Iverson vs Nash

[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

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.

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.

Sent from my SM-N970W using Tapatalk

[prophet_of_rage]

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.

And yet Iverson got closer than Nash ever did and Nash remains the only MVP never to make the Finals.

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

Sent from my SM-N970W using Tapatalk

[RCM88x]

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.

And yet Iverson got closer than Nash ever did and Nash remains the only MVP never to make the Finals.

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

Sent from my SM-N970W using Tapatalk

Competition, quality of opponents.

BTW, Nash made 3 WCFs with the Suns in a 6 year stretch. Iverson only made it past the 2nd round once in his entire career.

This idea Iverson had more success than Nash is entirely reliant on his one playoff run in 2001. Where he beat the one man shows Vince Carter's Raptors and a 52 win Bucks team. Both of which took 7 games to beat. I honestly don't know how people consider that "more success", especially enough to actually say he's better than Nash when he's clearly not even on the same level.

[Rapcity_11]

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

The more efficient offense has won every game in NBA history....

So yeah, the scoreboard absolutely cares about efficiency.

[Ambrose]

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.

And yet Iverson got closer than Nash ever did and Nash remains the only MVP never to make the Finals.

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

Sent from my SM-N970W using Tapatalk

He didn't have less success and the Suns were awful every time he was out. They won 1/3 of their games without him over a decade. What a talented roster.

[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.....

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.

Never said they were different players, I'm saying that we saw eight years of Nash and he never sniffed MVP consideration. First year under MDA and he wins an MVP...in fact b2b MVP's.

Also in Dallas Nash had a prime Dirk Nowitzki who is far better than anyone that Iverson was playing with...now I will grant that Nash makes far better use of the tools he is given while AI is an undersized hero ball volume shooter who also needs a particular support system.

However, that is what is needed in some situations. Some teams need a volume shooter and some teams need a distributor.

If Nash was the best PG why was Kidd getting more MVP votes...also whatever he did to improve health wise is irrelevant. Maybe if he had gotten healthier sooner he would still be in Dallas. And his diet/training didn't prevent him from still having back problems.

In fact I heard that Phoenix' medical staff was the best in the league and whatever they were during down there was improving all the players not just Nash. So as I said, Nash was the beneficiary of a perfect situation for his skillset. If he stays in Dallas, we likely are not even having this conversation......

[prophet_of_rage]

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

Hint: not very.

And yet Iverson got closer than Nash ever did and Nash remains the only MVP never to make the Finals.

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

Sent from my SM-N970W using Tapatalk

Competition, quality of opponents.

BTW, Nash made 3 WCFs with the Suns in a 6 year stretch. Iverson only made it past the 2nd round once in his entire career.

This idea Iverson had more success than Nash is entirely reliant on his one playoff run in 2001. Where he beat the one man shows Vince Carter's Raptors and a 52 win Bucks team. Both of which took 7 games to beat. I honestly don't know how people consider that "more success", especially enough to actually say he's better than Nash when he's clearly not even on the same level.

Going to the Finals is more success. 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. You're trying to downplay them to weaken Iverson while ignoring he was the only guy to take a game off the Lakers in the playoffs.

Nash never won a Conference Final never sniffed an NBA finals and that was with talent. Phoenix was more talented than San Antonio they just didn't commit to defence at all.

The point remains, for all the Nash over everybody worship, he didn't really get good teams any where. Everybody deciding Iverson says his offence didn't take his team anywhere but he went farther faster than Nash.

Sent from my SM-N970W using Tapatalk

[Ambrose]

"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

[RCM88x]

"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

I feel like someone trying to argue that will not be convince otherwise no matter what.

[therealbig3]

And yet Iverson got closer than Nash ever did and Nash remains the only MVP never to make the Finals.

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

Sent from my SM-N970W using Tapatalk

Competition, quality of opponents.

BTW, Nash made 3 WCFs with the Suns in a 6 year stretch. Iverson only made it past the 2nd round once in his entire career.

