Iverson vs Nash

[Ryoga Hibiki]

Iverson at his absolute best is in the class of MJ or any other top 5 GOAT player.

You can't seriously believe this can you? I was trying to give your arguments a chance but this pretty much shuts it down for me.

Prove me wrong. At his best he is GOAT status. He has some of the best playoff games ever recorded. When his game is on there is nobody better. He has a couple playoff games that qualify as the best performances ever. 55 while scoring 56% of his teams points in a playoff game is literally one of the best games in the history of the NBA. I’ll say it again when he is at his best there are only a few players that are on his level and they all are considered top 5 players ever.

Antoine Walker at his best (=hitting all those dumb shots) was goat level as well.
I would just be aware of the difference between statistical variance and being consistently great

[prophet_of_rage]

Well if you want to prop up the great games and ignore the ones where he was putrid go ahead, but it really makes little sense when comparing him to goat players. Being GOAT isn't about how many points you can put up at random.

It wasn’t a random thing dude had many big games in the playoffs. He has the 2nd highest rate of 40 and 50 point playoff games. He did it pretty often. He has had way better playoff games than Nash. He has two playoff games scoring more than 50% of his teams points. The only other player to do that’s MJ. Great playoff games can make a career. Nash doesn’t have playoff moments that come even remotely close to Iverson’s multiple big playoff games. He scored 100 points in a 7 quarter playoff span (4th quarter game 6 ECF to 2nd quarter NBA Finals). Nash could never in his dreams score like that in a playoff tight setting.

I don't think you're getting that PPG isn't the be all end all, especially when Iverson could never in his dreams score at the same efficiency as Nash, even if he took the same amount of shots.

There is no team situation where Iverson could lead the level of team offense that Nash was doing in Phoenix. Because Nash was a true dual threat that could burn you with scoring and passing, but was primarily a passer first and got his teammates involved. Iverson was a scorer first that was a mediocre passer and his scoring was generally very low efficiency. Nash got the most out of his teammates and was guaranteed to lead an elite offense, most of the time a historic offense. Even if he only scored 15 ppg. That's why his 15 ppg was just more valuable than Iverson's 30 ppg.

As an overall offensive force, Nash blows Iverson out of the water.

Is Nash a better overall offence than Shaq? Because Shaq can't lead an offence like Steve, either.

Sent from my SM-N970W using Tapatalk

[Bergmaniac]

You can't seriously believe this can you? I was trying to give your arguments a chance but this pretty much shuts it down for me.

Prove me wrong. At his best he is GOAT status. He has some of the best playoff games ever recorded. When his game is on there is nobody better. He has a couple playoff games that qualify as the best performances ever. 55 while scoring 56% of his teams points in a playoff game is literally one of the best games in the history of the NBA. I’ll say it again when he is at his best there are only a few players that are on his level and they all are considered top 5 players ever.

How long is this list? That's literally one game in the conference semis.

It wasn't even in the conference finals, it was a first round game against the 2003 Hornets - https://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/200304200PHI.html .

[Amares]

It wasn’t a random thing dude had many big games in the playoffs. He has the 2nd highest rate of 40 and 50 point playoff games. He did it pretty often. He has had way better playoff games than Nash. He has two playoff games scoring more than 50% of his teams points. The only other player to do that’s MJ. Great playoff games can make a career. Nash doesn’t have playoff moments that come even remotely close to Iverson’s multiple big playoff games. He scored 100 points in a 7 quarter playoff span (4th quarter game 6 ECF to 2nd quarter NBA Finals). Nash could never in his dreams score like that in a playoff tight setting.

I don't think you're getting that PPG isn't the be all end all, especially when Iverson could never in his dreams score at the same efficiency as Nash, even if he took the same amount of shots.

There is no team situation where Iverson could lead the level of team offense that Nash was doing in Phoenix. Because Nash was a true dual threat that could burn you with scoring and passing, but was primarily a passer first and got his teammates involved. Iverson was a scorer first that was a mediocre passer and his scoring was generally very low efficiency. Nash got the most out of his teammates and was guaranteed to lead an elite offense, most of the time a historic offense. Even if he only scored 15 ppg. That's why his 15 ppg was just more valuable than Iverson's 30 ppg.

As an overall offensive force, Nash blows Iverson out of the water.

Is Nash a better overall offence than Shaq? Because Shaq can't lead an offence like Steve, either.

Sent from my SM-N970W using Tapatalk

Yes he was, at his prime Nash was GOAT-tier offensive player.

