What players do you consider Franchise Players in the NBA?

[Kush]

Franchise players

Lebron James
Kobe Bryant
KG
Duncan
Chris Bosh
Dwight Howard
Chris Paul
Deron William
Greg Oden( if he all he made up to be )


Overrated players

Dwayne Wade ( Without Shaq he is just another injury prone SG)
Brandon Roy ( good player, but not a player you build around)
Amare ( how good would he be without Nash)

[ronnymac2]

But, you cannot deny that he was once a franchise player. MVP deserved, or not deserved is still an MVP and leading the Sixers as the number 1 to the finals is definitely more then a lot of franchise players can say.

No, what I cannot deny is that he was once put into the role of a franchise player; I do not accept that he was good enough to legitimately deserve that title.

Furthermore, the East was mostly crap that year and he got extremely lucky against the Raptors AND the Bucks. He also shot 38.9% FG during the playoffs and the Sixers primarily won because of George Lynch, Aaron McKie, Dikembe Mutombo, Eric Snow and Tyrone Hill playing great defense and controlling the glass, etc.

Iverson took 30 shots a game during the playoffs and hit about 11.7 per game, which is pretty bad. He averaged just under 9.5 FTA/g on those shots, which isn't altogether that impressive given the shot volume.

That was a pretty ugly team that got by on questionable officiating favoring AI because of his sleight build and reputation for driving aggressively as well as its outstanding defense and rebounding. Their success, at least in the postseason, had more to do with everyone else doing their job while AI chucked.

I do not accept that as a valid example of his achievements as a franchise player.

Allen Iverson was a franchise player. George Lynch, Aaron McKie, Dikembe Mutombo, Eric Snow and Tyrone Hill might have done their job of defense and rebounding very, very well. But what kind of offense do those guys give you? None of those players are dynamic. They aren't particularly good at creating their own offense for any lengthy period of time. On offense, they are unspectacular role players. And nothing more. So Allen Iverson's role was to basically carry a whole offense. Taking 30 shots a game BECAUSE YOU HAVE TO will obviously make you less efficient. Iverson has proven that when he actually has some offensive players around him, he's not that bad in terms of efficiency (If only you could combine the 2008 nuggets offense with the 2001 sixers defense...lol).

Iverson playing hurt was most def a positive thing. Because without him, the sixers would have sucked. Bad. A 70% iverson is better than no iverson at all. If iverson is going to get penalized for playing hurt a lot of times, you may as well say Kobe shouldn't have been playing half the season this season because that finger was hurting his team. And MJ definitely hurt his team when he played with the flu.... My point is, iverson is maybe 6 feet tall and maybe 170 lbs. And he still always played his heart out in games, even if he was injured, and had very little help on offense.

Also, look at the context of iverson's stats. He played very well in the playoffs when they needed him to. He closed out games for them. If they actually needed the big shot, he'd deliver it. Not necessarily a last second shot...just a big shot. To get them back in the game. Or to solidify a lead.

And in game 1 of the 2001 nba finals, Allen Iverson was the best player in the world. If I remember right, Shaq had 44 and 20. A dominant 44 and 20. And I have no qualms in saying that Iverson was the best player in the world that day. He carried that team to overtime, and then in overtime. He did have that long lull in the 3rd quarter, but when they needed him, he came through. He beat one of the all time great playoff teams. (And don't say anything about the lakers had a long layoff. They could have and should have won that game, if you watch it. And it was at home. And shaq was rolling. Iverson took it away.)

Maybe if you replace Iverson with..idk...lebron james or kobe bryant (the 2008 versions i mean) or someone, the sixers do better. I'm not saying iverson is the best franchise player. And I won't refute that its somewhat difficult and unorthodox to build around him; he is a unique player. But he was a damn good, legit, successful franchise player.

