Iverson vs Nash

[prophet_of_rage]

Good question for thought:

What would guys like Lou Williams, CJ McCollum,Jamal Crawford, etc. put up in a similar situation as AI was in?

Very poorly. That's why they are for the most part 6th men.

Sent from my SM-N970W using Tapatalk

Why poorly?

Also, that would explain why very few players are allowed to put up the usage/efficiency combo that AI did. It's a terrible idea.

Why poorly because the difference between a superstar and an okay guy is one basket out of 10. If a guy makes 5 baskets out of ten versus 4 out of 10 there's a big difference but it's really just one basket. All those scoring guards you mentioned didn't have it to get you those baskets night in night out at crazy high minutes.

As for using Iverson as a primary scorer it was a fine idea for the time. It sold tickets and it got you enough wins to seem like a championship was possible. Iverson was simply an anomaly with his relentless ability to get to the hoop against backcourt defenders. I will never forget the game he fouled out both Chris Childs and Charlie Ward at the Garden. He eliminated the Knicks point guards himself. Put 12 fouls on both.

Those guys you mentioned couldn't do that. So that's why Iverson was given that leash and even Larry Brown said F it you score and everybody else defend and Croce agreed.

It didn't get a championship but it did get scoring titles that Crawford and them couldn't get.

Sent from my SM-N970W using Tapatalk

[prophet_of_rage]

Funny you bring up Nash having assist titles and Iverson having none. Iverson has 4 scoring titles and he has been top 10 in assist 5 times.

Lol I didn’t say that. I said “more assist titles than Iverson does scoring,” in other words, Nash has more assists titles than Iverson has scoring titles. Personally I don’t care about that but the person I was responding to said he cares about results, so I threw that out there in case he values it.

Nash has never been a top 10 scorer at any point of his career.

Please list 10 better scorers who could beat Nash’s efficiency+volume not only in the RS but the playoffs as well in the ‘05-‘10 timeframe. Iverson is certainly not ahead of him during this era, even with the laxer rules. If you’re facing a tough defense, there are not many guys you are taking over Nash to lead the offense, and part of that is his remarkable shooting and ability to score.

Funny you bring up Nash having more playoff wins but Iverson has more conference championships than Nash.

Uhhhh again, the guy I was responding to said results ~ stats+wins+advancement. And Nash has more playoff wins. That’s it. And like I’ve tried to detail before, using the raw accomplishment that he made the Finals in comparison to Nash requires you to ignore a lot of context.

Iverson making it to the finals with a a much worse team than Nash is more impressive than Nash leading his team to a top offense and falling short every time.

Wut. Didn’t Iverson fall short too? You either win the Finals (success) or you don’t (failure). No one plays for second place. Iverson never made another conference finals in his life, not with the poorly built Sixers and not with the Nuggets. The same Spurs team he struggled with in 2007 allowed Nash to run a +7.9 offense on their second best defense in the league (the Suns actually outscored the Spurs), the difference in play is gigantic, and talking about difference in cast is not enough to make up for it imo, but you can provide an argument otherwise.

Do you have an explanation as to why the Nuggets improved when they replaced Iverson with Billups, especially in the playoffs? There wasn’t much roster turnover relevant to offense I don’t think, Nene and JR were getting more playing time but Melo missed a ton of games. Billups was arguably even the best player on the team in the playoffs. Why could a seemingly lesser player like him adapt and succeed but Iverson couldn’t? Personally I think Iversons playstyle is just not conducive for good results, but I’d like to hear what you think since you know a lot about the guy.

Though if you seriously think Carter was playing like the best wing in the league in the 2001 playoffs and was arguably better than Kobe **** Bryant, you are out of your mind and we are not getting anywhere further lol.

Carter was better than Kobe in 2001 and dominated most wing matches. That was the Vinsanity year.

And the reason the Nuggets did better moving from Iverson to Billups is simple. AI is not a point guard. He never was. So giving the Nuggets a point guard made it better for them and AI, thanks to style, was on the decline. He was never built for more than a 10 year career.

