Thinking Basketball Offensive Legends, Allen Iverson

[TheGeneral99]

He didn't make guys like Eric snow, Aaron Mckie, jumaine jones, theo ratliff, tyrone hill, raja bell, George lynch and Matt Geiger better? They all fell off considerably after playing with AI, and all (with maybe lynch as the exception) had their best years playing with AI.

No he didn't.

They were good role players next to him that did there job, were excellent defensively, and allowed Iverson to dominate the ball and take 25+ shots a game. He also had an amazing coach in Larry Brown which coincided with the Sixers becoming a very good team. As soon as Brown departed, the Sixers fell apart while Brown led the Pistons to a title a year later in 2004.

Are you trying to tell me Iverson was someone that elevated the players around him? That he was a good facilitator?

You also realize that Raja Bell barely played at all on the Sixers and only became a good player next to Nash on the Suns right?

Also Tyrone Hill had his best years before Philly.

George Lynch? Jumaine Jones? Both barely played and Jones had his best years after Philly, lol.

Ratliff was a defensive specialist shot blocker who continued to average nearly 4 blocks a game (led the league twice ) on Atlanta.

Matt Geiger??? The same Geiger who had his best years before Philly and barely played in 2000 and 2001?

Sheesh, Iverson was really good, but to say he made the players around him better is just so devoid of reality.

They were falling apart before brown left, because they didn't have enough good players.

Lynch barely played lol? Check that again, he averaged over 30pmg in his philly career. Jones was starting for then late in the playoffs as well, because lynch was hurt. He was given opportunities to play more after philly, and looking decent next to AI when forced into action in the 01 playoffs. It didn't work out as he was out of the league 6 years later as a 28 year old.

Snow never did anything post Iverson, Same for mckie. Ratliff never averaged in double figures scoring again after leaving philly, and his rebounds went down as well.

To say he didn't elevate players around him is like saying you didn't consistently watch him play, which is a lazy take by many. He often had to shoot late in the shot clock, or take bad shots, because there weren't other shot creators on the floor with him. He was a willing passer but didn't have guys to pass to or covert.

You are really reaching man.

McKie was already 30 years old when he was on Philly and had been in the league for a decade.

Eric Snow was also in his late 20s during the finals run and fell off after he was 30...like most NBA players do.

Dude you are mentioning guys like Geiger, Bell, Jones etc. who actually did have better careers before Philly or after Philly.

Lynch also posted virtually identical numbers before he was on Philly and was a role player who averaged 8ppg.

Iverson is a great scorer but you cannot tell me he was a dude that maximized the production of his teammates.

[tsherkin]

His assists also primarily went up because he was being used on ball more. LB had him as mainly a SG with Snow controlling the offense.

With Randy Ayers and Mo Cheeks, Iverson was on the ball more, and Snow was moved after 03-04. Iverson was back to being a PG in 04-05 and we saw his apg increase, though of course also his tpg going up to around 4, but of course all these numbers were also being done in 43 mpg, so we have to be fair to him in terms of something like turnovers since that's 4 tpg in 43 mpg, but also then the scoring rate and assist rate are also lessened when minutes are taken into account, so it's both ways.

Also true, yes.

[hardenASG13]

No he didn't.

They were good role players next to him that did there job, were excellent defensively, and allowed Iverson to dominate the ball and take 25+ shots a game. He also had an amazing coach in Larry Brown which coincided with the Sixers becoming a very good team. As soon as Brown departed, the Sixers fell apart while Brown led the Pistons to a title a year later in 2004.

Are you trying to tell me Iverson was someone that elevated the players around him? That he was a good facilitator?

You also realize that Raja Bell barely played at all on the Sixers and only became a good player next to Nash on the Suns right?

Also Tyrone Hill had his best years before Philly.

George Lynch? Jumaine Jones? Both barely played and Jones had his best years after Philly, lol.

Ratliff was a defensive specialist shot blocker who continued to average nearly 4 blocks a game (led the league twice ) on Atlanta.

