2017 Isaiah Thomas is better than any version of Iverson.

[DarkAzcura]

1. You have to consider durability. I know you won't even understand what I'm saying but Iverson's per game stats has to be adjsted by the pace of the game and they should be used for comparison. That's what I meant. Because they don't play the same amount of possessions per game. With that adjustment AI and Isaiah's per game stats would even be more apart.
2. Yes I think exactly like that. Coaches are not stupid. They know basketball better than you. Player efficiency suffers when they continue to play lots of minutes and maintain their usage.
3. Wrong. In his prime Iverson's TS% was slightly better than league average. But that's not the point. The point is Iverson increases the whole team's TS% by 6-11% when he is on the floor (which is by far the best in his era) because of the double teams he got outside the 3pt line and triple - quadraple teams he got when he's inside the 3pt line. Thanks to his skills, he took insane amount of attention from defenses in a handcheck era. You just had to watch games or listen to players talk about him.

Finally if you asked Isaiah himself he would say he's not even close to AI and drop the comparison immediately.

1) Yes and that is why I just showed you the per 100 Possession stats and they still favor IT.
2) So wait are you agreeing with me that players are not less durable but the coaches play deeper rotations now a days? Because that is what Im saying and that is why AI wouldnt be playing 40+ minutes a game if he played today.
3) Im just going to leave this link when it comes to his TS%. This is from his MVP season, this is the list of guards that played at least 60 games and averaged at least 30 minutes a game. He ranked 30th out of 44 guards who fit this criteria when it comes to TS%. So if we are comparing him to his peers at the time (guards that played a lot), he was below average.

http://stats.nba.com/players/advanced/#!?sort=TS_PCT&dir=-1&Season=2000-01&SeasonType=Regular%20Season&CF=GP*GE*60:MIN*GE*30&PlayerPosition=G

1. Alright you don't know what I'm talking about just like I predicted.
2. You didn't even understand what I was saying. Iverson maintained his effiency although he played more and continue taking shots unlike other players. That's why he played a lot and that's why he would still play a lot.
3. Putting a criteria? Lol

I think you are completely missing his points, not vice versa.

If you want to try to extrapolate how much more efficient Iverson would be in today's game, comparing AI to his direct peers while he was playing is exactly what you should be doing. If he was below average in efficiency compared to his peers back then, we don't have a lot of reasons to believe it would be any different today objectively speaking.

Using per possession numbers is also another thing you should exactly be doing.

[NickAnderson]

I can't believe this is even a discussion


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

[DarkAzcura]

I can't believe this is even a discussion


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

Good talk, good discussion. I see you have a lot to add to this!

[OkcSinceSGA]

1) Yes and that is why I just showed you the per 100 Possession stats and they still favor IT.
2) So wait are you agreeing with me that players are not less durable but the coaches play deeper rotations now a days? Because that is what Im saying and that is why AI wouldnt be playing 40+ minutes a game if he played today.
3) Im just going to leave this link when it comes to his TS%. This is from his MVP season, this is the list of guards that played at least 60 games and averaged at least 30 minutes a game. He ranked 30th out of 44 guards who fit this criteria when it comes to TS%. So if we are comparing him to his peers at the time (guards that played a lot), he was below average.

http://stats.nba.com/players/advanced/#!?sort=TS_PCT&dir=-1&Season=2000-01&SeasonType=Regular%20Season&CF=GP*GE*60:MIN*GE*30&PlayerPosition=G

1. Alright you don't know what I'm talking about just like I predicted.
2. You didn't even understand what I was saying. Iverson maintained his effiency although he played more and continue taking shots unlike other players. That's why he played a lot and that's why he would still play a lot.
3. Putting a criteria? Lol

Duke has made far more sense than you have TBH. I think you are completely missing his points, not vice versa.

If you want to try to extrapolate how much more efficient Iverson would be in today's game, comparing AI to his direct peers while he was playing is exactly what you should be doing. If he was below average in efficiency compared to his peers back then, we don't have a lot of reasons to believe it would be any different today objectively speaking.

Using per possession numbers is also another thing you should exactly be doing.

You mean shouting how crazy we are and how Iverson would easily average 40 today isn't a good strategy? Steph Curry, Durant,Harden, LeBron etc are far better, more efficient scorers and they have trouble hitting 30.

[casketball]

And that has to do with...? Kinda pathetic deflection there my friend.

Ton of Cavs fans in here whining about Isaiah getting undeserved calls. Lebron is the king of that.

That said, it's part of the game that stars who play in traffic get calls.

Haha yeah right, LeBron doesn't get calls he should all the time. He gets treated differently bc of his size and strength.

You argument was one call, in one game last year, that had nothing to do with Boston. Weak sir.

