Iverson vs Nash

[Ryoga Hibiki]

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.

My issue is, why would you want to build a team to have a player doing what Iverson was doing?
I can buy that very few could do the same, my issue is that I would never construct a team that way.

[Drygon]

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

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.

Vince was a plus defender. You can be a top 5 players without having great defensive impact (Harden, Curry etc.)

Obviously, Shaq is easily better than Vince going by career wise.

But Vince is ahead of Shaq in a lot of stats regarding offensive impact during 2000-01 season.

[henshao]

After reading the whole thing I must admit Iverson and Nash are closer than my initial knee-jerk reaction

I mean it's Nash but not by some 50 places

[Hussien Fatal]

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?

Lol no even Magic had the proper volume to propel his team to the top each year. Magic knew when to up his volume as a scorer. Nash may have upped his volume in the playoffs a few times but he just didn’t do it enough considering how good of a shooter he was.

[Hussien Fatal]

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.

I disagree that Nash was a top ten scorer at any point in his career regardless of his efficiency. He just didn’t shoot enough.

And you say he ran all time great offenses. Sure but what and where did that get him? And I never said Nash wasn’t clutch I said he wasn’t the type of player to get you buckets in crunch time like the high volume elite scorers.

And Iverson never had the teammates or talent around him to get him past the second round more than once. And honestly him taking that 2001 team to the finals is more impressive than anything Nash has accomplished.

As for the redundancy comments you made I disagree, I think Iverson pair with an efficient big who could score in volume would have yielded him a championship. A player like KG would have been the perfect 2nd option for Iverson offensively.

You can say Kobe was better than Vince in 01 but I’m going to have to disagree because you bring up defense as if Vince wasn’t a plus Defender. Vince has a better regular season than Kobe by the numbers. Kobe played slightly better than Vince in the playoffs as I said but you clearly ignored that I even said that.

Iverson’s 2001 run was something special and probably only something him and MJ we’re capable of pulling off. Like I said you can say the competition he played was weak but he still ran thru some all time greats in the heat of their primes.

[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?

Lol no even Magic had the proper volume to propel his team to the top each year. Magic knew when to up his volume as a scorer. Nash may have upped his volume in the playoffs a few times but he just didn’t do it enough considering how good of a shooter he was.

Well this is a flat-out lie.

Points per 100 possessions in the playoffs…

Magic from 86-91: 26.8 points
Nash from 05-10: 27.2 points

Looking series by series their playoff scoring numbers are remarkably similar.

[Ron Swanson]

If you have to ask yourself how much worse that 2001 Sixers team would be with a guy like CJ McCollum or Jamal freakin' Crawford in place of AI, then I'd argue that your opinion of Iverson is already so ridiculously low that it's an almost pointless discussion to have.

Interesting to come back to this thread after I posed the Nash criticisms re: his deference and lack of aggressiveness, to which again, multiple coaches and even himself agreed. Feels like the pro-Nash contingent has dug their heels in further saying that you can't possibly fault him for anything he did on offense, while I'd argue that most dissenters (including myself) are merely suggesting that the "gap" between him and peak Iverson isn't as massive as certain metrics paint it as. I just think people lay too much blame outside of Nash when discussing those Suns' teams shortcomings (Amare's fault, D'Antoni's system, Joe Johnson getting traded, Marion disappearing, etc.), whereas with Iverson, people act like that Sixers team won almost in spite of him.

[Amares]

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.

Vince was a plus defender. You can be a top 5 players without having great defensive impact (Harden, Curry etc.)

Obviously, Shaq is easily better than Vince going by career wise.

But Vince is ahead of Shaq in a lot of stats regarding offensive impact during 2000-01 season.

You can be a top player without having great defensive impact, but probably you have to be historically good on offense. Like Harden or Curry, and Vince was not on that level.

[Ambrose]

If you have to ask yourself how much worse that 2001 Sixers team would be with a guy like CJ McCollum or Jamal freakin' Crawford in place of AI, then I'd argue that your opinion of Iverson is already so ridiculously low that it's an almost pointless discussion to have.

