Iverson vs Nash

[Hussien Fatal]

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?

So Billups is gonna take that 01 team to the finals huh?

[HeartBreakKid]

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.

I mean the Suns didn't lose because of offense, so your criticism makes no sense. Also, the Sixers won because of their defense...so again your criticism makes no sense. it's like you don't understand that teams don't win and lose just by virtue of the PPG of their lead scorer.

Also, your ability to make shots matters...Allen Iverson can't score efficiently enough for the amount of shots he takes, that's objectively true. He's a 25 PPG caliber scorer who shoots enough until he gets 35 points, he is not Michael Jordan. Missing shots isn't a good thing.

There is pretty much no evidence that Iverson is a better offensive player, you keep saying he has higher PPG and like -...so? Nash can score in the 20s no problem, just doesn't need to because you know - he is arguably the best passer of his era and the best shooter.

[Hussien Fatal]

Lol at people here bashing Iverson by saying Billups was CLEARLY better than AI. Accolades say much different.

[HeartBreakKid]

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?

So Billups is gonna take that 01 team to the finals huh?

Uh..yeah, they would probably go to the finals lol - and if they didn't it would be because of fit (the Sixers are built around Allen Iverson) not because Billups is worse. Why do you keep pretending the 2001 Sixers were bad? Name the better teams - they're all Western teams.

Also, the argument that Iverson is so great because he WON soooo much by going to the finals is hilarious compared to Billups, who has way more post season success than Iverson did even if you ignore 2004.

[therealbig3]

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.

And this is another good point. People think D'Antoni was able to turn mediocre players into stars, but the players that have achieved their greatest success with him were already superstar, MVP level players. Nash was a 3x All-Star and a consensus top 5 PG before he came to the Suns, Harden was an MVP candidate before D'Antoni, Westbrook was an MVP before D'Antoni. And Nash played at an MVP-level after D'Antoni left.

D'Antoni doesn't turn scrubs into stars. He doesn't turn stars into superstars. What he does is design a gameplan around his star's strengths...which is what EVERY good coach around the league does. It isn't unique to Nash or Harden. They were/are excellent players with or without D'Antoni.

[Hussien Fatal]

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.

I mean the Suns didn't lose because of offense, so your criticism makes no sense. Also, the Sixers won because of their defense...so again your criticism makes no sense. it's like you don't understand that teams don't win and lose just by virtue of the PPG of their lead scorer.

Also, your ability to make shots matters...Allen Iverson can't score efficiently enough for the amount of shots he takes, that's objectively true. He's a 25 PPG caliber scorer who shoots enough until he gets 35 points, he is not Michael Jordan. Missing shots isn't a good thing.

There is pretty much no evidence that Iverson is a better offensive player, you keep saying he has higher PPG and like -...so? Nash can score in the 20s no problem, just doesn't need to because you know - he is arguably the best passer of his era and the best shooter.

The sixers didn’t make the finals just because of their defense, they made the finals because of Iverson Offensive prowess. Iverson is a much better scorer than Nash and Nash’s efficiency advantage doesn’t close the gap at all.

[HeartBreakKid]

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

I mean the Suns didn't lose because of offense, so your criticism makes no sense. Also, the Sixers won because of their defense...so again your criticism makes no sense. it's like you don't understand that teams don't win and lose just by virtue of the PPG of their lead scorer.

Also, your ability to make shots matters...Allen Iverson can't score efficiently enough for the amount of shots he takes, that's objectively true. He's a 25 PPG caliber scorer who shoots enough until he gets 35 points, he is not Michael Jordan. Missing shots isn't a good thing.

There is pretty much no evidence that Iverson is a better offensive player, you keep saying he has higher PPG and like -...so? Nash can score in the 20s no problem, just doesn't need to because you know - he is arguably the best passer of his era and the best shooter.

The sixers didn’t make the finals just because of their defense, they made the finals because of Iverson Offensive prowess. Iverson is a much better scorer than Nash and Nash’s efficiency advantage doesn’t close the gap at all.

There were games where Mutumbo carried the Sixers on offense and that's not even his calling card. They did not get by on his offensive prowess, they win by defense and his job is just to volume score enough to tip it in their favor. They don't need an efficient scorer because the teams they are beating can't efficiency score either due to their defense...Allen Iverson wouldn't be good on most other teams. The Sixers are imbalanced because Allen Iverson himself is imbalanced.

