Allen Iverson vs Manu Ginobili

Witzig-Okashi · Post #21 » by **Witzig-Okashi** » Sat Mar 22, 2014 7:16 pm

g105rick wrote:AI and its NOT even close. manu is overrrated. No one cares about euro leagues and he plays along side tim and tony. manu is just a flopper.

Spoken like a person wearing rose-colored glasses, or a person who didn't watch Iverson play. He was as good of a flopper as Manu.

Here's a few examples:
Around the 4:56-5:20 mark
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ivaXuq6wAqI[/youtube]

Here's some from his career as a Nugget (the title is appalling, though):
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FeZ3ck2Bd0I[/youtube]

Witzig-Okashi · Post #22 » by **Witzig-Okashi** » Sat Mar 22, 2014 7:25 pm

Well, as for who I would select for a career, it would be Ginobili, but it's close in terms of accolades. I don't quite think Iverson's was stellar enough to topple Ginobili. If AI was more akin to Malone or Barkley for a player who won a title, it would be Iverson, no question.

As for picking a team, it has to be Ginobili. Ginobili is far easier to build with, with Iverson you have to build around . Manu is more portable, and that has to account for something.
Like what Penbeast had said, Iverson needed someone to pull the reins on his bad basketball tendencies like JT did at Georgetown, and he didn't have that in the league. He was a two time DPOY for the Big East back in G'Town, that seemed to disappear when he was in the league (unless all he could do in college was gamble for steals, I haven't seen as many games of him as a Hoya as I'd like).

The myth that Iverson carried the Sixers on his back to the Finals in '01 still persists, and the defensive mind of the Sixers are what carried that team, just as much as Iverson's scoring did (which was quite inconsistent at times during the EC run to the finals in '01).

And for a potential counter, yes, Iverson's FG% did go up after the rule changes and being in Denver, but that isn't the problem, so much as his score first mentality/playing style in general isn't conducive to winning (at least being the lead man). Iverson would have been great off the bench, but his pride got in the way. For shame, really....

Ryoga Hibiki · Post #23 » by **Ryoga Hibiki** » Sat Mar 22, 2014 8:31 pm

I don't think Manu would excel playing Iverson's role. Iverson didn't either, though

Sent with my Nokia 3210 using Tapatalk

GSP · Post #24 » by **GSP** » Sat Mar 22, 2014 8:42 pm

Is there anything Iverson does better besides gambling for steals? He scores more points but his efficiency was horrible. If Manu had his own team in the Nba in his prime he could easily avg James Harden lvl scoring numbers and efficiency IMO

Post #25 » by **penbeast0** » Sat Mar 22, 2014 8:48 pm

blazinskillz wrote:Spurs fan . I pick Iverson. I dont think Manu could out produce what Allen gave the Sixers in his prime. Manu wouldn't be reliable to play 40 mins and anchor a offense. For one his style of play, wouldn't sustain it. And for seconds, if some how he did, he'd average maybe 5 to. Ginobili creates great separation on his step backs and Manu has always had a great first step, but outside of his fakes, his offensive can become predictable. His jumpshot doesn't have much lift, and his form doesn't create a lot of arc, so over the course of the game, playing 40mins, he will get fatigue and the result will end in more flat shots. For all of Manu greats , he sure has made his share of bone head plays. His earlier years were hell of enjoyable to enjoy but I recall Pop janking him and shaking his head for the silly plays. Part of the reason Ginobili played limited minutes was due to this.
Iverson on the other hand, had the stamina to play the whole game and score. Iverson talent around him, from a offensive standpoint wasn't the greatest. Eric " let me dribble the ball, Allen , sometimes to make me look like I'm doing something" Snow, Derrick "get paid " Coleman, Arron " never shave" Mckie, Deke, Matt G. I could see Ginobili averaging something like 23, 5, 5 on 41% 35% 81% with like 2.5,stl and 4.6 to in 34.5mins, which isn't really bad but I don't think he'd play more than 55 games a season and his defense would suffer.

Sent from my HTCONE using RealGM Forums mobile app

You forgot Tyrone Hill and George Lynch . . . to complete the outstanding defensive, low scoring cast around Iverson in 01 . . . to say nothing of an extremely deep bench that got rarely got used (Toni Kukoc, Jumaine Jones, Kevin Ollie, Todd McCulloch, Rodney Buford, Matt Gieger, Vern Maxwell, Nazr Mohammed, Raja Bell . . . that's a lot of guys with at least marginal NBA careers beyond the big 6).

Iverson has stamina on Ginobili; Ginobili has efficiency, defense, team play, and good practice habits on Iverson. I'd rather trust Manu and give a few more minutes to Raja Bell, Jumaine Jones, and Tony Kukoc personally.

HornetJail · Post #26 » by **HornetJail** » Sat Mar 22, 2014 10:49 pm

Iverson by several miles.

Manu was more of an elite role player the same way Marion was to Phoenix. Wouldn't get anywhere as a #1 option, but as option #2 or #3 was terrific.

Iverson, on the other hand, was able to will an otherwise horrible team to the finals.

They are definitely on different sides of my Top 50 list.

Post #27 » by **rrravenred** » Sat Mar 22, 2014 11:46 pm

The '01 Nuggets were NOT otherwise horrible. This is a myth that needs to die the death. Basketball has two sides: scoring points and stopping your opposition from scoring points. The Sixers were good at the latter and slightly above average at the former, playing in a genuinely horrid conference.

