2017 Isaiah Thomas is better than any version of Iverson.

[permaximum]

Btw when handchecking temporarily relaxed in Iverson's most efficient season he only averaged a tad over 9 free throw attempts per game.

Iverson was 32-year old by then and he played mostly for Nuggets in a different system that season.

BTW what do you think about Isaiah's defense?

[OkcSinceSGA]

Btw when handchecking temporarily relaxed in Iverson's most efficient season he only averaged a tad over 9 free throw attempts per game.

Iverson was 32-year old by then and he played mostly for Nuggets in a different system that season.

BTW what do you think about Isaiah's defense?

It's extremely, extremely bad. Luckily for a PG I weigh offensive efficiency, playmaking, shooting a hell of a lot more than defense. Is 32 old? CP3 is 32.

[permaximum]

45pts per game is not possible. If you think it is then it destroys any sense of objectiveness you may have in this argument.

For those looking for facts that show Iverson would have had it easier in this era - how do you explain away the following:

During the 12 years of Iverson's prime - 1997-2008 - there were 8 different players 6'4" and shorter that average more than 30points per 100 possessions. Only 4 times did they have a TS of 57% of better. Across 12 years! This season alone, there are 14 players 6'4" and shorter that score more than 30 points per 100 possessions and 10 of them with a TS% of 57% or better. 10 this year vs 4 over 12 years - that's equivalent to a 3000% increase.

This season has been a statistical anomaly and makes a straight up comparison a bit difficult. I would lean towards Thomas being better offensively, but I don't think it's by as big as a gap as many Thomas supporters make it out to be.

Everyone on the other side already acknowledged Iverson's efficiency would go up a bit. What I'm contesting is the people outright dismissing the comparison with emotions and saying ridiculous things like Iverson would average 40+ right now etc.

Also people citing Iverson's defensive team appearances as proof he was a good defender are off. Iverson gambled a TON on defense. He racked up steals. That's not good defense. He would get roasted with the shooters in this league now for doing that. So flashy steals stats does not make someone a good defender.

Well, according to the voters he was a great defender because he got even DPOY votes along with All-Defensive team votes.

I guess your problem is you don't think those awards back then means anything now. Actually it's the opposite

[OkcSinceSGA]

45pts per game is not possible. If you think it is then it destroys any sense of objectiveness you may have in this argument.

For those looking for facts that show Iverson would have had it easier in this era - how do you explain away the following:

During the 12 years of Iverson's prime - 1997-2008 - there were 8 different players 6'4" and shorter that average more than 30points per 100 possessions. Only 4 times did they have a TS of 57% of better. Across 12 years! This season alone, there are 14 players 6'4" and shorter that score more than 30 points per 100 possessions and 10 of them with a TS% of 57% or better. 10 this year vs 4 over 12 years - that's equivalent to a 3000% increase.

This season has been a statistical anomaly and makes a straight up comparison a bit difficult. I would lean towards Thomas being better offensively, but I don't think it's by as big as a gap as many Thomas supporters make it out to be.

Everyone on the other side already acknowledged Iverson's efficiency would go up a bit. What I'm contesting is the people outright dismissing the comparison with emotions and saying ridiculous things like Iverson would average 40+ right now etc.

Also people citing Iverson's defensive team appearances as proof he was a good defender are off. Iverson gambled a TON on defense. He racked up steals. That's not good defense. He would get roasted with the shooters in this league now for doing that. So flashy steals stats does not make someone a good defender.

Well, according to the voters he was a great defender because he got even DPOY votes along with All-Defensive team votes.

I guess your problem is you don't think those awards back then means anything now. Actually it's the opposite

All NBA teams are largely due to reputation or gaudy steals and block stats. Lucky for us we've advanced a ton in analytics and KNOW that players gambling for a ton of steals and blocks are actually hurting the defense by being out of position a lot of times. This doesn't mean steals+blocks aren't good. It just means it can often be misleading in the case of guys like Iverson or even DeAndre Jordan. DJ is constantly going for the big block and giving up wide open layups and dunks as a result. If your argument for Iverson being a good defender is NBA defense teams, you're going to lose.

