Re: RealGM Top 100 List #55

[tsherkin]

Vote KJ

Better at using his tools effectively, more easily integrated into a team, higher-value offensive player. KJ reminds me of what I think Iverson could have been if he had a different mentality.

[Joao Saraiva]

Vote KJ

Better at using his tools effectively, more easily integrated into a team, higher-value offensive player. KJ reminds me of what I think Iverson could have been if he had a different mentality.

Put Iverson in Phoenix and KJ in Philadelphia. Don't you think KJ would try to score more in volume and drop his efficiency? Or do you think he'll average the same kind of stats? If he does, where do you think those Philadelphia teams go? Do they even get into the playoffs?

I think Iverson would profit a lot from playing with Barkley. Yes, Iverson might put a big number of shots, but Barkley is one of the GOAT offensive rebounders in NBA history. Plus, if Iverson can average 7+ APG with those awful rosters of Philadelphia, I'm sure he could average similar or better in Phoenix.

[tsherkin]

Put Iverson in Phoenix and KJ in Philadelphia. Don't you think KJ would try to score more in volume and drop his efficiency? Or do you think he'll average the same kind of stats? If he does, where do you think those Philadelphia teams go? Do they even get into the playoffs?

No, he was too dedicated as a playmaker, IMO. I think Philly's schemes would have looked different and I think he'd have done good things for Stackhouse. AI always shot a lot, but KJ at lower volume was better than AI's best by a long shot as both a playmaker and in terms of scoring efficiency, which changes what the defense has to handle.

think Iverson would profit a lot from playing with Barkley. Yes, Iverson might put a big number of shots, but Barkley is one of the GOAT offensive rebounders in NBA history. Plus, if Iverson can average 7+ APG with those awful rosters of Philadelphia, I'm sure he could average similar or better in Phoenix.

7+ apg is misleading based on minutes and usage: when you have the ball that often and no one else is isolating, it does happen. I don't want to diminish AI's passing too much, since he was a good PnP passer, but it is a touch overstated by that average.

[trex_8063]

Put Iverson in Phoenix and KJ in Philadelphia. Don't you think KJ would try to score more in volume and drop his efficiency? Or do you think he'll average the same kind of stats? If he does, where do you think those Philadelphia teams go? Do they even get into the playoffs?

No, he was too dedicated as a playmaker, IMO. I think Philly's schemes would have looked different and I think he'd have done good things for Stackhouse. AI always shot a lot, but KJ at lower volume was better than AI's best by a long shot as both a playmaker and in terms of scoring efficiency, which changes what the defense has to handle.

This is somewhat wishful thinking, imo. KJ always had effective scorers (scorers, plural) around him in PHX; change the circumstances to where he has no (repeat: NO) effective scorers around him, and I have a hard time seeing his play-making being as effective or having similar impact.

You criticize Iverson as being less portable, because you don't give him credit for being able to play effective adjacent to other offensive talent, citing that as reason that he wouldn't/couldn't be as effective in a situation outside of the one he found himself in in Philly......and you might be right. He would have to drastically alter his style to co-exist next to the kind of talent he'd be with if we swapped their situations.

However, I don't see how you can possibly think that this isn't also the case going in the other direction: that KJ wouldn't have to drastically alter his style to be as impactful (or even close to it) in that Philly scenario. You can't throw him into a vastly different circumstance and say "do it exactly like you did in PHX", and expect the same result.
You say KJ is more portable (and you're probably right), but then state outright that he wouldn't adjust, but would just continue to do his thing. To me, that argues against the presumption that he's more portable.


In that Philly scenario, one way or another, KJ would be forced (or should at least feel compelled) to shoulder a much larger scoring load and much larger usage in that Philly situation. And could he do it as well? I'm skeptical.
For one, I'd note that KJ had a career TOV% of 16.7% while shouldering only 22.6% usage (NEVER had to take on >25%). Iverson had just 12.2% TOV% while averaging 31.8% usage. I'm not at all convinced that KJ wouldn't have horrific turnover numbers if shouldering even 30% usage with NO other offensive threats to take defensive focus off of him (to say nothing of how it might effect his shooting efficiency).

Also, I don't really get the point of bringing up Jerry Stackhouse: he only played 2.5 seasons in Philadelphia, and NONE of them overlap with Iverson's prime.

[Basketballefan]

Whats the vote count?

