Best 1 Year Peak: Sidney, Clyde, Reggie, George, Joe, Ray, Manu, VC, A.I

[Owly]

Sorry this is going so seem/be nit-picky

I think we shouldn't take away anything from Iverson's game 1 performance. He was incredible in that night and deserves full credit for that win (though, we should remember that Mutombo played remarkably well himself).

Hmm this phrasing on the bolded is somewhat alarming.

It could just be clunky phrasing but "full credit" used in (direct) concert with "for that win" ... is an alarmingly inaccurate turn of phrase and would be for any major league pro game in history. I can't read that particular phrasing as anything other than "No other player's performance mattered, as he gets all the credit for that game's outcome in his team's favor," though the next clause (and the poster) make that seem incongruous/unlikely.

I'm inclined to assume something else was meant, perhaps along the lines of

Iverson fully deserved the many plaudits and widespread accolades for this game and was a very significant figure in driving Philadelphia to victory.

(That could be stronger or weaker in places - Not sure if I'd agree because 1) haven't watched it lately, 2) Not that into, able at rating individual games, 3) some really make a huge deal of that game; but it's not glaringly hyperbolic and inaccurate).

But I wouldn't want to put words in your mouth.

Tying the fullness of credit and it being credit for the win though ... you get why that feels icky (and wrong) compared to, for instance:
- he fully deserved all the accolades
- full credit (to the man/to Iverson) [in a generic use]
- ... contribution to the win


Oh and fwiw and otoh, to main topic I'd find it hard to look past Manu though given the minutes gap that would be contingent on having at least a passable backup 2/third guard. But I should look closer before coming to any real conclusions.

[Stalwart]

Sorry this is going so seem/be nit-picky

I think we shouldn't take away anything from Iverson's game 1 performance. He was incredible in that night and deserves full credit for that win (though, we should remember that Mutombo played remarkably well himself).

Hmm this phrasing on the bolded is somewhat alarming.

It could just be clunky phrasing but "full credit" used in (direct) concert with "for that win" ... is an alarmingly inaccurate turn of phrase and would be for any major league pro game in history. I can't read that particular phrasing as anything other than "No other player's performance mattered, as he gets all the credit for that game's outcome in his team's favor," though the next clause (and the poster) make that seem incongruous/unlikely.

I'm inclined to assume something else was meant, perhaps along the lines of

Iverson fully deserved the many plaudits and widespread accolades for this game and was a very significant figure in driving Philadelphia to victory.

(That could be stronger or weaker in places - Not sure if I'd agree because 1) haven't watched it lately, 2) Not that into, able at rating individual games, 3) some really make a huge deal of that game; but it's not glaringly hyperbolic and inaccurate).

But I wouldn't want to put words in your mouth.

Tying the fullness of credit and it being credit for the win though ... you get why that feels icky (and wrong) compared to, for instance:
- he fully deserved all the accolades
- full credit (to the man/to Iverson) [in a generic use]
- ... contribution to the win


Oh and fwiw and otoh, to main topic I'd find it hard to look past Manu though given the minutes gap that would be contingent on having at least a passable backup 2/third guard. But I should look closer before coming to any real conclusions.

Why would you think he meant no one else deserves literally any credit at all? These are figures of speech. To say Iverson "singlehandedly" won the game or that he "deserves full credit" simply means that he played an abnormally large roll in that victory. I and most other people who witnessed the 2001 season would say he played an abnormally large roll throughout the entire season and playoffs.

Other people will bulk at that language and nitpick over semantics. They do this in an effort to not give Iverson his full credit. Those who take this route typically dislike Iversons playstyle and personality. The PC Board in general has a strong dislike for popular volume scorers with Iverson being the posterboy for that player architype. That's why I thanked 70sFan for giving Iverson credit for at least that one game. I realize the type of backlash he faces from posters like yourself.

[70sFan]

Sorry this is going so seem/be nit-picky

I think we shouldn't take away anything from Iverson's game 1 performance. He was incredible in that night and deserves full credit for that win (though, we should remember that Mutombo played remarkably well himself).

Hmm this phrasing on the bolded is somewhat alarming.

It could just be clunky phrasing but "full credit" used in (direct) concert with "for that win" ... is an alarmingly inaccurate turn of phrase and would be for any major league pro game in history. I can't read that particular phrasing as anything other than "No other player's performance mattered, as he gets all the credit for that game's outcome in his team's favor," though the next clause (and the poster) make that seem incongruous/unlikely.

