coaching, system, peer group, personal characteristics, talent) etc.

I agree. Though again if results includes stats+wins+advancement, how does Iverson come out ahead based on just one Finals appearance and nothing else in his favor? Nash has more playoff wins, more assist titles than Iverson does scoring (if that matters to you), so is the lone Finals appearance more than enough for you?

[prophet_of_rage]

Good question for thought:

What would guys like Lou Williams, CJ McCollum,Jamal Crawford, etc. put up in a similar situation as AI was in?

Very poorly. That's why they are for the most part 6th men.

Sent from my SM-N970W using Tapatalk

[Rapcity_11]

Good question for thought:

What would guys like Lou Williams, CJ McCollum,Jamal Crawford, etc. put up in a similar situation as AI was in?

Very poorly. That's why they are for the most part 6th men.

Sent from my SM-N970W using Tapatalk

Why poorly?

Also, that would explain why very few players are allowed to put up the usage/efficiency combo that AI did. It's a terrible idea.

[Hussien Fatal]

Because I rank according to talent as a basketball player in combination with results and context. And the ranking was Ewing at 8 and Reed at 9. Ewing holding nearly every Knick record counts for something. Ewing being a one man show that kept the Knicks in contention with the way more talented Bulls, Rockets, Spurs, Magic says a lot.

Fair enough. Though I’m still not sure why you would ask “How do we get around this that Nash had less success with a far more talented team?” if you take context into account like you say, the answer is pretty obvious to me.

As for the Raptors and Bucks if you watched those series contemporaneously they were not pushover teams at all and one would argue more diverse and talented than the Sixers. They were more than a match for Philly.

I didn’t challenge any of this. I actually did watch the series while it happened, though I haven’t given it a rewatch. Those teams and the Sixers were very close, and the Sixers barely outscored the other teams in both 7 game series. But I think even you see how outrageous the claim is that they were as tough as any team out West. That is what I was replying to. Do you think either of those teams beat any of the teams I listed?

The Suns also faced tough teams in the West but they were theoretically a tough team too. You can't argue they weren't good enough to ever get to the Finals. They never made it because they were consistently exploited coaching wise and with their system. They didn't lose because they were out talented.

Any conversation about cast also needs to bring up opposing competition as well. Otherwise LeBron’s 2018 playoff run should be the greatest of all time for carrying a bunch of scrubs to the Finals, but the fact that he faced a relatively meh East needs to be taken into account. So while the Suns were more talented than the Sixers, their competition was exceptionally better as well. I actually think the greatest Spurs team of all time is either the 2005 or 2007 versions, and the Suns faced both. And they lost both years because...the Spurs were the better team. In other words, the Suns weren’t good enough. Is that wrong to say? Not to mention they faced their fair share of injury problems and suspensions.

Not sure why you keep saying the Suns weren’t out talented. Duncan + Manu + Parker is a very talented core lol, plus they had arguably the GOAT coach (who in your own words, was severely out coaching MDA. Do you put any blame on Nash for this?) and a VERY strong defensive lineup. In ‘10 he faced Kobe + Pau + MWP+ + Odom. 37 year old Grant Hill played the 4th most minutes and was trying to guard Kobe. And it’s not just offensive talent, the defensive talent that other teams had was much better.

What I won't do is take numbers and then go back and repaint a picture based on what I think those numbers should mean without seeing what was going on at the time.

I don’t even know what this means lol. Again, I did see the series. We both probably haven’t seen the 2001 playoffs in its entirety since it happened, so it would be worth our time to go back and refresh our memory about what happened exactly. I’ve seen way too many people here rely on their raw memory to base their opinions, which is just not productive imo. Otherwise I can say the same things that I “saw” and we can’t have any back and forth whatsoever. If there is literally anything to suggest the Bucks/Raptors are close to the West teams, please give me some evidence that goes beyond what you saw only.

There’s no picture to be repainted. You are just grossly overestimating those 2 teams to make your point, and the reasoning is a bit muddled right now.

It's ridiculous to say that Nash was more efficient than Iverson when it was Nash's jon to get the ball to scorers in a wide open system whereas Iverson was charged with scoring the ball no matter what with no spacing in isolation at 5'10 and 160 lbs in the pre-freedom of movement NBA.

I didn’t really touch on this in my response, but it’s worth talking about. Let me just say it’s not ridiculous at all to say Nash was more efficient than Iverson because (1) he actually was, but more importantly (2) we saw Iverson on a good team where he didn’t need to chuck up shots, and not only was Nash still much more efficient, but the team noticeably improved the next year after replacing Iverson with Billups (despite Melo missing more games and playing worse than he did in the 08 RS). You can talk all about how badly Nash would do with an offensively limited roster, but how well would Iverson do with a roster like Nash had? In my mind, there is no way he matches the heights the Suns did, and I care much more about lifting a team to contender status than carrying a limited roster through tough series’ against even competition and then getting blown out by a real contender.