[tsherkin]

Allen Iverson was a franchise player. George Lynch, Aaron McKie, Dikembe Mutombo, Eric Snow and Tyrone Hill might have done their job of defense and rebounding very, very well. But what kind of offense do those guys give you? None of those players are dynamic. They aren't particularly good at creating their own offense for any lengthy period of time. On offense, they are unspectacular role players. And nothing more. So Allen Iverson's role was to basically carry a whole offense. Taking 30 shots a game BECAUSE YOU HAVE TO will obviously make you less efficient. Iverson has proven that when he actually has some offensive players around him, he's not that bad in terms of efficiency (If only you could combine the 2008 nuggets offense with the 2001 sixers defense...lol).

Being the only player who takes a lot of shots does not make you a franchise player, it makes you an All-Star player put in a position where you are obliged to take those shots.

My point is, iverson is maybe 6 feet tall and maybe 170 lbs. And he still always played his heart out in games, even if he was injured, and had very little help on offense.

Yes, his toughness and heart are both commendable attributes, the best things about his game by far.

Also, look at the context of iverson's stats. He played very well in the playoffs when they needed him to. He closed out games for them. If they actually needed the big shot, he'd deliver it. Not necessarily a last second shot...just a big shot. To get them back in the game. Or to solidify a lead.

I was around back then, yes. I saw his entire playoff run. There were moments when he played well, because his jumper was falling (which was unusual).

32.4, 53.8, 31.8, 33.3, 65.6, 25.0, 29.6

Those are Iverson's FG% numbers in the '01 series against Toronto.

You'll notice two especially ridiculous games where he scored 50+... and then that he shot abysmally in the other games, including the seventh and deciding game (though for completion's sake, I have to add that he posted 16 assists and only 4 turnovers to make it a good game overall, despite making only 8/27 FG). The Sixers won that game because Vince missed the buzzer-beater and shot 6/18 for the game.

37.1, 19.2, missed game 3, 31.3, 18.5, 42.4*, 51.5

* This was his 46-point game, he was 14/33 from the floor.

He had one good game that series, though it was the clincher, so that's something. Still, his horrific inefficiency certainly made the conference semis and the conference finals much, much harder than they had to be. He hit a big shot at the end of game one and had a bruised tailbone for game two. Then he missed game 3, as I mentioned, but you'll notice that without AI, they only lost by 6 points. Big fourth quarter in Game 4. Game 5 was more about Mutombo's 21 points that it was about Iverson.

AI had a huge fourth Q and nearly matched the playoff record for points in a playoff quarter. That was nice. He was godawful the rest of the game but he showed up at the end to just fall short.

And then he had his biggest game in Game 7, though to be fair, Deke also added 23/19 and blocked the Hell out of everything. Still, AI showed up and they went to L.A.

But that entire series was marked by his weak shooting holding the Sixers back.

And there was certainly controversy over the officiating after Game 5, when Milwaukee faced two flagrants and a technical of questionable validity. There was also that foul the refs didn't call for Glenn Robinson that led to a late breakaway layup for the Sixers. Those calls turned into a 5-point possession and two four-point possessions, which is a huge swing.

Then there were a host of instances such as this one:

Cassell's complaining began in the first quarter when he pump-faked Allen Iverson off his feet and Iverson whacked him hard on the arm. No foul was called, even though the play happened directly in front of referee Ronnie Nunn.

Maybe if you replace Iverson with..idk...lebron james or kobe bryant (the 2008 versions i mean) or someone, the sixers do better. I'm not saying iverson is the best franchise player. And I won't refute that its somewhat difficult and unorthodox to build around him; he is a unique player. But he was a damn good, legit, successful franchise player.

And now we have reached the point where we are subjectively disagreeing about the qualities of a franchise player, so I leave your beliefs and stick with mine.

[thegreatblaze]

Well, as a Blazer fan I consider Roy to be our 'franchise player'. He's a great player and has saved this franchise.

Brandon Roy ( good player, but not a player you build around)

I beg to differ. We currently are building around him.

[Farm Raid]

I think what he means is that you can't build a championship contender around him. A top ten player, basically.

And how are people still arguing that Deron is on CP's level?

