Iverson vs Nash

[Doctor MJ]

I think people under rate the luxury provided by being able to count on a single guy on one end of the floor. He wasn’t the most efficient but iverson alone was enough to produce a middle of the road offense. That allowed the team to build a terrific defense by focusing all other playerS on that end. Deke, Lynch, snow, mckie.... all the players around AI are there to build a terrific defense. No way you can build that defense without a guy who can carry the load night in and night out on the other end.

We should acknowledge that iversons efficiency was low in part because of what his role was and went up when he went to Denver and there was less reliance on him. Iverson is horribly underrated by realgm because of a failure to understand the situation and a propensity to believe that advanced metrics tell the whole story.

I notice you're not talking about floor vs ceiling raising, portability, scalability, or regression data while you accuse people here of failing to understand something much more basic.

What I find again and again is that people desperately want to believe that all this stuff they don't understand somehow leads to wrong conclusions that casual observers intuitively get right. It's frustrating because all of us were those casual observers before we started taking this stuff seriously.

I hate that the divergence is so great that I probably just come off as an arrogant close-minded nerd, but y'know, 20 years ago I was making all sorts of similar arguments for Iverson that you are now, and I can tell you that while back then I absolutely knew more than pretty much everyone I came into contact with, I knew very little compared to what I know now, in part because nobody knew then what is known now.

There's been an arms race of knowledge that's grown so fast that it's leaving people who didn't happen to jump on board behind, even if they are passionate and intelligent.

A lot of assumptions in your post and no response to my point that situations matter and provide critical perspective to the numbers. Just so you don’t have to keep assuming everyone that disagrees with you doesn’t understand data analytics I will let you know that my career (15 years) is actually in data analytics and the most common mistake I see, from smart people, is over reliance on the numbers because it is easier to take them at face value than it is to analyze the situation.

Dude, everything in my first sentence is a response to your point. I mean, when I say the phrase "floor raising" that's me literally attaching the long-established label to the concept you've described. I'm not sure where to go next here in this discussion. If I've used phrases you don't understand, ask me what I mean.

Re: you work in data analytics. Okay, then let me say: Don't think of me as an analytics guy. Think of me as a guy who rage quit on the APBRmetrics community in 2005 because I diagnosed them with the precisely the sort of problems you're talking about with analytics folks.

None of this changes the fact that Iverson's regression impact turned out to be negligible compared to what I thought it was back when I was cheering him on in 2001.

In terms of the most common mistake I see from smart people, if we're going beyond the whole "I know basketball, I've been watching since I was a kid and now I'm an educated middle class intellectual so I can't possibly be ignorant", I'd say the next two things are 1) the thing you've described and I mentioned about the APBRmetrics-community back then, but also 2) the feeling that if you've gone one layer deeper than someone you disagree with that you can assume others who superficially appear the same to you fall prey to the same misconceptions.

ftr, with that last point, that's something that I'm in danger of like anyone else. But if you're trying to argue Iverson over Nash, well, this is unlikely to be one of those time for me. Want to prove me wrong? Then dive deeper into the areas I've already specified, show me you understand what I'm talking about and point out something subtle that I'm missing. But if you're think you've already done that then you don't know how much you don't know.

[Doctor MJ]

I think the problem is when people say Nash's stats make him so great (and he is a great) but actual results the guy never even won his conference with a great team. He wasn't a one man show like Iverson and Iverson went to the Finals.

That's the dissonance. Some people will look at the analytics and wonder who cares when the guy doesn't win. And winning is the point.

Sent from my SM-N970W using Tapatalk[/quote]

Right so "RINGZ" mentality cranked up further. The fact that Nash literally better teams than Iverson ever did doesn't matter because Iverson played in the East and managed to get to the finals once.

I think it's really the combo of that with hero-ball worship and street cred. There's a major swath of basketball fans who'd have no problem with Nash over Iverson if Iverson's teams were always mediocre, but add an indelible playoff run to the mix and they just don't want to hear anything else.

Of course as I say this, there are a lot of fans who wouldn't even care about that. The way they conceptualize basketball, someone who plays like Nash simply cannot be better than someone who plays like Iverson. And as I alluded to, some of these fans are actual NBA players - past and present - who think that because they played basketball at a high level they simply know better than everyone else...and yet they don't understand the deeper history of basketball at all or the fact that team vs individual-orientations to basketball philosophy swing back & forth like a pendulum and what they've internalized is just what was in the water when they were coming of age.