I'm inclined to assume something else was meant, perhaps along the lines of

Iverson fully deserved the many plaudits and widespread accolades for this game and was a very significant figure in driving Philadelphia to victory.

(That could be stronger or weaker in places - Not sure if I'd agree because 1) haven't watched it lately, 2) Not that into, able at rating individual games, 3) some really make a huge deal of that game; but it's not glaringly hyperbolic and inaccurate).

But I wouldn't want to put words in your mouth.

Tying the fullness of credit and it being credit for the win though ... you get why that feels icky (and wrong) compared to, for instance:
- he fully deserved all the accolades
- full credit (to the man/to Iverson) [in a generic use]
- ... contribution to the win


Oh and fwiw and otoh, to main topic I'd find it hard to look past Manu though given the minutes gap that would be contingent on having at least a passable backup 2/third guard. But I should look closer before coming to any real conclusions.

Of course English not being my first language can cost me some wrong use of certain words. I meant that Iverson deserves all the credit he gets for a great performance, but it doesn't mean that nobody else from his team deserves a credit. As I said, Mutombo was phenomenal in that game as well.

I just think that people react strongly on Iverson 2001 campaign, because it's quite overrated in general public. Sometimes, these people have problems to give AI any credit, even when he played excellent. I'd say his 2001 season isn't among the best carry jobs ever and I don't view him as the MVP level player, but in that one night he played like the one. We shouldn't rely on it to end up with conclusions about the whole season, but at the same time we can give him credit he deserves.

[Stalwart]

We need to start a thread about what makes a MVP level player or season. This notion that Iverson wasn't a MVP level player in 2001 is bonkers.

[70sFan]

We need to start a thread about what makes a MVP level player or season. This notion that Iverson wasn't a MVP level player in 2001 is bonkers.

Do you have him as the MVP level in any other season?

[Stalwart]

We need to start a thread about what makes a MVP level player or season. This notion that Iverson wasn't a MVP level player in 2001 is bonkers.

Do you have him as the MVP level in any other season?

I think he was a MVP level player throughout his prime. However, 2001 is the only MVP level season he had that I remember.

[70sFan]

We need to start a thread about what makes a MVP level player or season. This notion that Iverson wasn't a MVP level player in 2001 is bonkers.

Do you have him as the MVP level in any other season?

I think he was a MVP level player throughout his prime. However, 2001 is the only MVP level season he had that I remember.

So when was his prime to you? What made him MVP level player?

[Stalwart]

Do you have him as the MVP level in any other season?

I think he was a MVP level player throughout his prime. However, 2001 is the only MVP level season he had that I remember.

So when was his prime to you? What made him MVP level player?

Id say his prime was from 96-08. What made him a MVP level player was his offensive prowess. He was putting up 30ppg in the toughest era to score in. He also did this while putting up between 4-7asts per game. Were talking 40 ppg he produced on a nightly basis through out his prime. He also was always among the league leaders in steals.

I think 40ppg plus 2-3 extra possessions a game is extremely valuable for a basketball team. And as formidable as he was statistically hes appears even better when you watch him play.

[70sFan]

I think he was a MVP level player throughout his prime. However, 2001 is the only MVP level season he had that I remember.

So when was his prime to you? What made him MVP level player?

Id say his prime was from 96-08. What made him a MVP level player was his offensive prowess. He was putting up 30ppg in the toughest era to score in. He also did this while putting up between 4-7asts per game. Were talking 40 ppg he produced on a nightly basis through out his prime. He also was always among the league leaders in steals.

I think 40ppg plus 2-3 extra possessions a game is extremely valuable for a basketball team. And as formidable as he was statistically hes appears even better when you watch him play.

It's true that his volume was very impressive, but we have to ask ourselves how value it has, given that Iverson was consistently less efficient than the average player in the league. Raw points created is not the end of discussion, we need to know how many possessions he needed to create these points.

Despite his offensive prowess, Iverson never lead a quality offense. To his credit, in Philly he didn't have a lot to work with, but the results were just not pretty - even in his most successful seasons. In Denver, he played with excellent offensive help and the results were clearly better, but Nuggets couldn't get past the first round and when they replaced him with Billups, they reached another level.

I just need to know why a player who was an MVP level for over decade in your opinion, never went past 2nd round outside of 2001. You may say that he played with horrible teams, but that's just not true - some of these Philly teams were quite decent (excellent defensively) and Nuggets were legitimately stacked.