[No-more-rings]

It wasn’t a random thing dude had many big games in the playoffs. He has the 2nd highest rate of 40 and 50 point playoff games. He did it pretty often. He has had way better playoff games than Nash. He has two playoff games scoring more than 50% of his teams points. The only other player to do that’s MJ. Great playoff games can make a career. Nash doesn’t have playoff moments that come even remotely close to Iverson’s multiple big playoff games. He scored 100 points in a 7 quarter playoff span (4th quarter game 6 ECF to 2nd quarter NBA Finals). Nash could never in his dreams score like that in a playoff tight setting.

I don't think you're getting that PPG isn't the be all end all, especially when Iverson could never in his dreams score at the same efficiency as Nash, even if he took the same amount of shots.

There is no team situation where Iverson could lead the level of team offense that Nash was doing in Phoenix. Because Nash was a true dual threat that could burn you with scoring and passing, but was primarily a passer first and got his teammates involved. Iverson was a scorer first that was a mediocre passer and his scoring was generally very low efficiency. Nash got the most out of his teammates and was guaranteed to lead an elite offense, most of the time a historic offense. Even if he only scored 15 ppg. That's why his 15 ppg was just more valuable than Iverson's 30 ppg.

As an overall offensive force, Nash blows Iverson out of the water.

Is Nash a better overall offence than Shaq? Because Shaq can't lead an offence like Steve, either.

Sent from my SM-N970W using Tapatalk

Some or perhaps many here would make the case for Nash over Shaq offensively, yes. I don't think i would, but it's not crazy. Shaq wins overall since he was at least a positive defender for the majority of his prime, Nash was always either a negative or neutral on his best days.

[Joao Saraiva]

I got Iverson here. Killer crossover and took it to the hole fearlessly. Had a killer instinct that Nash didn't possess.

Nash just pranced around the perimeter shooting jumpers and handing it off to big men for easy dunks. Couldn't raise his game when his team needed it most and because of that his team's never got anywhere.

Sent from my SM-G960F using RealGM mobile app

Iverson took his team very far very often. Tons of rings, tons of deep runs...

Iverson literally went to 1 finals. That's it. He was never ever relevant in the playoffs ever again. Damn he was a leader of the 2004 olympic team. And it was the worst display ever by the USA in the competition.

[Hussien Fatal]

I got Iverson here. Killer crossover and took it to the hole fearlessly. Had a killer instinct that Nash didn't possess.

Nash just pranced around the perimeter shooting jumpers and handing it off to big men for easy dunks. Couldn't raise his game when his team needed it most and because of that his team's never got anywhere.

Sent from my SM-G960F using RealGM mobile app

Iverson took his team very far very often. Tons of rings, tons of deep runs...

Iverson literally went to 1 finals. That's it. He was never ever relevant in the playoffs ever again. Damn he was a leader of the 2004 olympic team. And it was the worst display ever by the USA in the competition.

Why was he considered the leader on the Olympic team that also had Duncan? As well as a Young Lebron? People love to put that on Iverson (when he played very good) but there were other all time greats on that team as well.

[prophet_of_rage]

I don't think you're getting that PPG isn't the be all end all, especially when Iverson could never in his dreams score at the same efficiency as Nash, even if he took the same amount of shots.

There is no team situation where Iverson could lead the level of team offense that Nash was doing in Phoenix. Because Nash was a true dual threat that could burn you with scoring and passing, but was primarily a passer first and got his teammates involved. Iverson was a scorer first that was a mediocre passer and his scoring was generally very low efficiency. Nash got the most out of his teammates and was guaranteed to lead an elite offense, most of the time a historic offense. Even if he only scored 15 ppg. That's why his 15 ppg was just more valuable than Iverson's 30 ppg.

As an overall offensive force, Nash blows Iverson out of the water.

Is Nash a better overall offence than Shaq? Because Shaq can't lead an offence like Steve, either.

Sent from my SM-N970W using Tapatalk

Some or perhaps many here would make the case for Nash over Shaq offensively, yes. I don't think i would, but it's not crazy. Shaq wins overall since he was at least a positive defender for the majority of his prime, Nash was always either a negative or neutral on his best days.

It isn't crazy? Really. And this is where I hop off.

Sent from my SM-N970W using Tapatalk

[Joao Saraiva]

I got Iverson here. Killer crossover and took it to the hole fearlessly. Had a killer instinct that Nash didn't possess.

Nash just pranced around the perimeter shooting jumpers and handing it off to big men for easy dunks. Couldn't raise his game when his team needed it most and because of that his team's never got anywhere.

Sent from my SM-G960F using RealGM mobile app

Iverson took his team very far very often. Tons of rings, tons of deep runs...

Iverson literally went to 1 finals. That's it. He was never ever relevant in the playoffs ever again. Damn he was a leader of the 2004 olympic team. And it was the worst display ever by the USA in the competition.

