Iverson vs Nash

[therealbig3]

Billups actually did take a team to the finals.

Twice

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

He was their best offensive player for sure, much like Iverson for the Sixers.

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.

Iverson was putting put up the same numbers he had always done. What makes that year out of his prime? In fact, from an individual standpoint, it was one of his best seasons...certainly his most offensively efficient season.

And Billups himself was around the same age as Iverson, he was nearing the end of his prime as well.

[HeartBreakKid]

Billups actually did take a team to the finals.

Twice

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

He was their best offensive player for sure, much like Iverson for the Sixers.

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.

Iverson was putting put up the same numbers he had always done. What makes that year out of his prime? In fact, from an individual standpoint, it was one of his best seasons...certainly his most offensively efficient season.

And Billups himself was around the same age as Iverson, he was nearing the end of his prime as well.

He was of his prime because he wasn't in as many commercials anymore. Pretty much after 2001 Iverson's prime ended because everyone moved on to more interesting stories.

[therealbig3]

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

Meh, Rip was primarily a mid range shooter and Prince wasn't exactly a marksman from deep, he was more of a defensive specialist.

Spacing wasn't much of a thing in the early 00s tbh, it wasn't a concept that was heavily emphasized. The Pistons were a true team in every sense of the word though, Billups was their best offensive player, but everyone contributed, and they were the best defensive team in the league with the Wallaces in the middle.

I really don't think Iverson replacing Billups leads to the same success. It immediately becomes a more individualistic approach, with worse shooting/efficiency/defense. I think they lose to the Nets in the conference semis with Iverson instead of Billups.

[rrravenred]

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

Eh... dunno how hard I'd argue Prince and Rip over Lynch and Snow, tbh.

Deke vs BWallace is an interesting comparison, though, and you'd probably rate RWallace over Hill.



Sent from my SM-A305YN using Tapatalk

[bondom34]

Billups actually did take a team to the finals.

Twice

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

He certainly has an argument for it (edit: I'm not sure if he really was or not and looking its more likely Sheed or Ben Wallace statistically, but he's one of the best couple, and glancing through APM he's their highest rated offensive player). And when he was traded for Iverson one team got better and one worse.

[rrravenred]

Meh, Rip was primarily a mid range shooter and Prince wasn't exactly a marksman from deep, he was more of a defensive specialist.

Spacing wasn't much of a thing in the early 00s tbh, it wasn't a concept that was heavily emphasized. The Pistons were a true team in every sense of the word though, Billups was their best offensive player, but everyone contributed, and they were the best defensive team in the league with the Wallaces in the middle.

I really don't think Iverson replacing Billups leads to the same success. It immediately becomes a more individualistic approach, with worse shooting/efficiency/defense. I think they lose to the Nets in the conference semis with Iverson instead of Billups.

More had Rip's offball game in mind tbh (which would absolutely depend on AI giving it up as required). And yeah, Prince and Sheed are not exactly deadeyes, but the threat would still open up the lanes (again dependent on AI's offensive awareness).

2005 was a real transitional year for NBA offences. I agree with you on the likely effectiveness of the team offence, though.

Sent from my SM-A305YN using Tapatalk

[bondom34]

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

I could certainly see Iverson being more efficient in those circumstances (and actually misread, I just thought he said take "a" team, not "that" team). I still can't see him being efficient enough or ultimately having the same level of offensive impact just because his playmaking wasn't nearly at that level. He wasn't a very good playmaker to top it off, and as you said the defensive gap was there too.

I don't know if Billups takes that team to the finals, but I also don't think that's a very good way to go about looking at it, that team was a weak finalist and their offense was their weak point. I'm also not sure he doesn't take that team or one of similar talent to the finals. That Sixers team wasn't a bad team.

[therealbig3]

Anyway, clearly Iverson vs Billups at minimum isn’t an obvious win for Iverson, so I think that answers the question of this thread.

[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.

He was their best offensive player for sure, much like Iverson for the Sixers.

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.

Iverson was putting put up the same numbers he had always done. What makes that year out of his prime? In fact, from an individual standpoint, it was one of his best seasons...certainly his most offensively efficient season.

And Billups himself was around the same age as Iverson, he was nearing the end of his prime as well.

Iverson was not putting up the same numbers when he was traded to Detroit. Infact he was almost down half his production from his prime. Went from scoring 33 (at his best) to 17ppg at the time he was traded. He was clearly out of his prime. And Iverson has wayyyy more mileage on his body than Billups. He played way more minutes as well as getting fouled way more often. It is actually amazing he lasted as long as he did. And still people underestimate his longevity as he is the only guard to average 26ppg or more for ten straight seasons.

But this has very much turned into a bash Iverson thread with people honestly suggesting Billups could take that 01 team to the finals or that Billups was even on Iversons level as a player. You will always be in the minority with that judgement.

[Hussien Fatal]

I actually think Billups is better than Nash but Iverson is way better than both of those guys. Still holds the playoff record which most likely will never be broken of scoring 56% of his teams points in a playoff game. Iverson at his absolute best is in the class of MJ or any other top 5 GOAT player. Guys like Nash an Billups are a couple tiers below Iverson as a player.

[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

Averaged 14/5.5 on terrible efficiency?

Wow.

In the year he was in D'Antoni's system his numbers jumped up. Not overall career. And Felton was a bad guard.

Sent from my SM-N970W using Tapatalk

[prophet_of_rage]

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.

Jeremy Lin says different. Felton says different. D'Antoni inflates your stats with his offensive pace. He won't change your game but if you can fit you get way more statistical opportunities.