Matt Geiger??? The same Geiger who had his best years before Philly and barely played in 2000 and 2001?

Sheesh, Iverson was really good, but to say he made the players around him better is just so devoid of reality.

They were falling apart before brown left, because they didn't have enough good players.

Lynch barely played lol? Check that again, he averaged over 30pmg in his philly career. Jones was starting for then late in the playoffs as well, because lynch was hurt. He was given opportunities to play more after philly, and looking decent next to AI when forced into action in the 01 playoffs. It didn't work out as he was out of the league 6 years later as a 28 year old.

Snow never did anything post Iverson, Same for mckie. Ratliff never averaged in double figures scoring again after leaving philly, and his rebounds went down as well.

To say he didn't elevate players around him is like saying you didn't consistently watch him play, which is a lazy take by many. He often had to shoot late in the shot clock, or take bad shots, because there weren't other shot creators on the floor with him. He was a willing passer but didn't have guys to pass to or covert.

You are really reaching man.

McKie was already 30 years old when he was on Philly and had been in the league for a decade.

Eric Snow was also in his late 20s during the finals run and fell off after he was 30...like most NBA players do.

Dude you are mentioning guys like Geiger, Bell, Jones etc. who actually did have better careers before Philly or after Philly.

Lynch also posted virtually identical numbers before he was on Philly and was a role player who averaged 8ppg.

Iverson is a great scorer but you cannot tell me he was a dude that maximized the production of his teammates.

Well, if he didn't elevate them (which I don't agree with), it speaks even more to the carry job he did with them leading them to the finals. None of those guys were parts of good teams before or after him. Webber was, but he was a shell of himself in philly. Kind of shows he was a winner for what he was able to do with that bunch. 2001 was indeed the only time he was able to do it, but there are reasons for it, again just like Tmacs Orlando teams, Kobe after shaq/before Gasol, KG in Minnesota. You can only do so much as a solo act. To me he was absolutely a legit number 1 who could've led a team to a title if given a competitive roster. He just never was given that. To blindly say he couldn't co exist with other scorers has always been confusing to me, as it's based on what? Him and Stackhouse not winning in their first couple years in the league.

[TheGeneral99]

They were falling apart before brown left, because they didn't have enough good players.

Lynch barely played lol? Check that again, he averaged over 30pmg in his philly career. Jones was starting for then late in the playoffs as well, because lynch was hurt. He was given opportunities to play more after philly, and looking decent next to AI when forced into action in the 01 playoffs. It didn't work out as he was out of the league 6 years later as a 28 year old.

Snow never did anything post Iverson, Same for mckie. Ratliff never averaged in double figures scoring again after leaving philly, and his rebounds went down as well.

To say he didn't elevate players around him is like saying you didn't consistently watch him play, which is a lazy take by many. He often had to shoot late in the shot clock, or take bad shots, because there weren't other shot creators on the floor with him. He was a willing passer but didn't have guys to pass to or covert.

You are really reaching man.

McKie was already 30 years old when he was on Philly and had been in the league for a decade.

Eric Snow was also in his late 20s during the finals run and fell off after he was 30...like most NBA players do.

Dude you are mentioning guys like Geiger, Bell, Jones etc. who actually did have better careers before Philly or after Philly.

Lynch also posted virtually identical numbers before he was on Philly and was a role player who averaged 8ppg.

Iverson is a great scorer but you cannot tell me he was a dude that maximized the production of his teammates.

Well, if he didn't elevate them (which I don't agree with), it speaks even more to the carry job he did with them leading them to the finals. None of those guys were parts of good teams before or after him. Webber was, but he was a shell of himself in philly. Kind of shows he was a winner for what he was able to do with that bunch. 2001 was indeed the only time he was able to do it, but there are reasons for it, again just like Tmacs Orlando teams, Kobe after shaq/before Gasol, KG in Minnesota. You can only do so much as a solo act. To me he was absolutely a legit number 1 who could've led a team to a title if given a competitive roster. He just never was given that. To blindly say he couldn't co exist with other scorers has always been confusing to me, as it's based on what? Him and Stackhouse not winning in their first couple years in the league.

