Iverson vs Nash

[Rapcity_11]

From 00-04, Iverson put up a 49.8% TS.

How exactly is that valuable when the following teams were able to achieve comparable results.

2000 Clippers - 49.9% TS
2000 Bulls - 49.0% TS
2002 Bulls - 49.9% TS
2003 Cavs - 49.1% TS

Those TERRIBLE teams can muster Iverson like efficiency. Remind me again, why what Iverson did had such value?

[scrabbarista]

Nash, but not by a huge margin.
I have Nash 38th, with a score of 202.
Iverson is at 44th, with a score of 177.
Nash's career rates as "14% better." In other words, the gap is decisive, but not huge.

Westbrook's going to pass Nash soon, so Nash'll be 39th then.

I think rgm overrates Nash and underrates Iverson (nobody take offense to that, I'm talking about the aggregate, not about you), but I still think you're plainly wrong if you think Iverson had the better career.

[No-more-rings]

From 00-04, Iverson put up a 49.8% TS.

How exactly is that valuable when the following teams were able to achieve comparable results.

2000 Clippers - 49.9% TS
2000 Bulls - 49.0% TS
2002 Bulls - 49.9% TS
2003 Cavs - 49.1% TS

Those TERRIBLE teams can muster Iverson like efficiency. Remind me again, why what Iverson did had such value?

2000 Clippers- 28th of 29th in ORTG
2000 Bulls 29th of 29th in ORTG
2002 Bulls 28th of 29th in ORTG
2003 Cavs 28th of 29th in ORTG

01 Sixers- 13th of 29th in ORTG
02 Sixers- 23rd of 29th in ORTG(but Ai missed 22 games)
03 Sixers- 11th of 29th in ORTG
04 Sixers- 26th of 29th in ORTG(Ai missed 34 games)

Seems like a lazy argument to me...there's evidence that at least when healthy and on his game, Ai can at least lift offenses to passable/decent in some years. Not that i'm pro-Ai in the comparison but to suggest he never added any value to a team is really farfetched.

[Rapcity_11]

From 00-04, Iverson put up a 49.8% TS.

How exactly is that valuable when the following teams were able to achieve comparable results.

2000 Clippers - 49.9% TS
2000 Bulls - 49.0% TS
2002 Bulls - 49.9% TS
2003 Cavs - 49.1% TS

Those TERRIBLE teams can muster Iverson like efficiency. Remind me again, why what Iverson did had such value?

2000 Clippers- 28th of 29th in ORTG
2000 Bulls 29th of 29th in ORTG
2002 Bulls 28th of 29th in ORTG
2003 Cavs 28th of 29th in ORTG

01 Sixers- 13th of 29th in ORTG
02 Sixers- 23rd of 29th in ORTG(but Ai missed 22 games)
03 Sixers- 11th of 29th in ORTG
04 Sixers- 26th of 29th in ORTG(Ai missed 34 games)

Seems like a lazy argument to me...there's evidence that at least when healthy and on his game, Ai can at least lift offenses to passable/decent in some years. Not that i'm pro-Ai in the comparison but to suggest he never added any value to a team is really farfetched.

The point is to show how replaceable that level of efficiency is. AI supporters love to talk about how nobody could have done what he did in his shoes.

The Sixers also ranked highly in ORB%, which had little to do with Iverson. That played a big part in their ORTG.

In 02, Iverson's on-court Ortg would have ranked #18, and in 2004 #26. So the time missed makes little difference.

The argument that Iverson can lift me to a poor to average offense instead of outright terrible isn't particularly compelling.

[Owly]

From 00-04, Iverson put up a 49.8% TS.

How exactly is that valuable when the following teams were able to achieve comparable results.

2000 Clippers - 49.9% TS
2000 Bulls - 49.0% TS
2002 Bulls - 49.9% TS
2003 Cavs - 49.1% TS

Those TERRIBLE teams can muster Iverson like efficiency. Remind me again, why what Iverson did had such value?

Without advocating for Iverson at a specific level or versus Nash ...