Lebron hasn't routinely got favorable calls throughout his career?

Again, not disparaging his career, he's obviously top 3 all time. But you're kidding yourself if you don't think he benefits from superstar calls.

[DarkAzcura]

1. Alright you don't know what I'm talking about just like I predicted.
2. You didn't even understand what I was saying. Iverson maintained his effiency although he played more and continue taking shots unlike other players. That's why he played a lot and that's why he would still play a lot.
3. Putting a criteria? Lol

Duke has made far more sense than you have TBH. I think you are completely missing his points, not vice versa.

If you want to try to extrapolate how much more efficient Iverson would be in today's game, comparing AI to his direct peers while he was playing is exactly what you should be doing. If he was below average in efficiency compared to his peers back then, we don't have a lot of reasons to believe it would be any different today objectively speaking.

Using per possession numbers is also another thing you should exactly be doing.

You mean shouting how crazy we are and how Iverson would easily average 40 today isn't a good strategy?

Lol, yeah it's kind of crazy. There is literally no basis in those arguments other than 'BUT FEELINGS ARE TELLING ME THIS.'

[OsuCavsfan103]

Ton of Cavs fans in here whining about Isaiah getting undeserved calls. Lebron is the king of that.

That said, it's part of the game that stars who play in traffic get calls.

Haha yeah right, LeBron doesn't get calls he should all the time. He gets treated differently bc of his size and strength.

You argument was one call, in one game last year, that had nothing to do with Boston. Weak sir.

Lebron hasn't routinely got favorable calls throughout his career?

Again, not disparaging his career, he's obviously top 3 all time. But you're kidding yourself if you don't think he benefits from superstar calls.

No not as weak as IT on a consistent basis. The only way for an opposing team to stop LeBron inside, is to hit him hard and try to foul essentially. His rare size, speed, strength combination is too hard to stop. So much so that a lot of fouls LeBron gets are teams fouling him on purpose. If he gets a full head of steam and a clear lane, people just move out of the way. With IT, he is quick as heck and small, so he can get inside, but players use their height to try and alter his shot bc he is small and not very strong in NBA terms. He merely throws himself into the defender and flails his head back and falls over, and gets the call almost every time. Refs give him more calls bc he is weak and small for an NBA player. Anyone not a Celtics fan can see that. Only person in the league who might get more BS calls is James Harden. It's embarrassing to see personally.

[OkcSinceSGA]

Iverson backers do you think Iverson is a better scorer than Curry, Durant, Harden or LeBron?

[DarkAzcura]

Haha yeah right, LeBron doesn't get calls he should all the time. He gets treated differently bc of his size and strength.

You argument was one call, in one game last year, that had nothing to do with Boston. Weak sir.

Lebron hasn't routinely got favorable calls throughout his career?

Again, not disparaging his career, he's obviously top 3 all time. But you're kidding yourself if you don't think he benefits from superstar calls.

No not as weak as IT on a consistent basis. The only way for an opposing team to stop LeBron inside, is to hit him hard and try to foul essentially. His rare size, speed, strength combination is too hard to stop. So much so that a lot of fouls LeBron gets are teams fouling him on purpose. If he gets a full head of steam and a clear lane, people just move out of the way. With IT, he is quick as heck and small, so he can get inside, but players use their height to try and alter his shot bc he is small and not very strong in NBA terms. He merely throws himself into the defender and flails his head back and falls over, and gets the call almost every time. Refs give him more calls bc he is weak and small for an NBA player. Anyone not a Celtics fan can see that. Only person in the league who might get more BS calls is James Harden. It's embarrassing to see personally.

I actually don't think you are watching Thomas all that much if you think he just throws his body at people and flails his head. He's constantly trying to finish and really doesn't flop a lot. You are pretty wrong about his strength. His strength (along with his change in speed) is one of the reasons he is able to make up for his height.

[casketball]

Lebron hasn't routinely got favorable calls throughout his career?

Again, not disparaging his career, he's obviously top 3 all time. But you're kidding yourself if you don't think he benefits from superstar calls.

No not as weak as IT on a consistent basis. The only way for an opposing team to stop LeBron inside, is to hit him hard and try to foul essentially. His rare size, speed, strength combination is too hard to stop. So much so that a lot of fouls LeBron gets are teams fouling him on purpose. If he gets a full head of steam and a clear lane, people just move out of the way. With IT, he is quick as heck and small, so he can get inside, but players use their height to try and alter his shot bc he is small and not very strong in NBA terms. He merely throws himself into the defender and flails his head back and falls over, and gets the call almost every time. Refs give him more calls bc he is weak and small for an NBA player. Anyone not a Celtics fan can see that. Only person in the league who might get more BS calls is James Harden. It's embarrassing to see personally.