[RCM88x]

I have hard time with people being critical of how Nash played offensively, especially when it comes to not shooting enough. Offense was never, never, never the problem with his teams. Their problems were all on the defensive side, and running up against some extremely good teams year after year. Teams far better than Iverson ever faced (outside of the '01 Lakers), and far better than any Iverson lead teams too.

I don't know how people can act like the 2001 East and 04-10 West are even remotely similar in terms of quality to even bring up the "he made it to the finals" discussion. It boggles my mind. If you actually look at the games, who the teams faced and why each team won (I don't mean just box scores/PPG) it's incredibly obvious Nash was well ahead of Iverson as a player.

[prophet_of_rage]

I have hard time with people being critical of how Nash played offensively, especially when it comes to not shooting enough. Offense was never, never, never the problem with his teams. Their problems were all on the defensive side, and running up against some extremely good teams year after year. Teams far better than Iverson ever faced (outside of the '01 Lakers), and far better than any Iverson lead teams too.

I don't know how people can act like the 2001 East and 04-10 West are even remotely similar in terms of quality to even bring up the "he made it to the finals" discussion. It boggles my mind. If you actually look at the games, who the teams faced and why each team won (I don't mean just box scores/PPG) it's incredibly obvious Nash was well ahead of Iverson as a player.

All you had to do to beat Phoenix was not rush shots. The 7 seconds or less offence let you score so they could get back on offence. Any team that could put the ball in the basket inside would beat them. They were a regular season gimmick. It was very easy to solve them in the playoffs. So as great as they were there was always better.

Sent from my SM-N970W using Tapatalk

[G35]

Pre-2005 Nash vs Iverson (which is eight years of Nash's career) it wasn't close the other way. I'm not an AI fan but people are acting like Nash was this perfect PG...he wasn't he had flaws which is why Phoenix traded him after two years and Dallas did not think they could win a title with him.

MDA has just as much to do with Nash ranked where he is as Nash does. Nash has to be in a particular type offense, surrounded by a certain type of talent to get the most of his skillset. Nash went from barely getting any MVP consideration to winning back to back MVP's on his 3rd team in the league. That is rare. People like to romanticize Nash because of how he helped to revolutionize offense in the NBA.

They are very different players and this is a apples to oranges type comparison.....

[Rapcity_11]

Modern analytics has caused people to underrate Iverson and overrate Nash to the point that you'd think we were comparing Kawhi and Jamal Mashburn. That being said, if we're talking an "all-time" sense then this is clearly Nash. I'd only see an argument for AI if we could somehow bottle up '00-03 Iverson and extrapolate that over a decade long career. But obviously he didn't have anywhere near the longevity or sustained peak/prime that Nash did.

Is a 50.1% TS with such high usage even valuable? That's from 00-03.

I mean, sure his specific team's replacement level TS% would likely have been lower. And I get that the strategy of going all defense around AI....But on a league-wide level, would it really be hard to replace that offense? How valuable is monster scoring if it's at such middling efficiency?

Who could have replaced him and produced 30 points a game for wins night after night? Iverson wasn't efficient because there was no one else to distract the D. No scorer in his peer group could have even produced his numbers.

Sent from my SM-N970W using Tapatalk

They could have gotten that offense from a **** of players. It's not like it has to be replaced by a single player. Why would it be hard to find below average efficiency scoring? Why couldn't 2 guys combine to score 30 PPG on 50% TS?

[Doctor MJ]

I have hard time with people being critical of how Nash played offensively, especially when it comes to not shooting enough. Offense was never, never, never the problem with his teams. Their problems were all on the defensive side, and running up against some extremely good teams year after year. Teams far better than Iverson ever faced (outside of the '01 Lakers), and far better than any Iverson lead teams too.

I don't know how people can act like the 2001 East and 04-10 West are even remotely similar in terms of quality to even bring up the "he made it to the finals" discussion. It boggles my mind. If you actually look at the games, who the teams faced and why each team won (I don't mean just box scores/PPG) it's incredibly obvious Nash was well ahead of Iverson as a player.