And even though it seems like Iverson was “carrying” much more than Nash, take this into consideration: when Iverson was on the floor, the Sixers played like the 12th best offense in the league, and the 24th with him off in 2001 (difference of +3.9 in ORTG). Nash beats that +3.9 improvement literally every year he’s in Phoenix, and some years in Dallas too. 2005 is his best, the Suns had a 120.3 ORTG when he was on (utterly ridiculous for this time period) and a 102.9 while he was off. In other words, the Suns had BY FAR the best offense in history with Nash on and the 26th best offense in the league with him off. I’m not one to take these on-off stats for face value since there’s a lot of context missing, but it puts into perspective how dominant and crucial Nash was to those teams. There is no way in hell Iverson is leading a similar offensive profile.

So if you look at who performed their role on the team better you need a mix of considerations (reaults (stats, wins, advancement) and context (role, coaching, system, peer group, personal characteristics, talent) etc.

I agree. Though again if results includes stats+wins+advancement, how does Iverson come out ahead based on just one Finals appearance and nothing else in his favor? Nash has more playoff wins, more assist titles than Iverson does scoring (if that matters to you), so is the lone Finals appearance more than enough for you?

Funny you bring up Nash having assist titles and Iverson having none. Iverson has 4 scoring titles and he has been top 10 in assist 5 times. Nash has never been a top 10 scorer at any point of his career. Funny you bring up Nash having more playoff wins but Iverson has more conference championships than Nash. Iverson making it to the finals with a a much worse team than Nash is more impressive than Nash leading his team to a top offense and falling short every time.

[Bidofo]

Funny you bring up Nash having assist titles and Iverson having none. Iverson has 4 scoring titles and he has been top 10 in assist 5 times.

Lol I didn’t say that. I said “more assist titles than Iverson does scoring,” in other words, Nash has more assists titles than Iverson has scoring titles. Personally I don’t care about that but the person I was responding to said he cares about results, so I threw that out there in case he values it.

Nash has never been a top 10 scorer at any point of his career.

Please list 10 better scorers who could beat Nash’s efficiency+volume not only in the RS but the playoffs as well in the ‘05-‘10 timeframe. Iverson is certainly not ahead of him during this era, even with the laxer rules. If you’re facing a tough defense, there are not many guys you are taking over Nash to lead the offense, and part of that is his remarkable shooting and ability to score.

Funny you bring up Nash having more playoff wins but Iverson has more conference championships than Nash.

Uhhhh again, the guy I was responding to said results ~ stats+wins+advancement. And Nash has more playoff wins. That’s it. And like I’ve tried to detail before, using the raw accomplishment that he made the Finals in comparison to Nash requires you to ignore a lot of context.

Iverson making it to the finals with a a much worse team than Nash is more impressive than Nash leading his team to a top offense and falling short every time.

Wut. Didn’t Iverson fall short too? You either win the Finals (success) or you don’t (failure). No one plays for second place. Iverson never made another conference finals in his life, not with the poorly built Sixers and not with the Nuggets. The same Spurs team he struggled with in 2007 allowed Nash to run a +7.9 offense on their second best defense in the league (the Suns actually outscored the Spurs), the difference in play is gigantic, and talking about difference in cast is not enough to make up for it imo, but you can provide an argument otherwise.

Do you have an explanation as to why the Nuggets improved when they replaced Iverson with Billups, especially in the playoffs? There wasn’t much roster turnover relevant to offense I don’t think, Nene and JR were getting more playing time but Melo missed a ton of games. Billups was arguably even the best player on the team in the playoffs. Why could a seemingly lesser player like him adapt and succeed but Iverson couldn’t? Personally I think Iversons playstyle is just not conducive for good results, but I’d like to hear what you think since you know a lot about the guy.

Though if you seriously think Carter was playing like the best wing in the league in the 2001 playoffs and was arguably better than Kobe **** Bryant, you are out of your mind and we are not getting anywhere further lol.

[Hussien Fatal]

Funny you bring up Nash having assist titles and Iverson having none. Iverson has 4 scoring titles and he has been top 10 in assist 5 times.

Lol I didn’t say that. I said “more assist titles than Iverson does scoring,” in other words, Nash has more assists titles than Iverson has scoring titles. Personally I don’t care about that but the person I was responding to said he cares about results, so I threw that out there in case he values it.

