RealGM

Who was better?

Very comfortably Allen Iverson, imo.

Allen Iverson by like a lot

I think discourse around Maravich isn’t great it’s either casuals that think he’s like a t50 player ever because ppg + cool stories or Impact metric guys that think he was like a sub all star

He was a pretty a good self creator and a pretty solid playmaker that’s a very good shooter and was capable of moving without the ball. I don’t think he did it enough and he wasn’t great at it but I think he gets imagined as like Luka or harden off the ball because he was heliocentric when I don’t think that’s the case. Despite his load he actually had a decent motor and I don’t think was a terrible defender (at least in Atlanta). I think he’s more of a fringe all nba talent and while I don’t think he has a strong argument to be debatable in an ATD setting I think he’s closer than like a Dantley or maurbary is.

With that being said he’s still no where near AI p4p or all time

That's interesting, because from what I have seen Pete was a horrible defender.

It's Iverson rather clearly, although Pete in his peak seasons wasn't that far off.

70sFan wrote:That's interesting, because from what I have seen Pete was a horrible defender.

It's Iverson rather clearly, although Pete in his peak seasons wasn't that far off.

I'd have to agree. I didn't really have much to add other than Pete is a weak defensive player so I didn't bother to say anything originally.

Regular season only this is Iverson by a good margin, include the play-offs and it's an insulting comparison. I know people despise Iverson for being an inefficient scorer but this is too much.

Dutchball97 wrote:Regular season only this is Iverson by a good margin, include the play-offs and it's an insulting comparison. I know people despise Iverson for being an inefficient scorer but this is too much.

I also have AI clearly ahead, but you know well that without 2001 the bolded part wouldn't be the case. I get that Philly had this one magical run (when they didn't face any elite team), but outside of that Iverson did almost nothing in the playoffs. It's not even 1987-91 Hakeem situation, when he played absurdly well in tight losses. Iverson wasn't a good postseason performer all things concerned. He wasn't bad either, but it's not the case of him upping his game time and time again.

70sFan wrote:

Dutchball97 wrote:Regular season only this is Iverson by a good margin, include the play-offs and it's an insulting comparison. I know people despise Iverson for being an inefficient scorer but this is too much.

I also have AI clearly ahead, but you know well that without 2001 the bolded part wouldn't be the case. I get that Philly had this one magical run (when they didn't face any elite team), but outside of that Iverson did almost nothing in the playoffs. It's not even 1987-91 Hakeem situation, when he played absurdly well in tight losses. Iverson wasn't a good postseason performer all things concerned. He wasn't bad either, but it's not the case of him upping his game time and time again.

No clue how you could rate 2001 but completley disregard his performances in 99, 02, 03 and 05. His boxscore numbers are nearly identical all those years in the post-season but 01 is the year where there is arguably a drop off, while those other years had weaker regular seasons. Hard disagree on your evaluation of AI but it's whatever.

In any case my claim has nothing to do with AI being an exceptional play-off performer. It's because Maravich has a grand total of 1 play-off series that was decent (72 vs Celtics).

I see what Dutch is arguing. Iverson I think is pretty much what he is going from RS to PS. He does drop off as expected as most players with bad RS efficiency. Iverson is still a productive player. Pete is pretty much irrelevant as a post season player though.

I think for the most part the post season shows how good players really bar tiny sample sizes. The gap between Iverson and Pistol is quite large.

Dutchball97 wrote:

70sFan wrote:

Dutchball97 wrote:Regular season only this is Iverson by a good margin, include the play-offs and it's an insulting comparison. I know people despise Iverson for being an inefficient scorer but this is too much.

I also have AI clearly ahead, but you know well that without 2001 the bolded part wouldn't be the case. I get that Philly had this one magical run (when they didn't face any elite team), but outside of that Iverson did almost nothing in the playoffs. It's not even 1987-91 Hakeem situation, when he played absurdly well in tight losses. Iverson wasn't a good postseason performer all things concerned. He wasn't bad either, but it's not the case of him upping his game time and time again.

No clue how you could rate 2001 but completley disregard his performances in 99, 02, 03 and 05. His boxscore numbers are nearly identical all those years in the post-season but 01 is the year where there is arguably a drop off, while those other years had weaker regular seasons. Hard disagree on your evaluation of AI but it's whatever.

In any case my claim has nothing to do with AI being an exceptional play-off performer. It's because Maravich has a grand total of 1 play-off series that was decent (72 vs Celtics).

Yeah, we have far smaller sample for Pete because he almost never played in the playoffs. I don't think his 1973 performance vs Celtics would look out of place in 1999-05 Iverson runs. It was a series typical for both players - high scoring numbers on low efficiency. Don't forget that 1973 Celtics were historically good before the injuries, Iverson never faced a team like that outside of 2001 finals.

