Allen Iverson Scenario

va-mos · Post #42 » by **va-mos** » Sat Jul 28, 2012 9:56 am

What if the Bulls sign Iverson now?

Sn0wman · Post #43 » by **Sn0wman** » Sat Jul 28, 2012 10:17 am

He would be killing it, prime AI was crazy, dude can score at will, he would definitely be a top 10 player. Personally want to see him back in action, hope a team gives him a shot

va-mos · Post #44 » by **va-mos** » Sat Jul 28, 2012 11:48 am

I wonder how Marbury would do in the NBA now. He's just won a championship and MVP award, so his confidence must be sky-high. I know its a lesser league he's playing in, but he's in playing shape and he's confident.

BJGOAT3 · Post #45 » by **BJGOAT3** » Sat Jul 28, 2012 11:57 am

Well, if he takes that sorry ass 76ers team to a top seed like he did in 2001 then he would be the MVP and a top3 player.

starquest52 · Post #46 » by **starquest52** » Sat Jul 28, 2012 12:05 pm

koko88 wrote:

Is that hercules?

Post #47 » by **tsherkin** » Sat Jul 28, 2012 12:59 pm

I wonder.

Iverson did really well in the earliest years of the new era as a #2 player.

He'd still suck on uber-high volume, I don't think that would change. He produced his 22+ FGA/g seasons by chucking up a lot of long twos that he couldn't hit consistently to begin with, and by playing a whole crapload of minutes.

Having said that, even in his Philly days pre-rules changes, when he limited his volume to around 18-20 shots per game, he was a really good player. I think that if he was able to limit his shooting volume a bit, the kind of Iverson we saw in 00-01 might show up. He was legit talented; he'd get called for more carries now, and I doubt his FG% would change much because his shot selection was deplorable and he wasn't a very good shooter, but his FTR would definitely rise. That speed was... I don't think there are a lot of particularly accurate words to capture just how fast he was. "Lightning quick" and all the usual phrases just don't capture the essence of how he'd be driving full-out to the right and then suddenly be 15 feet in the opposite direction before you finished blinking.

I don't think there's any question that he'd be a top 10 player. I don't think it'd change his overall game THAT much, because he still over-dribbled the ball, was still an inconsistent shooter, still a pretty mediocre defender and so forth, but he'd be up there. Hell, he was up there even still in his hey-day anyhow, so I think he'd be right where he was. His raw TS% would rise; I don't think his relative TS% would change much, because that hasn't changed a ton for a lot of guys who were also good scorers before the rules changes.

I'll settle with bottom end of the top 5.

JustOneFix · Post #48 » by **JustOneFix** » Sat Jul 28, 2012 1:32 pm

TyCobb wrote:The guards these days are bigger, stronger, and still just as quick as 2001 Iverson. He'd still obviously get his shot off though. He'd probably average 26.8 PPG and 80.7% from the free throw line.

Please....

Iverson played against every possible great guard in the last 20 years. From Michael Jordan, Jason Kidd, Reggie Miller, Gary Payton, Latrell Sprewell to Chauncey Billups, Baron Davis, Dwayne Wade, Gilbert Arenas, Stephon Marbury, to name a few. And all of these guys were bigger and stronger then him.

If you think he would be having a harder time against the Deron Williams and Russel Westbrook and likes, all i can say is that you're dead wrong.

KembaWalker · Post #49 » by **KembaWalker** » Sat Jul 28, 2012 1:57 pm

he'd average the same numbers or better easily on a similarly built team

if he had other stars around him the ppg would go down and efficiency would go up and he'd be a 28ppg guy on his Denver efficiency (55-58% TS) and everyone would think he was a god

StatLine · Post #50 » by **StatLine** » Sat Jul 28, 2012 2:41 pm

ESPN would try to build up an Iverson-Rose rivalry

big_ticket · Post #51 » by **big_ticket** » Sat Jul 28, 2012 2:44 pm

top 5 in scoring and TO's

Bubstubbler · Post #52 » by **Bubstubbler** » Sat Jul 28, 2012 4:41 pm

MannyRam99 wrote:
Bubstubbler wrote:
CHA_77_Bobcats wrote:

Icing on the cake is that the alien thread has so many more posts.

It would be a good idea to look at the times the threads were made ... its in the image.

No crap the AI thread was newer. Duh. LOL at you not thinking I knew that. Did you not notice that my post was ON PAGE 3 of the AI thread (so I obviously knew the AI thread had more than 8 posts by then)? That point did not escape me, but the prima facie (i.e. at first blush, on the surface) humor apparently escaped you.

Let me guess, when you see the pic of Ira Newble ninja kicking Dunleavy in the head, you're one of those people who doesn't get the humor of the pic and instead mutter, "He's not really ninja kicking Dunleavy, it just looks that way," as if the rest of us didn't already know that.

YES we all know Newble wasn't intentionally ninja kicking Dunleavy. It's funny because of how it looks prima facie while paused in time.

In the same way, YES I know the AI thread was started later and that the screenshot, taken when it did, just makes it look prima facie like RealGMers care way way more about the alien invasion scenario than the ai scenario.