All you had to do to beat Phoenix was not rush shots. The 7 seconds or less offence let you score so they could get back on offence. Any team that could put the ball in the basket inside would beat them. They were a regular season gimmick. It was very easy to solve them in the playoffs. So as great as they were there was always better.

Sent from my SM-N970W using Tapatalk

Literally the entire NBA now plays with the principles of that Suns team minus the reliance on GOAT level vision and decision making and you still think it was a gimmick because they lost twice to the champion team that actually had a big man who could play defense...and you're not even the most unreasonable person in the thread.

I'm out.

[RCM88x]

I have hard time with people being critical of how Nash played offensively, especially when it comes to not shooting enough. Offense was never, never, never the problem with his teams. Their problems were all on the defensive side, and running up against some extremely good teams year after year. Teams far better than Iverson ever faced (outside of the '01 Lakers), and far better than any Iverson lead teams too.

I don't know how people can act like the 2001 East and 04-10 West are even remotely similar in terms of quality to even bring up the "he made it to the finals" discussion. It boggles my mind. If you actually look at the games, who the teams faced and why each team won (I don't mean just box scores/PPG) it's incredibly obvious Nash was well ahead of Iverson as a player.

All you had to do to beat Phoenix was not rush shots. The 7 seconds or less offence let you score so they could get back on offence. Any team that could put the ball in the basket inside would beat them. They were a regular season gimmick. It was very easy to solve them in the playoffs. So as great as they were there was always better.

Sent from my SM-N970W using Tapatalk

So you're blaming Nash, a 6'3" PG, for his team not being able to defend the paint against interior scoring threats?

That is why Iverson is better? Because Nash's teams couldn't defend big men and Iverson's could?

I don't know what any of what you said has to do with this comparison.

[Rapcity_11]

I think people under rate the luxury provided by being able to count on a single guy on one end of the floor. He wasn’t the most efficient but iverson alone was enough to produce a middle of the road offense. That allowed the team to build a terrific defense by focusing all other playerS on that end. Deke, Lynch, snow, mckie.... all the players around AI are there to build a terrific defense. No way you can build that defense without a guy who can carry the load night in and night out on the other end.

We should acknowledge that iversons efficiency was low in part because of what his role was and went up when he went to Denver and there was less reliance on him. Iverson is horribly underrated by realgm because of a failure to understand the situation and a propensity to believe that advanced metrics tell the whole story.

How valuable is a middle of the road offense when the goal is to win a title?

Hint: not very.

[Hussien Fatal]

This is Iverson with out question. Steve’s lack of volume scoring really hurt his team, I actually feel the same way about John Stockton. These guys could not be relied upon to provide scoring when the team needed it most. 17-18 points isn’t going to cut it as your teams best player. You have to be able to take over a game with your scoring at an elite level if you want to be compared to a player of AI’s caliber.

[Hussien Fatal]

I have hard time with people being critical of how Nash played offensively, especially when it comes to not shooting enough. Offense was never, never, never the problem with his teams. Their problems were all on the defensive side, and running up against some extremely good teams year after year. Teams far better than Iverson ever faced (outside of the '01 Lakers), and far better than any Iverson lead teams too.

I don't know how people can act like the 2001 East and 04-10 West are even remotely similar in terms of quality to even bring up the "he made it to the finals" discussion. It boggles my mind. If you actually look at the games, who the teams faced and why each team won (I don't mean just box scores/PPG) it's incredibly obvious Nash was well ahead of Iverson as a player.

Nash was in no way shape or form ahead of Iverson. 17ppg is not going to cut it as your teams best player. Nash played with Dirk for 7 years and did nothing, his lack of aggression or volume hurt every team he has ever played for. Iverson never played with anybody remotely as good as Dirk or even Marion heck even Amare and he was able to have better success in his prime than Nash. Nash and guys like Stockton are Overrated. They are great passers and very efficient but they really needed to sacrifice that efficiency for volume.

[Rapcity_11]

I have hard time with people being critical of how Nash played offensively, especially when it comes to not shooting enough. Offense was never, never, never the problem with his teams. Their problems were all on the defensive side, and running up against some extremely good teams year after year. Teams far better than Iverson ever faced (outside of the '01 Lakers), and far better than any Iverson lead teams too.