Dude, you need to relax and stop taking my critiques so seriously.

My first post I literally said AI is a great player and he's in my top 50, but I wouldn't him in my top 30. He's in the 40-50 range and I think that's fair. That's still an INCREDIBLE accomplishment. He's a 1st ballot hall of famer and one of the top players ever. That's not a diss on AI.

That being said I don't think you can deny his flaws - inefficient, bad shot selection, not a great facilitator, and not a great defender.

That Sixers team had 1 great run in his 9 years with the franchise. He had Larry Brown, who was one of the best coaches in NBA history. They had arguably the best defensive player in the league in Mutumbo, and a bunch of other defensive minded role players. Iverson did shoulder the scoring load and he was a damn good offensive player. However, I don't think his style of play maximized his teams performance and I don't think it reaches the level of other great smaller guards like Nash, Curry, CP3 etc.

[hardenASG13]

You are really reaching man.

McKie was already 30 years old when he was on Philly and had been in the league for a decade.

Eric Snow was also in his late 20s during the finals run and fell off after he was 30...like most NBA players do.

Dude you are mentioning guys like Geiger, Bell, Jones etc. who actually did have better careers before Philly or after Philly.

Lynch also posted virtually identical numbers before he was on Philly and was a role player who averaged 8ppg.

Iverson is a great scorer but you cannot tell me he was a dude that maximized the production of his teammates.

Well, if he didn't elevate them (which I don't agree with), it speaks even more to the carry job he did with them leading them to the finals. None of those guys were parts of good teams before or after him. Webber was, but he was a shell of himself in philly. Kind of shows he was a winner for what he was able to do with that bunch. 2001 was indeed the only time he was able to do it, but there are reasons for it, again just like Tmacs Orlando teams, Kobe after shaq/before Gasol, KG in Minnesota. You can only do so much as a solo act. To me he was absolutely a legit number 1 who could've led a team to a title if given a competitive roster. He just never was given that. To blindly say he couldn't co exist with other scorers has always been confusing to me, as it's based on what? Him and Stackhouse not winning in their first couple years in the league.

Dude, you need to relax and stop taking my critiques so seriously.

My first post I literally said AI is a great player and he's in my top 50, but I wouldn't him in my top 30. He's in the 40-50 range and I think that's fair. That's still an INCREDIBLE accomplishment. He's a 1st ballot hall of famer and one of the top players ever. That's not a diss on AI.

That being said I don't think you can deny his flaws - inefficient, bad shot selection, not a great facilitator, and not a great defender.

That Sixers team had 1 great run in his 9 years with the franchise. He had Larry Brown, who was one of the best coaches in NBA history. They had arguably the best defensive player in the league in Mutumbo, and a bunch of other defensive minded role players. Iverson did shoulder the scoring load and he was a damn good offensive player. However, I don't think his style of play maximized his teams performance and I don't think it reaches the level of other great smaller guards like Nash, Curry, CP3 etc.

I'm relaxed, dude. This is a forum to debate basketball and counter points we don't agree, which is what we're doing here. Clearly we don't agree on AIs ability to elevate a team (when given the opportunity). That's OK

[GYK]

Okay, but apart from the Sixers...was there any other team in the East that was better than the Spurs, the Jazz, and the Mavs?

I can't tell you that I vividly remember the 2001 spurs, Jazz, or Mavs. But that's the point, Philly was better than them all, and was the top team most of 2001 until the Lakers went nuclear in the second half of the season. The Bucks were very good that year with 3 very good scorers, but AI led Philly past them. I'm sure the bucks were on par with those west teams that were swept by LA.

If you watched the league during this time (and were old enough to understand what was going on) you would not say this.

Even statistics alone can explain this one. Bucks had the 7th best record, 8th in SRS and had a poor defense.