That he got to 2009 was a miracle.

Sent from my SM-N970W using Tapatalk

[Ambrose]

The Raptors and Bucks were tough teams. You're being ridiculous to say they weren't. Did you watch the series?

Sent from my SM-N970W using Tapatalk

Not as tough as any teams Phoenix played

But Phoenix was a high seed against the 'tough' teams they played so they weren't underdogs.

Sent from my SM-N970W using Tapatalk

Yeah because Steve Nash made them that good. The tough teams they beat were much better than anyone Philly beat. There has yet to be a single compelling argument in favor of AI and that's why he's being crushed in the poll. Five years ago I would've been pounding the table for AI right there with you. The more you learn about these two the more you see how much better Nash was.

[Hussien Fatal]

Funny you bring up Nash having assist titles and Iverson having none. Iverson has 4 scoring titles and he has been top 10 in assist 5 times.

Lol I didn’t say that. I said “more assist titles than Iverson does scoring,” in other words, Nash has more assists titles than Iverson has scoring titles. Personally I don’t care about that but the person I was responding to said he cares about results, so I threw that out there in case he values it.

Nash has never been a top 10 scorer at any point of his career.

Please list 10 better scorers who could beat Nash’s efficiency+volume not only in the RS but the playoffs as well in the ‘05-‘10 timeframe. Iverson is certainly not ahead of him during this era, even with the laxer rules. If you’re facing a tough defense, there are not many guys you are taking over Nash to lead the offense, and part of that is his remarkable shooting and ability to score.

Funny you bring up Nash having more playoff wins but Iverson has more conference championships than Nash.

Uhhhh again, the guy I was responding to said results ~ stats+wins+advancement. And Nash has more playoff wins. That’s it. And like I’ve tried to detail before, using the raw accomplishment that he made the Finals in comparison to Nash requires you to ignore a lot of context.

Iverson making it to the finals with a a much worse team than Nash is more impressive than Nash leading his team to a top offense and falling short every time.

Wut. Didn’t Iverson fall short too? You either win the Finals (success) or you don’t (failure). No one plays for second place. Iverson never made another conference finals in his life, not with the poorly built Sixers and not with the Nuggets. The same Spurs team he struggled with in 2007 allowed Nash to run a +7.9 offense on their second best defense in the league (the Suns actually outscored the Spurs), the difference in play is gigantic, and talking about difference in cast is not enough to make up for it imo, but you can provide an argument otherwise.

Do you have an explanation as to why the Nuggets improved when they replaced Iverson with Billups, especially in the playoffs? There wasn’t much roster turnover relevant to offense I don’t think, Nene and JR were getting more playing time but Melo missed a ton of games. Billups was arguably even the best player on the team in the playoffs. Why could a seemingly lesser player like him adapt and succeed but Iverson couldn’t? Personally I think Iversons playstyle is just not conducive for good results, but I’d like to hear what you think since you know a lot about the guy.

Though if you seriously think Carter was playing like the best wing in the league in the 2001 playoffs and was arguably better than Kobe **** Bryant, you are out of your mind and we are not getting anywhere further lol.

Carter was better than Kobe in 2001 and dominated most wing matches. That was the Vinsanity year.

And the reason the Nuggets did better moving from Iverson to Billups is simple. AI is not a point guard. He never was. So giving the Nuggets a point guard made it better for them and AI, thanks to style, was on the decline. He was never built for more than a 10 year career.

That he got to 2009 was a miracle.

Sent from my SM-N970W using Tapatalk

Thank you! Finally somebody who actually watched Vince and Kobe in 2001.

If you were an avid NBA fan in 2001 you would remember Vince being one of if not the best Sg/sf In the league. Kobe was great in 2001 probably his first real superstar year but Vince was every bit as good if not better because he was a much better shooter (Vince 40% from 3 Kobe 30%) and this can not be overlooked when comparing the two. Vince was an elite high volume 3pt shooter at the time in 2001. As well as being one of the most well rounded scorers in general. As far as the Playoffs in 01 Kobe probably played slightly better. But Vince had a much better series Vs The sixers without question, all while garnering way more attention from the sixers ELITE defense. As far as the regular season goes Vince was probably slightly better. They were very close in ability in 2001 but I think Vince was more advanced at the time. You can scoff at the comparison but many people will agree with me on this one which would put you in a large minority as far as this argument goes.

