2001..

[HarlemHeat37]

NOT ONLY BASED ON THE SEASON THAT JUST ENDED, but in general..if you were ranking players FOLLOWING the 2000-2001 season, how would you rank these 5 players going into the 2001-2002 season?..

Kobe Bryant, Vince Carter, Tracy McGrady, Allen Iverson, Ray Allen..

[thegreatblaze]

Kobe
Iverson
Carter (He was damn good back then)
T-Mac (Coming out party)
Allen (He was a tier below these other players, IMO)

[Malinhion]

Kobe Bryant
Tracy McGrady
Allen Iverson
Vince Carter
Ray Allen

[kooldude]

VInce
Kobe
Tmac
AI

Allen

[Loose Cannon]

Following the '01 season? I don't know if Bryant was considered the best player in the NBA yet, but Iverson was coming off an MVP season (of course that ended with losing to Bryant's Lakers). Correct me if I'm wrong:

1) AI
2) Kobe
3) VC
4) T-Mac
5) Shuttlesworth

[Baller 24]

Kobe
McGrady
AI
Carter
Allen

[guy1]

Following the '01 season? I don't know if Bryant was considered the best player in the NBA yet, but Iverson was coming off an MVP season (of course that ended with losing to Bryant's Lakers). Correct me if I'm wrong:

1) AI
2) Kobe
3) VC
4) T-Mac
5) Shuttlesworth

Yea I agree with this list. I don't know why people are giving any credit to AI. He just came off an MVP season and led his team to the Finals. I think after 02 Kobe surpassed him, but going into the season AI was greater. And I had trouble comparing Kobe and VC after 01, but I would give the edge to Kobe for how he performed in that memorable playoff run.

[Teddy KGB]

Vince Carter
Allen Iverson
Kobe Bryant
Tracy McGrady

Ray Allen

[eyeatoma]

NOT ONLY BASED ON THE SEASON THAT JUST ENDED, but in general..if you were ranking players FOLLOWING the 2000-2001 season, how would you rank these 5 players going into the 2001-2002 season?..

Kobe Bryant, Vince Carter, Tracy McGrady, Allen Iverson, Ray Allen..

Iverson
Carter
Kobe
McGrady
Allen

[Malinhion]

Iverson didn't deserve that MVP, and we're talking about Kobe coming off two straight championships. McGrady's numbers, even back then, were still more impressive than Iverson's and Carter's.

[guy1]

Iverson didn't deserve that MVP, and we're talking about Kobe coming off two straight championships. McGrady's numbers, even back then, were still more impressive than Iverson's and Carter's.

Kobe won two championships WITH SHAQ. As redundant as that sounds, its the truth, and Shaq was so good that its very likely you could've put Shaq with anyone on this list and they win those 2 titles.

And you can make a case for Shaq or Duncan over AI for that MVP, but you can't really make a case for any of the other players on this list.

[eyeatoma]

Iverson didn't deserve that MVP, and we're talking about Kobe coming off two straight championships. McGrady's numbers, even back then, were still more impressive than Iverson's and Carter's.

LOL...

Yeah, a player who averages 30+ppg, and leads a team that doesn't have another player who that can score 15 ppg to the playoffs with the leagues 2nd best record doesn't deserve the MVP.

Lets give it to the spoiled lil brat who had the Big Guy producing 28/12/2 and had a much better chance of winning the MVP compared to Kobe...

Seriously, these words aren't really coming out of your mouth are they?

Granted a couple years later Kobe started playing at an MVP level, and began to surpass Iverson. But like the poster above me said, the only two players who might have deserved the MVP more than AI that year were Shaq and Duncan.

[Loose Cannon]

lol @ Iverson not deserving the MVP award and that Tracy's numbers surpassed his when it was his first year of actually being considered a star.

[Baller 24]

Iverson didn't deserve that MVP, and we're talking about Kobe coming off two straight championships. McGrady's numbers, even back then, were still more impressive than Iverson's and Carter's.

LOL...

