RealGM

Knowing the two players' pros and cons. Play in today's league.

IN today's league you pretty much have to take Trae.

Leaving aside who's the better player (which IMO is Trae by a landslide the way the game is played today), you also have to go with the guy who isn't going out every other night and missing practices.

Iverson doesn't win a lot of comps on this board though he did dominate Pete Maravich here. The combination of super high volume scoring with poor leadership, poor defense, and poor shooting skills isn't as popular here as it is elsewhere.

Peak Nate Archibald or peak Trae Young would be more interesting and a lot closer (Tiny is the higher volume scorer, better slasher, and better playmaker, Trae the better outside shooter and succeeding in a tougher league, neither play much defense)

I do think AI would be a lot better if he played today. The open court game is a lot better for him than the past. And when you're doing cross comparisons you need to think about what players would look like today. AI could never shoot like Trae but we've learned 3 point shooting is teachable. AI was an 80% ft shooter. I think if he was born in 95 his jumper would look a lot better. He peaked at the worst time possible for his skill-set.

And Trae his worse than people think because of his historically bad defense. He's as bad defensively as Nash's critics think he is.

But this is Trae.

penbeast0 wrote:Iverson doesn't win a lot of comps on this board though he did dominate Pete Maravich here. The combination of super high volume scoring with poor leadership, poor defense, and poor shooting skills isn't as popular here as it is elsewhere.

Peak Nate Archibald or peak Trae Young would be more interesting and a lot closer (Tiny is the higher volume scorer, better slasher, and better playmaker, Trae the better outside shooter and succeeding in a tougher league, neither play much defense)

Do you think AI's scoring will be more valuable with larger spacing today and will get more deserving foul calls? Between Trae and AI, who do you think is a better defender?

Last year or the year before, maybe more foul calls. This year, probably not. Better defender, both bad, Trae more consistent, Iverson more of a gambler which could be good or bad. With a shotblocker behind him like Mutombo or Ratliff, I'd go with Iverson's defense. If not, it's a wash.
Overall, it's like their rebounding, not enough of a difference maker with these two to worry about.

Whether Iverson could be a 3 point shooter and whether if he shot more 3's he would have less assists and free throws, I would say yes to both. Whether he would choose to maximize his game to make himself more valuable to his teams? That's a much bigger question as Iverson showed little or no inclination to maximize his team performance at the cost of his own statistics. Even when he was playing, analysts said that being more of a playmaker and less of a scorer would make his teams better but he wouldn't change his game. Then late career, he refused to take a 6th man role. He was a great physical talent; he was also the epitome of players with a sense of entitlement.

If the team is going to be bad then Iverson is more fun to watch but Iverson is lower efficiency.