[ronnymac2]

Allen Iverson was a franchise player. George Lynch, Aaron McKie, Dikembe Mutombo, Eric Snow and Tyrone Hill might have done their job of defense and rebounding very, very well. But what kind of offense do those guys give you? None of those players are dynamic. They aren't particularly good at creating their own offense for any lengthy period of time. On offense, they are unspectacular role players. And nothing more. So Allen Iverson's role was to basically carry a whole offense. Taking 30 shots a game BECAUSE YOU HAVE TO will obviously make you less efficient. Iverson has proven that when he actually has some offensive players around him, he's not that bad in terms of efficiency (If only you could combine the 2008 nuggets offense with the 2001 sixers defense...lol).

Being the only player who takes a lot of shots does not make you a franchise player, it makes you an All-Star player put in a position where you are obliged to take those shots.

My point is, iverson is maybe 6 feet tall and maybe 170 lbs. And he still always played his heart out in games, even if he was injured, and had very little help on offense.

Yes, his toughness and heart are both commendable attributes, the best things about his game by far.

Also, look at the context of iverson's stats. He played very well in the playoffs when they needed him to. He closed out games for them. If they actually needed the big shot, he'd deliver it. Not necessarily a last second shot...just a big shot. To get them back in the game. Or to solidify a lead.

I was around back then, yes. I saw his entire playoff run. There were moments when he played well, because his jumper was falling (which was unusual).

32.4, 53.8, 31.8, 33.3, 65.6, 25.0, 29.6

Those are Iverson's FG% numbers in the '01 series against Toronto.

You'll notice two especially ridiculous games where he scored 50+... and then that he shot abysmally in the other games, including the seventh and deciding game (though for completion's sake, I have to add that he posted 16 assists and only 4 turnovers to make it a good game overall, despite making only 8/27 FG). The Sixers won that game because Vince missed the buzzer-beater and shot 6/18 for the game.

37.1, 19.2, missed game 3, 31.3, 18.5, 42.4*, 51.5

* This was his 46-point game, he was 14/33 from the floor.

He had one good game that series, though it was the clincher, so that's something. Still, his horrific inefficiency certainly made the conference semis and the conference finals much, much harder than they had to be. He hit a big shot at the end of game one and had a bruised tailbone for game two. Then he missed game 3, as I mentioned, but you'll notice that without AI, they only lost by 6 points. Big fourth quarter in Game 4. Game 5 was more about Mutombo's 21 points that it was about Iverson.

AI had a huge fourth Q and nearly matched the playoff record for points in a playoff quarter. That was nice. He was godawful the rest of the game but he showed up at the end to just fall short.

And then he had his biggest game in Game 7, though to be fair, Deke also added 23/19 and blocked the Hell out of everything. Still, AI showed up and they went to L.A.

But that entire series was marked by his weak shooting holding the Sixers back.

And there was certainly controversy over the officiating after Game 5, when Milwaukee faced two flagrants and a technical of questionable validity. There was also that foul the refs didn't call for Glenn Robinson that led to a late breakaway layup for the Sixers. Those calls turned into a 5-point possession and two four-point possessions, which is a huge swing.

Then there were a host of instances such as this one:

Cassell's complaining began in the first quarter when he pump-faked Allen Iverson off his feet and Iverson whacked him hard on the arm. No foul was called, even though the play happened directly in front of referee Ronnie Nunn.

Maybe if you replace Iverson with..idk...lebron james or kobe bryant (the 2008 versions i mean) or someone, the sixers do better. I'm not saying iverson is the best franchise player. And I won't refute that its somewhat difficult and unorthodox to build around him; he is a unique player. But he was a damn good, legit, successful franchise player.

And now we have reached the point where we are subjectively disagreeing about the qualities of a franchise player, so I leave your beliefs and stick with mine.

His shots, even at that volume, are more high percentage on any given possession that any of his teammates. I know his actual fg%'s don't really validate that, but think of it this way: On the majority of the possessions of a game, who do you want taking the shots? And to add to that, who do you want the ball in the hands of to make plays? To collapse the defense? To create for others? To get the ball on the break? He's the only guy on that team able to get a shot off any time he wants. Now he'll always have 2 or more guys defending him on that team because, again, those guys aren't great offensive players. But without him, those guys would be lost.