Yeah, a player who averages 30+ppg, and leads a team that doesn't have another player who that can score 15 ppg to the playoffs with the leagues 2nd best record doesn't deserve the MVP.

Lets give it to the spoiled lil brat who had the Big Guy producing 28/12/2 and had a much better chance of winning the MVP compared to Kobe...

Seriously, these words aren't really coming out of your mouth are they?

Granted a couple years later Kobe started playing at an MVP level, and began to surpass Iverson. But like the poster above me said, the only two players who might have deserved the MVP more than AI that year were Shaq and Duncan.

I don't think Iverson was the best guard that year. Just because he averages over 30ppg he becomes known as the best guard that year? That Sixers team was also good defensively, that happens when you have a great coach named Larry Brown coaching your team. For a player that avearged over 30ppg, Iverson also averaged only 4ast, and 3 reb, while turning the ball over 3.3 times (he has yet to have a season where he only averages less then 3, he's averaged over 4 turnovers about 5-6 times in his career, not good). Sure his usage % is high, but is he and was he expected to average that many turnovers. Shaq or Duncan should have won it no doubt. Not to mention his FG% for his usage % that year wasn't impressive at all. Not to mention guys like Kobe, McGrady, and Vince were rising and their statistics were IMO > Iverson, and just because he averaged 30ppg, that doesn't make your stats better then someone else. Obviously he won it because he won the most, but don't even say his supporting cast sucked, because that year they had DPOY Mutumbo, and a terrific defensive team.

[Loose Cannon]

I don't think Iverson was the best guard that year. Just because he averages over 30ppg he becomes known as the best guard that year? That Sixers team was also good defensively, that happens when you have a great coach named Larry Brown coaching your team. For a player that avearged over 30ppg, Iverson also averaged only 4ast, and 3 reb, while turning the ball over 3.3 times (he has yet to have a season where he only averages less then 3, he's averaged over 4 turnovers about 5-6 times in his career, not good). Sure his usage % is high, but is he and was he expected to average that many turnovers. Shaq or Duncan should have won it no doubt. Not to mention his FG% for his usage % that year wasn't impressive at all. Not to mention guys like Kobe, McGrady, and Vince were rising and their statistics were IMO > Iverson, and just because he averaged 30ppg, that doesn't make your stats better then someone else. Obviously he won it because he won the most, but don't even say his supporting cast sucked, because that year they had DPOY Mutumbo, and a terrific defensive team.

That team was centered on defense, but Iverson was the only player scoring, he carried the load offensively for the Sixers...kind of like what T-Mac was doing for Houston during Yao's absence this year.

The ONLY player you can argue on that list is Kobe because he was making his defensive presence known and already won a ring, Tracy and Vince were scorers and that's it (although Tracy has evolved into a playmaker, he wasn't even close to being one in Orlando). They were scorers...and didn't hold a candle to Iverson...the notion that those guys were even better or their stats were, is just ridiculous.

He turned it over a lot? Okay? He dominated the ball and was our only spark of offense with that team, if he didn't have the ball in his hands then the team wasn't scoring. He led the league in scoring and in steals, racked up more assists than TO's, and singlehandedly carried his team to the Finals...you can't find me one legitimate reason why he didn't deserve it.

[eyeatoma]

I don't think Iverson was the best guard that year. Just because he averages over 30ppg he becomes known as the best guard that year? That Sixers team was also good defensively, that happens when you have a great coach named Larry Brown coaching your team. For a player that avearged over 30ppg, Iverson also averaged only 4ast, and 3 reb, while turning the ball over 3.3 times (he has yet to have a season where he only averages less then 3, he's averaged over 4 turnovers about 5-6 times in his career, not good). Sure his usage % is high, but is he and was he expected to average that many turnovers. Shaq or Duncan should have won it no doubt. Not to mention his FG% for his usage % that year wasn't impressive at all. Not to mention guys like Kobe, McGrady, and Vince were rising and their statistics were IMO > Iverson, and just because he averaged 30ppg, that doesn't make your stats better then someone else. Obviously he won it because he won the most, but don't even say his supporting cast sucked, because that year they had DPOY Mutumbo, and a terrific defensive team.