"... to the finals" is also something that can't be taken on face value.

</grump>

Basketballefan · Post #28 » by **Basketballefan** » Sun Mar 23, 2014 3:44 am

rrravenred wrote:The '01 Nuggets were NOT otherwise horrible. This is a myth that needs to die the death. Basketball has two sides: scoring points and stopping your opposition from scoring points. The Sixers were good at the latter and slightly above average at the former, playing in a genuinely horrid conference.

"... to the finals" is also something that can't be taken on face value.

</grump>

Let me guess, you're another one who thinks Manu was better? I mean the guy who made 2 all star games and never averaged 20?

Post #29 » by **rrravenred** » Sun Mar 23, 2014 4:41 am

My opinion is in my earlier post in this thread. Read it. Criticise THAT if you want.

Sent from my LG-P705 using RealGM Forums mobile app

HornetJail · Post #30 » by **HornetJail** » Sun Mar 23, 2014 4:56 am

rrravenred wrote:The '01 Nuggets were NOT otherwise horrible. This is a myth that needs to die the death. Basketball has two sides: scoring points and stopping your opposition from scoring points. The Sixers were good at the latter and slightly above average at the former, playing in a genuinely horrid conference.

"... to the finals" is also something that can't be taken on face value.

</grump>

Would that team even reach the playoffs without Iverson? That's what I meant.

Post #31 » by **rrravenred** » Sun Mar 23, 2014 5:25 am

Would they have got there without Mutombo? I take your point that their offense was structured around AI's ball handling, but that's not the be-all end all of why that Sixer team was at the lower end of the top ten teams of that particular season...

Sent from my LG-P705 using RealGM Forums mobile app

ardee · Post #32 » by **ardee** » Sun Mar 23, 2014 5:37 am

It's hard for me to pick against Iverson here. I'm one of his biggest critics but Manu was just not durable enough. I think Manu in stretches has played more effective basketball than AI ever did but the total career package has to be Iverson.

Sent from my GT-I9300 using RealGM Forums mobile app

nikomCH · Post #33 » by **nikomCH** » Sun Mar 23, 2014 6:05 am

Manu was the better player at his peak, but limited minutes and durability issues hurt him in the comparison. Even with that I would still take Manu on my team.

CaliBullsFan · Post #34 » by **CaliBullsFan** » Sun Mar 23, 2014 12:19 pm

nate33 wrote:Scoring a lot of points with bad efficiency doesn't impress me. Lot's of pretty good NBA players could score tons of points at low efficiency if they wanted to. What Iverson did wasn't really any better than what guys like Jamaal Mashburn, Ron Harper, Darrell Griffith, World B. Free and Mike Mitchell did. He just played 40-42 minutes rather than 33-35 so his raw totals crept up to 28 points per game

This is just silly You replace Iverson on the 76ers with any of those players except maybe WBF and they don't win more than 30 games in ANY SEASON. Iverson carried a bigger offensive load through out his prime than any player in NBA history.

CaliBullsFan · Post #35 » by **CaliBullsFan** » Sun Mar 23, 2014 3:22 pm

rrravenred wrote:Would they have got there without Mutombo? I take your point that their offense was structured around AI's ball handling, but that's not the be-all end all of why that Sixer team was at the lower end of the top ten teams of that particular season...

Yes it is the be all end all when your 2nd and 3rd options on offense are Aaron Mckie and Eric Snow.

Basketballefan · Post #36 » by **Basketballefan** » Sun Mar 23, 2014 6:40 pm

Comparing manu to iverson, i guess we should compare parker to nash stockton or thomas next.

Post #37 » by **rrravenred** » Mon Mar 24, 2014 2:04 am

CaliBullsFan wrote:
rrravenred wrote:Would they have got there without Mutombo? I take your point that their offense was structured around AI's ball handling, but that's not the be-all end all of why that Sixer team was at the lower end of the top ten teams of that particular season...

Yes it is the be all end all when your 2nd and 3rd options on offense are Aaron Mckie and Eric Snow.

I fundamentally disagree with the way you analyse basketball, based on that statement. Don't know there's much I can add to that.

The Infamous1 · Post #38 » by **The Infamous1** » Mon Mar 24, 2014 2:14 am

It's hard to compare a complimentary guy(although one of the best ever)to a franchise player (even one as flawed as iverson)

magicmerl · Post #39 » by **magicmerl** » Mon Mar 24, 2014 2:24 am

Is projecting the James Harden = Manu Ginobli comparison fair?

If it was Harden vs AI, who would you take?

Okada · Post #40 » by **Okada** » Mon Mar 24, 2014 3:25 am

I literally see no viable argument for this. At all. It's Iverson by 10,000 miles. You can make the (silly) case for Ginobili based on his accolades and production as a lesser player on championship teams. Great. Iverson was still an MVP, icon, and an all-time scorer who carried a team for years. You'd have to be crazy to say Ginobili is better in a vacuum.

I think AI is one of the 40 greatest players at the least. Based on these posts, somehow a modern MVP isn't even close to that? I know it's easy to pick him apart with advanced statistics but I've made my feelings on that heard before.

Better career? Who would you in your team?