Even if I give you that Iverson is a better scorer than Nash, which doesn't seem to be true considering we know how much they score and the efficiency - that I could just as easily say Iverson isn't anywhere near the playmaker or floor general that Nash is. Last I checked an assist is worth a minimum of 2 points and a maximum of 3, so it's odd that you ignore that assist do not count toward the point total yet you seem to be all about totals.

That's not taking into account that Nash has plenty of hockey assists, is great in transition, great in pick and roll, great in give and go, great at getting the ball in the post and great at playing off ball himself. None of those things are Allen Iverson's strengths, and yes, Iverson got something like 7 APG which is Derek Rose territory - not in the same league as Nash as a passer. Nash is a real general, he could average like 8 APG and have the impact of someone who averages 12 APG like Rondo in terms of passing, Iverson is largely a guy who gets APG because he has the ball in his hand a lot - raw totals just like his scoring (not that Iverson's APG is that high anyway).

[Hussien Fatal]

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?

So Billups is gonna take that 01 team to the finals huh?

Uh..yeah, they would probably go to the finals lol - and if they didn't it would be because of fit (the Sixers are built around Allen Iverson) not because Billups is worse. Why do you keep pretending the 2001 Sixers were bad? Name the better teams - they're all Western teams.

Also, the argument that Iverson is so great because he WON soooo much by going to the finals is hilarious compared to Billups, who has way more post season success than Iverson did even if you ignore 2004.

You saying Billups would take that team to the finals is all I needed to see from you to tell that you aren’t even worth the argument.

[HeartBreakKid]

So Billups is gonna take that 01 team to the finals huh?

Uh..yeah, they would probably go to the finals lol - and if they didn't it would be because of fit (the Sixers are built around Allen Iverson) not because Billups is worse. Why do you keep pretending the 2001 Sixers were bad? Name the better teams - they're all Western teams.

Also, the argument that Iverson is so great because he WON soooo much by going to the finals is hilarious compared to Billups, who has way more post season success than Iverson did even if you ignore 2004.

You saying Billups would take that team to the finals is all I needed to see from you to tell that you aren’t even worth the argument.

Because you literally can't make an argument. If you want to shut me up name the teams that are better than the Sixers. If it's soooo easy you should be able to put the strength to type out 1 or 2 teams.

Like again, you think you know so much about basketball because you were in school when Allen Iverson won MVP - yet you never thought to have your own opinion on the subject. You don't actually know how good or bad the Sixers are - you probably just remember some white dude on NBC saying "Iverson's team sucks, no one else can score but him and he still wins!".

Like, again, - if Iverson's team is so bad, what teams were better than his own? Explain how his team is worse than the McGrady Magic, Pierce Celtics (which his team beat), Carter Raptors (who took his team to 7 games) or the Kidd Nets (that did exactly what Iverson did but twice and was more consistent), and Kidd isn't even half as good of a scorer as Nash.

Good luck. (I expect you'll ignore this post though because it's pretty much illogical for you to have the stance that you have)

[therealbig3]

Lol at people here bashing Iverson by saying Billups was CLEARLY better than AI. Accolades say much different.

Accolades are largely media-driven. Where is the objective proof?

Billups replaced Iverson and the Nuggets got a lot better. He had just come from a team that was also offensively limited and more defensively focused, and he led them to 1 title, 2 championships, and 6 straight conference finals. Then helped lead the Nuggets to another conference finals after they got swept in the first round with AI the year before. Billups's team success dwarfs AI's, and we have a direct example of him taking Iverson's place and doing a lot better.

If PPG is your only argument in favor of AI, it's a weak one.

[HeartBreakKid]

Lol at people here bashing Iverson by saying Billups was CLEARLY better than AI. Accolades say much different.

Accolades are largely media-driven. Where is the objective proof?

Billups replaced Iverson and the Nuggets got a lot better. He had just come from a team that was also offensively limited and more defensively focused, and he led them to 1 title, 2 championships, and 6 straight conference finals. Then helped lead the Nuggets to another conference finals after they got swept in the first round with AI the year before. Billups's team success dwarfs AI's, and we have a direct example of him taking Iverson's place and doing a lot better.