Iverson, whilst turnover prone in raw terms, was not so much so given his usage burden and the teams he was on seemed to consistently benefit from less turnovers with him on the court https://www.cleaningtheglass.com/stats/player/1748/onoff#tab-team_efficiency. There is limited overlap between time frames you cite and where this is number is available. Also the on-off per 100s don't exactly align with basketball-references, I don't know about methodological differences or which is more trustworthy.

[Rapcity_11]

From 00-04, Iverson put up a 49.8% TS.

How exactly is that valuable when the following teams were able to achieve comparable results.

2000 Clippers - 49.9% TS
2000 Bulls - 49.0% TS
2002 Bulls - 49.9% TS
2003 Cavs - 49.1% TS

Those TERRIBLE teams can muster Iverson like efficiency. Remind me again, why what Iverson did had such value?

Without advocating for Iverson at a specific level or versus Nash ...

Iverson, whilst turnover prone in raw terms, was not so much so given his usage burden and the teams he was on seemed to consistently benefit from less turnovers with him on the court https://www.cleaningtheglass.com/stats/player/1748/onoff#tab-team_efficiency. There is limited overlap between time frames you cite and where this is number is available. Also the on-off per 100s don't exactly align with basketball-references, I don't know about methodological differences or which is more trustworthy.

On/off difference is certainly somewhat valuable. But some of that difference is due to AI dominating the ball and his team not wasting resources on secondary ball-handlers. And overall, the Sixers were pretty mediocre in terms of TO%.

[freethedevil]

They had the #5 offense in the league.

And that regressed to nuetral during the playoffs.

Could you clarify by what measure?

Is a "middle of the road offense" (or neutral) what a league average offensive team would be expected to do against the specific defenses faced (based on their RS Drtgs, weighted for games played)?

Median among playoff teams?

Mean among playoff teams (either proper, minute-weighted or just averaging the teams' Ortgs)?

Ortg circa RS league average?


Not saying this is wrong, but not sure there is a clear standard so it would be helpful to cite your methodology/source.

Their ortg in the playoffs. It was adjusted for playoff opponent effiency. It was like +1 or some **** like that.

[Owly]

And that regressed to nuetral during the playoffs.

Could you clarify by what measure?

Is a "middle of the road offense" (or neutral) what a league average offensive team would be expected to do against the specific defenses faced (based on their RS Drtgs, weighted for games played)?

Median among playoff teams?

Mean among playoff teams (either proper, minute-weighted or just averaging the teams' Ortgs)?

Ortg circa RS league average?


Not saying this is wrong, but not sure there is a clear standard so it would be helpful to cite your methodology/source.

Their ortg in the playoffs. It was adjusted for playoff opponent effiency. It was like +1 or some **** like that.

Checked and I get +1.75 to 2dp, which as an advantage on one end (i.e double it to get a full 48 minutes worth [because you only spend half an actual game on O], or an equivalent 2-way goodness) whilst unremarkable, might not easily be termed neutral.

2 problems with my back of an envelope calculations.
1) They assume those teams faced league average offense schedules: being (a) mostly good teams and (b) mostly in the east, this may not be the case and brings their vs league average Drtgs up and so Toronto's margin over it down.

2) It assumes the 76ers notional defensive power versus Toronto is reasonably accurately reflected by their RS performance, a somewhat dubious assumption given their roster turnover (and injury to Embiid). Of course where it "should" be is less clear.

[Rapcity_11]

Could you clarify by what measure?

Is a "middle of the road offense" (or neutral) what a league average offensive team would be expected to do against the specific defenses faced (based on their RS Drtgs, weighted for games played)?

Median among playoff teams?

Mean among playoff teams (either proper, minute-weighted or just averaging the teams' Ortgs)?

Ortg circa RS league average?


Not saying this is wrong, but not sure there is a clear standard so it would be helpful to cite your methodology/source.

Their ortg in the playoffs. It was adjusted for playoff opponent effiency. It was like +1 or some **** like that.

Checked and I get +1.75 to 2dp, which as an advantage on one end (i.e double it to get a full 48 minutes worth [because you only spend half an actual game on O], or an equivalent 2-way goodness) whilst unremarkable, might not easily be termed neutral.

2 problems with my back of an envelope calculations.
1) They assume those teams faced league average offense schedules: being (a) mostly good teams and (b) mostly in the east, this may not be the case and brings their vs league average Drtgs up and so Toronto's margin over it down.

