2017 Isaiah Thomas is better than any version of Iverson.

[CarMalone]

Kobe Bryant in his MVP season did not have a top 10 PER. Are you willing to continue this silly argument?


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

I'm not sure what your point is... Bill Russell in his MVP season did not have a top 10 per36 ppg either. That, just like Kobe Bryant, has no relevance to Iverson's scoring ability.

You're the one that said that Iverson would be the "best scorer in the league" today and I pointed out using facts that this is unlikely based on Iverson's actual production.

1. It has bearing only because that was a premise of the person I quoted argument. As this doesn't apply when used with Kobe and others players of the same era, it's not a good measure in this instance.

2. I never said AI would be the best scorer today. You seem confused.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

1. No, his premise is that Iverson would be the "best scorer in the league" today (a vague term) and he supported his assertion by pointing out that Iverson averaged 26 points per game that particular season at age 32. I assume you're trying to discredit pace adjusted statistics, but are we really to believe that a player would average 43 minutes per game today? One has to account for and adjust numbers to reflect more realistic environments.

2. My apologies, the person you quoted stated that Iverson would be the "best scorer in the league" today, not you. With that being said, my problem with his statement is that the numbers he is relying on are the product of minutes and usage. Iverson is 4th all time in minutes per game, the only three players with higher minutes per game all played in the 1960's. Heck, Iverson averaged over 42 minutes per game five times in his career. When his numbers are adjusted for pace, they are still great, but not nearly as impressive. To say that Iverson would be the "best scorer in the league" today is unrealistic and not supported by facts.

[streetp0et]

Not sure why people always gotta resort to putting down other players with the sole purpose of propping their favorite player up.

[smallgains]

Iverson also led the league in steals three times. Once in the PO too I believe. Let's not even talk about that huh?

Lemme guess Larry Hughes was an elite defender too?

I don't think I ever said elite defender. Hughes didn't do it three times in a row either. Compared to IT...yes he is elite lol.

[Capn'O]

More talent - Iverson case closed. That said, I think there's a very good argument that IT has a greater impact on his teams. One I would agree with.

[SF_Warriors]

I do not think it is unreasonable to say that IT this season has had a comparable if not better season than AI's best season, at least offensively. AI has never even had a TS% even close to what IT has this season.

[Sisqo]

Anyone who disagrees can fight me with actual data and evidence. I'm addressing this because I see people constantly pissing on IT while Iverson is on some nostalgic pedestal and it annoys me. Both were mediocre defenders who got steals in the passing lanes but not much else (although Iverson was better defensively). Isaiah's efficiency on offense more than makes up for PG defense.

"But defense!" People need to realize PG defense was never a huge thing. Sure, big PG's like Gary Payton, Jason Kidd, Dennis Johnson who also guarded 2s and 3s. But most other hall of fame PG's didn't play a lick of defense. Stop being hypocritical.

"Anyone who disagrees can fight me with actual data and evidence" How about you provide some data or evidence to back up your claim before demanding someone else does if they disagree with you opinion?

I'm mobile. I've shared plenty of times, your turn to look it up. Look at the advanced stats of each player. Look at the PER 36 of each player to take away Iverson's 8 mpg inflating his raw stats.

lol judging by the posts you have made in this thread i'm not going to waste my time if you can't be bothered to do it. no thanks.

Only thing that needs to be said here is that the advanced stats don't tell you anything about the style of game, the way the refs call the game and the players he is going against. If you think it tells the whole story you are wrong before you even start.

[DoItALL9]

Iverson's team was trash yet he had the DPOY, 6th man of year and 12 players with above league average WS/48. Makes sense. How many other stars in NBA history have had the 6th man of year+DPOY on their team?

That team was loaded with guys who couldn't put the ball in the basket. Yeah it makes sense that his supporting cast sucked.
By the way, I seem to recall Shaq eating and spitting out the DPOY.

When you build around a volume guy who takes 30 shots a game nearly and plays 40+ mpg, you don't add a bunch of scorers. You add a bunch of defenders, enforcers and utility guys. That's exactly what the Sixers did. As me and others are arguing here, the Sixers had a better supporting cast than the teams they played in the east. So the argument of "weak supporting cast" doesn't hold up. As for Shaq... well considering hes arguably the most physically dominant force ever, I don't think it's a knock on Mutumbo to get destroyed.

Why not build with 3 and D guys?