I think I agree that Iverson was more proven in the playoffs, by the sheer fact that he played a lot of playoff games. Does it make him a better postseason player? Hard to say, but I think we can estimate quite comfortably that it's true in this case. Does it mean that this comparison is "insulting"? Here I disagree, Pete played on an expansion team that was absolutely horrible. Despite the narrative, Iverson had quite a solid playoff team in Philly. They usually didn't collapse when Iverson missed games.

HeartBreakKid wrote:I see what Dutch is arguing. Iverson I think is pretty much what he is going from RS to PS. He does drop off as expected as most players with bad RS efficiency. Iverson is still a productive player. Pete is pretty much irrelevant as a post season player though.

I think for the most part the post season shows how good players really bar tiny sample sizes. The gap between Iverson and Pistol is quite large.

Pete played on worse teams, so he basically didn't play in the playoffs and when he did, he faced 1970s Celtics. I don't think Iverson would fare much better than him in his place, even though he's a better player than Maravich.

I don't think people realize that these 1999-05 Philly teams did reasonably well without Iverson.

70sFan wrote:

HeartBreakKid wrote:I see what Dutch is arguing. Iverson I think is pretty much what he is going from RS to PS. He does drop off as expected as most players with bad RS efficiency. Iverson is still a productive player. Pete is pretty much irrelevant as a post season player though.

I think for the most part the post season shows how good players really bar tiny sample sizes. The gap between Iverson and Pistol is quite large.

Pete played on worse teams, so he basically didn't play in the playoffs and when he did, he faced 1970s Celtics. I don't think Iverson would fare much better than him in his place, even though he's a better player than Maravich.

I don't think people realize that these 1999-05 Philly teams did reasonably well without Iverson.

That's true, but not much proof in his favor either way.

70sFan wrote:

HeartBreakKid wrote:I see what Dutch is arguing. Iverson I think is pretty much what he is going from RS to PS. He does drop off as expected as most players with bad RS efficiency. Iverson is still a productive player. Pete is pretty much irrelevant as a post season player though.

I think for the most part the post season shows how good players really bar tiny sample sizes. The gap between Iverson and Pistol is quite large.

Pete played on worse teams, so he basically didn't play in the playoffs and when he did, he faced 1970s Celtics. I don't think Iverson would fare much better than him in his place, even though he's a better player than Maravich.

I don't think people realize that these 1999-05 Philly teams did reasonably well without Iverson.

Most people here do realize Iverson wasn't carrying a bunch of scrubs. Not even uncommon to see Mutombo get more credit for the 01 run. Still doesn't change the fact Iverson was a decent post-season performer, while Maravich had negative impact 3 times out of 4 post-season appearances.

Dutchball97 wrote:

70sFan wrote:

HeartBreakKid wrote:I see what Dutch is arguing. Iverson I think is pretty much what he is going from RS to PS. He does drop off as expected as most players with bad RS efficiency. Iverson is still a productive player. Pete is pretty much irrelevant as a post season player though.

I think for the most part the post season shows how good players really bar tiny sample sizes. The gap between Iverson and Pistol is quite large.

Pete played on worse teams, so he basically didn't play in the playoffs and when he did, he faced 1970s Celtics. I don't think Iverson would fare much better than him in his place, even though he's a better player than Maravich.

I don't think people realize that these 1999-05 Philly teams did reasonably well without Iverson.

Most people here do realize Iverson wasn't carrying a bunch of scrubs. Not even uncommon to see Mutombo get more credit for the 01 run. Still doesn't change the fact Iverson was a decent post-season performer, while Maravich had negative impact 3 times out of 4 post-season appearances.

I don't really know if Pete was negative in 1973 series, assuming you view 2000 Iverson as positive. They have basically the same scoring numbers and I don't know what else we can conclude without more footage.

I don't want to spend too much time on that though, because we basically agree in everything else.

70sFan wrote:

Dutchball97 wrote:

70sFan wrote:Pete played on worse teams, so he basically didn't play in the playoffs and when he did, he faced 1970s Celtics. I don't think Iverson would fare much better than him in his place, even though he's a better player than Maravich.

I don't think people realize that these 1999-05 Philly teams did reasonably well without Iverson.

Most people here do realize Iverson wasn't carrying a bunch of scrubs. Not even uncommon to see Mutombo get more credit for the 01 run. Still doesn't change the fact Iverson was a decent post-season performer, while Maravich had negative impact 3 times out of 4 post-season appearances.

I don't really know if Pete was negative in 1973 series, assuming you view 2000 Iverson as positive. They have basically the same scoring numbers and I don't know what else we can conclude without more footage.

I don't want to spend too much time on that though, because we basically agree in everything else.