I actually don't think you are watching Thomas all that much if you think he just throws his body at people and flails his head. He's constantly trying to finish and really doesn't flop a lot. You are pretty wrong about his strength. His strength (along with his change in speed) is one of the reasons he is able to make up for his height.

Yup. Sorry man, you're wrong about Isaiah.

[sam_I_am]

I'm as big an IT fan as anybody and although he is having a season worthy of comparison to Iverson, it really is his only season that really even compares. I do think AI was a ball dominator who couldn't share the ball and IT is a great teammate who moves well without the ball. IT is also a better outside shooter. But AI was so freaking athletic and so ferocious. If he was playing today in this era of hands free defense, I think he would average 33-35 ppg without taking anywhere near the beating he used to.

[OkcSinceSGA]

I'm as big an IT fan as anybody and although he is having a season worthy of comparison to Iverson, it really is his only season that really even compares. I do think AI was a ball dominator who couldn't share the ball and IT is a great teammate who moves well without the ball. IT is also a better outside shooter. But AI was so freaking athletic and so ferocious. If he was playing today in this era of hands free defense, I think he would average 33-35 ppg without taking anywhere near the beating he used to.

That's your fault for not reading the original posts and thread title. Nobody is comparing their all time status or body of work. We are comparing one season. Also this era is absolutely not hands free. Handchecking had made a pretty damn big comeback in recent years. Watch the film more closely.

If Curry, Harden, LeBron, Durant haven't hit 33-35 ppg what makes you think a far inferior scorer would?

[permaximum]

1) Yes and that is why I just showed you the per 100 Possession stats and they still favor IT.
2) So wait are you agreeing with me that players are not less durable but the coaches play deeper rotations now a days? Because that is what Im saying and that is why AI wouldnt be playing 40+ minutes a game if he played today.
3) Im just going to leave this link when it comes to his TS%. This is from his MVP season, this is the list of guards that played at least 60 games and averaged at least 30 minutes a game. He ranked 30th out of 44 guards who fit this criteria when it comes to TS%. So if we are comparing him to his peers at the time (guards that played a lot), he was below average.

http://stats.nba.com/players/advanced/#!?sort=TS_PCT&dir=-1&Season=2000-01&SeasonType=Regular%20Season&CF=GP*GE*60:MIN*GE*30&PlayerPosition=G

1. Alright you don't know what I'm talking about just like I predicted.
2. You didn't even understand what I was saying. Iverson maintained his effiency although he played more and continue taking shots unlike other players. That's why he played a lot and that's why he would still play a lot.
3. Putting a criteria? Lol

What are you talking about then? You were talking about the pace of the game being different and he played with a slower pace and thats why I cant use per 36. So thats why I used per 100 possessions, that isnt a per game stat it is a per possession stat, so it takes out the difference in pace. If you mean something else, what do you mean then.

He maintained his efficiency and thats why he played a lot? No he played a lot because it was normal for star players to play 40+ minutes a game back in the early 2000s. He had multiple seasons where his TS% was below 50%. I wouldnt call that maintaining his efficiency.

Yes I put a criteria, Im not going to rank him with guys that played only 2 games. You want to make it 50 games and guys that played only 20 minutes sure go ahead. All I was saying is, when you compare him to his peers, again other guards that played a lot, his TS% was below average with those guys.

1. Adjust per-game numbers with pace. It's simple as that. Don't use per/min or per/poss crap. Playing instead of replacement players is a big factor.

2. If you don't put some stupid criterias, Iverson's TS% was slightly better than league average and even better if it's compared to other guards' average while having all-time high usage rates. You're giving false information.

3. Individual TS% means nothing. Iverson increased his teammates' TS% by 6-11% when he was on the floor.

4. Different era, different rules.

5. Jelani McCoy averaged 21.5 PTS 12.8 RB 3.2 BLK 1.8 STL 0.6 AST 1.6 TOV per 100 poss on an "unbelievable 70.4% TS" in his rookie season. Is he better than prime Jordan?

6. I've been doing advanced analytics stuff and created advanced metrics when you didn't even start watching NBA. So don't come to me with skewed and meaningless stats.

7. You're a troll. Iverson is the 2nd or 3rd best SG behind Jordan and Kobe. It's simple as that.

[RaptorRed]

I'm as big an IT fan as anybody and although he is having a season worthy of comparison to Iverson, it really is his only season that really even compares. I do think AI was a ball dominator who couldn't share the ball and IT is a great teammate who moves well without the ball. IT is also a better outside shooter. But AI was so freaking athletic and so ferocious. If he was playing today in this era of hands free defense, I think he would average 33-35 ppg without taking anywhere near the beating he used to.