Saying the Bucks were a good team is wild. Any team that came out of the East that season, Sixers, Bucks, Raptors, Hornets, etc would have been one of the weakest finals teams in NBA history.

I do hate this board sometimes. Like why was this person successful in a results based game? Analyst swear this is baseball.
We desperately need era adjusted stats. The hub Star role is new and would through things off a bit but it would help so much.

That's tough because the first question to ask is how successful he actually was. He has an MVP, so that's a nice one, though many argue against it, he still got it.

On the other hand, the early 00's East was not a very strong time, him and his team got to the finals, kudos to them, great run, but 34 year old Reggie Miller did that too, and that was the only time he got past the second round. He played only 71 playoff games in his career, him and Carmelo who I fully expected to lose those series' only got 1 playoff win in their two seasons together, they barely did more than Paul Gasol and solid complimentary players in Memphis, and he was washed up as an impactful NBA player by 33.

People might differ on how successful they consider him, which would be a big factor in how you are analyzing. I'd say for ATG level players not anything that would stand out success wise.

Shouldn’t Reggie with his advanced metrics and well more balanced team have won? I mean he didn’t have score 32% of his teams points. Reggie all is career is more efficient with just as good of a defense around him with significantly offensive help. This guy should win. But no just a few playoff moments against high profile/big market teams and a later decades love of baseball turned basketball that sell why he’s mentioned in AI thread. I don’t know how to calculate VORP or anything but I do fully believe any years Pacers have a better chance to win without Reggie than the 6ers without Iverson.
Or maybe this is sport where like ten of so players account of 90% of the championships in the sports history. So yea I think winning games is success. I think being a contender/playoff team and MVP candidate for your prime is success.
As for the Nuggets George Karl sucks. I think everyone who’s ever played for him can attest to that. Sonic’s, Bucks, Nuggets.
Tiny Uber athletes have short careers. Suck for AI.

[GYK]

I do hate this board sometimes. Like why was this person successful in a results based game? Analyst swear this is baseball.
We desperately need era adjusted stats. The hub Star role is new and would through things off a bit but it would help so much.

We do have era adjusted stats. And was AI successful? One finals run along with missing the playoffs or out in the first or second round the rest of his career.

No we don’t. We can compare league average in %’s. That’s it.
MVP AI is the scoring leader but that’s 32% of the teams offense.
Joel is the scoring leader but that’s 28% of his 6ers.
Neither over league average is talked about.
That’s for all stats.
As for the playoff advancements. Idk I think it’s far more common than you think. It’s just how basketball works. Especially if you don’t jump on one of those guys teams that make up most championships. Like 11 guys since 57 make up 78% of the rings(that’s not including guys who played with them who got essentially one offs). A successful career without being absolutely the greatest or on amazing while being on a juggernaut is hoping for a great run.

[og15]

I can't tell you that I vividly remember the 2001 spurs, Jazz, or Mavs. But that's the point, Philly was better than them all, and was the top team most of 2001 until the Lakers went nuclear in the second half of the season. The Bucks were very good that year with 3 very good scorers, but AI led Philly past them. I'm sure the bucks were on par with those west teams that were swept by LA.

If you watched the league during this time (and were old enough to understand what was going on) you would not say this.

Even statistics alone can explain this one. Bucks had the 7th best record, 8th in SRS and had a poor defense.

Saying the Bucks were a good team is wild. Any team that came out of the East that season, Sixers, Bucks, Raptors, Hornets, etc would have been one of the weakest finals teams in NBA history.

I do hate this board sometimes. Like why was this person successful in a results based game? Analyst swear this is baseball.
We desperately need era adjusted stats. The hub Star role is new and would through things off a bit but it would help so much.

That's tough because the first question to ask is how successful he actually was. He has an MVP, so that's a nice one, though many argue against it, he still got it.

On the other hand, the early 00's East was not a very strong time, him and his team got to the finals, kudos to them, great run, but 34 year old Reggie Miller did that too, and that was the only time he got past the second round. He played only 71 playoff games in his career, him and Carmelo who I fully expected to lose those series' only got 1 playoff win in their two seasons together, they barely did more than Paul Gasol and solid complimentary players in Memphis, and he was washed up as an impactful NBA player by 33.