[Clyde Frazier]

Runoff vote - Iverson

Durability is still a concern for me with KJ. Beyond that, iverson still has an edge with 12 seasons of starter level production to KJ's 9. I can look past iverson's scoring efficiency issues at this point and appreciate what else he brought to the table.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

[SactoKingsFan]

Whats the vote count?

It's tied at 6 with 6-7 hrs left.

KJ (6): Quotatious, john248, Doctor MJ, penbeast, HeartbreakKid, tsherkin

Iverson (6): Joao Saraiva, trex_8063, Basketballefan, ronnymac2, SactoKingsFan, Clyde Frazier

-----
Edit: penbeast's vote for KJ is tentative

[Doctor MJ]

Vote KJ

Better at using his tools effectively, more easily integrated into a team, higher-value offensive player. KJ reminds me of what I think Iverson could have been if he had a different mentality.

Put Iverson in Phoenix and KJ in Philadelphia. Don't you think KJ would try to score more in volume and drop his efficiency? Or do you think he'll average the same kind of stats? If he does, where do you think those Philadelphia teams go? Do they even get into the playoffs?

I think Iverson would profit a lot from playing with Barkley. Yes, Iverson might put a big number of shots, but Barkley is one of the GOAT offensive rebounders in NBA history. Plus, if Iverson can average 7+ APG with those awful rosters of Philadelphia, I'm sure he could average similar or better in Phoenix.

There's something to what you say in the sense that context pulls guys in a certain direction, but none of this changes the fact that guys have a general approach to the game, and a sense for what a "good" shot is, that's hard to change. From what I see in general, much of what makes a distributor is to just not be the guy who's prone to say "Nah, I'll just do it myself". Iverson was a "do it myself" guy down to the ground. Guys who see the world as distributor just don't scoff at the notion of practice.

Re: Iverson & Barkley. I think that would actually be a cool offensive combination. I mean Barkley is a GOAT candidate on offense, so yeah, he could make it work with Iverson if the two explosive personalities managed not to implode.

Re: "if Iverson can average 7+ APG with those awful rosters". This is the wrong way to look at Iverson's numbers. Iverson had such heavy on-ball primacy he was going to get some assists...but his presence on the court LOWERED assists. This is actually a common issue with combo guards. So yeah, in Phoenix, Iverson would get credited with some assists for Barkley scores, but Barkley would get less "assisting" help than he had before whenever Iverson was on the court.

[colts18]

Could Allen Iverson outplay both Peak Magic Johnson and Peak John Stockton in a playoff series and do it in the same year?

VOTE: Kevin Johnson

[Quotatious]

Could Allen Iverson outplay both Peak Magic Johnson and Peak John Stockton in a playoff series and do it in the same year?

VOTE: Kevin Johnson

I'm also voting for KJ here, but that's clearly a hyperbole.

In the 1990 Suns vs Jazz series, KJ averaged 20/3/9 on 49% TS (13.2 GameScore), Stockton averaged 15/3/15 on 48% TS (15.9 GameScore). To be fair, neither was very impressive by his standards in that series.

In the next round, Magic averaged 30/6/12 on 62% TS (26.7 GameScore), Kevin averaged 22/6/11/3 stl on 56% TS (21.8 GameScore). Both were fantastic, but I'd have to say that Magic was better.

[Basketballefan]

Could Allen Iverson outplay both Peak Magic Johnson and Peak John Stockton in a playoff series and do it in the same year?

VOTE: Kevin Johnson

Not only is that not true like Quotatious said, but your reasoning is also arbitrary.

[tsherkin]

This is somewhat wishful thinking, imo. KJ always had effective scorers (scorers, plural) around him in PHX; change the circumstances to where he has no (repeat: NO) effective scorers around him, and I have a hard time seeing his play-making being as effective or having similar impact.

I am inclined to agree that he would likely see less team success than he saw in Phoenix, at least until the 01 season, but I don't think his player efficacy would change overmuch with a switch to a crap team.

More to the point, he didn't need that much to be a HUGELY effective player even as far back as 89, his second season. Yeah, Chambers and Hornacek, but that matters only so much when your MO is a penetrating guard playmaker.

You criticize Iverson as being less portable, because you don't give him credit for being able to play effective adjacent to other offensive talent, citing that as reason that he wouldn't/couldn't be as effective in a situation outside of the one he found himself in in Philly......and you might be right. He would have to drastically alter his style to co-exist next to the kind of talent he'd be with if we swapped their situations.