That team was centered on defense, but Iverson was the only player scoring, he carried the load offensively for the Sixers...kind of like what T-Mac was doing for Houston during Yao's absence this year.

The ONLY player you can argue on that list is Kobe because he was making his defensive presence known and already won a ring, Tracy and Vince were scorers and that's it (although Tracy has evolved into a playmaker, he wasn't even close to being one in Orlando). They were scorers...and didn't hold a candle to Iverson...the notion that those guys were even better or their stats were, is just ridiculous.

He turned it over a lot? Okay? He dominated the ball and was our only spark of offense with that team, if he didn't have the ball in his hands then the team wasn't scoring. He led the league in scoring and in steals, racked up more assists than TO's, and singlehandedly carried his team to the Finals...you can't find me one legitimate reason why he didn't deserve it.

Couldn't have said it better myself, although I have to disagree about Kobe. Shaq deserved it way more that year. 28/13/2.5, on probably one of the most dominant teams of the last 10 years without a doubt. Kobe was starting to make himself known as one hell of a defender, but he was still 2nd fiddle to Shaq. And this is prime shaq we're talking about, nobody on the planet could stop him on the offensively, on the boards, or get a shot by him...

[Baller 24]

That team was centered on defense, but Iverson was the only player scoring, he carried the load offensively for the Sixers...kind of like what T-Mac was doing for Houston during Yao's absence this year.

But that team was anchored by the defense of Theo Ratliff and Mutumbo, and not to mention Larry Brown coached that team to be a top 5 defensive team that season. Sure Iverson was scoring the ball but he wasn't at all efficient doing so, and didn't deserve that MVP.

The ONLY player you can argue on that list is Kobe because he was making his defensive presence known and already won a ring, Tracy and Vince were scorers and that's it (although Tracy has evolved into a playmaker, he wasn't even close to being one in Orlando). They were scorers...and didn't hold a candle to Iverson...the notion that those guys were even better or their stats were, is just ridiculous.

McGrady has been a terrific play maker since Orlando, and it only begun to shine in his years in Houston. Iverson wasn't a play maker that season, its just a matter of getting passing of the double team. Vince that year was damn good, shooting 46% from the field averaging 27ppg, one of his best years in the league IMO, while also shooting 40% from behind the arc, he was just a monster. McGrady was good that year, but he wasn't only a scorer he shot terrific from all angles, and his play making has been underrated throughout his career especially in Orlando. Both Vince and McGrady handled the ball a lot but still didn't average anywhere near 3 turnovers that year.

He turned it over a lot? Okay? He dominated the ball and was our only spark of offense with that team, if he didn't have the ball in his hands then the team wasn't scoring. He led the league in scoring and in steals, racked up more assists than TO's, and singlehandedly carried his team to the Finals...you can't find me one legitimate reason why he didn't deserve it.

His steals were just like Camby with his block stats the past couple of years, sure hes a great pocket picker, but he isn't a good man to man defender. He dominated the ball, but he also shot 42%, which isn't impressive. I'm not saying he wasn't a good player taking that Philly team to places they couldn't have reached, but he didn't deserve that MVP IMHO. He shot 10-25 which shouldn't be impressive to you, and if it is, then you better raise your standards. McGrady shot 41% this year for the Rockets, and this was one of his ugliest years shooting the ball. If you take 25 shot attempts and go the line over 9 times a game during the season then it really isn't impressive if you score 30ppg.

Not to mention his terrible shooting percentage just gets worse in the playoffs, as he dips to 41%, 38%, 38%(MVP season), 38%, and I won't mention others since where discussing the 2001 season.

He led his team to the finals right? well get this he shot not only 38% from the field, but 33% from behind the arc, and averaged 32ppg, on 30 SHOT ATTEMPTS, and if you get to the line over 9 times a game that efficiency rating is just horrible.