I have a serious question though. How long have you been watching the NBA and what do you think made them incomparable at the time? Why do you think Kobe was indisputably better than Vince in 2001? I’m very curious to see your reasoning. Starting your argument with defense is the only way to make any type of legitimate case for Kobe. But there is no case for Kobe be CLEARLY OR INDISPUTABLY better than Vince.

[HeartBreakKid]

Hussein Fatal is actually arguing that the East in the early 2000s had good competition. Been on the board nearly 10 years and I never seen that one.

Either way you put it, Nash beat better teams than Iverson - the whole Iverson went to the finals and Nash didn't so he is better is ridiculous. Yeah, I dominated my rec league and Derek Fisher never dominated the NBA - I must be better. Their level of competition was totally different, and Iverson's teams only beat teams that were worse than his own, and it's not like he has a long history of beating teams either - hence why prophet and Hussein have to revolve Iverson's long career around one year of success.

By the way, the whole player beat player therefore they are better is a ridiculous argument, but it still makes Iverson bad. Unless Allen Iverson became a bum one year after he won MVP in 2001, he got his ass whooped in 2002 by bum ass Paul Pierce and his crappy Celtics team. Paul Pierce is my second favorite player of all time but he is nothing compared to Steve Nash and that's painfully obvious, we are basically using some strange A>B>C logic to say that Iverson > Nash then why did he lose to Pierce?

I'm sure some people will respond and say "HEY, did you know Pierce is going to be a hall of famer?!" - yeah I'm aware he's a great player in his own right, but those same people would say Paul Pierce was a loser before 2008 and could never win anything, so save it. Pierce only got a media upgrade after 2008, before that, he would get trounced by the same people who parade Allen Iverson as being great - because a lot of people are influenced heavily by the media.

Of course the real answer is Paul Pierce is actually better than Allen Iverson, but they're actually comparable players - Iverson vs Nash isn't an argument to anyone who understands basketball and not just gets their opinions of players from network broadcasting. Saying Iverson > Nash is the same opinion a middle school kid in the 2000s would have had, don't think they know much about basketball.

[Drygon]

Carter was better than Kobe in 2001 and dominated most wing matches. That was the Vinsanity year.

Lol I didn’t say that. I said “more assist titles than Iverson does scoring,” in other words, Nash has more assists titles than Iverson has scoring titles. Personally I don’t care about that but the person I was responding to said he cares about results, so I threw that out there in case he values it.


Please list 10 better scorers who could beat Nash’s efficiency+volume not only in the RS but the playoffs as well in the ‘05-‘10 timeframe. Iverson is certainly not ahead of him during this era, even with the laxer rules. If you’re facing a tough defense, there are not many guys you are taking over Nash to lead the offense, and part of that is his remarkable shooting and ability to score.

Uhhhh again, the guy I was responding to said results ~ stats+wins+advancement. And Nash has more playoff wins. That’s it. And like I’ve tried to detail before, using the raw accomplishment that he made the Finals in comparison to Nash requires you to ignore a lot of context.

Wut. Didn’t Iverson fall short too? You either win the Finals (success) or you don’t (failure). No one plays for second place. Iverson never made another conference finals in his life, not with the poorly built Sixers and not with the Nuggets. The same Spurs team he struggled with in 2007 allowed Nash to run a +7.9 offense on their second best defense in the league (the Suns actually outscored the Spurs), the difference in play is gigantic, and talking about difference in cast is not enough to make up for it imo, but you can provide an argument otherwise.