And like I said (to be fair, you agreed with me by bringing up many examples of how A.I. hit big shots in key moments in those playoffs, so I think you'll agree with me here), Iverson hit big shots. Important shots. Clutch shots. A franchise player usually does that.

You've also said that the sixers built a fairly successful team AROUND IVERSON that covered his weaknesses pretty well. They built an excellent defensive and rebounding team around him. They built around him. It may not be the best build. But they built around him. To the sixers, he was the franchise player. A franchise player is somebody you build around. No matter how flawed you make think that build might be, he did lead them to the finals. Say what you want about their competition, but theres no way they make it halfway as far as they did without him.

I agree that we may have different criteria for somebody being a franchise player. If thats the case, thats fine.

[tsherkin]

His shots, even at that volume, are more high percentage on any given possession that any of his teammates. I know his actual fg%'s don't really validate that, but think of it this way: On the majority of the possessions of a game, who do you want taking the shots?

And like I said (to be fair, you agreed with me by bringing up many examples of how A.I. hit big shots in key moments in those playoffs, so I think you'll agree with me here), Iverson hit big shots. Important shots. Clutch shots. A franchise player usually does that.

Yeah, but so did Ray Allen and I don't think he's good enough to carry a franchise either.

For $10M+ a year, you can get a lot more than Iverson and if you don't spend it in one place, you can build a more offensively capable team. AI can ONLY be successful on a team full of defensive roleplayers and rebounders because of his style of offense, a flaw critical enough for me to downgrade him.

You've also said that the sixers built a fairly successful team AROUND IVERSON that covered his weaknesses pretty well. They built an excellent defensive and rebounding team around him. They built around him. It may not be the best build. But they built around him. To the sixers, he was the franchise player. A franchise player is somebody you build around. No matter how flawed you make think that build might be, he did lead them to the finals. Say what you want about their competition, but theres no way they make it halfway as far as they did without him.

The Raptors built around Vince Carter, you can build around ANYONE and if your complementary pieces are good enough, you'll go very far. But the Sixers didn't, even for a moment, have a legitimate chance to win a title.

There's a difference, at least insofar as I define the term, between a true franchise player and a centerpiece. A centerpiece is who you HAVE built around, while a franchise player is someone around whom you can construct a legit title contender. AI is not the latter, he is the former.

I agree that we may have different criteria for somebody being a franchise player. If thats the case, thats fine.

That seems to be the case.

[NO-KG-AI]

Well, as a Blazer fan I consider Roy to be our 'franchise player'. He's a great player and has saved this franchise.

Brandon Roy ( good player, but not a player you build around)

I beg to differ. We currently are building around him.

I think the teams championship/dynasty aspirations are hinged on Oden's development....

If they both develop like they should, and for whatever reason Portland is forced to choose one, bye bye Brandon Roy...

[rsavaj]

Franchise players

Lebron James
Kobe Bryant
KG
Duncan
Chris Bosh
Dwight Howard
Chris Paul
Deron William
Greg Oden( if he all he made up to be )


Overrated players

Dwayne Wade ( Without Shaq he is just another injury prone SG)
Brandon Roy ( good player, but not a player you build around)
Amare ( how good would he be without Nash)

Pretty flipping good, and IMO, still an All-NBA player. Whether or not that translates into a true franchise player that can lead the team deep into the playoffs has yet to be decided, and won't be until Nash retires. Until then, he rightfully defers to Seve.

[tsherkin]

Actually, I think the Blazers would have to think about that one long and hard. They'd have to wait and see based on how Oden plays out over his first year or two but there might come a time where Roy is a legit choice over Oden because Oden's "only," say, Dikembe Mutombo part 2 or something.

I doubt it'll happen, but since he's yet to play an NBA game and has suffered significant surgery, there remains the possibility that they choose Roy over a guy who might theoretically become Sam Bowie part 2.

