Jimmy Butler VS Iverson

[penbeast0]

I would generally agree that the opinion of Iverson is much lower here or on any site where analytics are used than in the general public where all they look at is his scoring totals. The other guy like that is Pete Maravich, by no coincidence one of the few guards that have been put into a head to head comparison here with Iverson that won easily.

[dygaction]

Peak vs Peak: Butler

Career vs Career(thus far): Iverson

Better build around player?
All teams need to get fans in and make money. Only a handful teams have a chance to win titles.
Iverson if a bad team and small market
Butler if a good team and big market

[Doctor MJ]

Career vs Career(thus far): Iverson

So, this feels like trying to throw Iverson a bone, and at first thought it seems reasonable because of course Jimmy is only part way through his career.

But consider:

Regular Season Win Shares: Jimmy 105.9, AI 99.0
Post-Season Win Shares: Jimmy 14.9, AI 7.3
Playoff Series Won: Jimmy 9, AI 6

Note that none of these are rate stats - where Jimmy has the edge, none of these are efficiency stats - where Jimmy has the edge, and none of these are +/- stats, where Jimmy has the edge.

I don't think there's any way to consider Iverson as having the more accomplished career unless you're focused specifically on voting-based accolades, aka outsourcing your analysis to the journalists of the time and their limited understanding impact.

[OhayoKD]

Peak vs Peak: Butler

Career vs Career(thus far): Iverson

Better build around player?
All teams need to get fans in and make money. Only a handful teams have a chance to win titles.
Iverson if a bad team and small market
Butler if a good team and big market

When has ai ever carried a bad team anywhere?

[dygaction]

Peak vs Peak: Butler

Career vs Career(thus far): Iverson

Better build around player?
All teams need to get fans in and make money. Only a handful teams have a chance to win titles.
Iverson if a bad team and small market
Butler if a good team and big market

When has ai ever carried a bad team anywhere?

You obviously misread my argument. For small market and bad teams, their first goal is to have someone that can get fans excited and sell tickets. AI was a culture and 10x better than Butler in that regards.

[dygaction]

Career vs Career(thus far): Iverson

So, this feels like trying to throw Iverson a bone, and at first thought it seems reasonable because of course Jimmy is only part way through his career.

But consider:

Regular Season Win Shares: Jimmy 105.9, AI 99.0
Post-Season Win Shares: Jimmy 14.9, AI 7.3
Playoff Series Won: Jimmy 9, AI 6

Note that none of these are rate stats - where Jimmy has the edge, none of these are efficiency stats - where Jimmy has the edge, and none of these are +/- stats, where Jimmy has the edge.

I don't think there's any way to consider Iverson as having the more accomplished career unless you're focused specifically on voting-based accolades, aka outsourcing your analysis to the journalists of the time and their limited understanding impact.

I take more things into account for career value - after win shares, series won, mvps, all stars, scoring titles... there are other factors, like impact to the NBA, on and off the court; influence on the culture and fans... Iverson was just on another level, in the US and globally.

Similarly, Yao Ming has regular/playoffs season win shares of 66 and 3.2 (1 playoff wins), much worse than DeAndre Jordan 96/5.1, who has also got 1st team all-nba with 4 more playoff wins. I will take Yao's career value without thinking twice.

[RCM88x]

I think that Iverson's off court value kinda is era specific though. Today it wouldn't be anywhere near the same, nor would it have been in the 70s or 80s. He was the perfect player at the perfect time.

[Doctor MJ]

Career vs Career(thus far): Iverson

So, this feels like trying to throw Iverson a bone, and at first thought it seems reasonable because of course Jimmy is only part way through his career.

But consider:

Regular Season Win Shares: Jimmy 105.9, AI 99.0
Post-Season Win Shares: Jimmy 14.9, AI 7.3
Playoff Series Won: Jimmy 9, AI 6

Note that none of these are rate stats - where Jimmy has the edge, none of these are efficiency stats - where Jimmy has the edge, and none of these are +/- stats, where Jimmy has the edge.

I don't think there's any way to consider Iverson as having the more accomplished career unless you're focused specifically on voting-based accolades, aka outsourcing your analysis to the journalists of the time and their limited understanding impact.