Do you have an explanation as to why the Nuggets improved when they replaced Iverson with Billups, especially in the playoffs? There wasn’t much roster turnover relevant to offense I don’t think, Nene and JR were getting more playing time but Melo missed a ton of games. Billups was arguably even the best player on the team in the playoffs. Why could a seemingly lesser player like him adapt and succeed but Iverson couldn’t? Personally I think Iversons playstyle is just not conducive for good results, but I’d like to hear what you think since you know a lot about the guy.

Though if you seriously think Carter was playing like the best wing in the league in the 2001 playoffs and was arguably better than Kobe **** Bryant, you are out of your mind and we are not getting anywhere further lol.

Carter was better than Kobe in 2001 and dominated most wing matches. That was the Vinsanity year.

And the reason the Nuggets did better moving from Iverson to Billups is simple. AI is not a point guard. He never was. So giving the Nuggets a point guard made it better for them and AI, thanks to style, was on the decline. He was never built for more than a 10 year career.

That he got to 2009 was a miracle.

Sent from my SM-N970W using Tapatalk

Thank you! Finally somebody who actually watched Vince and Kobe in 2001.

If you were an avid NBA fan in 2001 you would remember Vince being one of if not the best Sg/sf In the league. Kobe was great in 2001 probably his first real superstar year but Vince was every bit as good if not better because he was a much better shooter (Vince 40% from 3 Kobe 30%) and this can not be overlooked when comparing the two. Vince was an elite high volume 3pt shooter at the time in 2001. As well as being one of the most well rounded scorers in general. As far as the Playoffs in 01 Kobe probably played slightly better. But Vince had a much better series Vs The sixers without question, all while garnering way more attention from the sixers ELITE defense. As far as the regular season goes Vince was probably slightly better. They were very close in ability in 2001 but I think Vince was more advanced at the time. You can scoff at the comparison but many people will agree with me on this one which would put you in a large minority as far as this argument goes.

I have a serious question though. How long have you been watching the NBA and what do you think made them incomparable at the time? Why do you think Kobe was indisputably better than Vince in 2001? I’m very curious to see your reasoning. Starting your argument with defense is the only way to make any type of legitimate case for Kobe. But there is no case for Kobe be CLEARLY OR INDISPUTABLY better than Vince.

Peak Vince was easily a top 5 player during 2000-01 & arguably NBA's best offensive player at the time.

I guess people were either too young or just straight up forgotten how amazing Vince was.

#2 in PER
#1 in OBPM
#2 in BPM
#3 in VORP
#3 in OWS
#5 in WS.

Obviously these numbers are all 100% box-score derived and are hardly gospel, but he was an extremely efficient player due to a ridiculously low turnover rate.

His 8.2% TOV rate was the 3rd lowest in the ENTIRE NBA & strong scoring efficiency (55.1% TS against a league average of 51.8%). His +3.3 rTS would be equivalent to a 59.3 TS today (except he'd be taking more threes so that's probably understating things). He had a 114 ORTG against a league average of 103 (+11).

His impact metrics are quite excellent, too. +11.6 on/off, and #12 in the league in RAPM (with many of the guys ahead of him either playing far few minutes, playing a much smaller role, or both).


It's a shame Vince never became perennial MVP-caliber player because of him piling up injuries after 2001....

[Amares]

Carter was better than Kobe in 2001 and dominated most wing matches. That was the Vinsanity year.

Carter was better than Kobe in 2001 and dominated most wing matches. That was the Vinsanity year.

And the reason the Nuggets did better moving from Iverson to Billups is simple. AI is not a point guard. He never was. So giving the Nuggets a point guard made it better for them and AI, thanks to style, was on the decline. He was never built for more than a 10 year career.

That he got to 2009 was a miracle.

Sent from my SM-N970W using Tapatalk

Thank you! Finally somebody who actually watched Vince and Kobe in 2001.