[Snotbubbles]

I do not think it is unreasonable to say that IT this season has had a comparable if not better season than AI's best season, at least offensively. AI has never even had a TS% even close to what IT has this season.

AI wasn't a great shooter.

[Dan Z]

I'm not sure if this has already been mentioned, but Iverson took his team to the NBA Finals and won the first game against the Lakers. He did so with a weaker team than the one IT currently is on. Let's see how far IT takes his team this year (so far he's been great).

[SF_Warriors]

I do not think it is unreasonable to say that IT this season has had a comparable if not better season than AI's best season, at least offensively. AI has never even had a TS% even close to what IT has this season.

AI wasn't a great shooter.

That statement is true..IT is a better shooter but also comparable at getting to and finishing at the rim. He has a more complete offensive skillset than iverson. Defensively is a different story, though.

[CarMalone]

More talent - Iverson case closed. That said, I think there's a very good argument that IT has a greater impact on his teams. One I would agree with.

I think most people would agree with this assessment. Iverson is the more skilled/talented physical player, but I think Thomas is better utilized.

[Louie_Ruckuz]

Iverson was woefully inefficient even for his era. He has the aura of being a great player without really being one.

That makes no sense. IVERSON was a great player, you numbers guys are taking this to another level.

So his biggest strength was scoring but he missed shots at an alarming rate. And other than one great defensive team coached by a HOFer, he never had any team success. Yet he was a great player.

Iverson was grossly overrated and your post only reaffirms my opinion

So are we just gonna ignore the fact that the Lakers teamed rolled Portland, Sacto and the Spurs while Iverson single handedly got a W in game one of the FINALS? overrated you say?

[TheDavinciCHODE]

Iverson is definitely one of the most overrated players of all time.

I think he'd be a lot worse in this era too.

The NBA is phasing out high-volume, low-efficiency guards that score primarily by just looking to get their own.

No doubt iverson would be still be a star but not one of the 5 best pg's in this era.

Curry
CP3
Westbrook
IT
John wall

....is draft each of those players in front of AI.

His legend has grown larger than his play on the court.

Iverson always scored a lot but never was efficient, and worse, hunted his shot first before attempting to make plays.

He's the kind of ISO mid range player that teams would love facing today.

Yes, with a more spaced floor and different perimeter rules, iverson would find more space, but before we get to anointing him, remember that he was at his peak in the early 00's, an era at the time criticized by former greats for being too soft on perimeter calls compared to times before. And he also played well into the late 00's when he shoulda still been in his prime but fell off.

Iverson was a high-volume, low-efficiency scorer who didn't make his teammates better much or contribute much outside of his sub 50% shooting. Defenses these days would love to let iverson bomb away from midrange on 40% from the field.

Iverson is the 6'0 version of Carmelo Anthony and less efficient.

And for those people crowning him for playoff achievements, what would you say about him if he had actually played elite competition early in the playoffs?

What if he had met the lakers in the first or second round? Or played the kings in the conference finals instead of bucks?

What if instead of matching up with the raptors his teams had met the spurs?

Too much credit is given to him for "willing his team to the finals", because had he actually faced anyone good before the finals, he woulda gotten bounced.

I don't blame him for losing the finals or beating who was put in front of him prior to it, but lets not get ahead of ourselves. He scored 178 points in the finals on 168 attempts to the tune of 40% from the field and 28% from deep.

TLDR - iverson was great but not that great and certainly not better than many of the pgs of today.

Would 2001 AI be top 10 this year?

Lbj
KD
Curry
Kawai
WB
Harden
Giannis
AD
IT
CP3

I'd take em all in a heartbeat over him.

I'm sure plenty more too that I can't think of before my phone dies


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

[Braggins]

What do you think IT's efficiency numbers would look like if he was playing on the 76ers during that era instead of Iverson? How can you discount the fact that both the rules changes and the evolution of modern offenses has been tremendously beneficial to small guards and efficiency in general. Imagine IT playing in a bruiser era with no offensive talent or anything resembling the shooting/spacing he has around him now. Does anything think he could have had the impact Iverson had in that era? Does anyone really think if you swapped him and Iverson's place in time that IT would lead those 76ers teams anywhere near the finals?