That's your fault for not reading the original posts and thread title. Nobody is comparing their all time status or body of work. We are comparing one season. Also this era is absolutely not hands free. Handchecking had made a pretty damn big comeback in recent years. Watch the film more closely.

If Curry, Harden, LeBron, Durant haven't hit 33-35 ppg what makes you think a far inferior scorer would?

What is the purpose of comparing this season to Iverson ? You are obviously implying he is the better player. If that's not what you are implying please enlighten us what the point of this thread is ? and why iverson ?

[reapaman]

Didn't Iverson play at only 29 y/o after the rule changes occurred? Why are people acting like its a guess what he would do under these rules, when we already know? And it wasn't much better. If you look at advance shooting charts, points in the paint and fouls called for guards have been going down for years. You would not know this unless you were paying attention to how teams are guarding players today with an open mind. The only thing keeping the scoring averages up are smarter shot selection and the enhancement of the 3 point shot.

A matter of fact, when Iverson played under the rule changes, the league wide fouls per game was much higher than today. This past year has been the 3 lowest among fouls called in league history (11-12 and 12-13 being the highest). So if anything, his fouls per game would go down since he was already getting superstar calls.

People can say whatever they want, but they have no facts to back up what they say. Iverson would not be any better today if at all especially since he wasn't a good enough shooter and this is an era of greater concentration on team play. If your going to argue one over the other, bring up facts not just baseless statements.

[OkcSinceSGA]

I'm as big an IT fan as anybody and although he is having a season worthy of comparison to Iverson, it really is his only season that really even compares. I do think AI was a ball dominator who couldn't share the ball and IT is a great teammate who moves well without the ball. IT is also a better outside shooter. But AI was so freaking athletic and so ferocious. If he was playing today in this era of hands free defense, I think he would average 33-35 ppg without taking anywhere near the beating he used to.

That's your fault for not reading the original posts and thread title. Nobody is comparing their all time status or body of work. We are comparing one season. Also this era is absolutely not hands free. Handchecking had made a pretty damn big comeback in recent years. Watch the film more closely.

If Curry, Harden, LeBron, Durant haven't hit 33-35 ppg what makes you think a far inferior scorer would?

What is the purpose of comparing this season to Iverson ? You are obviously implying he is the better player. If that's not what you are implying please enlighten us what the point of this thread is ? and why iverson ?

I'm saying Isaiah just had a better season than Iverson ever did. It doesn't get more direct and simple than that.

[DoubleO8]

You guys are acting like nerds demanding advanced statistics. If you really understand the game you'd recognize the difference in space each guy had to work with.

[permaximum]

For a quick glimpse;

Iverson at prime in today's game could be by going conservative improvements

44 MPG (he was always the league leader)
10 APG (made more than 7.5 APG 3 times)
6 RPG (made 4.9 RPG)
3 SPG (made 2.8 constanly in his prime)
1 BPG
4 TPG
48% FG (4 times averaged between 44-47%)
37% 3P ( 4 times averaged between 34-36%)
84% FT ( His best was 89% for half a year and 84% for a full year)
36 FG per 100 poss (34.4 was his best)
8 3P per 100 poss (7.5 was his best)
21 FT per 100 poss (14.4 was hist best)

45 PPG (made 33 ppg at 31 years old)

Today one game generally consists of 89 possessions. With 44 MPG 48% FG 37% 3P 84% FT, Iverson would exactly average 45 PPG.

[OkcSinceSGA]

For a quick glimpse;

Iverson at prime in today's game could be by going conservative improvements

44 MPG (he was always the league leader)
10 APG (could make more than 7.5 APG 3 times)
6 RPG (could make 4.9 RPG)
3 SPG (could make 2.8 constanly in his prime)
1 BPG
4 TPG
48% FG (4 times averaged between 44-47%)
37% 3P ( 4 times averaged between 34-36%)
84% FT ( His best was 89% for half a year and 84% for a full year)
36 FG per 100 poss (34.4 was his best)
8 3P per 100 poss (7.5 was his best)
21 FT per 100 poss (14.4 was hist best)

45 PPG (could make 33 ppg at 31 years old)

Today one game generally consists of 89 possessions. With 44 MPG 48% FG 37% 3P 84% FT, Iverson would exactly average 45 PPG.

SO many assumptions, so little data and evidence. That's all Iverson fan boys are adding to this discussion sadly. You're saying Iverson would be 15 ppg better than Harden, Curry, LeBron, Durant have been in recent years. You don't see the insanity of that? He didnt have a reliable 3 point shot. Teams WANT you to beat them from midrange now, which was Iverson's go to. He's no CP3 from mid range either.

[permaximum]

Lol

I improved his shooting numbers less than 2% compared to his best seasons. You're joking about "too many assumptions" thing right