[thegreatblaze]

Actually, I think the Blazers would have to think about that one long and hard. They'd have to wait and see based on how Oden plays out over his first year or two but there might come a time where Roy is a legit choice over Oden because Oden's "only," say, Dikembe Mutombo part 2 or something.

I doubt it'll happen, but since he's yet to play an NBA game and has suffered significant surgery, there remains the possibility that they choose Roy over a guy who might theoretically become Sam Bowie part 2.

Let's not start this junk up again. He's perfectly healthy as we speak.

And I believe the poster said that if Oden pans out and lives up to his potential he will be chosen over Roy. And that's a no-brainer there.

[tsherkin]

Let's not start this junk up again. He's perfectly healthy as we speak.

Calm down, I'm not suggesting that he WILL be injured, only offering scenarios wherein Roy might continue to be the player upon whose shoulders the fate of the franchise might rest. I personally hope Oden is some kind of Shaq-meets-D-Rob player, because I really enjoy watching great bigs.

And I believe the poster said that if Oden pans out and lives up to his potential he will be chosen over Roy. And that's a no-brainer there.

Well, that's just dumb; if he lives up to his potential, he's at worst a top-25 player in NBA history, a dominant defender and a great scorer. And that's just D-Rob, he's like 5, 10 pounds heavier than D-Rob and has a back-to-the-basket game that the Admiral never really had, making him much more dangerous.

[NO-KG-AI]

Actually, I think the Blazers would have to think about that one long and hard. They'd have to wait and see based on how Oden plays out over his first year or two but there might come a time where Roy is a legit choice over Oden because Oden's "only," say, Dikembe Mutombo part 2 or something.

I doubt it'll happen, but since he's yet to play an NBA game and has suffered significant surgery, there remains the possibility that they choose Roy over a guy who might theoretically become Sam Bowie part 2.

Well, I just bought an expansion team, and I want you to be my GM and make the choice for me right now.

Who ya got, Brandon Roy and his proven ability, or do we take a shot on the big man?

[mojomarc]

Well, that's just dumb; if he lives up to his potential, he's at worst a top-25 player in NBA history, a dominant defender and a great scorer. And that's just D-Rob, he's like 5, 10 pounds heavier than D-Rob and has a back-to-the-basket game that the Admiral never really had, making him much more dangerous.

I think Oden might have been 5-10lbs heavier than DRob when he was drafted, but he is around 280-290 for his playing weight now that he has had nothing much more than weightlifting and rehab to do for a year. Here's a recent photo (click on the "height" link): http://officialgregoden.awssports.com/ssp/measure_up

To me, he looks more like 20lbs heavier than DRob ever played.

Not that it makes a huge difference, but it's fun to argue about since the NBA doesn't exactly give us official stats that are useful for settling these arguments.

[CB4MiamiHeat]

Iverson had to work to get those shots, and he had to work extra hard when Eric Snow was his backcourt partner.he was in a similar situation to Lebron now..He was also a good shot creator for others.

Of course he had great help on the boards and defense. Its easier to find George Lynchs, Aaron Mckies, Eric Snows, Tyrone Hills..than it is to find an Allen Iverson. That sixers team wasnt very good offensively, Iverson had to create non stop, he had to chuck..he just had to..not many guys couldve replaced him..and before you bring up guys with great percentages..theyd probably go down to the high 30s and low 40s on that sixers team.

Look at Lebron in 2007, he shot 40% in that playoff run to the Finals, and he had a great rebounding and defensive team..nobody would say they got there because of Z, Varejao, Pavlovic, Gibson more so than Lebron.

[tsherkin]

I think Oden might have been 5-10lbs heavier than DRob when he was drafted, but he is around 280-290 for his playing weight now that he has had nothing much more than weightlifting and rehab to do for a year. Here's a recent photo (click on the "height" link): http://officialgregoden.awssports.com/ssp/measure_up

He won't play at 290, not on that knee.