Sent from my SM-N970W using Tapatalk

[prophet_of_rage]

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

Eh... dunno how hard I'd argue Prince and Rip over Lynch and Snow, tbh.

Deke vs BWallace is an interesting comparison, though, and you'd probably rate RWallace over Hill.



Sent from my SM-A305YN using Tapatalk

You would argue very hard. Rip was the Pistons leading scorer and defended anyone from Lebron to AI. Prince scored enough and was a better defender. That's a very biased take to say they weren't much better than McKie/Lynch.

Sent from my SM-N970W using Tapatalk

[prophet_of_rage]

Billups actually did take a team to the finals.

Twice

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

He was their best offensive player for sure, much like Iverson for the Sixers.

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.

Iverson was putting put up the same numbers he had always done. What makes that year out of his prime? In fact, from an individual standpoint, it was one of his best seasons...certainly his most offensively efficient season.

And Billups himself was around the same age as Iverson, he was nearing the end of his prime as well.

Iverson was traded because his legs started to go. When he got to the Nuggets he had already lost a step as lack of training and alcoholism were starting to take their toll. When he was sent to Detroit he was done.

Sent from my SM-N970W using Tapatalk

[prophet_of_rage]

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.

Wallaces and Hamilton were better than Billups. Billups, however, was the engine for the Pistons. He got the ball to them on time and in the right spots. He actually played worse for Detroit as he believed the Mr. Big Shot moniker. Posting up the corpse of Payton wasn't that impressive.

Sent from my SM-N970W using Tapatalk

[bondom34]

2004 RAPM had Billups as pretty clearly 3rd behind the Wallaces. Hamilton was the scorer, but not the guy leading the offense. And by the time Billups got a little older, he was well ahead of Iverson's peak numbers.

While not the be all end all, I'm not sure Hamilton has much an argument other than scoring. He was worse than Billups by pretty much every advanced metric across the board.

[therealbig3]

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.

Jeremy Lin says different. Felton says different. D'Antoni inflates your stats with his offensive pace. He won't change your game but if you can fit you get way more statistical opportunities.

Sent from my SM-N970W using Tapatalk

Jeremy Lin averaged 15/6 through 35 games with D'Antoni. Then went to Houston and averaged 13/6. Ended up averaging 15/5 in 36 games a few years later with Brooklyn, after averaging 11-12 ppg the 3 years in between. He was putting up pretty much the same numbers wherever. He had a few games of "Linsanity", then dropped off, and then was basically the same player after he left D'Antoni.

Felton had a slight bump in his raw stats in the one year he played for him. So what? Nobody thought he transformed from a mediocre PG into a star, which is the point here.

Nash putting up 15-19 ppg and 11 apg is not the reason he's in the offensive GOAT conversation. His raw stats have very little to do with his argument. +/- is strongly in support of Nash, in all forms of it (raw +/-, on/off, RAPM), and he was the anchor of some of the greatest offensive teams of all time. You're not seeing that with anyone else other than Harden...another generational talent with or without D'Antoni.

[therealbig3]

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

He was their best offensive player for sure, much like Iverson for the Sixers.

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

Iverson was putting put up the same numbers he had always done. What makes that year out of his prime? In fact, from an individual standpoint, it was one of his best seasons...certainly his most offensively efficient season.

And Billups himself was around the same age as Iverson, he was nearing the end of his prime as well.

Iverson was traded because his legs started to go. When he got to the Nuggets he had already lost a step as lack of training and alcoholism were starting to take their toll. When he was sent to Detroit he was done.

Sent from my SM-N970W using Tapatalk

I'm saying to just look at his numbers in 08. He averaged 26/7 on the best efficiency of his career. That's not a guy that's no longer in his prime. He may not have been at his absolute best any more, but it was one of his best seasons from an individual standpoint.

[therealbig3]

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

He was their best offensive player for sure, much like Iverson for the Sixers.

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

Iverson was putting put up the same numbers he had always done. What makes that year out of his prime? In fact, from an individual standpoint, it was one of his best seasons...certainly his most offensively efficient season.

And Billups himself was around the same age as Iverson, he was nearing the end of his prime as well.

Iverson was not putting up the same numbers when he was traded to Detroit. Infact he was almost down half his production from his prime. Went from scoring 33 (at his best) to 17ppg at the time he was traded. He was clearly out of his prime. And Iverson has wayyyy more mileage on his body than Billups. He played way more minutes as well as getting fouled way more often. It is actually amazing he lasted as long as he did. And still people underestimate his longevity as he is the only guard to average 26ppg or more for ten straight seasons.

But this has very much turned into a bash Iverson thread with people honestly suggesting Billups could take that 01 team to the finals or that Billups was even on Iversons level as a player. You will always be in the minority with that judgement.

I'm comparing what Billups did in 09 compared to what Iverson did in 08. It was basically a straight up replacement from one year to the next, and the Nuggets got a lot better. Iverson in 08 averaged 26/7 on the best efficiency of his career. It's hard to argue that he's all of a sudden no longer in his prime just because it doesn't jive with your narrative.

I don't really care what the majority thinks, what I know is that Billups proved himself to be more effective than Iverson across different roles (in a similar role to Iverson and the Sixers, Billups fit into a team concept a lot better, got more out of his teammates, and led his team to more success...in a direct replacement of Iverson, he led his team to a lot more success).

And if Iverson isn't clearly over Billups, then he doesn't really compare to Nash, obviously.

[therealbig3]

I actually think Billups is better than Nash

This is a more ridiculous statement than saying Billups could replace Iverson and lead the 01 Sixers to the Finals, fyi.