Realistic Thread, bring data and facts please, who's better: Iverson or Trae Young

[King Ken]

I want to hear your opinions. I've had a debate maybe 3 years ago and lost because the Trae favored Trae Young heavily but now in 2025, Trae regression patterns are following A.I. so the data is becoming more clear. What do you think?

The reason I have created this thread is because my good buddy and mod, AHF thinks Trae is better and its not debatable. He crushed me with the data but I know the eye test, Iverson is superior in my eyes. What do you think?

[eminence]

Not a crazy comp, I've got AI here.

Points in Iversons favor:
-Better longevity (if we're talking career placement)
-Better defender
-Better accolades (MVP, 7x All-NBA 3/3/1, 11x Allstar vs 1x 3rd Team, 4x Allstar)

Points for Trae:
-Probably a better offensive player (most debatable of the points so far imo)
-For a modernity supremacist Trae has the better offensive approach

Similar:
-I think they both led pretty similar team accomplishments, I'm not particularly more impressed by AI getting 1 round further given the competition

Notes:
-Trae really is one of the worst defenders ever, though the APM O/D splits are a bit extreme for my tastes. I've seen some regressions that have him as a fringe GOAT candidate on offense and like a full standard deviation below anyone else on defense. Overall it's balanced out to a good but not great player. I can see there being a team setting where one could really maximize Trae and get impact meaningfully better than anything we've seen to date. So in some sort of hypothetical 'build the best team possible around this player with them as a star' I could see going Trae as well.



Think Darko does a decent job representing these two, Trae was off to a good start and arguably on a better trajectory, but has stumbled a bit the past few seasons and given the edge to AI. Hopefully Trae can bounce back.

[penbeast0]

I would add that Trae is a better playmaker and clearly more efficient which is huge for a lead scorer though it's mainly 2022 that pushes him up. Better season than any Iverson ever had but outside of it, Trae is pretty much league average efficiency as a scorer. Iverson brings more volume but while Trae is around league average outside of 2022, Iverson was consistently well below league average barely reaching it in his most efficient seasons and ending with a TS ADD of below -400.

Other than marketing, I'd go Trae here pretty easily even giving Iverson a defensive edge.

[jdzimme3]

The Iverson hate on the board is such that I typically don't even respond. We are talking about a guy with 7 years of all NBA and MVP votes vs a guy with 1 3rd team and no MVP votes. Iverson critics ignore team situation and league changes entirely in the favor of fg%.

[penbeast0]

Iverson in his day was wildly overrated because of his volume scoring and being a style icon for his generation (which I acknowledged). The tunnel vision is from looking entirely at PPG and ignoring efficiency, tunnel vision, lack of defense, and attitude keeping him from being a creator for others, etc.

I used relative efficiency compared to league average in both my peak and prime comparison and was very careful to do so.

[jdzimme3]

How do you account for his team being built to win based on defense. The defensive investment being enabled by him often being the sole offensive engine? This surely hurts his efficiency but enables so much more. The disruption his speed caused on offense and defense certainly makes up for at least some of the efficiency. Also, Iverson's certainly wasn't pass first but was a very capable passer that people tend to ignore. Guys like Kyle Korber praise him for the confidence he gave them early on his career.

[penbeast0]

(a) The Sixers tried to bring in a second scorer several times with all of them failing (and Iverson not any more efficient). The Sixers finally gave up on this strategy and went with Larry Brown, a HOF defensive minded coach, and a strong defensive team all around Iverson. This got them to the finals out of a very weak Eastern Conference, once.
(b) Iverson is a decent second playmaker who was very good at protecting the ball. His turnover rates are quite low for his usage, it's probably the most impressive thing about his game. But Trae is a better playmaker and one you can use as your primary without having to find an oversized PG to play next to him.
(c) When they dealt off Iverson for low scoring Andre Miller, the team didn't miss a beat winning more games the following year than they had with Iverson in the previous season or the season they traded him. Miller stepped up his scoring, Iggy led the team in points (with less than Chris Webber had scored in Iverson's last full season), and they had 6 players in double figures. When Denver then dealt Iverson for Billups, the team again didn't miss a beat and went further in the playoffs than they ever had with Iverson.

He was an icon. If he'd come out of college and played for a coach who he respected enough to play defense and more team oriented ball like at Georgetown, he had more talent than Young. But Philly let him run wild until finally they brought in Larry Brown and even Brown basically had to plan around him to succeed. Still a great talent but his legend overstates his actual on court impact (other than just counting PPG).

[penbeast0]

I also like Young. I wouldn't deal away all the talent it would need to sign him but if my Wizards could bring him in as a max money free agent, I'd take a chance on him (depending, of course, on whether the team drafts a PG with it's top pick next year).

[jdzimme3]

(a) The Sixers tried to bring in a second scorer several times with all of them failing (and Iverson not any more efficient). The Sixers finally gave up on this strategy and went with Larry Brown, a HOF defensive minded coach, and a strong defensive team all around Iverson. This got them to the finals out of a very weak Eastern Conference, once.
(b) Iverson is a decent second playmaker who was very good at protecting the ball. His turnover rates are quite low for his usage, it's probably the most impressive thing about his game. But Trae is a better playmaker and one you can use as your primary without having to find an oversized PG to play next to him.
(c) When they dealt off Iverson for low scoring Andre Miller, the team didn't miss a beat winning more games the following year than they had with Iverson in the previous season or the season they traded him. Miller stepped up his scoring, Iggy led the team in points (with less than Chris Webber had scored in Iverson's last full season), and they had 6 players in double figures. When Denver then dealt Iverson for Billups, the team again didn't miss a beat and went further in the playoffs than they ever had with Iverson.