[Loose Cannon]

But that team was anchored by the defense of Theo Ratliff and Mutumbo, and not to mention Larry Brown coached that team to be a top 5 defensive team that season. Sure Iverson was scoring the ball but he wasn't at all efficient doing so, and didn't deserve that MVP.

**** efficiency, he did his job better than anybody in the league would've at that point. HE dominated the ball, HE took all the shots, HE was the one that had to singlehandedly carry the team on his shoulders to the Finals, HE had to take the shots to bring the team back whenever they were in a slump. You don't seem to realize the offensive burden that Iverson had on his hands...in fact, I don't think there's ever been an NBA team so insufficient offensively outside of one player. To say Iverson wasn't MVP is a joke.

And just for the record, Theo was only there for half of the season, Mutombo was our defensive anchor going into the Playoffs.

McGrady has been a terrific play maker since Orlando, and it only begun to shine in his years in Houston. Iverson wasn't a play maker that season, its just a matter of getting passing of the double team. Vince that year was damn good, shooting 46% from the field averaging 27ppg, one of his best years in the league IMO, while also shooting 40% from behind the arc, he was just a monster. McGrady was good that year, but he wasn't only a scorer he shot terrific from all angles, and his play making has been underrated throughout his career especially in Orlando. Both Vince and McGrady handled the ball a lot but still didn't average anywhere near 3 turnovers that year.

Negative, he wasn't near the playmaker he is now, his vision was underdeveloped, and didn't have the willingness to pass as he does now in Houston. There was a significant difference between Tracy and Iverson: Tracy had an offense to work with. Iverson was his offense that he had to work with. Vince didn't dominate the ball like AI did either, Mark Jackson was the PG of that team and did a fantastic job at it (9.2 APG). The fact that you're using minor advantages in statistics is absolutely ridiculous...oh Tracy has a 1 APG advantage, oh Vince Carter shot 4% better...whatever. That's the most black and white rationale someone can go with and it's quite obvious that you're doing whatever you can do to discredit Iverson.

His steals were just like Camby with his block stats the past couple of years, sure hes a great pocket picker, but he isn't a good man to man defender. He dominated the ball, but he also shot 42%, which isn't impressive. I'm not saying he wasn't a good player taking that Philly team to places they couldn't have reached, but he didn't deserve that MVP IMHO. He shot 10-25 which shouldn't be impressive to you, and if it is, then you better raise your standards. McGrady shot 41% this year for the Rockets, and this was one of his ugliest years shooting the ball. If you take 25 shot attempts and go the line over 9 times a game during the season then it really isn't impressive if you score 30ppg.

Not to mention his terrible shooting percentage just gets worse in the playoffs, as he dips to 41%, 38%, 38%(MVP season), 38%, and I won't mention others since where discussing the 2001 season.

He led his team to the finals right? well get this he shot not only 38% from the field, but 33% from behind the arc, and averaged 32ppg, on 30 SHOT ATTEMPTS, and if you get to the line over 9 times a game that efficiency rating is just horrible.

OMGHETOOKALOTOFSHOTATTEMPTSANDSHOTHORRIBLYONATEAMWITHVIRTUALLYNOOFFENSE!

A 3% difference in FG% doesn't constitute an ineffective player, a .6 difference in turnovers doesn't determine the MVP award. **** your efficiency rating, considering Iverson's personnel and his predicament he was the most efficient any perimeter player could've been. Tracy? Vince? How'd they fare in the Playoffs? Yeah. It's common sense when you've got that big of an offensive load to carry that obviously your percentages are going to dip...I want my team to win, even if it's at the expense of a substantial 3% in FG Percentage.

You can keep pulling all these percentages out of your ass but it's not going to help your argument. Iverson carried his offensively-handicapped team to the Finals. Was it efficient? Probably not, but in the given situation it's irrelevant.

[Reks]

But that team was anchored by the defense of Theo Ratliff and Mutumbo, and not to mention Larry Brown coached that team to be a top 5 defensive team that season. Sure Iverson was scoring the ball but he wasn't at all efficient doing so, and didn't deserve that MVP.