I don't know how people can act like the 2001 East and 04-10 West are even remotely similar in terms of quality to even bring up the "he made it to the finals" discussion. It boggles my mind. If you actually look at the games, who the teams faced and why each team won (I don't mean just box scores/PPG) it's incredibly obvious Nash was well ahead of Iverson as a player.

Nash was in no way shape or form ahead of Iverson. 17ppg is not going to cut it as your teams best player. Nash played with Dirk for 7 years and did nothing, his lack of aggression or volume hurt every team he has ever played for. Iverson never played with anybody remotely as good as Dirk or even Marion heck even Amare and he was able to have better success in his prime than Nash. Nash and guys like Stockton are Overrated. They are great passers and very efficient but they really needed to sacrifice that efficiency for volume.

Except Nash's teams were incredible offensively in the playoffs. And Nash upped his volume in the playoffs, averaging 21 PPG from 05-07. And that number is deflating based on weaker first round opponents.

05 vs Mavs: 30 PPG
05 vs Spurs: 23 PPG
06 vs Mavs: 21 PPG
07 vs Spurs: 21 PPG

What success did Iverson have in his prime? Getting to the Final in 01 isn't even an accomplishment considering how bad the East was. Hell, he was a buzzer beater away from losing to a highly mediocre Raptors team that year.

[G35]

I have hard time with people being critical of how Nash played offensively, especially when it comes to not shooting enough. Offense was never, never, never the problem with his teams. Their problems were all on the defensive side, and running up against some extremely good teams year after year. Teams far better than Iverson ever faced (outside of the '01 Lakers), and far better than any Iverson lead teams too.

I don't know how people can act like the 2001 East and 04-10 West are even remotely similar in terms of quality to even bring up the "he made it to the finals" discussion. It boggles my mind. If you actually look at the games, who the teams faced and why each team won (I don't mean just box scores/PPG) it's incredibly obvious Nash was well ahead of Iverson as a player.

All you had to do to beat Phoenix was not rush shots. The 7 seconds or less offence let you score so they could get back on offence. Any team that could put the ball in the basket inside would beat them. They were a regular season gimmick. It was very easy to solve them in the playoffs. So as great as they were there was always better.

Sent from my SM-N970W using Tapatalk

So you're blaming Nash, a 6'3" PG, for his team not being able to defend the paint against interior scoring threats?

That is why Iverson is better? Because Nash's teams couldn't defend big men and Iverson's could?

I don't know what any of what you said has to do with this comparison.

Every team takes on the mentality of their best player.

Charles Barkley one of my favorite players and his highs were as high as any in the game but he could be lazy, he could slack at inopportune times and that showed up in the first 2 games of the 1993 finals.

Julius Erving another of my all time favorites, best player on the Sixers teams but his one flaw was he was not assertive enough and only took over in desperate times and it was the difference in winning championships. I think if Doc decides to be selfish in that 1980 final game 6 the Sixers win that game and go on to win the title.

Steve Nash is a great guy, great player but the teams take on his personality and combining that with MDA, is a double whammy of disregarding defense in favor of more offense. That 2005 series, the Spurs didn't necessarily stop the Suns, they outscored them...and the Spurs were not that great on offense that year, the Suns just made them look great.

The Spurs had three players that scored over 20PPG in that series, that is inexcusable defense. Tony Parker put up over 20PPG so it wasn't just interior defense. The Suns poo poo'd defense because they thought they could outscore anyone...just like the Houston Rockets and James Harden. I see the same issues. You cannot just turn defense on and off like you can offense.

Why did the late 80's Pistons have such a great defense? Because they followed Isiah, if this was Steve Nash leading those Pistons teams they don't get by Bird and the Celtics, they don't beat Michael Jordan three times in a row in the playoffs, they don't beat Magic and the Lakers in the Finals.

Isiah was the smallest player on the Pistons but he was their leader and good or bad they forged their identity through him. Now I know people don't like intangibles but that can be the difference between winning and losing. Getting to the finals and not getting the finals...winning a ring and not winning a ring.