2) It assumes the 76ers notional defensive power versus Toronto is reasonably accurately reflected by their RS performance, a somewhat dubious assumption given their roster turnover (and injury to Embiid). Of course where it "should" be is less clear.

3) The Warriors were better than the #13 Drtg would suggest.

It's obvious that the Raptors faced 4 top 10 defenses and performed well offensively.

[Pharmacist]

It's Nash, much better passer and shooter.

[sp6r=underrated]

Due to life getting in the way I didn't have a chance to follow the NBA this year. Saw this old thread as I was browsing realgm after the boycotts today and thought it was interesting. Like most of the posters in this thread I favor Nash but I do feel Iverson is getting undervallued historically for a lot of reasons that were beyond his fault. Felt like chiming in with a slightly updated old post on AI for why he was better than his harsher critics thinks.

Iverson was overvalued for much of his career in the early. Like most small speedy players he peaked relatively young. His peak was the early 00s. During an era when bigs were truly the most valuable players he was incorrectly considered on par for a moment of time with bigs that were in retrospect clearly better (KG, Duncan, Dirk) as well as some wing (Kobe, TMAC). He got credit for being an underdog and a lot of flaws were overlooked. Later when his career fiddled out a backlash launched.

Some of the points of criticism were correct. He was a defensive liability. His scoring was overvalued due to efficiency issues. These are relevant points but the revisionism has gone too far.

AI entered the league at the wrong time for his talent. AI was a small, slight player who relied on killer handles and speed to get by. A player like that is built for a full court game in which contact on the perimeter is heavily policed. The early 00s was the exact opposite. Big guards and defensive strategy were allowed far more than today to impede smaller player. The full court game was dead and league pace bottomed out. League environment was the absolute worst for a player like AI.

Management didn't do him any favors either. He was a ball dominant offensive player who should have been surrounded him with strong jump shooters who are comfortable playing off the ball in a supporting role. He should also be on the court with at least strong three point shooters.

For almost his entire career, management was obsessed with pairing him with other ball dominant individual scorers. The 76ers ranked near the bottom of 3 point attempts almost every year of his prime. He almost never had a capable 3 point shooter to punish teams for collapsing on him after his inevitable breakdowns of opposing defenses. Management instead sought out other ball dominant scorers.

This is a recipe for diminishing his offensive impact. There is a lot of reasons to think he would be better shooter if he had been born later. I'd note we've learned 3 point shooting is a learnable skill as we've seen a lot of players developed servicable long range shots if it was emphasized in his youth.

I'd take Nash comfortably for reason others have stated but AI was better than he gets credit.

[penbeast0]

Just out of curiousity, if you removed Iverson's shots from the mix (and the smallest starting players on each other NBA team) and looked only at 3pt attempt per shot of the 2-5 positions (calling Snow the 2), do they still shoot the fewest threes or is it at least partially that Iverson took such a high percentage of their shots and shot such a low percentage of 3's relative to other small guards.

I don't think it makes much of a difference, just curious.

And I don't think it matters whether other eras would have been better for Iverson, you play in the era you are born into and are valued based on how you did in that era. Iverson in another era (or another team) might not have been given the green light to shoot or might have been pushed to be a more typical (or earlier eras) pass first or drive and dish PG . . . and might have been a better player though not the volume scorer he actually was. Or, he might have been a better player, I just don't think it's terribly relevant to his place in NBA history.

[elchengue20]

I'm taking Iverson, just a superior talent and played in the wrong era. Zone defense, no shooters, still can hand check a little bit, of course his efficiency wouldn't be there, but in today's pace and space era? He's averaging 40 a game on above average efficiency and giving you 7 dimes a game. Talking pure hoops, today's era is tailor made for him to come and thrive in. It's almost like the league took notice of his popularity and made consistent tweaks to the rules to maximize a player like his talents. Nash to me, there is absolutely no era you can plug him in and say this is a player that's leading your team to a championship as the #1. Iverson? I think he could lead a team in this era to a championship with the pace and space today's era has.

If Jamaal Murray is destroying the league right now, prime Iverson would be nearly unstopable. Nash also would have been better, but those Suns were playing 2020's basketball in the 2000's, Iverson never played in a team like that.