About eye-test, I just disagree. Iverson looks like an excellent creator, but he couldn't create good shots for himself on consistent basis, which forced him to take a lot of inefficient shots. He also had limited value off-ball, because of his mediocre shooting ability. On defense, he was good at passing lanes, but he often sacrificed positioning to get steals, which cost Philly unnecessary points. On top of that, he was a weak man defender due to his size and physical limitations. I definitely wouldn't call him anything close to elite defender even at his absolute best. He had some value with his quickness and motor, so I don't think I'd call him a liability either, but he's far from great.

I think raw boxscore numbers overstate how big of an impact Iverson had on these Philly teams. In 2000, Iverson missed 12 games and Philly went 7-5 without him. In 2001, Iverson missed 11 games and they went 6-5 without him. 2002 actually paints him in a better picture, as they went 7-15 without him. In 2004 they went 14-20 without him, which is actually better than with him. These are not amazing numbers, but they show that Sixers weren't completely inept without him.

This paints a picture of a player who could create a lot of offense, but wasn't very efficient doing that and has little value in other aspects of basketball. His team consistently did reasonably well without him, despite the carry job narrative and he didn't improve in the playoffs. I view that as a solid all-nba player at his peak, but not even close to guys like Shaq, Duncan or Kobe, who were real MVP level players from that era.

[TrueLAfan]

I think the question depends on how you define “value.” AI has a ton of metrics going against him, but—he dragged a team to the finals. Without AI—and with some/most of the guys here—that team doesn’t get out to the conference finals. They were built for Iverson. The Sixers needed the ridiculous usage and ability to implement it on a slow team. Give Larry Brown a ton of credit (really) for getting it to happen--but AI deserves the props for what he did this year. He still isn't my number 1 choice here, but here's a totally legit contender.

Actually, everyone's legit here--it will largely depend on what you're prioritizing in the one season. Reggie Miller has great efficiency, but lesser raw numbers---but was an underrated defender and had the assassin thing going for him. Dumars and Sid, like Reggie, weren’t just “on” winning teams, they were representative of the style of play the team wanted. Interestingly, both were semi-Robins that stepped up when necessary; you have to wonder how they would have scored/played on teams where they were the Alpha guy. Moncrief kinda had to, when Marques was having drug and personal issues and was traded—and the Bucks, who were perennial contenders, absolutely did not miss a beat. Not sure what that counts for you--just sayin’. For me, Sid is over Reggie and Joe.

I think VC and Clyde are the most alike pair in the group—and I actually rate VC’s peak (and maybe overall standing) higher. 2005-7 VC is terrific playing at a much slower pace. Vince had playoff issues … but Clyde’s playoff numbers don’t jump out either. He had the cushion of playing on well built teams, which VC rarely did.

Manu is tough; he had the best overall game—and played on the best team. He had a career luxury of getting more minutes than the other players against second teams. (For people that disagree—please. I loved Manu, but he only started a third of his games and was not a big minute player. It is what it is.) But Manu’s 2005 season, which was probably his best, resulted in a title where he was terrific throughout the playoff run. And he was a starter and played a lot, for him. Manu might be my #2 guy here for his play and impact in that one season.

The wild card for me is Gervin. Gervin’s poor D is known (and is a real thing). But here’s the deal with Ice—he was an absolute Batman on good to very good teams that, without him, often look like bags of wet dog hair. Look at the 1982 Spurs—you had Gervin. You had Mike Mitchell, who was a good player that they acquired in the RS. And then you had Mark Olberding, Johnny Moore, Reggie Johnson, George Johnson—you got the picture. That team beat up on the 1982 Sonics—with Gus William, Jack Sikma, and Freddie Brown—in the conference semis, before getting swept by the eventual champion Lakers. But the Laker games were competitive==the Lakers had to put them away in the fourth pretty much every game--and they were competitive because of George Gervin, who averaged 32-8-5.5. I think Gervin may have had the most individual impact of any of these players. His teams were usually good, and they were good because of him. He was an absolute playoff stud. And in that 1982 year, he averaged 32-5-2.3 and was sixth in the MVP voting. Leader, successful (relatively speaking), impact—I’ll go with 1982 Ice by just a bit here. Fun comparison.