[permaximum]

Everyone on the other side already acknowledged Iverson's efficiency would go up a bit. What I'm contesting is the people outright dismissing the comparison with emotions and saying ridiculous things like Iverson would average 40+ right now etc.

Also people citing Iverson's defensive team appearances as proof he was a good defender are off. Iverson gambled a TON on defense. He racked up steals. That's not good defense. He would get roasted with the shooters in this league now for doing that. So flashy steals stats does not make someone a good defender.

Well, according to the voters he was a great defender because he got even DPOY votes along with All-Defensive team votes.

I guess your problem is you don't think those awards back then means anything now. Actually it's the opposite

All NBA teams are largely due to reputation or gaudy steals and block stats. Lucky for us we've advanced a ton in analytics and KNOW that players gambling for a ton of steals and blocks are actually hurting the defense by being out of position a lot of times. This doesn't mean steals+blocks aren't good. It just means it can often be misleading in the case of guys like Iverson or even DeAndre Jordan. DJ is constantly going for the big block and giving up wide open layups and dunks as a result. If your argument for Iverson being a good defender is NBA defense teams, you're going to lose.

What's your argument? Your gut feeling?

[OkcSinceSGA]

Well, according to the voters he was a great defender because he got even DPOY votes along with All-Defensive team votes.

I guess your problem is you don't think those awards back then means anything now. Actually it's the opposite

All NBA teams are largely due to reputation or gaudy steals and block stats. Lucky for us we've advanced a ton in analytics and KNOW that players gambling for a ton of steals and blocks are actually hurting the defense by being out of position a lot of times. This doesn't mean steals+blocks aren't good. It just means it can often be misleading in the case of guys like Iverson or even DeAndre Jordan. DJ is constantly going for the big block and giving up wide open layups and dunks as a result. If your argument for Iverson being a good defender is NBA defense teams, you're going to lose.

What's your argument? Your gut feeling?

Argument for which part? That Iverson wasn't a good defender? Or that going for steals and blocks at the expense of positional defense/staying with your man is a detriment in many cases? I'd be happy to make either argument.

[OkcSinceSGA]

I can start with the fact that Iverson had a significant negative defensive box plus minus despite often being surrounded with a handful of above average defenders. You could make a fair case that as much as Iverson carried his team's offensive load, his teammates carried his defensive slack. He almost never guarded best wings and when he did he got abused handily (such as vs Kobe, Vince Carter). Instead he played full time zone defense practically and patrolled the passing lanes. Not good defense.

[Painting_Shade]

any number of advanced stats you want to look at will say this statement is true.

[Dnt hate]

Iverson led his team to 1st with a record of 56-26, with horrible spacing because nobody in the starting lineup shot threes, aaron mckie off the bench was the only average shooter, put thomas or curry on those teams getting doubled in the playoffs and having a few 50 point games, ya right, stop comparing different eras and teams, iverson never had a team as good as curry harden durant or lebron, and you guys are calling them better scorers wow thanks for your opinion, never want to hear your opinion again stop hating

[SeniorWalker]

This debate is like a microcosm of what I think many current NBA talents compared to players from that era. Smarter, more efficient but not necessarily more talented. Isaiah is that. Much smarter and more efficient player than Iverson and that does make him "Better" if raw individual production is the end all be all... but I don't believe he's more talented than Iverson. Iverson wasn't a stupid player either; inefficient volume scoring just didn't bother as many pros back then. One can say the same about Kobe Bryant to a large degree. I would never in a million years take any guard from this era over Kobe but there are a few that produce more efficiently and intelligently than Kobe did for much of his career.

Also yes this current era of offense does seem to be to inflated quite a bit. League wide, I'm not sure but I'm willing to bet that, among the top 2-5% of offensive players, the current rules are driving this inflation. This is conjecture until someone does a deeper analysis.