[penbeast0]

The only one who stopped Iverson was himself. He had very questionable shot judgement, taking clearly bad shots consistently, and wasn't a particularly good finisher. What he had were great handles and explosive speed to get into the lane, and a willingness to throw his body into defenders looking to draw fouls; both of those would still apply today. But, unless you think that somehow it's much easier to shoot contested layups today (which it is, a bit, with the more open lane and usually only one big post defender on the floor at a time rather than two), his efficiency will still be pretty poor and the whole idea of modern offenses is to get and take efficient shots, something Iverson never seemed to figure out.

[Ryoga Hibiki]

I'm taking Iverson, just a superior talent and played in the wrong era. Zone defense, no shooters, still can hand check a little bit, of course his efficiency wouldn't be there, but in today's pace and space era? He's averaging 40 a game on above average efficiency and giving you 7 dimes a game. Talking pure hoops, today's era is tailor made for him to come and thrive in. It's almost like the league took notice of his popularity and made consistent tweaks to the rules to maximize a player like his talents. Nash to me, there is absolutely no era you can plug him in and say this is a player that's leading your team to a championship as the #1. Iverson? I think he could lead a team in this era to a championship with the pace and space today's era has.

If Jamaal Murray is destroying the league right now, prime Iverson would be nearly unstopable. Nash also would have been better, but those Suns were playing 2020's basketball in the 2000's, Iverson never played in a team like that.

Iverson never was that kind of shot maker, though. He would thrive in the space, for sure, but he would look like a quicker but weaker Westbrook

Sent from my Nokia 3210 using RealGM mobile app

[elchengue20]

I'm taking Iverson, just a superior talent and played in the wrong era. Zone defense, no shooters, still can hand check a little bit, of course his efficiency wouldn't be there, but in today's pace and space era? He's averaging 40 a game on above average efficiency and giving you 7 dimes a game. Talking pure hoops, today's era is tailor made for him to come and thrive in. It's almost like the league took notice of his popularity and made consistent tweaks to the rules to maximize a player like his talents. Nash to me, there is absolutely no era you can plug him in and say this is a player that's leading your team to a championship as the #1. Iverson? I think he could lead a team in this era to a championship with the pace and space today's era has.

If Jamaal Murray is destroying the league right now, prime Iverson would be nearly unstopable. Nash also would have been better, but those Suns were playing 2020's basketball in the 2000's, Iverson never played in a team like that.

Iverson never was that kind of shot maker, though. He would thrive in the space, for sure, but he would look like a quicker but weaker Westbrook

Sent from my Nokia 3210 using RealGM mobile app

You are really arguing that Jamaal Murray is a better shot maker than Allen Iverson? Come on now. I know he was inefficient and sometimes played selfish/hero basketball, but AI is getting ridicolous disrespect here.

The man was 6'0 at best and scored multiple layups and floaters on Shaq, for example. There is a reason he had an stretch where he was the NBA top scorer in like 3 of 4 seasons. Put that player in this era where everything is step up for his type of game and it would be insane.

Watch on YouTube

[penbeast0]

I would argue that Jamal Murray, like most guards in NBA history, is a better shooter than Iverson both in terms of his range and jump shot and in terms of choosing which shots to take and which not to. I certainly don't argue that he is as quick as Iverson, or that he attempts as many off balance shots in the lane, I'm just not sure those are that good a shot. And few, if any guards, in NBA history have had Iverson's ability or willingness to get and take shots.

There are definitely guys who are better shot maker in the lane than Iverson was. George Gervin, for example, scored on a ridiculous variety of layups, finger rolls, floaters, and teardrops and was one of the most efficient scorers of his era unlike Iverson. OF course, if Gervin were half a foot shorter, he might have been as inefficient as Iverson or even worse, we don't know. We do know what Gervin and Iverson did and what level of success he achieved with it.

[Doctor MJ]

The only one who stopped Iverson was himself. He had very questionable shot judgement, taking clearly bad shots consistently, and wasn't a particularly good finisher. What he had were great handles and explosive speed to get into the lane, and a willingness to throw his body into defenders looking to draw fouls; both of those would still apply today. But, unless you think that somehow it's much easier to shoot contested layups today (which it is, a bit, with the more open lane and usually only one big post defender on the floor at a time rather than two), his efficiency will still be pretty poor and the whole idea of modern offenses is to get and take efficient shots, something Iverson never seemed to figure out.