People might differ on how successful they consider him, which would be a big factor in how you are analyzing. I'd say for ATG level players not anything that would stand out success wise.

Shouldn’t Reggie with his advanced metrics and well more balanced team have won? I mean he didn’t have score 32% of his teams points. Reggie all is career is more efficient with just as good of a defense around him with significantly offensive help. This guy should win. But no just a few playoff moments against high profile/big market teams and a later decades love of baseball turned basketball that sell why he’s mentioned in AI thread. I don’t know how to calculate VORP or anything but I do fully believe any years Pacers have a better chance to win without Reggie than the 6ers without Iverson.
Or maybe this is sport where like ten of so players account of 90% of the championships in the sports history. So yea I think winning games is success. I think being a contender/playoff team and MVP candidate for your prime is success.
As for the Nuggets George Karl sucks. I think everyone who’s ever played for him can attest to that. Sonic’s, Bucks, Nuggets.
Tiny Uber athletes have short careers. Suck for AI.

I don't think a player has to win a championship for their career to be successful, but how successful a player is consider based on their situation is going to factor into how they are viewed. I didn't mention anything about championship or not, I'm not really in that method of thinking. The tier 2 and 3 all time guys tend to win more on luck and circumstance because they are usually going against some tier 1 all time paired with an equal or better team.

AI had solid success, when being compared to players at the ATG level, decent success. MVP, 7 All-NBA, multiple scoring champ. His level of success isn't one that just trumps other players at that level in a discussion though. We can't simply cite his level of success and say, "better than this or that person".

[slick_watts]

i chuckle a bit when anyone says 'x player taking a bad shot over 2+ defenders actually is valuable because it opens up offensive rebounding opportunities'. i feel like ben sort of made this argument with AI and he definitely did with westbrook in the past.

anyway, iverson will always be a basketball litmus test for me. he was obviously a great player, but the people who think he was consistently top 5 every year he was in the league or describe him in superlatives are probably people who are thinking about basketball in an entirely different way than i do. so it's usually not worth the time for debate.

[therealbig3]

I agree with the general premise that casuals and contemporary players overrate the hell out of AI, but that in the era of advanced stats being the end all be all for some, he gets underrated quite a bit by others.

But there’s zero argument for him being on CP3 or Nash level. These guys were clearly better.

[JustBuzzin]

Yall better put some respek on AI's name on GanG!

[dhsilv2]

I do hate this board sometimes. Like why was this person successful in a results based game? Analyst swear this is baseball.
We desperately need era adjusted stats. The hub Star role is new and would through things off a bit but it would help so much.

We do have era adjusted stats. And was AI successful? One finals run along with missing the playoffs or out in the first or second round the rest of his career.

No we don’t. We can compare league average in %’s. That’s it.
MVP AI is the scoring leader but that’s 32% of the teams offense.
Joel is the scoring leader but that’s 28% of his 6ers.
Neither over league average is talked about.
That’s for all stats.
As for the playoff advancements. Idk I think it’s far more common than you think. It’s just how basketball works. Especially if you don’t jump on one of those guys teams that make up most championships. Like 11 guys since 57 make up 78% of the rings(that’s not including guys who played with them who got essentially one offs). A successful career without being absolutely the greatest or on amazing while being on a juggernaut is hoping for a great run.

Stats like PER, WS/48, VORP, RAPM, etc are league adjusted. And I guess we don't publish things like you just did, that impact is absolutely accounted for in the stats mentioned, and of course guys like us both can do that math pretty quickly. I've done this to breakdown why I think Duncan was better peak for peak vs Hakeem despite the higher pace of Hakeem's mid 90's peak vs Duncan's early 00's peak.