If you were an avid NBA fan in 2001 you would remember Vince being one of if not the best Sg/sf In the league. Kobe was great in 2001 probably his first real superstar year but Vince was every bit as good if not better because he was a much better shooter (Vince 40% from 3 Kobe 30%) and this can not be overlooked when comparing the two. Vince was an elite high volume 3pt shooter at the time in 2001. As well as being one of the most well rounded scorers in general. As far as the Playoffs in 01 Kobe probably played slightly better. But Vince had a much better series Vs The sixers without question, all while garnering way more attention from the sixers ELITE defense. As far as the regular season goes Vince was probably slightly better. They were very close in ability in 2001 but I think Vince was more advanced at the time. You can scoff at the comparison but many people will agree with me on this one which would put you in a large minority as far as this argument goes.

I have a serious question though. How long have you been watching the NBA and what do you think made them incomparable at the time? Why do you think Kobe was indisputably better than Vince in 2001? I’m very curious to see your reasoning. Starting your argument with defense is the only way to make any type of legitimate case for Kobe. But there is no case for Kobe be CLEARLY OR INDISPUTABLY better than Vince.

Peak Vince was easily a top 5 player during 2000-01 & arguably NBA's best offensive player at the time.

He wasn't a top 5 player in 2001, let alone easily. I agree he was amazing player, and you could rank him easily in top 10, but his defensive impact was too limited to be that high overall. Also Shaq was the best offensive player then, and I belive quite easily.

[rrravenred]

Good question for thought:

What would guys like Lou Williams, CJ McCollum,Jamal Crawford, etc. put up in a similar situation as AI was in?

Think is a interesting question (although the players chosen are a bit meh). Did AI maximise team offense based on the pieces and skillsets available.

This isn't saying that that Sixers team was a sleeping offensive powerhouse kept slumbering by AI either shooting the lights out or building a house, brick-by- brick.

Just a question as to whether structural/ strategic selections by Brown and Iverson might have inched the overall offensive performance up a bit.



Sent from my SM-A305YN using Tapatalk

[Hussien Fatal]

Hussein Fatal is actually arguing that the East in the early 2000s had good competition. Been on the board nearly 10 years and I never seen that one.

Either way you put it, Nash beat better teams than Iverson - the whole Iverson went to the finals and Nash didn't so he is better is ridiculous. Yeah, I dominated my rec league and Derek Fisher never dominated the NBA - I must be better. Their level of competition was totally different, and Iverson's teams only beat teams that were worse than his own, and it's not like he has a long history of beating teams either - hence why prophet and Hussein have to revolve Iverson's long career around one year of success.

By the way, the whole player beat player therefore they are better is a ridiculous argument, but it still makes Iverson bad. Unless Allen Iverson became a bum one year after he won MVP in 2001, he got his ass whooped in 2002 by bum ass Paul Pierce and his crappy Celtics team. Paul Pierce is my second favorite player of all time but he is nothing compared to Steve Nash and that's painfully obvious, we are basically using some strange A>B>C logic to say that Iverson > Nash then why did he lose to Pierce?

I'm sure some people will respond and say "HEY, did you know Pierce is going to be a hall of famer?!" - yeah I'm aware he's a great player in his own right, but those same people would say Paul Pierce was a loser before 2008 and could never win anything, so save it. Pierce only got a media upgrade after 2008, before that, he would get trounced by the same people who parade Allen Iverson as being great - because a lot of people are influenced heavily by the media.

Of course the real answer is Paul Pierce is actually better than Allen Iverson, but they're actually comparable players - Iverson vs Nash isn't an argument to anyone who understands basketball and not just gets their opinions of players from network broadcasting. Saying Iverson > Nash is the same opinion a middle school kid in the 2000s would have had, don't think they know much about basketball.

I never said the east had “good competition” I simply stated that the fams Iverson played weren’t exactly pushovers and were operated by HOF players. I was stating that he had to beat multiple HOF players and all stars (which is factual) to even get to the finals in 2001. But I reiterate that I never once said the east had good competition compared to the west.


Iverson was the only player able to take a game off of that lakers team that year. He was clearly running the 2nd best team in the league that year.

And yes I will admit Nash has beat more talented teams but he also had way more talent on his team than Iverson did and that isn’t debatable.