Fair, he doesn't look like a complete turd in 73. It's just that a star player having below .100 WS/48 doesn't inspire one bit of confidence in me.

ceoofkobefans wrote:Allen Iverson by like a lot

I think discourse around Maravich isn’t great it’s either casuals that think he’s like a t50 player ever because ppg + cool stories or Impact metric guys that think he was like a sub all star

He was a pretty a good self creator and a pretty solid playmaker that’s a very good shooter and was capable of moving without the ball. I don’t think he did it enough and he wasn’t great at it but I think he gets imagined as like Luka or harden off the ball because he was heliocentric when I don’t think that’s the case. Despite his load he actually had a decent motor and I don’t think was a terrible defender (at least in Atlanta). I think he’s more of a fringe all nba talent and while I don’t think he has a strong argument to be debatable in an ATD setting I think he’s closer than like a Dantley or maurbary is.

With that being said he’s still no where near AI p4p or all time

Quite the hot take in a few ways.

1st, while Maravich could create shots for himself and could move without the ball, he was one of the more turnover prone guards I've watched. We don't have the numbers from his prime but from eye test, he was awful. Iverson was decent in that regard.

2nd, he was indeed a terrible defender in that he didn't work on that end; Iverson's size made him a poor defender but at least he was super quick and while he gambled too much, sometimes it paid off in turnover points.

3rd, while he had deep shooting range, those were bad shots in his era and his shot selection was pretty poor, at least in his days with Atlanta and New Orleans. He was consistently below league average efficiency which is not what you want to see in a player whose main skill is scoring in volume. Then you compare him favorably to Adrian Dantley, putting Pete in the fringe All-NBA range and saying that Dantley never came close to that when Dantley scored more at ATG efficiency levels, and even post-prime was far more relevant to Detroit's playoff runs than Maravich was to Boston. I don't think you are even close on this one. I'd have loved to see Dantley in Iverson's situation in Philadelphia with 4 strong defenders around him using him as primary scorer with the others looking for passouts from doubles (McKie would start instead of one of Lynch or Hill). Maravich would continue to be the flashy negative that he was throughout most of his prime.

There's no real comparison between the two, Iverson was comfortably better than Maravich.

Maravich was essentially a high usage version of Sacramento Kings Jason Williams or functionally close to early 2000s Detroit Jerry Stackhouse.

Most wouldn't compare Jerry Stackhouse to Allen Iverson, so why compare Pete Maravich to Allen Iverson.

70sFan wrote:

HeartBreakKid wrote:I see what Dutch is arguing. Iverson I think is pretty much what he is going from RS to PS. He does drop off as expected as most players with bad RS efficiency. Iverson is still a productive player. Pete is pretty much irrelevant as a post season player though.

I think for the most part the post season shows how good players really bar tiny sample sizes. The gap between Iverson and Pistol is quite large.

Pete played on worse teams, so he basically didn't play in the playoffs and when he did, he faced 1970s Celtics. I don't think Iverson would fare much better than him in his place, even though he's a better player than Maravich.

I don't think people realize that these 1999-05 Philly teams did reasonably well without Iverson.

Primes (stats include playoffs):

76ers record without Iverson, 99'-05': 36-53 (.404)
76ers record with Iverson: 293-223 (.568)

Hawks/Jazz record without Maravich, 73'-78': 26-47 (.353)
Hawks/Jazz record with Maravich: 192-233 (.452)

Makes me wonder.....has any NBA Superstar ever been on worse teams in their prime than Maravich?

HeartBreakKid wrote:That's true, but not much proof in his favor either way.

Is Maravich the most overrated superstar of the 1970's?

Has anyone played on worse teams (over the course of their entire prime) than Pistol Pete?

ty 4191 wrote:

70sFan wrote:

HeartBreakKid wrote:I see what Dutch is arguing. Iverson I think is pretty much what he is going from RS to PS. He does drop off as expected as most players with bad RS efficiency. Iverson is still a productive player. Pete is pretty much irrelevant as a post season player though.

I think for the most part the post season shows how good players really bar tiny sample sizes. The gap between Iverson and Pistol is quite large.

Pete played on worse teams, so he basically didn't play in the playoffs and when he did, he faced 1970s Celtics. I don't think Iverson would fare much better than him in his place, even though he's a better player than Maravich.

I don't think people realize that these 1999-05 Philly teams did reasonably well without Iverson.

Primes (stats include playoffs):

76ers record without Iverson, 99'-05': 36-53 (.404)
76ers record with Iverson: 293-223 (.568)

Hawks/Jazz record without Maravich, 73'-78': 26-47 (.353)
Hawks/Jazz record with Maravich: 192-233 (.452)

Makes me wonder.....has any NBA Superstar ever been on worse teams in their prime than Maravich?

Thanks for the numbers.