I actually very much agree with your level headed take here with AI's team. That said he was also in perhaps the weakest conference ever, we could debate some stretches in the 80's in the west. In total he beat a single 50 win or better team in the playoffs in his career. He made the playoffs 8 teams (6 in philly and twice in denver). Then the year he did make it to the finals, and I'm a broken record here, but he did so with another all nba and the DPOY on his team.

So my take is that while I do think AI had more value than some box metrics given him credit for. The metrics aren't wrong that his lack of efficiency hurt the team. HIs insane minute load hurts RAPM style metric's accuracy. But I've yet to be swayed that they missed by anything massive. He was a really really good player who much like Kobe, we fans liked more for his entertainment value than his actual ability to win games. Conversely, Kobe had enough team success where I will accept that I could be wrong with how I place value on Kobe's play. With AI however, I don't see the case. I don't see where his team's exceeded what the metrics tell me AI contributed by much. Yes, I think a team with so little offensive help should give him some extra credit. And while PER and stats like it do just that, I don't think it's always enough. But those teams were built the way they were because they felt it was the best way to build around AI is the obvious counter.

So when people generally rank AI from 40-60 I think to myself. Yeah, with who he was paired with and the stats we have, I think he did what was expected of him. I wish he'd had a different mentality and could have become a better teammate in Denver. But it was what it was.

[dhsilv2]

I can't tell you that I vividly remember the 2001 spurs, Jazz, or Mavs. But that's the point, Philly was better than them all, and was the top team most of 2001 until the Lakers went nuclear in the second half of the season. The Bucks were very good that year with 3 very good scorers, but AI led Philly past them. I'm sure the bucks were on par with those west teams that were swept by LA.

If you watched the league during this time (and were old enough to understand what was going on) you would not say this.

Even statistics alone can explain this one. Bucks had the 7th best record, 8th in SRS and had a poor defense.

Saying the Bucks were a good team is wild. Any team that came out of the East that season, Sixers, Bucks, Raptors, Hornets, etc would have been one of the weakest finals teams in NBA history.

I do hate this board sometimes. Like why was this person successful in a results based game? Analyst swear this is baseball.
We desperately need era adjusted stats. The hub Star role is new and would through things off a bit but it would help so much.

That's tough because the first question to ask is how successful he actually was. He has an MVP, so that's a nice one, though many argue against it, he still got it.

On the other hand, the early 00's East was not a very strong time, him and his team got to the finals, kudos to them, great run, but 34 year old Reggie Miller did that too, and that was the only time he got past the second round. He played only 71 playoff games in his career, him and Carmelo who I fully expected to lose those series' only got 1 playoff win in their two seasons together, they barely did more than Paul Gasol and solid complimentary players in Memphis, and he was washed up as an impactful NBA player by 33.

People might differ on how successful they consider him, which would be a big factor in how you are analyzing. I'd say for ATG level players not anything that would stand out success wise.

Shouldn’t Reggie with his advanced metrics and well more balanced team have won? I mean he didn’t have score 32% of his teams points. Reggie all is career is more efficient with just as good of a defense around him with significantly offensive help. This guy should win. But no just a few playoff moments against high profile/big market teams and a later decades love of baseball turned basketball that sell why he’s mentioned in AI thread. I don’t know how to calculate VORP or anything but I do fully believe any years Pacers have a better chance to win without Reggie than the 6ers without Iverson.
Or maybe this is sport where like ten of so players account of 90% of the championships in the sports history. So yea I think winning games is success. I think being a contender/playoff team and MVP candidate for your prime is success.
As for the Nuggets George Karl sucks. I think everyone who’s ever played for him can attest to that. Sonic’s, Bucks, Nuggets.
Tiny Uber athletes have short careers. Suck for AI.

Reggie did have a lot more success than you're giving him credit for. He just came up in a tougher era, especially in the east.

94 - Swept a 50 win magic team then 6 games vs a 57 win hawks team to lose in 7 to the knicks who also won 57 games

So Reggie already has more playoff series wins vs 50 or more teams than AI did in his career.