I take more things into account for career value - after win shares, series won, mvps, all stars, scoring titles... there are other factors, like impact to the NBA, on and off the court; influence on the culture and fans... Iverson was just on another level, in the US and globally.

Similarly, Yao Ming has regular/playoffs season win shares of 66 and 3.2 (1 playoff wins), much worse than DeAndre Jordan 96/5.1, who has also got 1st team all-nba with 4 more playoff wins. I will take Yao's career value without thinking twice.

So, the things you're talking about are certainly things that I would factor in when thinking about Hall-worthiness, icon-ness, influence, etc.

Generally when I'm on the PC Board, I don't include those in my analysis unless they are specifically being asked about.

But yeah, Iverson's probably the best modern example of someone who was a better basketball icon than basketball player, and so if you're factoring that in, that's hard for Butler to touch.

[dygaction]

So, this feels like trying to throw Iverson a bone, and at first thought it seems reasonable because of course Jimmy is only part way through his career.

But consider:

Regular Season Win Shares: Jimmy 105.9, AI 99.0
Post-Season Win Shares: Jimmy 14.9, AI 7.3
Playoff Series Won: Jimmy 9, AI 6

Note that none of these are rate stats - where Jimmy has the edge, none of these are efficiency stats - where Jimmy has the edge, and none of these are +/- stats, where Jimmy has the edge.

I don't think there's any way to consider Iverson as having the more accomplished career unless you're focused specifically on voting-based accolades, aka outsourcing your analysis to the journalists of the time and their limited understanding impact.

I take more things into account for career value - after win shares, series won, mvps, all stars, scoring titles... there are other factors, like impact to the NBA, on and off the court; influence on the culture and fans... Iverson was just on another level, in the US and globally.

Similarly, Yao Ming has regular/playoffs season win shares of 66 and 3.2 (1 playoff wins), much worse than DeAndre Jordan 96/5.1, who has also got 1st team all-nba with 4 more playoff wins. I will take Yao's career value without thinking twice.

So, the things you're talking about are certainly things that I would factor in when thinking about Hall-worthiness, icon-ness, influence, etc.

Generally when I'm on the PC Board, I don't include those in my analysis unless they are specifically being asked about.

But yeah, Iverson's probably the best modern example of someone who was a better basketball icon than basketball player, and so if you're factoring that in, that's hard for Butler to touch.

Then I don't disagree. Jimmy is better peak for peak and prime for prime. Even longevity he should easily match in a few more seasons. I took "career" comparison as more things considered in my reply.

[Pelly24]

I think that Iverson's off court value kinda is era specific though. Today it wouldn't be anywhere near the same, nor would it have been in the 70s or 80s. He was the perfect player at the perfect time.

I wouldn't say that's true — the thing is that he's an *era-defining* force in basketball and pop culture in general. That's different from being the perfect player for the perfect time — he was a player that made that era his perfect time.

[HeartBreakKid]

The funny thing is that in the outside world Curry vs Iverson would be an actual debate...

Not much of one.

It is. And, as this is wholy based on anecdotal evidence, for example I just saw talk of Iverson being top 15 ever today.

There are people who think Curry is the GOAT or close to it. They're dumb people, but people none the less.

Even if Iverson's popularity overrates him you have to realize that at this point Steph Curry is more popular than Iverson, by a lot. Iverson is only popular among certain demographics.

Curry is a worldwide, mainstream, squeaky clean figure and we're now going in a near decade where Curry is the 2B face of the NBA. Add "ringz" and even among casuals Curry is better than Iverson even if a casual person doesn't know any of their stats etc (of course there are people who think Curry is a bish and Iverson is "da ****" but the majority of casual fans, Curry is the guy).

I think on RealGm where most people here are 30ish year old Western males it's going to skew a bit different. I can't imagine why a 19 year old female basketball fan from Singapore would care about Allen Iverson's baggy ass shorts.

[Doctor MJ]

I think that Iverson's off court value kinda is era specific though. Today it wouldn't be anywhere near the same, nor would it have been in the 70s or 80s. He was the perfect player at the perfect time.

I wouldn't say that's true — the thing is that he's an *era-defining* force in basketball and pop culture in general. That's different from being the perfect player for the perfect time — he was a player that made that era his perfect time.