**** efficiency, he did his job better than anybody in the league would've at that point. HE dominated the ball, HE took all the shots, HE was the one that had to singlehandedly carry the team on his shoulders to the Finals, HE had to take the shots to bring the team back whenever they were in a slump. You don't seem to realize the offensive burden that Iverson had on his hands...in fact, I don't think there's ever been an NBA team so insufficient offensively outside of one player. To say Iverson wasn't MVP is a joke.

And just for the record, Theo was only there for half of the season, Mutombo was our defensive anchor going into the Playoffs.

McGrady has been a terrific play maker since Orlando, and it only begun to shine in his years in Houston. Iverson wasn't a play maker that season, its just a matter of getting passing of the double team. Vince that year was damn good, shooting 46% from the field averaging 27ppg, one of his best years in the league IMO, while also shooting 40% from behind the arc, he was just a monster. McGrady was good that year, but he wasn't only a scorer he shot terrific from all angles, and his play making has been underrated throughout his career especially in Orlando. Both Vince and McGrady handled the ball a lot but still didn't average anywhere near 3 turnovers that year.

Negative, he wasn't near the playmaker he is now, his vision was underdeveloped, and didn't have the willingness to pass as he does now in Houston. There was a significant difference between Tracy and Iverson: Tracy had an offense to work with. Iverson was his offense that he had to work with. Vince didn't dominate the ball like AI did either, Mark Jackson was the PG of that team and did a fantastic job at it (9.2 APG). The fact that you're using minor advantages in statistics is absolutely ridiculous...oh Tracy has a 1 APG advantage, oh Vince Carter shot 4% better...whatever. That's the most black and white rationale someone can go with and it's quite obvious that you're doing whatever you can do to discredit Iverson.

His steals were just like Camby with his block stats the past couple of years, sure hes a great pocket picker, but he isn't a good man to man defender. He dominated the ball, but he also shot 42%, which isn't impressive. I'm not saying he wasn't a good player taking that Philly team to places they couldn't have reached, but he didn't deserve that MVP IMHO. He shot 10-25 which shouldn't be impressive to you, and if it is, then you better raise your standards. McGrady shot 41% this year for the Rockets, and this was one of his ugliest years shooting the ball. If you take 25 shot attempts and go the line over 9 times a game during the season then it really isn't impressive if you score 30ppg.

Not to mention his terrible shooting percentage just gets worse in the playoffs, as he dips to 41%, 38%, 38%(MVP season), 38%, and I won't mention others since where discussing the 2001 season.

He led his team to the finals right? well get this he shot not only 38% from the field, but 33% from behind the arc, and averaged 32ppg, on 30 SHOT ATTEMPTS, and if you get to the line over 9 times a game that efficiency rating is just horrible.

OMGHETOOKALOTOFSHOTATTEMPTSANDSHOTHORRIBLYONATEAMWITHVIRTUALLYNOOFFENSE!

A 3% difference in FG% doesn't constitute an ineffective player, a .6 difference in turnovers doesn't determine the MVP award. **** your efficiency rating, considering Iverson's personnel and his predicament he was the most efficient any perimeter player could've been. Tracy? Vince? How'd they fare in the Playoffs? Yeah. It's common sense when you've got that big of an offensive load to carry that obviously your percentages are going to dip...I want my team to win, even if it's at the expense of a substantial 3% in FG Percentage.

You can keep pulling all these percentages out of your ass but it's not going to help your argument. Iverson carried his offensively-handicapped team to the Finals. Was it efficient? Probably not, but in the given situation it's irrelevant.

Amen. I like the ECF showdown between AI and VC. That is a classic.

[celticfan42487]

And he can keep pulling the statistics "out of his ass" or just out of the stats taken since they are 100% true. And yeah everyone wants to win, thats why the team that takes 3 shots and scores 4 points wins over the team (or just AI) who scores 1 point while taken 3 shots.

The team was a success because of the impressive defensive heart and contributions helping them overcome what was a horrible offense led by AI.