Yup. All the revisionism of AI playing in the wrong era misses the point:

The point is that he spent his whole career taking shots he personally could not hit, while playing a style that didn't actually make it easy for teammates to feed off of spacing impact.

It's also horribly ironic when people say AI played in the wrong era when the era he played in was specifically the one that lionized players like AI. It's essentially saying "Well AI played in the era where we thought that AI was playing the game with a reasonable strategy, he'd have been much better if he played in an era where people thought AI was worse." Nah. AI was just going out there and doing his thing. His was not a team-oriented approach and it was not a math-oriented approach, and in the era of analytics, guys like that get exposed.

I say all of this as a guy who once would have said AI was his favorite player - in the exact same era that every pro-AI person in this thread fell in love with him, I saw EXACTLY what y'all saw and don't ever think otherwise - and who says to this day that AI is one of the most iconic players of all time. I mean, you see all these cornrows in the Bubble? Every single one of those guys is thinking "AI!" when he gets those, and rightly so.

In the end, it's bit like falling in love with vintage cars. The style was great, the fuel efficiency and safety standards? Not so much. Enjoy that aesthetic and don't delude yourself into thinking that because you can enjoy watching him play that that means the data is suspect. They are two separate things.

[Doctor MJ]

I would argue that Jamal Murray, like most guards in NBA history, is a better shooter than Iverson both in terms of his range and jump shot and in terms of choosing which shots to take and which not to. I certainly don't argue that he is as quick as Iverson, or that he attempts as many off balance shots in the lane, I'm just not sure those are that good a shot. And few, if any guards, in NBA history have had Iverson's ability or willingness to get and take shots.

There are definitely guys who are better shot maker in the lane than Iverson was. George Gervin, for example, scored on a ridiculous variety of layups, finger rolls, floaters, and teardrops and was one of the most efficient scorers of his era unlike Iverson. OF course, if Gervin were half a foot shorter, he might have been as inefficient as Iverson or even worse, we don't know. We do know what Gervin and Iverson did and what level of success he achieved with it.

On Murray:

First the caveat that until I see Murray continue this into next season, I'm still going to wonder if this is really what we can expect him to do. But presuming it's not a mirage:

What we're seeing from Murray is astounding touch from everywhere on the court. He's about to pass all but the Splash Bros for most 3's in the playoffs and he's doing so efficiently, he's hitting the mid-range, and his ability to finish with those big hands is really something. The idea that anyone is seeing what Murray is doing this right now and thinks AI was a better shooter in any way is pretty absurd.

AI was quicker, and when he dived in there and made a shot with his Lilliputian proportions, it was glorious. Beyond that, there's the matter that AI had this attitude All Day Every Day for his whole career, and Murray still has a career left to play. That's cool. It's not the same thing as being an amazing shooter.

[Doctor MJ]

but AI is getting ridicolous disrespect here.

The man was 6'0 at best and scored multiple layups and floaters on Shaq, for example. There is a reason he had an stretch where he was the NBA top scorer in like 3 of 4 seasons. Put that player in this era where everything is step up for his type of game and it would be insane.

This snippet really gets to the heart of this issue.

First the notion of "disrespect", which not compatible with adult conversation.

Then the attempt to use his too-small height like he should get a bonus for it.

Then the anecdotal points on Shaq, without any notion of efficiency.

Then the blanket assertion that AI was the best scorer in the league for years when he really was never close because, once again, efficiency matters and AI was largely yielding major negative TS Add's in an era where the standard was very low compared to today.

Sorry man, if you want to have conversations about who was actually the better, more effective basketball player, there's things you have to stop focusing on and there's other stuff you need to learn to incorporate into your analysis.

On the other hand, if you just want to rave about a dude with incredible moxie, you go right ahead. There's a lot to love about AI, but unfortunately closer analysis shows the warts in his approach that coaches and GMs have to take very seriously. Having the coolest dude in the NBA on your team is a nice thing, but it's not the priority.