Interesting to come back to this thread after I posed the Nash criticisms re: his deference and lack of aggressiveness, to which again, multiple coaches and even himself agreed. Feels like the pro-Nash contingent has dug their heels in further saying that you can't possibly fault him for anything he did on offense, while I'd argue that most dissenters (including myself) are merely suggesting that the "gap" between him and peak Iverson isn't as massive as certain metrics paint it as. I just think people lay too much blame outside of Nash when discussing those Suns' teams shortcomings (Amare's fault, D'Antoni's system, Joe Johnson getting traded, Marion disappearing, etc.), whereas with Iverson, people act like that Sixers team won almost in spite of him.

Well, there is an easy counter to both points. The Suns offense was never the problem so clearly the lack of aggression didn't matter. As far as defense goes, yes he was bad, yet he had an even worse defender as the primary big man in Amare. He could've been Gary Payton and it wouldn't have made the Suns an elite defensive team.

[Rapcity_11]

If you have to ask yourself how much worse that 2001 Sixers team would be with a guy like CJ McCollum or Jamal freakin' Crawford in place of AI, then I'd argue that your opinion of Iverson is already so ridiculously low that it's an almost pointless discussion to have.

It's a freaking thought exercise. How much worse would they do? Telling you won't answer any of the questions I've asked you.

Could they put up 25 PP36 on 46% TS? How much worse does that make the Sixers?

Interesting to come back to this thread after I posed the Nash criticisms re: his deference and lack of aggressiveness, to which again, multiple coaches and even himself agreed. Feels like the pro-Nash contingent has dug their heels in further saying that you can't possibly fault him for anything he did on offense, while I'd argue that most dissenters (including myself) are merely suggesting that the "gap" between him and peak Iverson isn't as massive as certain metrics paint it as. I just think people lay too much blame outside of Nash when discussing those Suns' teams shortcomings (Amare's fault, D'Antoni's system, Joe Johnson getting traded, Marion disappearing, etc.), whereas with Iverson, people act like that Sixers team won almost in spite of him.

Every all-timer has some criticisms about the way their careers played out. Or things they could have done slightly better. That's not something unique to Nash.

It is almost impossible to fault Nash's offensive approach give his offenses are among the best in history (regular season and playoffs).

The "blame" for the Suns not winning is most often discussed as just luck and/or how good the Spurs were. They were a championship caliber team and the ball just didn't bounce their way. Play out those seasons a hundred times and they're winning a fair share of titles (whereas the Sixers win 0).

[Rapcity_11]

Looking only at playoff seasons with at least 5 games with “clutch situation”...

Iverson: 28.7 PP36
Nash: 24.0 PP36

For Iverson I looked at 1999-2003 and Nash I looked at 2005-2010.

A decent gap, but definitely closer than a lot of people would guess.

[Hussien Fatal]

Iverson>Magic right?

Lol no even Magic had the proper volume to propel his team to the top each year. Magic knew when to up his volume as a scorer. Nash may have upped his volume in the playoffs a few times but he just didn’t do it enough considering how good of a shooter he was.

Well this is a flat-out lie.

Points per 100 possessions in the playoffs…

Magic from 86-91: 26.8 points
Nash from 05-10: 27.2 points

Looking series by series their playoff scoring numbers are remarkably similar.

Like I said Nash did not up his volume enough for a player as efficient as him.

[Ron Swanson]

If I posed the question "I mean, how much worse would those Suns teams be with Jose Calderon instead of Steve Nash?", it would be rightfully mocked. Could he put up 50/40/90 with 8+ assists? It's a facetious question with a "technically true" answer. But this is exactly why box-score-analysis is so unconstructive without actual context.

[prophet_of_rage]

If I posed the question "I mean, how much worse would those Suns teams be with Jose Calderon instead of Steve Nash?", it would be rightfully mocked. Could he put up 50/40/90 with 8+ assists? It's a facetious question with a "technically true" answer. But this is exactly why box-score-analysis is so unconstructive without actual context.