Why was he considered the leader on the Olympic team that also had Duncan? As well as a Young Lebron? People love to put that on Iverson (when he played very good) but there were other all time greats on that team as well.

LeBron played 3 minutes against Argentina. Hardly sounds like he was the leader, but I'll let you think about it.

About Iverson being a leader... he shot 37 more shots than Duncan. He was the leader in FGA of the team. He and Marbury absolutely killed any ball movement that should have been there and their efficiency was terrible... nothing new consdering the large samples of their careers.

Surprisingly enough, Tim Duncan actually made 4 more FGs than Allen Iverson. Sugesting he actually should have been fed a lot more on offense instead of Iverson chucking shots.

[Ambrose]

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.

You've got to be related to AI.

This argument of yours literally doesn't make sense.

Iverson is nowhere near MJ or other GOAT candidates because of 1 game.

Like I said at his absolute best he is as good as anybody, and he has more than one of those type of playoff games.

Iverson doesn't even have a top 20 peak in NBA history. No, he wasn't as good as anybody at his best. A lot of players bests were clearly better.

[Ryoga Hibiki]

Some or perhaps many here would make the case for Nash over Shaq offensively, yes. I don't think i would, but it's not crazy. Shaq wins overall since he was at least a positive defender for the majority of his prime, Nash was always either a negative or neutral on his best days.

The funny thing is, you can even make a case for Nash against jordon as well.
The reason is that the definition of best "offensive player" is less obvious and black/white that what people might think, and very often a lot of arguments are on the "right definition" (definitions are not right or wrong, the are just conventions).
If you want a guy who will maximize your team offensive rating it's probably true, Nash is up there with the very best. But if you want someone who will be able to create offense out of a broken play in the last minutes of a tight PO game not for sure.

[No-more-rings]

Is Nash a better overall offence than Shaq? Because Shaq can't lead an offence like Steve, either.

Sent from my SM-N970W using Tapatalk

Some or perhaps many here would make the case for Nash over Shaq offensively, yes. I don't think i would, but it's not crazy. Shaq wins overall since he was at least a positive defender for the majority of his prime, Nash was always either a negative or neutral on his best days.

It isn't crazy? Really. And this is where I hop off.

Sent from my SM-N970W using Tapatalk

It's your choice if you want to "hop off", but you'll never learn anything with this type of attitude. Just because Shaq was bigger, stronger, much more physically imposing than Nash along with putting up more points doesn't mean he was for sure better than Nash offensively. It's a close minded way of thinking. From an individual production standpoint absolutely he's better, but you have to take into consideration how each guy impacts team offense and other player's performances.

[No-more-rings]

Some or perhaps many here would make the case for Nash over Shaq offensively, yes. I don't think i would, but it's not crazy. Shaq wins overall since he was at least a positive defender for the majority of his prime, Nash was always either a negative or neutral on his best days.

The funny thing is, you can even make a case for Nash against jordon as well.
The reason is that the definition of best "offensive player" is less obvious and black/white that what people might think, and very often a lot of arguments are on the "right definition" (definitions are not right or wrong, the are just conventions).
If you want a guy who will maximize your team offensive rating it's probably true, Nash is up there with the very best. But if you want someone who will be able to create offense out of a broken play in the last minutes of a tight PO game not for sure.

Yeah it's all in what your team needs really. If your team has a bunch of scorers/shooters but need someone to create for them, then Nash is your guy. If you have some decent passers already, but no one who can really dominate in scoring then Jordan is your guy. If Jordan was a terrible defender, i could see taking Nash in some scenarios but realistically we have to consider both sides of the ball.

[Bidofo]

From an individual production standpoint absolutely he's better, but you have to take into consideration how each guy impacts team offense and other player's performances.

This concept is all but lost ITT.

[prophet_of_rage]

Iverson took his team very far very often. Tons of rings, tons of deep runs...

Iverson literally went to 1 finals. That's it. He was never ever relevant in the playoffs ever again. Damn he was a leader of the 2004 olympic team. And it was the worst display ever by the USA in the competition.

Why was he considered the leader on the Olympic team that also had Duncan? As well as a Young Lebron? People love to put that on Iverson (when he played very good) but there were other all time greats on that team as well.

LeBron played 3 minutes against Argentina. Hardly sounds like he was the leader, but I'll let you think about it.

About Iverson being a leader... he shot 37 more shots than Duncan. He was the leader in FGA of the team. He and Marbury absolutely killed any ball movement that should have been there and their efficiency was terrible... nothing new consdering the large samples of their careers.

Surprisingly enough, Tim Duncan actually made 4 more FGs than Allen Iverson. Sugesting he actually should have been fed a lot more on offense instead of Iverson chucking shots.