Nash has never been a top 10 scorer at any point of his career.

Please list 10 better scorers who could beat Nash’s efficiency+volume not only in the RS but the playoffs as well in the ‘05-‘10 timeframe. Iverson is certainly not ahead of him during this era, even with the laxer rules. If you’re facing a tough defense, there are not many guys you are taking over Nash to lead the offense, and part of that is his remarkable shooting and ability to score.

Funny you bring up Nash having more playoff wins but Iverson has more conference championships than Nash.

Uhhhh again, the guy I was responding to said results ~ stats+wins+advancement. And Nash has more playoff wins. That’s it. And like I’ve tried to detail before, using the raw accomplishment that he made the Finals in comparison to Nash requires you to ignore a lot of context.

Iverson making it to the finals with a a much worse team than Nash is more impressive than Nash leading his team to a top offense and falling short every time.

Wut. Didn’t Iverson fall short too? You either win the Finals (success) or you don’t (failure). No one plays for second place. Iverson never made another conference finals in his life, not with the poorly built Sixers and not with the Nuggets. The same Spurs team he struggled with in 2007 allowed Nash to run a +7.9 offense on their second best defense in the league (the Suns actually outscored the Spurs), the difference in play is gigantic, and talking about difference in cast is not enough to make up for it imo, but you can provide an argument otherwise.

Do you have an explanation as to why the Nuggets improved when they replaced Iverson with Billups, especially in the playoffs? There wasn’t much roster turnover relevant to offense I don’t think, Nene and JR were getting more playing time but Melo missed a ton of games. Billups was arguably even the best player on the team in the playoffs. Why could a seemingly lesser player like him adapt and succeed but Iverson couldn’t? Personally I think Iversons playstyle is just not conducive for good results, but I’d like to hear what you think since you know a lot about the guy.

Though if you seriously think Carter was playing like the best wing in the league in the 2001 playoffs and was arguably better than Kobe **** Bryant, you are out of your mind and we are not getting anywhere further lol.

You saying Nash was a better scorer than Iverson at any point during their respective primes is something I will never agree with you on. Iverson was a much better scorer despite being less efficient. Iverson has the 2nd highest rate of 50 and 40 point playoff games. He scored over 50 points In a playoff game 3 times in 3 years, which is as rare as it gets. Iverson Averaged over 30ppg 5 times, Nash has never averaged over 20. You bring up Nash’s volume like he was a high volume shooter which he wasn’t especially considering his role and the pace his teams played at. Nash isn’t on Iversons level as far as volume scoring goes and it’s not even close and it’s a shame I’m even having this debate with you or anybody for that matter. Iverson Nearly doubled Nash’s scoring productivity during their prime years. Players like Dirk, tmac, Melo, Kobe, Duncan, Garnett, Paul pierce, Vince, lebron and dwade were all better scorers than Nash from 05-2010. That is just ten off the top of my head and I’m positive there are plenty more. And I’m taking many players above Nash to lead my team because yes while he was an excellent shooter he lacked the necessary volume to be considered elite or to be considered somebody who could take over your teams offense and get buckets in the clutch when needed in a reliable manner.

Nash is the one who really fell short. Like I said Iverson atleast won a conference championship, Nash came up short in even accomplishing that. And me saying he made it to the finals and Nash didn’t isnt me ignoring context it’s me stating a fact while considering the competition level and the roster construction of both players situations. Don’t mistake me for not applying context when infact I put all of your rebuttals into consideration. Iverson’s team success peaked higher than Nash’s even when applying the proper context from both sides.

To answer your Billups question the answer is sort of simple. First the pairing of Iverson and Melo was very redundant as well as Iverson being out of his prime. Iverson had a ton of injuries during his career and that lead to his abrupt decline. At the time Iverson was traded to detroit he was no longer even half the player he used to be and at that stage Billups was a better player and he fit that team much better.

If you want to make an argument saying Billups is better than Iverson because of that then I’m not even going to feed into that discussion because Iverson is a way better individual player.

And besides defense Vince was every bit as good as Kobe in 2001 weather we are talking about the regular season or playoffs. He put up better numbers vs the Sixers in those playoffs Than Kobe did while also having a worse supporting cast which made his job much harder. You are seriously underrating Vince. In 2001 Which happens to be the best Version of VC he was widely considered one of the best players in the league. He was at the time arguably the best perimeter player in the league as well as arguably being a top 5 player. If you don’t think he was better than Kobe that year that’s your opinion, but it is not a ridiculous statement or an off base argument claiming Vince was as good if not better than Kobe in 2001.