This idea Iverson had more success than Nash is entirely reliant on his one playoff run in 2001. Where he beat the one man shows Vince Carter's Raptors and a 52 win Bucks team. Both of which took 7 games to beat. I honestly don't know how people consider that "more success", especially enough to actually say he's better than Nash when he's clearly not even on the same level.

Going to the Finals is more success. 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. You're trying to downplay them to weaken Iverson while ignoring he was the only guy to take a game off the Lakers in the playoffs.

Nash never won a Conference Final never sniffed an NBA finals and that was with talent. Phoenix was more talented than San Antonio they just didn't commit to defence at all.

The point remains, for all the Nash over everybody worship, he didn't really get good teams any where. Everybody deciding Iverson says his offence didn't take his team anywhere but he went farther faster than Nash.

Sent from my SM-N970W using Tapatalk

Disagree that the Suns were more talented. They had more offensive talent, but not as much defensive talent.

It’s not that the Suns didn’t commit. They didn’t have the personnel. You’re not going anywhere as a defense with Amare Stoudemire in the middle. The Suns actually played good defense a couple years after when Kurt Thomas was in the middle, but then he got hurt.

The Nash Suns have to be the most misunderstood team of all time.

[prophet_of_rage]

Competition, quality of opponents.

BTW, Nash made 3 WCFs with the Suns in a 6 year stretch. Iverson only made it past the 2nd round once in his entire career.

This idea Iverson had more success than Nash is entirely reliant on his one playoff run in 2001. Where he beat the one man shows Vince Carter's Raptors and a 52 win Bucks team. Both of which took 7 games to beat. I honestly don't know how people consider that "more success", especially enough to actually say he's better than Nash when he's clearly not even on the same level.

Going to the Finals is more success. 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. You're trying to downplay them to weaken Iverson while ignoring he was the only guy to take a game off the Lakers in the playoffs.

Nash never won a Conference Final never sniffed an NBA finals and that was with talent. Phoenix was more talented than San Antonio they just didn't commit to defence at all.

The point remains, for all the Nash over everybody worship, he didn't really get good teams any where. Everybody deciding Iverson says his offence didn't take his team anywhere but he went farther faster than Nash.

Sent from my SM-N970W using Tapatalk

Disagree that the Suns were more talented. They had more offensive talent, but not as much defensive talent.

It’s not that the Suns didn’t commit. They didn’t have the personnel. You’re not going anywhere as a defense with Amare Stoudemire in the middle. The Suns actually played good defense a couple years after when Kurt Thomas was in the middle, but then he got hurt.

The Nash Suns have to be the most misunderstood team of all time.

The Suns didn't commit to defence. It was part of the system to allow the offence to shoot quickly and get the ball back.

Sent from my SM-N970W using Tapatalk

[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

[HeartBreakKid]

"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

the 2001 raptors were a tough team? did you see that team? outside of vince carter, who is even a threatening player? the team was famous for being a retirement home, not a contender.

It's always interesting seeing people claim how awful the Sixers were even though they were more talented than the Raptors and still needed a close series to beat them. Dikembe Mutumbo is better than Antonio Davis and Mark Jackson combined - even when they were in their primes, much less when they were ancient.

[Ambrose]

"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

[Ryoga Hibiki]

"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

They looked tough only because they were facing a rather weak opponent.
They were not going to win a round in the West for sure

[Statlanta]

Nash is clearly better than Iverson
Nowtizki and Bryant were the template of how scorers could be dominant players.
Iverson was less efficient than even them and played worse defense than Nash.

[Hussien Fatal]

Lol at somebody saying Nash is a better defensive player. Iverson lead the league in steals 3 times and he also received DPOTY votes. Nash has never lead the league in any defensive metric nor has he received any defensive award consideration. Iverson was a better defensive player and this shouldn’t even be part of this discussion because neither player was known for defense.

Nash has played with better teammates and more talent than Iverson by far. The best player to play with Iverson was an out of prime Deke. Nash got to run with a Prime Dirk. Even though Nash clearly played with better players during his time with either the suns or the mavs, he never was able to have as much success as Iverson, who took his team to the finals.

