RealGM

Rationale for this question: I find pairings like this interesting to examine because I think it's more realistic to have superstar + questionable star than something like "Jokic/Curry" or "LeBron/CP3" etc. Which of these duos do you think would work out the best, and why?

kg-iverson should be pretty good, no?

Iverson is generally overrated by the mainstream but he was still a legit All-NBA player. Even while not being as high on KG as most others here, the difference between Iverson and the other "less ideal" second stars is pretty big. They also seem like the best fit on top of that.

Walker, Maravich, Sprewell are definitely questionable stars. Iverson on-court is not a questionable star, he is an ATG Shot Creator w/great motor.

In terms of peak, I'd probably take Shaq/Spreewell. At his best, Sprewell was a good defensive player, decent offensive player, high energy workhorse.

Career average value, I would agree that Garnett/Iverson sustained their excellence the longest.

Jordan/Antoine would be the most fun to watch. An implosion waiting to happen.

Maravich, unfortunately, is the player least likely to produce winning or excellence on the basketball court as a second star even though Duncan is a great fit. Poor shot selection, high turnover rate, terrible defense, unwilling to pass off scoring primacy to Lou Hudson in Atlanta (though he did accept a role player role in Boston late career).

For the Iverson fans, would you take him over other, stronger, but still flawed stars such as Kidd, Amare, Beal, or Draymond to start a franchise?

Maravich's flashiness with Duncan's smarts sounds pretty lethal.

penbeast0 wrote:For the Iverson fans, would you take him over other, stronger, but still flawed stars such as Kidd, Amare, Beal, or Draymond to start a franchise?

Beal never showed anything substantial in the play-offs and didn't even peak higher in the regular season so I don't really get what case he'd have.

Amar'e and Draymond have good arguments for having stronger or at least comparable peaks to Iverson but neither has proven to be able to carry a team. This isn't just about scoring for Draymond either as the Warriors just crumbled with him as the main guy and we all know how reliant Amar'e was on Nash.

Peak for peak Kidd vs Iverson is arguable imo but Kidd led his team to more consistent success so he's the only one of the 4 you mentioned I'd take over Iverson to start a team.

Dutchball97 wrote:Amar'e and Draymond have good arguments for having stronger or at least comparable peaks to Iverson but neither has proven to be able to carry a team. This isn't just about scoring for Draymond either as the Warriors just crumbled with him as the main guy and we all know how reliant Amar'e was on Nash.

Draymond "carried" his team to playoff victories without Steph and Steph missed a lot of RS games throughout his prime, yet the Warriors usually didn't collapse.

I still don't understand how people can use 2020 as the evidence of Green being unable to carry his team...

Dutchball97 wrote:

penbeast0 wrote:For the Iverson fans, would you take him over other, stronger, but still flawed stars such as Kidd, Amare, Beal, or Draymond to start a franchise?

Beal never showed anything substantial in the play-offs and didn't even peak higher in the regular season so I don't really get what case he'd have.

Amar'e and Draymond have good arguments for having stronger or at least comparable peaks to Iverson but neither has proven to be able to carry a team. This isn't just about scoring for Draymond either as the Warriors just crumbled with him as the main guy and we all know how reliant Amar'e was on Nash.

Peak for peak Kidd vs Iverson is arguable imo but Kidd led his team to more consistent success so he's the only one of the 4 you mentioned I'd take over Iverson to start a team.

The case for Beal over Iverson is greater efficiency while still hitting 30/game and providing significantly greater spacing plus the whole practice thing. The case for Iverson is less turnover prone, greater prime length, more media attention, and gravity (though I don't see a lot of evidence of his teammates having career shooting numbers like you see with a guy like Shaq or Curry). I would say Beal is significantly less important to the NBA but on the court in his prime, there's a case for the Iverson doubters.

penbeast0 wrote:For the Iverson fans, would you take him over other, stronger, but still flawed stars such as Kidd, Amare, Beal, or Draymond to start a franchise?

For the original question, Duncan/Maravich for me. I'd just put a heap of weight on Duncan's ability to 'make it work'. Iverson, the Chris Webber experiment (albeit not prime Webber) confirmed to me that AI really couldn't adapt to balancing out his play for the benefit of a broader offensive system, and there are some similarities in KG's offensive repertoire there.

On your question, I would take Kidd no questions asked, Beal absolutely not that would be solely an efficiency based argument which would underplay AI severely. Amare would be heavily contextually dependent. Draymond would take with the view that you surround him with a 1A, I don't prescribe to the idea that Draymond could carry a team.

His career record without Steph is 44-70, adjust that slightly for the season GSW tanked, and then consider the 12 playoff games without Steph which I don't think tells us much considering the competition how well rounded the Warriors were as a whole and context of Durant being on the team for nearly half of those. I do think the pendulum has swung from being largely underappreciated, to us being able to imperfectly quantify some of his impact through advanced metrics, to now being put in some conversations that he probably shouldn't be in looking through the threads on this board.

Garnett + Iverson would have been fully sick

It’s definitely either KG/Iverson or Duncan/Maravich. The thing that’s interesting with Maravich is you have to wonder how much better his efficiency would be with a 3-point line. His very last season in the league he had it and made 12/21. Of course, having KG to play pick and pop with could make Iverson more efficient too. IDK, Iverson/KG is definitely the “safe” play and definitely has a higher median result, but the Maravich/Duncan pairing’s so funky and fun I want to take it anyway.

penbeast0 wrote: At his best, Sprewell was a good defensive player, decent offensive player, high energy workhorse.

Apart from the "decent offensive player" part, 97 notwithstanding, I'm with this. I thought long and hard about the Shaq/Sprewell pair before selecting KG/Iverson.

Iverson, if he could find a way not to chuck mercilessly alongside KG, could be something, especially in the contemporary rules set. he was a 56.7% TS player as late as 2008, when he was 32, alongside Melo. In general, he was reasonably efficient when he brought his volume down, and he didn't really play with consequential offensive players until he left the Sixers. So if he didn't have to shoulder the ENTIRE offense, in today's game? He'd probably be pretty decent. Not a great shooter, but not a bad one. His speed would go far, and of course KG's passing would help a lot. And they'd have some margin for error with Garnett captaining their defense and rebounding. It would be a pretty good mix, though Garnett wasn't a stunner on the offensive glass. Bit of spacing from the roleplayers, though, and smashing AI through some matchup hunting screens and what-not, and he'd be laughing.

That'd be a pretty decent pairing.

I think I'm just going to take Tim Duncan. I'd be tempted to take Shaq. But I think I'd take the safer sure thing and take Timmy. And do a whole bunch of winning.

Iverson is light years ahead of those other perimeter players.