[I_Like_Dirt]

I think the answer to this question depends a lot. I don't think Thomas, as he currently plays, would have been anything close to the player he is right now had he played in Iverson's day. Handchecking would have hurt his game quite a bit because he relies a lot on touch fouls overall, and while he would have adapted, because he's good, I don't think he'd have been nearly the player Iverson was back then. As for the current NBA, it's tough to say. I don't think Iverson's game was made for the current NBA any more than Thomas' was made for Iverson's NBA. That said, I think Iverson in the modern NBA is closer to Thomas than Thomas would have been to Iverson, if that makes sense.

[ISayshowmee]

Too early to ask this question. Isiah is just entering the best days of his career, it is unfair for him to be compared to a legend.

[permaximum]

I can start with the fact that Iverson had a significant negative defensive box plus minus despite often being surrounded with a handful of above average defenders. You could make a fair case that as much as Iverson carried his team's offensive load, his teammates carried his defensive slack. He almost never guarded best wings and when he did he got abused handily (such as vs Kobe, Vince Carter). Instead he played full time zone defense practically and patrolled the passing lanes. Not good defense.

Iverson's 17-year defensive RAPM is positive and it's better than even Kobe. Defensive BPM is **** compared to that because BPM itself was created to predict that 17-year RAPM data. There are lots of details about that you shouldn't worry yourself about.

[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.

Well that's the problem. Both sides are saying the other doesn't understand the game, but the advance stats and analytics support one side while the other has absolutely nothing to support them even though they are the most aggressive with their opinion.

Its like people would swear that they call more fouls today until I show them the basic stats that show fouls have gone down significantly league wide and for perimeter players than in any point in league history. Your understanding of the game is plain wrong.

I'm not saying anything about that. Didn't mention or who I think is better. Did both guys have the same amount of space on the floor to work with? It's a yes or no question. That's all I'm asking.

[OkcSinceSGA]

This debate is like a microcosm of what I think many current NBA talents compared to players from that era. Smarter, more efficient but not necessarily more talented. Isaiah is that. Much smarter and more efficient player than Iverson and that does make him "Better" if raw individual production is the end all be all... but I don't believe he's more talented than Iverson. Iverson wasn't a stupid player either; inefficient volume scoring just didn't bother as many pros back then. One can say the same about Kobe Bryant to a large degree. I would never in a million years take any guard from this era over Kobe but there are a few that produce more efficiently and intelligently than Kobe did for much of his career.

Also yes this current era of offense does seem to be to inflated quite a bit. League wide, I'm not sure but I'm willing to bet that, among the top 2-5% of offensive players, the current rules are driving this inflation. This is conjecture until someone does a deeper analysis.

I think there is no doubt Iverson is more talented/gifted player. But as you said, nowhere near as smart. In terms of raw talent/athletic ability Iverson is a top 5 athlete in NBA history arguably. This is a 5'11 ish guy with a 40 inch vertical, legendary quickness/speed and CRAZY Kawhi Leonard like mitts+wingspan relative to his height. His toughness is obviously among the best ever too. This guy often played with 3-4 injuries at once and still carried a huge load.

I'm way more of a fan of AI than IT. I explained why I created this thread. And it was because in all the IT threads I see people saying he's not even top 10 discussion this year, not worth a look for MVP, Not a star etc. But when AI put up a much less efficient 30 ppg with fancy crossovers, he was hailed as a superstar and MVP worthy. It was more the hypocrisy I didn't appreciate.

[OkcSinceSGA]

I can start with the fact that Iverson had a significant negative defensive box plus minus despite often being surrounded with a handful of above average defenders. You could make a fair case that as much as Iverson carried his team's offensive load, his teammates carried his defensive slack. He almost never guarded best wings and when he did he got abused handily (such as vs Kobe, Vince Carter). Instead he played full time zone defense practically and patrolled the passing lanes. Not good defense.