We saw what Ray Felton could do.

Sent from my SM-N970W using Tapatalk

[Rapcity_11]

If I posed the question "I mean, how much worse would those Suns teams be with Jose Calderon instead of Steve Nash?", it would be rightfully mocked. Could he put up 50/40/90 with 8+ assists? It's a facetious question with a "technically true" answer. But this is exactly why box-score-analysis is so unconstructive without actual context.

Except guys like McCollum, Lou and Crawford all play/played a similar style to Iverson. And have handled high, self created usage in their careers. All 3 are basically right below all-star level.

Calderon played nothing like Nash. Completely irrelevant comparison.

[Rapcity_11]

Lol no even Magic had the proper volume to propel his team to the top each year. Magic knew when to up his volume as a scorer. Nash may have upped his volume in the playoffs a few times but he just didn’t do it enough considering how good of a shooter he was.

Well this is a flat-out lie.

Points per 100 possessions in the playoffs…

Magic from 86-91: 26.8 points
Nash from 05-10: 27.2 points

Looking series by series their playoff scoring numbers are remarkably similar.

Like I said Nash did not up his volume enough for a player as efficient as him.

Ok, so neither did Magic.

Iverson>Magic?

[Rapcity_11]

If I posed the question "I mean, how much worse would those Suns teams be with Jose Calderon instead of Steve Nash?", it would be rightfully mocked. Could he put up 50/40/90 with 8+ assists? It's a facetious question with a "technically true" answer. But this is exactly why box-score-analysis is so unconstructive without actual context.

We saw what Ray Felton could do.

Sent from my SM-N970W using Tapatalk

Averaged 14/5.5 on terrible efficiency?

Wow.

[rrravenred]

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.

My issue is, why would you want to build a team to have a player doing what Iverson was doing?
I can buy that very few could do the same, my issue is that I would never construct a team that way.

Well it was the dark ages of NBA Offence and only 3 years out from Jordan's retirement, so unipolar iso SG offence plus strong defence may still have seemed like a viable Championship model.

And it's not as though Philly's subsequent draft picks unearthed a lot of offensive support (although it they'd kept Van Horn....).

I suppose what I'm saying it's that it could have made contextual sense at the times. Doesn't make it right, but not totally unreasonable.


Sent from my SM-A305YN using Tapatalk

[Hussien Fatal]

Well this is a flat-out lie.

Points per 100 possessions in the playoffs…

Magic from 86-91: 26.8 points
Nash from 05-10: 27.2 points

Looking series by series their playoff scoring numbers are remarkably similar.

Like I said Nash did not up his volume enough for a player as efficient as him.

Ok, so neither did Magic.

Iverson>Magic?

magic had the necessary volume to win 5 championships. Nash didn’t have the necessary volume to win anything.

[therealbig3]

Like I said Nash did not up his volume enough for a player as efficient as him.

Ok, so neither did Magic.

Iverson>Magic?

magic had the necessary volume to win 5 championships. Nash didn’t have the necessary volume to win anything.

Nash upped his volume and led some of the greatest playoff offenses of all time. It was the Suns defense that was weak, which has very little to do with Nash. Just like the Lakers defense had very little to do with Magic. And it was the fact that the Lakers were good at both offense and defense that got them 5 championships, not Magic having more volume than Nash (which isn't even true, since Nash actually averaged more PPG in his 05 playoff run than Magic did in any of his championship runs).

And this argument doesn't help Iverson in any way. His team made it to the Finals once and got destroyed. And then never sniffed any significant team success aside from that. Meanwhile, Nash's Suns were in the playoffs every year from 05-10, and made it to the Conference Finals 3 times. Nash had more consistent success than Iverson ever did, his teams weren't a one hit wonder like the 01 Sixers (who made the Finals from an awful conference).

And another thing, Chauncey Billups was clearly better than Iverson, as he proved in 09 when he replaced Iverson on the Nuggets and helped lead them to far greater success than Iverson was able to the year before. If Iverson isn't as good as Billups, in what universe is he even comparable to Nash?