That is one component of my issues with Iverson. He made that clear in Philly and on Team USA, but at the same time, he proved capable of being the secondary guy alongside Melo. He didn't really CHANGE his playing style, but he accepted lower volume, which was something. It might have been the stage of his career, but it's an event in his career that actually happened. Karl juggled isos for those guys with a fair degree of proficiency, which was impressive, but no less so than AI not doing some of the things full-on AI haters might have predicted in terms of freezing out/looking off Melo, etc. He didn't try to be The Man, which is the point, and that's good.

More, I think his playing style was stupid and ineffective. HE over-dribbled, he didn't have a good 3, he wasn't a dominant shooter from anywhere and he was generally speaking inefficient. Even when the rules changed, he wasn't a stunner, barring one outlier season as the refs went "DERP!??!?!?!? WHAT DO WE DO??!??" all across the league.

However, I don't see how you can possibly think that this isn't also the case going in the other direction: that KJ wouldn't have to drastically alter his style to be as impactful (or even close to it) in that Philly scenario. You can't throw him into a vastly different circumstance and say "do it exactly like you did in PHX", and expect the same result.

Team result, no. But a lightning-fast penetrating guard who doesn't force his shot unnecessarily and looks to pass with great vision is going to translate more effectively than low-efficiency volume chuckery. I'd expect that you might see some tail-off in precise efficiency, but he wouldn't sink to Iversonian levels of crap efficiency in the process, and would be easier to put lesser pieces around to produce success.

You say KJ is more portable (and you're probably right), but then state outright that he wouldn't adjust, but would just continue to do his thing. To me, that argues against the presumption that he's more portable.

Well, no. I'm saying his game translates more effectively. He could obviously play well with other scorers, and I don't think he'd much NEED to go the route of volume scoring in order to float a lesser team's offense. It wouldn't necessarily be teh 2nd-best offense in the league as were the 89 Suns, but they'd be quite good without him needing to float tons and tons of shots himself, so why would he? Volume shooting is usually a mistake, not something for which to strive.

In that Philly scenario, one way or another, KJ would be forced (or should at least feel compelled) to shoulder a much larger scoring load and much larger usage in that Philly situation. And could he do it as well? I'm skeptical.

Eh. I don't think the Stackhouse trade has to happen if KJ is there instead of AI. Of course, that also means no Mutombo, since he turned into Ratliff, who was part of the Deke trade, but I think that those two co-exist more effectively than did Jerry and Iverson.

For one, I'd note that KJ had a career TOV% of 16.7% while shouldering only 22.6% usage (NEVER had to take on >25%). Iverson had just 12.2% TOV% while averaging 31.8% usage. I'm not at all convinced that KJ wouldn't have horrific turnover numbers if shouldering even 30% usage with NO other offensive threats to take defensive focus off of him (to say nothing of how it might effect his shooting efficiency).

It's easier to have a lower TOV% when what you're doing is lofting jumpers. Keep in mind that Magic, Nash and Stockton were all typically around 20% TOV, but matched against their AST%, it makes more sense. KJ, for example, was a career 2.97:1 AST:TOV rate (38.8% AST vs that 16.7% TOV), so some context does need to be applied.

Also, I don't really get the point of bringing up Jerry Stackhouse: he only played 2.5 seasons in Philadelphia, and NONE of them overlap with Iverson's prime.

Right, but AI really didn't develop as a player going forward into his career, he just started lofting more shots past the foul line, so prime versus then, not so important. Also, the last year Stackhouse was on the Sixers was 97-98, during which time AI posted a 109 ORTG and 53.5% TS on 22 ppg. The year after, he led the league in PPG during the lockout and wouldn't see 52%+ TS again until 04-05.

In any case, KJ was a much better and more natural playmaker; this isn't a criticism of Iverson per se, since he was pretty obviously hitting the pocket when he could, but he really didn't have stunning vision or sense of tempo.

I have a dim view of Iverson's approach to the game, and he didn't produce particularly compelling results in so playing the game. Exactly Iverson's style of play is what prompted pre-Jordan commentary to center around scoring champions never winning titles... and one of the big problems with them trying to do so is how difficult it is to maintain any kind of semblance of efficiency while doing so. It's not a wise strategy if you can't do it efficiently. Iverson was worse than McGrady as a scorer, but because he's small and because he posted higher volume, that became a big thing. Realistically, though, the team ORTGs of those Sixers were actually below average, outside of 2001. From 97-06, Philly ranked 21st, 21st, 23rd (lockout), 25th, 13th (103.6), 23rd, 11th, 26th, 24th and 15th.