How does your best player produce in the biggest games. That's it. Show me a 25pts in one quarter in the finals on a sprained ankle. Magic putting up 42/15 with Kareem out of the game. Kobe playing on a sprained ankle and Shaq fouling out.

Everyone has adversity, that is why we play the game. To see who will overcome adversity.

You don't get to "offense" your way to a title......

[Wallace_Wallace]

All you had to do to beat Phoenix was not rush shots. The 7 seconds or less offence let you score so they could get back on offence. Any team that could put the ball in the basket inside would beat them. They were a regular season gimmick. It was very easy to solve them in the playoffs. So as great as they were there was always better.

Sent from my SM-N970W using Tapatalk

So you're blaming Nash, a 6'3" PG, for his team not being able to defend the paint against interior scoring threats?

That is why Iverson is better? Because Nash's teams couldn't defend big men and Iverson's could?

I don't know what any of what you said has to do with this comparison.

Every team takes on the mentality of their best player.

Charles Barkley one of my favorite players and his highs were as high as any in the game but he could be lazy, he could slack at inopportune times and that showed up in the first 2 games of the 1993 finals.

Julius Erving another of my all time favorites, best player on the Sixers teams but his one flaw was he was not assertive enough and only took over in desperate times and it was the difference in winning championships. I think if Doc decides to be selfish in that 1980 final game 6 the Sixers win that game and go on to win the title.

Steve Nash is a great guy, great player but the teams take on his personality and combining that with MDA, is a double whammy of disregarding defense in favor of more offense. That 2005 series, the Spurs didn't necessarily stop the Suns, they outscored them...and the Spurs were not that great on offense that year, the Suns just made them look great.

The Spurs had three players that scored over 20PPG in that series, that is inexcusable defense. Tony Parker put up over 20PPG so it wasn't just interior defense. The Suns poo poo'd defense because they thought they could outscore anyone...just like the Houston Rockets and James Harden. I see the same issues. You cannot just turn defense on and off like you can offense.

Why did the late 80's Pistons have such a great defense? Because they followed Isiah, if this was Steve Nash leading those Pistons teams they don't get by Bird and the Celtics, they don't beat Michael Jordan three times in a row in the playoffs, they don't beat Magic and the Lakers in the Finals.

Isiah was the smallest player on the Pistons but he was their leader and good or bad they forged their identity through him. Now I know people don't like intangibles but that can be the difference between winning and losing. Getting to the finals and not getting the finals...winning a ring and not winning a ring.

How does your best player produce in the biggest games. That's it. Show me a 25pts in one quarter in the finals on a sprained ankle. Magic putting up 42/15 with Kareem out of the game. Kobe playing on a sprained ankle and Shaq fouling out.

Everyone has adversity, that is why we play the game. To see who will overcome adversity.

You don't get to "offense" your way to a title......

I remember Nash's nose being busted in a collison with Parker and every stoppage he had to get the bleeding cleaned out. Still, Nash gave them the business until the bleeding went out of control and he had to be out of the game.

But Iverson still is not better. At leaset none of his teammates forged their personalities, besides Melo (and it was NOT a good thing).

[Ryoga Hibiki]

I think people under rate the luxury provided by being able to count on a single guy on one end of the floor. He wasn’t the most efficient but iverson alone was enough to produce a middle of the road offense. That allowed the team to build a terrific defense by focusing all other playerS on that end. Deke, Lynch, snow, mckie.... all the players around AI are there to build a terrific defense. No way you can build that defense without a guy who can carry the load night in and night out on the other end.

We should acknowledge that iversons efficiency was low in part because of what his role was and went up when he went to Denver and there was less reliance on him. Iverson is horribly underrated by realgm because of a failure to understand the situation and a propensity to believe that advanced metrics tell the whole story.

I think the question is, what's the value of it? What kind of ceiling your team has playing that way?
The second question would then be, how much Iverson could really increase his efficiency and, more important, the team efficiency in a different setup? I'm not seeing so much value in his Denver stint. He was playing my turn/your turn with Melo, totally not off each other, he still was very poor from mid to long range, and the team dramatically improved with Billups while the Pistons totally sank.
I see very little scalability there, and would rather break the team than build it to have him run a one man show with four defenders around him.

[frica]

Better question would be; peak for peak Mark Price or Allen Iverson?