[tsherkin]

I think the question depends on how you define “value.” AI has a ton of metrics going against him, but—he dragged a team to the finals. Without AI—and with some/most of the guys here—that team doesn’t get out to the conference finals. They were built for Iverson. The Sixers needed the ridiculous usage and ability to implement it on a slow team. Give Larry Brown a ton of credit (really) for getting it to happen--but AI deserves the props for what he did this year. He still isn't my number 1 choice here, but here's a totally legit contender.

The EC was pretty weak and he was playing on the 5th-best defense in the league. They faced -0.77, 1.69 and 3.13 SRS teams come the EC playoffs. He shot a lot at dreadful efficiecy, but bootstrapped enough offense (13th in the league) that they were competitive. And of course, sometimes, he exploded. He closed out the Milwaukee series with a pair of 40+-point games (46 on 58.1% TS in a loss, 44 points on 61.0% TS in the G7 win), for example, and he had a pair of 50+-point games in wins against my Raptors that postseason as well. When his jumper was falling, he was nasty all right. I think we sometimes overcredit AI for what happened in 01... and sometimes undercredit him. I feel like AI is just this endless pendulum of "man, his efficiency stinks... but his roster sucked offensively, and they made the Finals. But the conference was garbage and his team's D was elite... but PPG! And the value of high usage without much help! But does that actually make him better than these other guys?" You know what I mean? He's a tough player to pin down, I think.

I guess he does kind of have to sit in this general realm of players, though. His cardiovascular endurance was insane, as was his change-of-direction speed and acceleration. He did put up big numbers, and in 01 he was even doing that on league-average efficiency. He looks a lot worse relative to contemporary heliocentric guys, of course. And even after you factor in pace and spacing, it's clear that a 5'11 dude who wasn't an elite shooter wasn't the ideal template for that sort of usage, but he still was throwing around large scoring numbers at average efficiency in the slowest, ugliest era of basketball the NBA has seen in my lifetime, heh. Somewhat undersold with all the focus on AI's scoring is his passing. He wasn't a brilliant passer by any stretch of the imagination, but he knew how to use his quickness to hit shooters and guys in close, and did so pretty well. In his earlier years, kind of like Steph, he showcased an ability to put up 7ish APG when used in a certain way, while shooting less. Did it as a rookie, in fact, for a 22-win Sixers squad that was the 21st offense in the league, heh.Johnny Davis coaching away the whole time. They won 31 games the next year with Larry Brown, then 28 in the lockout season, making the conference semis. 23rd offense that season too. 49 wins, conference semis, 25th-ranked offense in 2000. 56 in 2001 as they added Mutombo and enjoyed most of a full season from George Lynch, and then down to 43 wins and 23rd-ranked offense the year after.

So in 2001, they were less garbage than usual at making shots (19th in team eFG%, 28th the year after), they were 2nd in ORB%, 4th in FT/FGA, and 3rd in FTr. AI was obviously a big part of that draw rate, though Philly's bigs did pretty well for the team as well, though naturally on smaller volume. Iverson was about as healthy as he ever got, shot what was by far the best FT% of his career at that point (81.4%) on the 3rd-highest volume of his career, and yeah, league-average scoring efficiency across 43+ mpg and huge volume, which is not easy to do.

I think VC and Clyde are the most alike pair in the group—and I actually rate VC’s peak (and maybe overall standing) higher. 2005-7 VC is terrific playing at a much slower pace. Vince had playoff issues … but Clyde’s playoff numbers don’t jump out either. He had the cushion of playing on well built teams, which VC rarely did.

"Terrific" is, at least to me, perhaps a slight exaggeration of VC in that time frame. Post-trade in 05, he played very well, were very much similar seasons to 02 and 03, which is to say not that stunning. He certainly wasn't tearing it up in relative efficiency, and he'd turned himself into much more of a jumpshot gunner by that point in his career. When he couldn't maintain his 3pt shooting, he reverted to a guy who had a weak middle game and wasn't good enough when he did get to the rim to make up for his poor draw rate and tepid 3pt/FT shooting. Aesthetically pleasing when his circus layups went in, but he avoided contact a lot and that didn't help him. A good player, but he was a lot more effective in 2001, and comparable in 2000 to his 05 season. Different stylistically, but more dangerous as an offensive weapon.

Drexler's passing and average scoring efficiency and overall offensive impact were consistently as good or better than VC in any season outside of 2001. Stacking 92 Drexler vs 01 Vince becomes very interesting, though, because Carter was incredible in 2001. The best mix of aggressiveness going to the rim and shooting ability in his entire career, coupled to solid health.


Interesting post to ponder as always, True!