Iverson while clearly less efficient was still a much better scorer than Nash. Iverson’s scoring Prowess was the main reason his team was able to make it to the finals. Nash’s lack of scoring held him and his team back. Considering his all time efficiency he should have been shooting a lot more and the fact that he didn’t hurt his team everywhere he has played. The real great point guards like, magic, isiah and Steph knew when their teams needed them to score and that is why they had the ability to be the best player on a championship level team. Nash could not operate a true contender because he didn’t elevate his scoring Volume when needed. Like I mentioned before John Stockton has the same exact character defect.

Nash is a fine player but Iverson was more impactful and more important to his team because most of his teams relied on his skill set.

[NY 567]

The only players in history that had more value than Nash are guys who are on his level offensively that do more things and/or weren't quite the defensive liability,(Magic, Curry, Dirk)or perimeter guys who weren't quite as good on offense but still in his realm, but also capable of doing more things, like play and defend multiple positions, rebound, etc,(LeBron, Kobe, Bird) or superstar bigs who can both be a top option on offense and anchor your defense.(Shaq, Duncan,Hakeem) Iverson is nowhere near the same caliber of offensive player that Nash is, and he doesn't really bring any positional versatility, nor was he a great defender or rebounder. It's easily Nash. And while this may seem blasphemous to some, even Dallas Nash was probably better too.

[frica]

Lol at somebody saying Nash is a better defensive player. Iverson lead the league in steals 3 times and he also received DPOTY votes. Nash has never lead the league in any defensive metric nor has he received any defensive award consideration. Iverson was a better defensive player and this shouldn’t even be part of this discussion because neither player was known for defense.

Nash has played with better teammates and more talent than Iverson by far. The best player to play with Iverson was an out of prime Deke. Nash got to run with a Prime Dirk. Even though Nash clearly played with better players during his time with either the suns or the mavs, he never was able to have as much success as Iverson, who took his team to the finals.

Iverson while clearly less efficient was still a much better scorer than Nash. Iverson’s scoring Prowess was the main reason his team was able to make it to the finals. Nash’s lack of scoring held him and his team back. Considering his all time efficiency he should have been shooting a lot more and the fact that he didn’t hurt his team everywhere he has played. The real great point guards like, magic, isiah and Steph knew when their teams needed them to score and that is why they had the ability to be the best player on a championship level team. Nash could not operate a true contender because he didn’t elevate his scoring Volume when needed. Like I mentioned before John Stockton has the same exact character defect.

Nash is a fine player but Iverson was more impactful and more important to his team because most of his teams relied on his skill set.

Gambling for steals = defensive powerhouse now.

[GeorgeMarcus]

Lol at somebody saying Nash is a better defensive player. Iverson lead the league in steals 3 times and he also received DPOTY votes. Nash has never lead the league in any defensive metric nor has he received any defensive award consideration. Iverson was a better defensive player and this shouldn’t even be part of this discussion because neither player was known for defense.

Nash has played with better teammates and more talent than Iverson by far. The best player to play with Iverson was an out of prime Deke. Nash got to run with a Prime Dirk. Even though Nash clearly played with better players during his time with either the suns or the mavs, he never was able to have as much success as Iverson, who took his team to the finals.

Iverson while clearly less efficient was still a much better scorer than Nash. Iverson’s scoring Prowess was the main reason his team was able to make it to the finals. Nash’s lack of scoring held him and his team back. Considering his all time efficiency he should have been shooting a lot more and the fact that he didn’t hurt his team everywhere he has played. The real great point guards like, magic, isiah and Steph knew when their teams needed them to score and that is why they had the ability to be the best player on a championship level team. Nash could not operate a true contender because he didn’t elevate his scoring Volume when needed. Like I mentioned before John Stockton has the same exact character defect.

Nash is a fine player but Iverson was more impactful and more important to his team because most of his teams relied on his skill set.

Gambling for steals = defensive powerhouse now.

Playing the passing lanes is a big part of defense for perimeter players. I wouldn't call AI a defensive powerhouse by any means, but he was clearly a better defender than Nash. I agree with HF that shouldn't be up for debate.