[Ryoga Hibiki]

Pre-2005 Nash vs Iverson (which is eight years of Nash's career) it wasn't close the other way. I'm not an AI fan but people are acting like Nash was this perfect PG...he wasn't he had flaws which is why Phoenix traded him after two years and Dallas did not think they could win a title with him.

MDA has just as much to do with Nash ranked where he is as Nash does. Nash has to be in a particular type offense, surrounded by a certain type of talent to get the most of his skillset. Nash went from barely getting any MVP consideration to winning back to back MVP's on his 3rd team in the league. That is rare. People like to romanticize Nash because of how he helped to revolutionize offense in the NBA.

They are very different players and this is a apples to oranges type comparison.....

Absolutely not, I am easily taking 01-04 Dallas Nash over Iverson.
In Dallas he had issues with his back and general health level, while always playing for the Canadian NT during the summer.
He was already, at the time, the best PG in the league on offence, when healthy.
What happened to Phoenix is that he changed training and eating habits (it was his new GF, think), started taking care of himself during the summer, and that totally changed his energy level and durability.
They were not two different players.

[Ryoga Hibiki]

Honestly.... in a redraft I might not even take AI #3. I think I would take Ray Allen #3 who had superior longevity and was an all star caliber two guard in his prime.

I love AI, but his play was not conductive to winning.

In a redraft not so sure, because in 96 you're drafting a guy with a 3y guaranted and no RFA.
Not really sure I would pick Nash so early.

[prophet_of_rage]

Is a 50.1% TS with such high usage even valuable? That's from 00-03.

I mean, sure his specific team's replacement level TS% would likely have been lower. And I get that the strategy of going all defense around AI....But on a league-wide level, would it really be hard to replace that offense? How valuable is monster scoring if it's at such middling efficiency?

Who could have replaced him and produced 30 points a game for wins night after night? Iverson wasn't efficient because there was no one else to distract the D. No scorer in his peer group could have even produced his numbers.

Sent from my SM-N970W using Tapatalk

They could have gotten that offense from a **** of players. It's not like it has to be replaced by a single player. Why would it be hard to find below average efficiency scoring? Why couldn't 2 guys combine to score 30 PPG on 50% TS?

Because two guys doing that is worse than one. You want two guys combining for 30 or 1 guy getting 30?

Two guys who max out at 15 is not as valuable as 1 who can get you 30. Iverson's role was to put more points on the board than the other guy. The scoreboard doesn't care about efficiency. So on a team like the 6ers that didn't have scoring you needed someone with the energy, mentality and ability to get you 30. On a team with capable scorers you don't.

Sent from my SM-N970W using Tapatalk

[prophet_of_rage]

I have hard time with people being critical of how Nash played offensively, especially when it comes to not shooting enough. Offense was never, never, never the problem with his teams. Their problems were all on the defensive side, and running up against some extremely good teams year after year. Teams far better than Iverson ever faced (outside of the '01 Lakers), and far better than any Iverson lead teams too.

I don't know how people can act like the 2001 East and 04-10 West are even remotely similar in terms of quality to even bring up the "he made it to the finals" discussion. It boggles my mind. If you actually look at the games, who the teams faced and why each team won (I don't mean just box scores/PPG) it's incredibly obvious Nash was well ahead of Iverson as a player.

All you had to do to beat Phoenix was not rush shots. The 7 seconds or less offence let you score so they could get back on offence. Any team that could put the ball in the basket inside would beat them. They were a regular season gimmick. It was very easy to solve them in the playoffs. So as great as they were there was always better.

Sent from my SM-N970W using Tapatalk

Literally the entire NBA now plays with the principles of that Suns team minus the reliance on GOAT level vision and decision making and you still think it was a gimmick because they lost twice to the champion team that actually had a big man who could play defense...and you're not even the most unreasonable person in the thread.

I'm out.

No, I think 7 seconds or less was a gimmick because it put no emphasis on ball movement, rebounding or defence.

Name the teams that play true SSOL? It is a gimmick offence. And it hasn't worked out against better teams in Houston, either.

Yes the high pick and roll with shooters comes from SSOL but nobody else uses all its principles. There's a reason why.



Sent from my SM-N970W using Tapatalk