I can go with you part way, because he was more than just a guy around at the right time. He resonated with the zeitgeist like no one else in the NBA - and had specific crossover influence with his cornrow hairstyle - but that zeitgeist was first and foremost about hip hop and "gangsta rap". If we were making a poster of celebrities in that circle from the era if would feature NWA, Snoop, 2Pac, Biggie, etc, and AI would be in a very small pic as the guy with the ball.

Regardless, AI is the avatar of a particular era of basketball, and in general I'd say anyone who can say that is very much Hall-worthy.

[Doctor MJ]

Not much of one.

It is. And, as this is wholy based on anecdotal evidence, for example I just saw talk of Iverson being top 15 ever today.

There are people who think Curry is the GOAT or close to it. They're dumb people, but people none the less.

Even if Iverson's popularity overrates him you have to realize that at this point Steph Curry is more popular than Iverson, by a lot. Iverson is only popular among certain demographics.

Curry is a worldwide, mainstream, squeaky clean figure and we're now going in a near decade where Curry is the 2B face of the NBA. Add "ringz" and even among casuals Curry is better than Iverson even if a casual person doesn't know any of their stats etc (of course there are people who think Curry is a bish and Iverson is "da ****" but the majority of casual fans, Curry is the guy).

I think on RealGm where most people here are 30ish year old Western males it's going to skew a bit different. I can't imagine why a 19 year old female basketball fan from Singapore would care about Allen Iverson's baggy ass shorts.

This is an important point.

I kinda marvel at all the talk on RealGM of the Warriors being so unlikeable when the Warriors are such a ratings & merch powerhouse the world over. Folks seem to want to dismiss that vast army of people as simply being Warrior/Curry fans representing 1/30th of the NBA audience, but this couldn't be further from the truth.

So yeah, I don't think it's the case that out in the mainstream people in general think Iverson was as good as Curry, there's just a contingent of people who really, really love Iverson in a way that few players are able to carry through in the decades after they retire, and so we do still get these debates.

[HeartBreakKid]

It is. And, as this is wholy based on anecdotal evidence, for example I just saw talk of Iverson being top 15 ever today.

There are people who think Curry is the GOAT or close to it. They're dumb people, but people none the less.

Even if Iverson's popularity overrates him you have to realize that at this point Steph Curry is more popular than Iverson, by a lot. Iverson is only popular among certain demographics.

Curry is a worldwide, mainstream, squeaky clean figure and we're now going in a near decade where Curry is the 2B face of the NBA. Add "ringz" and even among casuals Curry is better than Iverson even if a casual person doesn't know any of their stats etc (of course there are people who think Curry is a bish and Iverson is "da ****" but the majority of casual fans, Curry is the guy).

I think on RealGm where most people here are 30ish year old Western males it's going to skew a bit different. I can't imagine why a 19 year old female basketball fan from Singapore would care about Allen Iverson's baggy ass shorts.

This is an important point.

I kinda marvel at all the talk on RealGM of the Warriors being so unlikeable when the Warriors are such a ratings & merch powerhouse the world over. Folks seem to want to dismiss that vast army of people as simply being Warrior/Curry fans representing 1/30th of the NBA audience, but this couldn't be further from the truth.

So yeah, I don't think it's the case that out in the mainstream people in general think Iverson was as good as Curry, there's just a contingent of people who really, really love Iverson in a way that few players are able to carry through in the decades after they retire, and so we do still get these debates.

Iverson is/was more of a trend and more importantly was counter-culture (which by 2001 standards basically meant not "White America"). I think counter-culture figures are always going to have real die hards follow them.

It does put a cap on their ceiling as a mainstream figure. Steph Curry's wife is known by women in their 70s, that's how commercial Curry is. Curry is just another level of mainstream recognition. He's the guy 5 year olds and adults like no matter your gender or where you're from. Iverson is more niche even among his time when he was on fire.

Curry is Coca Cola. Ginger Ale is more poppin' but not even a fraction as marketable.

[Doctor MJ]

There are people who think Curry is the GOAT or close to it. They're dumb people, but people none the less.

Even if Iverson's popularity overrates him you have to realize that at this point Steph Curry is more popular than Iverson, by a lot. Iverson is only popular among certain demographics.