Look at Lebron in 2007, he shot 40% in that playoff run to the Finals, and he had a great rebounding and defensive team..nobody would say they got there because of Z, Varejao, Pavlovic, Gibson more so than Lebron.

Actually, he shot about 42% FG and he did it against two epic defensive squads in the Spurs and Pistons. You'll note he shot 42.5% and 41.4% against the Wizards and Nets respectively, with four or five games at or above 50% FG in those two matchups.

Certainly not an epic performance, and one in which his weak mid-range J and underdeveloped post game were certainly highlighted but he rebounded, played better defense and was more efficient. Furthermore, he was also 22 and is a 6'9, 260 athletic freak. AI was already 25, didn't have the same kind of physicality going for him (though he was certainly an athletic freak) and didn't have the other areas of contribution in the same way (besides passing).

AI was and remains an All-Star talent but not a player around whom you build your team.

To whit, while Lebron shot poorly against the physical defense of the Wizards and the epic defense of the Pistons and Spurs (and surprisingly against the Nets, too), this season was much the same. The Wizards continued to play excrutiatingly physical, Jordan-Rules type defense against him and then he hit the Celtics...

Only one of the 5 best defenses of all-time.

Who did AI face? Milwaukee? Toronto? The Pacers? The Lakers were a great defensive team in the playoffs and the Pacers were just outside of the top-10 in defensive efficiency but the Bucks were 20th in the league in defensive efficiency, the Raptors 14th (and not especially physical to make up for it).

More importantly, AI's career has been hallmarked by inefficiency, most notably in the playoffs where his already dismal career FG% (42.6%) drops to 40.1% (including 4 seasons under 40%). And this past season, while he shot 43.4% from the field, he shot 69.7% FT on 8.25 FTA/g.

Lebron, conversely, is traditionally a very efficient scorer who has been running into some incredible defenses (notably Detroit on three occasions now, Washington in 3 seasons [and they've been super-physical with him] and then San Antonio and Boston). His relatively low efficiency has come about for different reasons.

[Malinhion]

Well, if you're seeing those kind of percentage decreases from a player who's that much of an inside, physical presence, doesn't it seem that you should expect them even moreso from a much smaller, slashing guard who relies heavily on his quickness and handle? Most player's FG% tend to decrease in the playoffs, when defense tightens up and the game slows down. Sure, AI's FG% was scraping the bottom of dismal only because he would explode in some games. But don't you think LeBron's numbers were helped when he reels off a streak of baskets in the same fashion? What would his FG% look like if he didn't score 29 of his team's last 30 points versus the Pistons that one game?

Iverson also took 142 threes (at .338) during that 2001 playoff run.
He took 208 free throws (at .774) during the 2001 playoff run.

LeBron only took 75 threes (at .280) during his 2007 playoff run.
He took 196 free throws (at .755) during the 2007 playoff run.

These numbers seem to suggest that AI was actually shooting better than LeBron. If his shot selection permits, this means that his advanced percentages should typically take a bigger jump. Let's see how it bears out...

True Shooting % = [(Total points x 50)] / [(FGA + (FTA x 0.44)]
AI TS% = .4804 = (723 x 50) / [661 + .44(208)] (22 games)
LeBron TS% = .5162 = (501 x 50) / [399 + .44(196)] (20 games)

Effective FG% = (FGM + .5*3PM)/FGA
AI eFG% = .4251 = [257 + .5(48)]/661 (22 games)
LeBron eFG% = .4424 = [166 + .5(21)]/399 (20 games)

Well, it didn't. Even though AI was actually shooting better, taking nearly twice the threes at such a low conversion rate actually pushed LeBron's TS% much higher. So you begin to see where Iverson's shot selection begins to hamper his impact on the game. LeBron's ability to drive and spend much more time in the paint is actually what pushes his numbers higher. We can understand why AI would struggle so much in this facet, since the playoffs are dominated by post play and he was the league's smallest superstar. While Iverson was shooting better, his size is what's making the difference. LeBron has better numbers because he has the size to play closer to the basket and bang to draw free throws.