If PPG is your only argument in favor of AI, it's a weak one.

It's like he has no idea that Billups was more successful than Iverson. People who parade Iverson are so caught up in 2001 that Hussein Fatal literally forgot that Billups replaced Iverson lmao.

It really is like no other year in Iverson's career exist other than 2001, hmm I wonder why people who argue for Iverson are so focused on 2001 if he is so great?

[Hussien Fatal]

I mean the Suns didn't lose because of offense, so your criticism makes no sense. Also, the Sixers won because of their defense...so again your criticism makes no sense. it's like you don't understand that teams don't win and lose just by virtue of the PPG of their lead scorer.

Also, your ability to make shots matters...Allen Iverson can't score efficiently enough for the amount of shots he takes, that's objectively true. He's a 25 PPG caliber scorer who shoots enough until he gets 35 points, he is not Michael Jordan. Missing shots isn't a good thing.

There is pretty much no evidence that Iverson is a better offensive player, you keep saying he has higher PPG and like -...so? Nash can score in the 20s no problem, just doesn't need to because you know - he is arguably the best passer of his era and the best shooter.

The sixers didn’t make the finals just because of their defense, they made the finals because of Iverson Offensive prowess. Iverson is a much better scorer than Nash and Nash’s efficiency advantage doesn’t close the gap at all.

There were games where Mutumbo carried the Sixers on offense and that's not even his calling card. They did not get by on his offensive prowess, they win by defense and his job is just to volume score enough to tip it in their favor. They don't need an efficient scorer because the teams they are beating can't efficiency score either due to their defense...Allen Iverson wouldn't be good on most other teams. The Sixers are imbalanced because Allen Iverson himself is imbalanced.

Even if I give you that Iverson is a better scorer than Nash, which doesn't seem to be true considering we know how much they score and the efficiency - that I could just as easily say Iverson isn't anywhere near the playmaker or floor general that Nash is. Last I checked an assist is worth a minimum of 2 points and a maximum of 3, so it's odd that you ignore that assist do not count toward the point total yet you seem to be all about totals.

That's not taking into account that Nash has plenty of hockey assists, is great in transition, great in pick and roll, great in give and go, great at getting the ball in the post and great at playing off ball himself. None of those things are Allen Iverson's strengths, and yes, Iverson got something like 7 APG which is Derek Rose territory - not in the same league as Nash as a passer. Nash is a real general, he could average like 8 APG and have the impact of someone who averages 12 APG like Rondo in terms of passing, Iverson is largely a guy who gets APG because he has the ball in his hand a lot - raw totals just like his scoring (not that Iverson's APG is that high anyway).

Deke only really played well vs the Bucks nonexistent front court. He didn’t carry the Sixers offensively at all. Iverson averaged over 30 every series in 2001. Scoring 35% of his teams points on average. That is carrying an offense.

Iverson has been top 5 in assist multiple times so it’s not like he doesn’t have play making on his side

[bondom34]

Billups actually did take a team to the finals.

Twice

[Hussien Fatal]

Billups actually did take a team to the finals.

Twice

He wasn’t even the best player on his team try again buddy.

[HeartBreakKid]

The sixers didn’t make the finals just because of their defense, they made the finals because of Iverson Offensive prowess. Iverson is a much better scorer than Nash and Nash’s efficiency advantage doesn’t close the gap at all.

There were games where Mutumbo carried the Sixers on offense and that's not even his calling card. They did not get by on his offensive prowess, they win by defense and his job is just to volume score enough to tip it in their favor. They don't need an efficient scorer because the teams they are beating can't efficiency score either due to their defense...Allen Iverson wouldn't be good on most other teams. The Sixers are imbalanced because Allen Iverson himself is imbalanced.

Even if I give you that Iverson is a better scorer than Nash, which doesn't seem to be true considering we know how much they score and the efficiency - that I could just as easily say Iverson isn't anywhere near the playmaker or floor general that Nash is. Last I checked an assist is worth a minimum of 2 points and a maximum of 3, so it's odd that you ignore that assist do not count toward the point total yet you seem to be all about totals.