Curry is a worldwide, mainstream, squeaky clean figure and we're now going in a near decade where Curry is the 2B face of the NBA. Add "ringz" and even among casuals Curry is better than Iverson even if a casual person doesn't know any of their stats etc (of course there are people who think Curry is a bish and Iverson is "da ****" but the majority of casual fans, Curry is the guy).

I think on RealGm where most people here are 30ish year old Western males it's going to skew a bit different. I can't imagine why a 19 year old female basketball fan from Singapore would care about Allen Iverson's baggy ass shorts.

This is an important point.

I kinda marvel at all the talk on RealGM of the Warriors being so unlikeable when the Warriors are such a ratings & merch powerhouse the world over. Folks seem to want to dismiss that vast army of people as simply being Warrior/Curry fans representing 1/30th of the NBA audience, but this couldn't be further from the truth.

So yeah, I don't think it's the case that out in the mainstream people in general think Iverson was as good as Curry, there's just a contingent of people who really, really love Iverson in a way that few players are able to carry through in the decades after they retire, and so we do still get these debates.

Iverson is/was more of a trend and more importantly was counter-culture (which by 2001 standards basically meant not "White America"). I think counter-culture figures are always going to have real die hards follow them.

It does put a cap on their ceiling as a mainstream figure. Steph Curry's wife is known by women in their 70s, that's how commercial Curry is. Curry is just another level of mainstream recognition. He's the guy 5 year olds and adults like no matter your gender or where you're from. Iverson is more niche even among his time when he was on fire.

Curry is Coca Cola. Ginger Ale is more poppin' but not even a fraction as marketable.

I like the analogy with Curry as Coca-Cola. And then I'd say Iverson was Lean.

[ProcessDoctor]

Butler for sure. Just an all around better player. The only things AI has over him is maybe consistency in the regular season and durability.

[OhayoKD]

This is an important point.

I kinda marvel at all the talk on RealGM of the Warriors being so unlikeable when the Warriors are such a ratings & merch powerhouse the world over. Folks seem to want to dismiss that vast army of people as simply being Warrior/Curry fans representing 1/30th of the NBA audience, but this couldn't be further from the truth.

So yeah, I don't think it's the case that out in the mainstream people in general think Iverson was as good as Curry, there's just a contingent of people who really, really love Iverson in a way that few players are able to carry through in the decades after they retire, and so we do still get these debates.

Iverson is/was more of a trend and more importantly was counter-culture (which by 2001 standards basically meant not "White America"). I think counter-culture figures are always going to have real die hards follow them.

It does put a cap on their ceiling as a mainstream figure. Steph Curry's wife is known by women in their 70s, that's how commercial Curry is. Curry is just another level of mainstream recognition. He's the guy 5 year olds and adults like no matter your gender or where you're from. Iverson is more niche even among his time when he was on fire.

Curry is Coca Cola. Ginger Ale is more poppin' but not even a fraction as marketable.

I like the analogy with Curry as Coca-Cola. And then I'd say Iverson was Lean.

equating Iverson with codeine is kind of wild.

"Larry Bird is a smooth whiskey, Magic Johnson is crack".

[Doctor MJ]

Iverson is/was more of a trend and more importantly was counter-culture (which by 2001 standards basically meant not "White America"). I think counter-culture figures are always going to have real die hards follow them.

It does put a cap on their ceiling as a mainstream figure. Steph Curry's wife is known by women in their 70s, that's how commercial Curry is. Curry is just another level of mainstream recognition. He's the guy 5 year olds and adults like no matter your gender or where you're from. Iverson is more niche even among his time when he was on fire.

Curry is Coca Cola. Ginger Ale is more poppin' but not even a fraction as marketable.

I like the analogy with Curry as Coca-Cola. And then I'd say Iverson was Lean.

equating Iverson with codeine is kind of wild.

"Larry Bird is a smooth whiskey, Magic Johnson is crack".

I mean, neither ginger ale nor Larry Bird nor Magic Johnson is remotely counter-culture.

As HBK said, Iverson basically was the most counterculture in modern NBA history, and entered the NBA (1996) about the same time lean entered into rap lyrics (1995). To me it's not a question of whether he should be analogized to an intoxicant - he clearly should - but whether there's any other intoxicating beverage it makes more sense to use for him.

Only thing that would make it more of a fit in my mind is if lean came out of Philly instead of Houston.