Iverson's 17-year defensive RAPM is positive and it's better than even Kobe. Defensive BPM is **** compared to that because BPM itself was created to predict that 17-year RAPM data. There are lots of details about that you shouldn't worry yourself about.

I'm very willing to look at this data. Do you have his RAPM defensive data? I looked and couldn't find it. Kobe I wasn't bringing up at all, so not sure how he fairs in that sense. I'm more talking about relative to good defenders now, but you posted the data would be a start for me meeting you in the middle or understanding your POV. Maybe my memory after 15 years is failing me but I remember Iverson not guarding the best wing players consistently and cheating off his man for steals.

[Jables]

Anyone saying Thomas based off of this one year doesn't really understand the team Iverson carried to the Finals and the way the game was played.
I'd rather have a lot of players over Iverson tbh, but respect what he did.

[joeyAdaMan]

"By design" is inaccurate. They attempted to nab a second star for years but came away with Toni Kukoc, Keith Van Horn, and Chris Webbers corpse.

It goes without saying I didn't mean they didn't want to add talent or get better pieces. Everyone does. I'm saying people always talk about how bad his 01 cast was, when it actually was pretty solid and was designed to perfectly compliment his playstyle. That's what I mean by design.

But it wasn't "by design." That's the point. You say they want to add better talent, but the fact of the matter is, Iverson won too many games for them to have the assets to nab said talent. Surrounding him with defensive guys wasn't necessarily by design so much as it was the best alternative. Those rosters were a product of circumstance. Very few players were leaving their current ball clubs to form super teams in those days.

His 01 cast was deplorable. You can't simply sweep that under the rug for the sake of your argument. His offensive support was Aaron Mckie, Eric Snow, Theo Ratliff, Tyrone Hill, and Dikembe Mutumbo. That's laughable.

my man...a Bucks fan too...people really forget just how AWFUL that 76ers team was offensively....good defenders and rebounders but no spectacular athletes...Mckie was the only shooter and he wasn't special at all...and AI was literally the only guy on the roster who could create....Mutombo was the only guy that wouldn't be replaced...the rest of that roster was very upgradable and far inferior to the team IT is playing on now....this Celtics team may be a team of 6th men/role player types outside of IT....but it's still far better than anything AI got to play with in his prime...

[OkcSinceSGA]

It goes without saying I didn't mean they didn't want to add talent or get better pieces. Everyone does. I'm saying people always talk about how bad his 01 cast was, when it actually was pretty solid and was designed to perfectly compliment his playstyle. That's what I mean by design.

But it wasn't "by design." That's the point. You say they want to add better talent, but the fact of the matter is, Iverson won too many games for them to have the assets to nab said talent. Surrounding him with defensive guys wasn't necessarily by design so much as it was the best alternative. Those rosters were a product of circumstance. Very few players were leaving their current ball clubs to form super teams in those days.

His 01 cast was deplorable. You can't simply sweep that under the rug for the sake of your argument. His offensive support was Aaron Mckie, Eric Snow, Theo Ratliff, Tyrone Hill, and Dikembe Mutumbo. That's laughable.

my man...a Bucks fan too...people really forget just how AWFUL that 76ers team was offensively....good defenders and rebounders but no spectacular athletes...Mckie was the only shooter and he wasn't special at all...and AI was literally the only guy on the roster who could create....Mutombo was the only guy that wouldn't be replaced...the rest of that roster was very upgradable and far inferior to the team IT is playing on now....this Celtics team may be a team of 6th men/role player types outside of IT....but it's still far better than anything AI got to play with in his prime...

As others have already pointed out, who had a better supporting cast in the east? Bucks are only arguable one. Magic, Raptors, Pacers had far worse depth and supporting cast. Hell they had the DPOY and 6th man of the Year on that team. It's all relative to the competition. Bucks were more top heavy but the Sixers had literally 10+ guys with above average metrics that year.

[casketball]

LMAO Isaiah is averaging less FT a game than Lebron in the playoffs. He averaged less than one more than him during the regular season.

Isaiah is an elite scorer. Get over it.