95 - Beats a 55 win knicks team before losing to a 57 win magic team in 7
98 - takes MJ's bulls to 7 in the conference finals (getting there was a bit easy)
00 - East sucks now and beats AI then a 50 win knick team to go to the finals.

Anyway, Reggie's career isn't legendary. I don't think he had the defensive teams AI had but more balanced teams for sure. And he had significantly more playoff success. That said Miller gets ranked so highly vs AI because of longevity without a doubt. Though I think people also see Miller as a guy who'd work with more teams in more places. And I think that's a hotly contested concept among fans. If a player can carry a HUGE load like AI, we often rank those players super high. While a miller isnt' going to carry that load but he could make a good team great in ways AI couldn't.

[hardenASG13]

If you watched the league during this time (and were old enough to understand what was going on) you would not say this.

Even statistics alone can explain this one. Bucks had the 7th best record, 8th in SRS and had a poor defense.

Saying the Bucks were a good team is wild. Any team that came out of the East that season, Sixers, Bucks, Raptors, Hornets, etc would have been one of the weakest finals teams in NBA history.

That's tough because the first question to ask is how successful he actually was. He has an MVP, so that's a nice one, though many argue against it, he still got it.

On the other hand, the early 00's East was not a very strong time, him and his team got to the finals, kudos to them, great run, but 34 year old Reggie Miller did that too, and that was the only time he got past the second round. He played only 71 playoff games in his career, him and Carmelo who I fully expected to lose those series' only got 1 playoff win in their two seasons together, they barely did more than Paul Gasol and solid complimentary players in Memphis, and he was washed up as an impactful NBA player by 33.

People might differ on how successful they consider him, which would be a big factor in how you are analyzing. I'd say for ATG level players not anything that would stand out success wise.

Shouldn’t Reggie with his advanced metrics and well more balanced team have won? I mean he didn’t have score 32% of his teams points. Reggie all is career is more efficient with just as good of a defense around him with significantly offensive help. This guy should win. But no just a few playoff moments against high profile/big market teams and a later decades love of baseball turned basketball that sell why he’s mentioned in AI thread. I don’t know how to calculate VORP or anything but I do fully believe any years Pacers have a better chance to win without Reggie than the 6ers without Iverson.
Or maybe this is sport where like ten of so players account of 90% of the championships in the sports history. So yea I think winning games is success. I think being a contender/playoff team and MVP candidate for your prime is success.
As for the Nuggets George Karl sucks. I think everyone who’s ever played for him can attest to that. Sonic’s, Bucks, Nuggets.
Tiny Uber athletes have short careers. Suck for AI.

Reggie did have a lot more success than you're giving him credit for. He just came up in a tougher era, especially in the east.

94 - Swept a 50 win magic team then 6 games vs a 57 win hawks team to lose in 7 to the knicks who also won 57 games

So Reggie already has more playoff series wins vs 50 or more teams than AI did in his career.

95 - Beats a 55 win knicks team before losing to a 57 win magic team in 7
98 - takes MJ's bulls to 7 in the conference finals (getting there was a bit easy)
00 - East sucks now and beats AI then a 50 win knick team to go to the finals.

Anyway, Reggie's career isn't legendary. I don't think he had the defensive teams AI had but more balanced teams for sure. And he had significantly more playoff success. That said Miller gets ranked so highly vs AI because of longevity without a doubt. Though I think people also see Miller as a guy who'd work with more teams in more places. And I think that's a hotly contested concept among fans. If a player can carry a HUGE load like AI, we often rank those players super high. While a miller isnt' going to carry that load but he could make a good team great in ways AI couldn't.

Well, AI had more series wins vs. 50 win teams than Jokic (0) and as many as Giannis (1). Puts in perspective what those "champions" have accomplished so far.