And Iverson losing to PP in 2002 is cool and all but if you could remember Iverson played that entire series with a broken hand and they still took them to a deciding game 5. Iverson was hurt a majority of the 2002 season and they most likely avoid playing boston without HCA if Iverson played 75-82 games. They most likely win 50 or more if that was the case as well.

Nash’s lack of Volume is my main reason Why I believe Iverson was better. Not solely because of Iverson success in 2001, try again buddy.

[Rapcity_11]

Very poorly. That's why they are for the most part 6th men.

Sent from my SM-N970W using Tapatalk

Why poorly?

Also, that would explain why very few players are allowed to put up the usage/efficiency combo that AI did. It's a terrible idea.

Why poorly because the difference between a superstar and an okay guy is one basket out of 10. If a guy makes 5 baskets out of ten versus 4 out of 10 there's a big difference but it's really just one basket. All those scoring guards you mentioned didn't have it to get you those baskets night in night out at crazy high minutes.

As for using Iverson as a primary scorer it was a fine idea for the time. It sold tickets and it got you enough wins to seem like a championship was possible. Iverson was simply an anomaly with his relentless ability to get to the hoop against backcourt defenders. I will never forget the game he fouled out both Chris Childs and Charlie Ward at the Garden. He eliminated the Knicks point guards himself. Put 12 fouls on both.

Those guys you mentioned couldn't do that. So that's why Iverson was given that leash and even Larry Brown said F it you score and everybody else defend and Croce agreed.

It didn't get a championship but it did get scoring titles that Crawford and them couldn't get.

Sent from my SM-N970W using Tapatalk

So the argument is basically they couldn't foul out a couple mediocre Knicks guards or win scoring titles? Ok.

Lou Williams went for 32.4% usage last year and put up a 55.4% TS.

With Lillard off the floor this year, McCollum has a 33.2% usage and 53.3% TS.

Why couldn't they put up a 48% TS like AI did?

[Rapcity_11]

Good question for thought:

What would guys like Lou Williams, CJ McCollum,Jamal Crawford, etc. put up in a similar situation as AI was in?

Think is a interesting question (although the players chosen are a bit meh). Did AI maximise team offense based on the pieces and skillsets available.

This isn't saying that that Sixers team was a sleeping offensive powerhouse kept slumbering by AI either shooting the lights out or building a house, brick-by- brick.

Just a question as to whether structural/ strategic selections by Brown and Iverson might have inched the overall offensive performance up a bit.



Sent from my SM-A305YN using Tapatalk

Feel free to think about it using any players you want. I just threw those guys out there as examples of easily attainable guys who can handle 30%+ usage.

At the end of the day I can't get past the fact that AI surrounded by defenders and poor offensive players is going to be a slightly above average team at best. So what's the value in that? And if he's in a co-lead role, his usage scales and back while more he's efficient, he doesn't approach the elite players.

Neither option is particularly valuable to me.

[Rapcity_11]

Nash’s lack of Volume is my main reason Why I believe Iverson was better. Not solely because of Iverson success in 2001, try again buddy.

Iverson>Magic right?

[Bidofo]

You saying Nash was a better scorer than Iverson at any point during their respective primes is something I will never agree with you on.

Unless you think the '05-'10 timeframe has years filled with Iverson's prime, this is a strawman.

Iverson has the 2nd highest rate of 50 and 40 point playoff games. He scored over 50 points In a playoff game 3 times in 3 years, which is as rare as it gets.

Cool, though again, the timeframe I specified was '05-'10 and he never scored over 37 in the playoffs.

Iverson Averaged over 30ppg 5 times, Nash has never averaged over 20.

I'm so confused here. Are you talking about the playoffs still or RS now because Nash has a few 20 ppg playoff runs. Regardless, Iverson doesn't even have the 5 seasons, I'm counting 4...

You bring up Nash’s volume like he was a high volume shooter which he wasn’t especially considering his role and the pace his teams played at.

I very clearly said volume+efficiency for a reason. The dude led the league in TS% as a jump shooting point guard, so yea his volume in this case is very impressive.