That's not taking into account that Nash has plenty of hockey assists, is great in transition, great in pick and roll, great in give and go, great at getting the ball in the post and great at playing off ball himself. None of those things are Allen Iverson's strengths, and yes, Iverson got something like 7 APG which is Derek Rose territory - not in the same league as Nash as a passer. Nash is a real general, he could average like 8 APG and have the impact of someone who averages 12 APG like Rondo in terms of passing, Iverson is largely a guy who gets APG because he has the ball in his hand a lot - raw totals just like his scoring (not that Iverson's APG is that high anyway).

Deke only really played well vs the Bucks nonexistent front court. He didn’t carry the Sixers offensively at all. Iverson averaged over 30 every series in 2001. Scoring 35% of his teams points on average. That is carrying an offense.

Iverson has been top 5 in assist multiple times so it’s not like he doesn’t have play making on his side

Even if that were true the Bucks were literally the only comparable team talent wise to the Sixers...so the only threatening team to the Sixers Mutumbo did the heavy lifting.

[penbeast0]

You saying Billups would take that team to the finals is all I needed to see from you to tell that you aren’t even worth the argument.

Given a reasonable number of good breaks, no more than the team actually had, they still match up well against the Pacers, Raptors, and Bucks though neither in the original case nor in the rewrite scenario is it a sure thing (they had 4-3 series against both the Raptors and the Bucks). They also probably get smashed in the finals just as they did. They would need a bit more scoring out of McKie, Hill, Kukoc etc. but considering the inefficiency of their offense, they can have other people pushing their limits a bit too and still win with their defense.

Question for you. Would Iverson be within smelling distance of a title with Detroit in 04 assuming he doesn't change his play style significantly?

[Hussien Fatal]

Lol at people here bashing Iverson by saying Billups was CLEARLY better than AI. Accolades say much different.

Accolades are largely media-driven. Where is the objective proof?

Billups replaced Iverson and the Nuggets got a lot better. He had just come from a team that was also offensively limited and more defensively focused, and he led them to 1 title, 2 championships, and 6 straight conference finals. Then helped lead the Nuggets to another conference finals after they got swept in the first round with AI the year before. Billups's team success dwarfs AI's, and we have a direct example of him taking Iverson's place and doing a lot better.

If PPG is your only argument in favor of AI, it's a weak one.

It's like he has no idea that Billups was more successful than Iverson. People who parade Iverson are so caught up in 2001 that Hussein Fatal literally forgot that Billups replaced Iverson lmao.

It really is like no other year in Iverson's career exist other than 2001, hmm I wonder why people who argue for Iverson are so focused on 2001 if he is so great?

He replaced an out of prime Iverson lol. Like what is going on here guys.

[rrravenred]

Billups actually did take a team to the finals.

Twice

Is fair to say they were more offensively talented, though. Giving Iverson the spacing that comes with Rip, Prince and Sheed and think he would be markedly more efficient (think Billups was a better defender and facilitator, ofc)

Sent from my SM-A305YN using Tapatalk

[HeartBreakKid]

Billups actually did take a team to the finals.

Twice

He wasn’t even the best player on his team try again buddy.

woah woah woaaaaaah

Who was better?

Ben Wallace?


B-but Ben Wallace scores way less than Chauncey Billups. Fatal, are you admitting that there is more to the game than just raw PPG?

By the way, the Pistons still nearly made the finals after Wallace left.

[Hussien Fatal]

You saying Billups would take that team to the finals is all I needed to see from you to tell that you aren’t even worth the argument.

Given a reasonable number of good breaks, no more than the team actually had, they still match up well against the Pacers, Raptors, and Bucks though neither in the original case nor in the rewrite scenario is it a sure thing (they had 4-3 series against both the Raptors and the Bucks). They also probably get smashed in the finals just as they did. They would need a bit more scoring out of McKie, Hill, Kukoc etc. but considering the inefficiency of their offense, they can have other people pushing their limits a bit too and still win with their defense.

Question for you. Would Iverson be within smelling distance of a title with Detroit in 04 assuming he doesn't change his play style significantly?

That 04 pistons team is just a supped up version of the 01 sixers. Wayy better offense and better defense.