The theme here is that they were generally absolutely horrible on offense. And FWIW, the 103.6 they posted in 01 was actually WORSE than the ORTG they posted in 97 by a full point, so the ranking had more to do with downward league fluctuation than tangible improvement in their offensive output.

The Sixers were consistently terrible on O employing the strategy they did with AI at the helm. That speaks to the fact that their management team was dim-witted and incompetent, which we already knew, but it begins to help dispel this notion that AI's volume chuckery was in any way seriously effective as a team strategy. Employing a playmaker with a more sensible and distributed team offense made far more sense.

To whit, a defensively-oriented team led by a piss-poor scorer who was a really good playmaker in the Nets did more than did the Sixers... and without AI's antics and attitude.

Food for thought

[trex_8063]

Team result, no. But a lightning-fast penetrating guard who doesn't force his shot unnecessarily and looks to pass.....

Pass to who?? This has been and remains the point. A play-maker, to a large degree, is only as good as the person(s) he's passing to to complete the play. Is he going to force even more volume to already overused poor offensive talents like Ratliff, George Lynch, Tyrone Hill? Is he going to penetrate and pop to the fantastic outside shooting of Eric Snow, Aaron McKie, and Kevin Ollie? Do you honestly believe the results of this is going to be a better than someone as talented as KJ "hero-balling" a bit? 'Cause man, if so, we'll definitely have to agree to disagree.

I've never claimed Iverson is anything close to the ideal guy you'd want taking 25 shots per game; what I have claimed is that it was the least of all evils on those squads.
And if KJ were put in AI's shoes there, I think he's gonna be forced to take---if not 25-ish---a significantly larger volume of shots than he ever did in PHX. And if he refuses to do so due to "play-maker purity", the offense is going to suffer for it.

[tsherkin]

Pass to who?? This has been and remains the point. A play-maker, to a large degree, is only as good as the person(s) he's passing to to complete the play. Is he going to force even more volume to already overused poor offensive talents like Ratliff, George Lynch, Tyrone Hill?

Yep. And it would be better for overall team offensive results, since even their poor level of play is likely to be more efficient than what AI produced as a super-volume scorer... even if that level happens to be below league average. More to the point, it's easier to find lesser players to fit around that type of player (the playmaker) than a guy like AI. Here we're talking about waiver-wire adds and cheap FAs.

Is he going to penetrate and pop to the fantastic outside shooting of Eric Snow, Aaron McKie, and Kevin Ollie?

You understand that Aaron McKie was a 35.0% 3pt shooter in Philly, right? He wasn't a bad option as a kick-out. Snow wasn't great, but they could have gone after a Chris Whitney-level player and had positive results, and been bolstered in the meantime by what KJ himself was doing. More to the point, they could have had a normal-sized SG instead of Iverson, which would have been valuable in and of itself.

Lynch shot around 40% from 3 on barely any attempts during his first two seasons with Philly. I would have definitely looked to Bruce Bowen him offensively. Hill was a double-digit scorer before, and even in, Philadelphia at times. He sucked at the line but had a good J off of the screen and typically scored around league average... and on higher efficiency than Iverson. A smattering of extra shooting possessions to each of these guys (1 or 2 extra shots per game) would have most definitely benefited the team offense, there's almost no question of that. Would have been nice if they used Bell better in 02. The Sixers weren't going to be a top offensive team as constructed, but they sucked the way they WERE built and KJ offered a different tactic, one with a foundation of a superior approach and core skill set.

And if KJ were put in AI's shoes there, I think he's gonna be forced to take---if not 25-ish---a significantly larger volume of shots than he ever did in PHX. And if he refuses to do so due to "play-maker purity", the offense is going to suffer for it.

I doubt it; the offense was typically crap to begin with. If you replace the putrid play Iverson posted with someone who's highly efficient on a smaller number of possessions while actively passing more frequently, you're lined up for a better result, not a worse one.

[colts18]

AI had some talented Denver teams yet he couldn't produce offenses as good as KJ's pre-Barkley offenses. Why?

[trex_8063]

Pass to who?? This has been and remains the point. A play-maker, to a large degree, is only as good as the person(s) he's passing to to complete the play. Is he going to force even more volume to already overused poor offensive talents like Ratliff, George Lynch, Tyrone Hill?

Yep. And it would be better for overall team offensive results, since even their poor level of play is likely to be more efficient than what AI produced as a super-volume scorer...

I'll be honest, I feel like you're trolling here. Specifics below.