Nash isn’t on Iversons level as far as volume scoring goes and it’s not even close and it’s a shame I’m even having this debate with you or anybody for that matter.

Who is debating this with you????? No one here is questioning Iverson's ability to shoot a ton of shots and put up points.

Players like Dirk, tmac, Melo, Kobe, Duncan, Garnett, Paul pierce, Vince, lebron and dwade were all better scorers than Nash from 05-2010. That is just ten off the top of my head and I’m positive there are plenty more.

Dirk, Kobe, LeBron and Wade are the only surefire better scorers. Pierce is arguable, I lean towards no. The bolded are not better scorers. Throwing T-Mac and Melo in there is a joke, as if they could handle a Spurs defense lol.

And I’m taking many players above Nash to lead my team because yes while he was an excellent shooter he lacked the necessary volume to be considered elite or to be considered somebody who could take over your teams offense and get buckets in the clutch when needed in a reliable manner.

I mean this just tells me you don't know much about the SSOL Suns. Steve Nash couldn't take over a teams offense?? I guess it was Marion running the show and leading multiple all time great offenses. This is also the first time I'm hearing Nash isn't clutch.

Nash is the one who really fell short. Like I said Iverson atleast won a conference championship, Nash came up short in even accomplishing that. And me saying he made it to the finals and Nash didn’t isnt me ignoring context it’s me stating a fact while considering the competition level and the roster construction of both players situations. Don’t mistake me for not applying context when infact I put all of your rebuttals into consideration. Iverson’s team success peaked higher than Nash’s even when applying the proper context from both sides.

It really doesn't bother you that Iverson never made it passed the second round any other year? How does a single year peak outweigh the multiple lengthy playoff runs Nash has had? And yea I'm not sure what you mean by "considering the competition level and the roster construction," since both guys ended up losing to better teams, it just so happens for Iverson the behemoths were in the other conference while Nash had to face them as early as the second round.

To answer your Billups question the answer is sort of simple. First the pairing of Iverson and Melo was very redundant as well as Iverson being out of his prime. Iverson had a ton of injuries during his career and that lead to his abrupt decline. At the time Iverson was traded to detroit he was no longer even half the player he used to be and at that stage Billups was a better player and he fit that team much better.

That's the thing tho. Iverson is redundant with many players, in fact the more talent you have on your team (and the closer your roster resembles that of a contender), the more redundant Iverson's skillset is. Isolation scoring is useful for sure, but it's not really a portable skill, and that leads to less than stellar results when combined with another star such as Melo (who was an iso scorer himself so that only compounded the issue). Nash is not the same in this regard, he's a much more willing and precise passer, more of an unselfish leader, and ATG shooter. That fits on every offense in history.

If you want to make an argument saying Billups is better than Iverson because of that then I’m not even going to feed into that discussion because Iverson is a way better individual player.

I'm not making that argument. Iverson is definitely a better "individual" player, but basketball isn't an individual sport, so you need to look at how his skillset fits with his teammates. Billups was a seamless fit because he was a good shooter+playmaker, played good defense, and didn't need so many shots to leave an imprint on the game. So yea there are situations where one would take Billups over (even a prime/peak) Iverson.

And besides defense Vince was every bit as good as Kobe in 2001 weather we are talking about the regular season or playoffs. He put up better numbers vs the Sixers in those playoffs Than Kobe did while also having a worse supporting cast which made his job much harder. You are seriously underrating Vince. In 2001 Which happens to be the best Version of VC he was widely considered one of the best players in the league. He was at the time arguably the best perimeter player in the league as well as arguably being a top 5 player. If you don’t think he was better than Kobe that year that’s your opinion, but it is not a ridiculous statement or an off base argument claiming Vince was as good if not better than Kobe in 2001.

So you're going to (1) completely ignore one side of the floor where Kobe has the edge, (2) ignore the even worse performance Carter had in the first round against the #3 defense Knicks, (3) not even mention how Kobe tore up the #1 defense Spurs and was the best player in the "real Finals" between the true best 2 teams. I don't know how anyone could have watched that sweep and still think Carter was the better player. Even +/- metrics paint Kobe in a very flattering light, he broke some records iirc but I don't have the stats on me.