[nikster]

Shouldn’t Reggie with his advanced metrics and well more balanced team have won? I mean he didn’t have score 32% of his teams points. Reggie all is career is more efficient with just as good of a defense around him with significantly offensive help. This guy should win. But no just a few playoff moments against high profile/big market teams and a later decades love of baseball turned basketball that sell why he’s mentioned in AI thread. I don’t know how to calculate VORP or anything but I do fully believe any years Pacers have a better chance to win without Reggie than the 6ers without Iverson.
Or maybe this is sport where like ten of so players account of 90% of the championships in the sports history. So yea I think winning games is success. I think being a contender/playoff team and MVP candidate for your prime is success.
As for the Nuggets George Karl sucks. I think everyone who’s ever played for him can attest to that. Sonic’s, Bucks, Nuggets.
Tiny Uber athletes have short careers. Suck for AI.

Reggie did have a lot more success than you're giving him credit for. He just came up in a tougher era, especially in the east.

94 - Swept a 50 win magic team then 6 games vs a 57 win hawks team to lose in 7 to the knicks who also won 57 games

So Reggie already has more playoff series wins vs 50 or more teams than AI did in his career.

95 - Beats a 55 win knicks team before losing to a 57 win magic team in 7
98 - takes MJ's bulls to 7 in the conference finals (getting there was a bit easy)
00 - East sucks now and beats AI then a 50 win knick team to go to the finals.

Anyway, Reggie's career isn't legendary. I don't think he had the defensive teams AI had but more balanced teams for sure. And he had significantly more playoff success. That said Miller gets ranked so highly vs AI because of longevity without a doubt. Though I think people also see Miller as a guy who'd work with more teams in more places. And I think that's a hotly contested concept among fans. If a player can carry a HUGE load like AI, we often rank those players super high. While a miller isnt' going to carry that load but he could make a good team great in ways AI couldn't.

Well, AI had more series wins vs. 50 win teams than Jokic (0) and as many as Giannis (1). Puts in perspective what those "champions" have accomplished so far.

If you don't like regular season comparison you can look at post season series wins. Iverson only has 2 for his career outside of the first round. Either way doesn't stack up to Reggie

[dhsilv2]

Shouldn’t Reggie with his advanced metrics and well more balanced team have won? I mean he didn’t have score 32% of his teams points. Reggie all is career is more efficient with just as good of a defense around him with significantly offensive help. This guy should win. But no just a few playoff moments against high profile/big market teams and a later decades love of baseball turned basketball that sell why he’s mentioned in AI thread. I don’t know how to calculate VORP or anything but I do fully believe any years Pacers have a better chance to win without Reggie than the 6ers without Iverson.
Or maybe this is sport where like ten of so players account of 90% of the championships in the sports history. So yea I think winning games is success. I think being a contender/playoff team and MVP candidate for your prime is success.
As for the Nuggets George Karl sucks. I think everyone who’s ever played for him can attest to that. Sonic’s, Bucks, Nuggets.
Tiny Uber athletes have short careers. Suck for AI.

Reggie did have a lot more success than you're giving him credit for. He just came up in a tougher era, especially in the east.

94 - Swept a 50 win magic team then 6 games vs a 57 win hawks team to lose in 7 to the knicks who also won 57 games

So Reggie already has more playoff series wins vs 50 or more teams than AI did in his career.

95 - Beats a 55 win knicks team before losing to a 57 win magic team in 7
98 - takes MJ's bulls to 7 in the conference finals (getting there was a bit easy)
00 - East sucks now and beats AI then a 50 win knick team to go to the finals.

Anyway, Reggie's career isn't legendary. I don't think he had the defensive teams AI had but more balanced teams for sure. And he had significantly more playoff success. That said Miller gets ranked so highly vs AI because of longevity without a doubt. Though I think people also see Miller as a guy who'd work with more teams in more places. And I think that's a hotly contested concept among fans. If a player can carry a HUGE load like AI, we often rank those players super high. While a miller isnt' going to carry that load but he could make a good team great in ways AI couldn't.

Well, AI had more series wins vs. 50 win teams than Jokic (0) and as many as Giannis (1). Puts in perspective what those "champions" have accomplished so far.

50 win 82 game seasons...