And he didn't get it because FIBA teams double-teamed him front and back before he could catch the ball, forcing the guards to beat them. Again, please understand what was happening. Don't just spin a narrative based on a review of the numbers. The other teams have strategy, too.

[prophet_of_rage]

Some or perhaps many here would make the case for Nash over Shaq offensively, yes. I don't think i would, but it's not crazy. Shaq wins overall since he was at least a positive defender for the majority of his prime, Nash was always either a negative or neutral on his best days.

It isn't crazy? Really. And this is where I hop off.

Sent from my SM-N970W using Tapatalk

It's your choice if you want to "hop off", but you'll never learn anything with this type of attitude. Just because Shaq was bigger, stronger, much more physically imposing than Nash along with putting up more points doesn't mean he was for sure better than Nash offensively. It's a close minded way of thinking. From an individual production standpoint absolutely he's better, but you have to take into consideration how each guy impacts team offense and other player's performances.

You have nothing to teach if these are the conclusions you are coming to. Numbers, results, role, peer review, statistics, defensive attention, controlling the game. All of it says Shaq is a better offensive player. I guess Nash is a better offensive player than Lebron, MJ? Let me ask, was there a better offensive player than Nash? What are you going to say well Nash made a higher percentage of 3s and fts so he's a better offensive player?

[BenoUdrihFTL]

How is this thread still going?

Nash >>>>>> Iverson, obviously. I actually struggle to think of a legit contender team build where I'd even want any version of Iverson for any role on the team

[Ryoga Hibiki]

It isn't crazy? Really. And this is where I hop off.

Sent from my SM-N970W using Tapatalk

It's your choice if you want to "hop off", but you'll never learn anything with this type of attitude. Just because Shaq was bigger, stronger, much more physically imposing than Nash along with putting up more points doesn't mean he was for sure better than Nash offensively. It's a close minded way of thinking. From an individual production standpoint absolutely he's better, but you have to take into consideration how each guy impacts team offense and other player's performances.

You have nothing to teach if these are the conclusions you are coming to. Numbers, results, role, peer review, statistics, defensive attention, controlling the game. All of it says Shaq is a better offensive player. I guess Nash is a better offensive player than Lebron, MJ? Let me ask, was there a better offensive player than Nash? What are you going to say well Nash made a higher percentage of 3s and fts so he's a better offensive player?

the thing is that you are talking absolutes without any proper argument.
you failed to define what "better offensive player" means and you brought no number to support your view.
and that view must start with a definition, until you sort that out every other argument you bring is completely useless.

anyway, to be clear, it's perfectly reasonable to say that Shaq can improve the offensive rating of your team more than Nash, even if I am not sure it's really true, at least not after the removal of the illegal defense. It's just awfully difficult to defend for Iverson, to go back to the topic, as you must speculate as he NEVER played in a team with great team offense.

Sent from my SM-N975F using RealGM mobile app

[No-more-rings]

Numbers, results, role, peer review, statistics,

I don't really care about peer review, and as for the other stuff it depends what you mean. Shaq averaged way more points, has a higher OBPM etc, but Nash had some of the highest ORAPMs of that time and probably ever, and the results were him leading extremely dominant offenses year in and year out. Nash didn't win a championship if that's what you're referring to, but Nash's offense wasn't the reason. It was untimely injuries/suspensions and the fact that Amare was such a bad defender, Nash doesn't get a pass himself but his lack of defense didn't hurt them the way Amare's did.

defensive attention, controlling the game. All of it says Shaq is a better offensive player.

No it doesn't, not really. Nash controlled the game more than pretty much anyone aside from perhaps Magic, so that's a really out of place and bizarre comment.

I guess Nash is a better offensive player than Lebron, MJ? Let me ask, was there a better offensive player than Nash? What are you going to say well Nash made a higher percentage of 3s and fts so he's a better offensive player?

Nope. I'm just simply offering the argument that Nash may be in those guy's class is all. People tend to value offense differently, so i'm just trying to look at both sides. I personally would rather have a dominant scorer like a Kobe, Wade, Lebron over a pass first guy like Nash, Cp3 etc but i also understand the objective impact that they bring to the table.

[therealbig3]

FTR, it’s not unreasonable to say Nash is better than LeBron and MJ offensively and that nobody was better offensively...hence why I said he’s arguably the GOAT offensive player. But if you don’t understand the reasoning behind that viewpoint, then I can see why you’re incredulous about it.

But it’s not because he hit more 3s and FTs. The argument is that he improves a team’s offensive performance more than anyone else. There’s a very strong argument behind that, but if you’re obsessed with box score stats, ringzzz, and narratives, then you won’t understand.