Anyone who understands basketball and saw Iverson play (even if they aren't particularly a fan) realizes what Iverson could do playing in this era in the situation that IT is in. He would absolutely shred defenses to the extent that Westbrook does and possibly even more so. Younger people don't realize that Iverson, despite all his flaws and bad habits he ended developing throughout his career, was one of the most talented guards the league has ever seen and he was in the god tier of the freakish athletes that have played in the NBA (professional sports in general tbh). There isn't a player in the league today that is faster or quicker with the ball than Iverson was at his peak. If a young Iverson came into the league today and a modern coach managed to get through to him he could be a top 3-5 player, hed be an all-star and put up fantastic stats regardless and be better than IT.

[BeatDaCavs420]

Jesus Christ

I've seen it all

[The_Hater]

That makes no sense. IVERSON was a great player, you numbers guys are taking this to another level.

So his biggest strength was scoring but he missed shots at an alarming rate. And other than one great defensive team coached by a HOFer, he never had any team success. Yet he was a great player.

Iverson was grossly overrated and your post only reaffirms my opinion

So are we just gonna ignore the fact that the Lakers teamed rolled Portland, Sacto and the Spurs while Iverson single handedly got a W in game one of the FINALS? overrated you say?

So you're basing your entire argument on one great game that he played? A game where he shot the ball 41 times and the Sixers won on the backs of their defense?

BTW, Iverson had a TS% of 48.6% in the finals as the Sixers lost in 5 games. Which actually only supports my point. Lots of shots, lots of misses.

[TerryTate]

of course... he's goes to practice

[The_Hater]

What do you think IT's efficiency numbers would look like if he was playing on the 76ers during that era instead of Iverson? How can you discount the fact that both the rules changes and the evolution of modern offenses has been tremendously beneficial to small guards and efficiency in general. Imagine IT playing in a bruiser era with no offensive talent or anything resembling the shooting/spacing he has around him now. Does anything think he could have had the impact Iverson had in that era? Does anyone really think if you swapped him and Iverson's place in time that IT would lead those 76ers teams anywhere near the finals?

Anyone who understands basketball and saw Iverson play (even if they aren't particularly a fan) realizes what Iverson could do playing in this era in the situation that IT is in. He would absolutely shred defenses to the extent that Westbrook does and possibly even more so. Younger people don't realize that Iverson, despite all his flaws and bad habits he ended developing throughout his career, was one of the most talented guards the league has ever seen and he was in the god tier of the freakish athletes that have played in the NBA (professional sports in general tbh). There isn't a player in the league today that is faster or quicker with the ball than Iverson was at his peak. If a young Iverson came into the league today and a modern coach managed to get through to him he could be a top 3-5 player, hed be an all-star and put up fantastic stats regardless.

IT's TS% would be worse in 2000 just like Iverson's TS% would be better in 2017. League percentages has risen over that time

But Thomas was still among the league leaders in TS% this season while Iverson had a TS% well below average for most of his career including his MVP season. So relatively speaking, one of them is efficient while the other is not. That's just a fact.

[Louie_Ruckuz]

So his biggest strength was scoring but he missed shots at an alarming rate. And other than one great defensive team coached by a HOFer, he never had any team success. Yet he was a great player.

Iverson was grossly overrated and your post only reaffirms my opinion

So are we just gonna ignore the fact that the Lakers teamed rolled Portland, Sacto and the Spurs while Iverson single handedly got a W in game one of the FINALS? overrated you say?

So you're basing your entire argument on one great game that he played? A game where he shot the ball 41 times and the Sixers won on the backs of their defense?

BTW, Iverson had a TS% of 48.6% in the finals as the Sixers lost in 5 games. Which actually only supports my point. Lots of shots, lots of misses.

You obviously have a biased opinion and it wont change anything. He took a ton of shots, no one is arguing that but to say he's overrated is far from the truth.

[The_Hater]

So are we just gonna ignore the fact that the Lakers teamed rolled Portland, Sacto and the Spurs while Iverson single handedly got a W in game one of the FINALS? overrated you say?

So you're basing your entire argument on one great game that he played? A game where he shot the ball 41 times and the Sixers won on the backs of their defense?

BTW, Iverson had a TS% of 48.6% in the finals as the Sixers lost in 5 games. Which actually only supports my point. Lots of shots, lots of misses.

You obviously have a biased opinion and it wont change anything. He took a ton of shots, no one is arguing that but to say he's overrated is far from the truth.

I could say the same thing about you being baised too, right? Is that all you've got here?

At least I'm pointing to a career long habit of being an inefficient player and lack of team success as my proof that I feel he's overrated. Those are facts. So far you've just pointed to one game he played in the middle of an extremely inefficient playoff series his team ultimately lost.