He was an icon. If he'd come out of college and played for a coach who he respected enough to play defense and more team oriented ball like at Georgetown, he had more talent than Young. But Philly let him run wild until finally they brought in Larry Brown and even Brown basically had to plan around him to succeed. Still a great talent but his legend overstates his actual on court impact (other than just counting PPG).

Who are these secondary scorers you are referencing? Keith van horn, Webber without knees, early stack who never met expectations? The only really strong scorer he ever played with was melo and Iverson's efficiency immediately improved. Of I am forgetting someone please let me know.

[penbeast0]

(a) The Sixers tried to bring in a second scorer several times with all of them failing (and Iverson not any more efficient). The Sixers finally gave up on this strategy and went with Larry Brown, a HOF defensive minded coach, and a strong defensive team all around Iverson. This got them to the finals out of a very weak Eastern Conference, once.
(b) Iverson is a decent second playmaker who was very good at protecting the ball. His turnover rates are quite low for his usage, it's probably the most impressive thing about his game. But Trae is a better playmaker and one you can use as your primary without having to find an oversized PG to play next to him.
(c) When they dealt off Iverson for low scoring Andre Miller, the team didn't miss a beat winning more games the following year than they had with Iverson in the previous season or the season they traded him. Miller stepped up his scoring, Iggy led the team in points (with less than Chris Webber had scored in Iverson's last full season), and they had 6 players in double figures. When Denver then dealt Iverson for Billups, the team again didn't miss a beat and went further in the playoffs than they ever had with Iverson.

He was an icon. If he'd come out of college and played for a coach who he respected enough to play defense and more team oriented ball like at Georgetown, he had more talent than Young. But Philly let him run wild until finally they brought in Larry Brown and even Brown basically had to plan around him to succeed. Still a great talent but his legend overstates his actual on court impact (other than just counting PPG).

Who are these secondary scorers you are referencing? Keith van horn, Webber without knees, early stack who never met expectations? The only really strong scorer he ever played with was melo and Iverson's efficiency immediately improved. Of I am forgetting someone please let me know.

Glen Robinson is the one you are forgetting off the top of my head. Derrick Coleman back when he was a rookie.

[jdzimme3]

(a) The Sixers tried to bring in a second scorer several times with all of them failing (and Iverson not any more efficient). The Sixers finally gave up on this strategy and went with Larry Brown, a HOF defensive minded coach, and a strong defensive team all around Iverson. This got them to the finals out of a very weak Eastern Conference, once.
(b) Iverson is a decent second playmaker who was very good at protecting the ball. His turnover rates are quite low for his usage, it's probably the most impressive thing about his game. But Trae is a better playmaker and one you can use as your primary without having to find an oversized PG to play next to him.
(c) When they dealt off Iverson for low scoring Andre Miller, the team didn't miss a beat winning more games the following year than they had with Iverson in the previous season or the season they traded him. Miller stepped up his scoring, Iggy led the team in points (with less than Chris Webber had scored in Iverson's last full season), and they had 6 players in double figures. When Denver then dealt Iverson for Billups, the team again didn't miss a beat and went further in the playoffs than they ever had with Iverson.

He was an icon. If he'd come out of college and played for a coach who he respected enough to play defense and more team oriented ball like at Georgetown, he had more talent than Young. But Philly let him run wild until finally they brought in Larry Brown and even Brown basically had to plan around him to succeed. Still a great talent but his legend overstates his actual on court impact (other than just counting PPG).

Who are these secondary scorers you are referencing? Keith van horn, Webber without knees, early stack who never met expectations? The only really strong scorer he ever played with was melo and Iverson's efficiency immediately improved. Of I am forgetting someone please let me know.

Glen Robinson is the one you are forgetting off the top of my head. Derrick Coleman back when he was a rookie.

Glenn Robinson 1 year before retiring.....

[threethehardway]

I think of Iverson as a Pre-Modern Curry.

Let me explain.

Iverson like Curry, was at his best off being deployed as an off-ball midrange drive and kick playmaker, (like Curry being better as an off-ball 3 point threat.)

If Iverson ran into a forward thinking offensive coach, Iverson would've best played with a bigger guard and a forward as the primary ball handler and shooters throughout the roster.

But the early 2000s were the dark ages for offensive basketball.

Iverson didn't get a lot of help, strategy wise and roster wise.

That being said, I rather have Iverson than Trae Young. I think Iverson's versatility as an on-ball and off-ball threat is more valuable than Trae Young's playmaking.

I think Trae's inability to score without the pick and roll and his lack of isolation game to get consistent buckets puts a hamper on him. Also, he isn't a deadeye shooter, so that's a problem too.

Iverson just shot a lot like a lot of iso-era star players, but he could get to wherever he wanted and get any shot he wanted, Trae isn't that.

Neither should be the sole star, better off as a number 2 to a bigger and more efficient number one.