[Bidofo]

Carter was better than Kobe in 2001 and dominated most wing matches. That was the Vinsanity year.

Peak Vince was easily a top 5 player during 2000-01 & arguably NBA's best offensive player at the time.

Ok I think I'm getting trolled now lol. 2001 Carter > peak Frobe and Carter offense > Shaq one year after his peak offense. Guess I'm done with this thread.

[Rapcity_11]

Carter was better than Kobe in 2001 and dominated most wing matches. That was the Vinsanity year.

Peak Vince was easily a top 5 player during 2000-01 & arguably NBA's best offensive player at the time.

Ok I think I'm getting trolled now lol. 2001 Carter > peak Frobe and Carter offense > Shaq one year after his peak offense. Guess I'm done with this thread.

Even if VC was THAT good (he wasn't), the 2nd best player on that team was Antonio Davis and #3 was? Alvin Williams? Not even prime MJ makes that team great.

[HeartBreakKid]

Carter was better than Kobe in 2001 and dominated most wing matches. That was the Vinsanity year.

Peak Vince was easily a top 5 player during 2000-01 & arguably NBA's best offensive player at the time.

Ok I think I'm getting trolled now lol. 2001 Carter > peak Frobe and Carter offense > Shaq one year after his peak offense. Guess I'm done with this thread.

Even if VC was THAT good (he wasn't), the 2nd best player on that team was Antonio Davis and #3 was? Alvin Williams? Not even prime MJ makes that team great.

I agree Vince Carter did have a bad team, but I don't think Bidofo said anything to the contrary.

[Rapcity_11]

Ok I think I'm getting trolled now lol. 2001 Carter > peak Frobe and Carter offense > Shaq one year after his peak offense. Guess I'm done with this thread.

Even if VC was THAT good (he wasn't), the 2nd best player on that team was Antonio Davis and #3 was? Alvin Williams? Not even prime MJ makes that team great.

I agree Vince Carter did have a bad team, but I don't think Bidofo said anything to the contrary.

Yeah, I'm just building on the point.

[JN61]

Nash no doubt. He was constant professional, which Iverson sadly wasn't. He had so much higher ceiling that he never reached due to lazy work ethics and bad attitude in my opinion. Both are relatively close on my all time listings though.

Nash to me is somewhere from 35 to 40 and Iverson is somewhere from 45 to 55.

[Threetimes10]

Shouldn't need 7 pages to discuss this.

[prophet_of_rage]

Why poorly?

Also, that would explain why very few players are allowed to put up the usage/efficiency combo that AI did. It's a terrible idea.

Why poorly because the difference between a superstar and an okay guy is one basket out of 10. If a guy makes 5 baskets out of ten versus 4 out of 10 there's a big difference but it's really just one basket. All those scoring guards you mentioned didn't have it to get you those baskets night in night out at crazy high minutes.

As for using Iverson as a primary scorer it was a fine idea for the time. It sold tickets and it got you enough wins to seem like a championship was possible. Iverson was simply an anomaly with his relentless ability to get to the hoop against backcourt defenders. I will never forget the game he fouled out both Chris Childs and Charlie Ward at the Garden. He eliminated the Knicks point guards himself. Put 12 fouls on both.

Those guys you mentioned couldn't do that. So that's why Iverson was given that leash and even Larry Brown said F it you score and everybody else defend and Croce agreed.

It didn't get a championship but it did get scoring titles that Crawford and them couldn't get.

Sent from my SM-N970W using Tapatalk

So the argument is basically they couldn't foul out a couple mediocre Knicks guards or win scoring titles? Ok.

Lou Williams went for 32.4% usage last year and put up a 55.4% TS.

With Lillard off the floor this year, McCollum has a 33.2% usage and 53.3% TS.

Why couldn't they put up a 48% TS like AI did?

Stay pedantic.

Sent from my SM-N970W using Tapatalk