Is he going to penetrate and pop to the fantastic outside shooting of Eric Snow, Aaron McKie, and Kevin Ollie?

You understand that Aaron McKie was a 35.0% 3pt shooter in Philly, right?

Yeah, he was a career 35.0% (34.8% in Philly), which was marginally BELOW league average; and this on low-moderate volume of almost exclusively open spot-up attempts. And he's the BEST of the outside shooters available.

The fact that Lynch was a career 0.6 3PA/g average suggests no one really thought he was a 3pt threat they should be utilizing (also just 30.6% for his career). These things cast a shadow of doubt on any claim that he was a noteworthy 3pt shooter.
Lynch was a career 102 ORtg, 49.0% ts%, and career -0.8 OBPM.
Ratliff was 0.7 better than Iverson in career relative ORtg, though on extremely low usage (nearly Ben Wallace low), was a career 54.6% ts% despite shooting almost nothing except gimmes and put-backs, and career -2.4 OBPM.
Hill was -1.3 OBPM for his career.
Even Aaron McKie was -0.6 OBPM.

Face it, this is not a crew that's going to get you very far on offense, no matter who you have passing to them. As noted with Aaron McKie (the BEST 3pt shooter of the bunch): he still can't hit league average even when getting set up out there. And has also been noted, while these offenses may have only ranged from moderately poor to above average (but not great) with Iverson in the game......they were fairly consistently Godawful without him ('01 is the single exception).

[trex_8063]

AI had some talented Denver teams yet he couldn't produce offenses as good as KJ's pre-Barkley offenses. Why?

Ah-ah.....first off (if you're addressing me), I never said he could fill that role as well as KJ. The case I've been making is that KJ couldn't do as well in his shoes, either.

Beyond that, I would say there is some redundancy between AI and Melo. Also, has anyone ever accused Melo of being overly efficient either? And lastly they (well....certainly in '07, at least) lacked some excellent floor-spacing 3pt shooters like Jeff Hornacek, Eddie Johnson, Dan Majerle; in '08 they did have one pretty good 3pt shooting in Smith.

[tsherkin]

I'll be honest, I feel like you're trolling here. Specifics below.

Then that is your errant perception.

Yeah, he was a career 35.0% (34.8% in Philly), which was marginally BELOW league average; and this on low-moderate volume of almost exclusively open spot-up attempts. And he's the BEST of the outside shooters available.

This isn't actually a failing. 35% is a break-even point for efficacy on 3pt shots. He wasn't stunning, no doubt, but he was still effective at making that shot. I wasn't suggesting anything else, and only mentioned him at all because you discarded him by name.

The fact that Lynch was a career 0.6 3PA/g average suggests no one really thought he was a 3pt threat they should be utilizing (also just 30.6% for his career). These things cast a shadow of doubt on any claim that he was a noteworthy 3pt shooter.

I don't think he was a noteworthy 3pt shooter. I said I think they should have tried to do what the Spurs did with Bowen, because the percentages out of the pocket are very different from above-the-break 3pt shooting, which is often far more difficult.

Face it, this is not a crew that's going to get you very far on offense, no matter who you have passing to them.

I didn't suggest that they would be elite. I specifically noted otherwise. This is a meaningless comment on your behalf.

And has also been noted, while these offenses may have only ranged from moderately poor to above average (but not great) with Iverson in the game......they were fairly consistently Godawful without him ('01 is the single exception).

This isn't ultra-relevant. The correlation between blatant chuckery and taking a totally useless offense to mediocrity is known and I've not debated it. That said, more efficient use of fewer scoring possessions while pushing these guys for one or two more scoring possessions while maintaining efficiency above what Iverson was producing is hardly that crazy a concept.

[penbeast0]

So, assuming SactoKingsFan's count is correct, colts18 is the tiebreaking vote (my vote was for KJ, was willing to listen thanks mainly to Trex's excellent arguments that had pushed me into the open mind position, but on the whole, the case for KJ seemed more compelling).

Winner -- Kevin Johnson

[drza]

So, assuming SactoKingsFan's count is correct, colts18 is the tiebreaking vote (my vote was for KJ, was willing to listen thanks mainly to Trex's excellent arguments that had pushed me into the open mind position, but on the whole, the case for KJ seemed more compelling).

Winner -- Kevin Johnson

Lol. I literally JUST got off the road and checked in here (travel has been MURDER) the last 6 weeks. If I'd have been 10 minutes early I could have gotten my AI vote in. Timing is everything...