ISH All-time Top 25 Guards Project: #15 - Allen Iverson vs. George Gervin

[G.O.A.T]

Make your arguments here for the next 48 hours on rather Allen Iverson or George Gervin should advance and continue to move higher on the list. Put the players name you are voting for in BOLD so I don't miss it when I tally. The loser of this poll will be ranked #16 in our project.


http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-q6f4kgWCdXk/TdLTLSZWkfI/AAAAAAAABfQ/73ZmgB6TYTc/s1600/Allen%2BIverson.jpg

14 seasons
7x all-NBA
10x all-star
2001 MVP
1997 Rookie of the Year
2001 & 2005 All-Star Game MVP
4x Scoring Champion
3x Steals Leader
6th All-time career PPG (26.7)

Votes (9)
ShaqAttack3234
magnax1
Toizumi
Rose
KGMN
WillC
nycelt84
G.O.A.T
L Kizzle

http://cache2.allpostersimages.com/p/LRG/8/860/3ZFJ000Z/posters/george-gervin.jpg

14 seasons
7x all-NBA
2x all-ABA
12x all-star
4x Scoring Champion
1980 All-Star game MVP
Top three of MVP vote from 1978-1980
8th All-time career PPG (26.2)

Votes (6)
iamgine
ThaSwagg3r
1987 Lakers
RobertdeMeijer
SteveNashMVPcro
Gotterdammerung

[iamgine]

Iceman is clearly the answer here.

[ThaSwagg3r]

George Gervin has my vote. Iverson really just had one season of success because he never really did anything special outside of that other than win a few more scoring titles. That was the only time he ever made the Conference Finals. Gervin made the Conference Finals three times although back in his day you just had to win one series in order to make the conference finals. Both of these guys were fantastic scorers but Gervin was worlds more efficient than Iverson was.

[L.Kizzle]

Iceman is clearly the answer here.
Iceman or Answer, which one?

[G.O.A.T]

George Gervin has my vote. Iverson really just had one season of success because he never really did anything special outside of that other than win a few more scoring titles. That was the only time he ever made the Conference Finals. Gervin made the Conference Finals twice although back in his day you just had to win one series in order to make the conference finals. Both of these guys were fantastic scorers but Gervin was worlds more efficient than Iverson was.

Ice made it three times, but to count that against AI might not be fair.

Iverson's team were 6-8 in playoff series during his 12 prime years.

Gervin's teams were 3-10 in playoff series during his 12 prime years.

Gervin's best teammates (with the Spurs) were Mike Mitchell, James Silas, a past his prime but effective Artis Gilmore and an underrated PG in Johnny Moore.

Iverson's best teammates (with the Sixers) were Derrick Coleman, Jerry Stackhouse, a past his prime but effective Dikembe Mutombo and an underrated PG in Eric Snow.

Gervin's team only cam close in one conference final, so in essence, they both had one signature year as far as team play goes.

[1987_Lakers]

This is a tough one. Both are pretty much the same player, both amazing scorers that somewhat lacked an all-around game. I was never a fan of Iverson because of his inefficiency & attitude, but I believe Iverson loved the game more than Gervin did. This is pretty much a toss up, but for right now I vote Gervin.

[Boston C's]

man this one is difficult for real... To me its a coin flip literally... I flipped a coin and its tails for Iverson so I'm going with him :D... I was leaning towards iverson as well anyway

[L.Kizzle]

This one will be a barn burner (hi Chuck.) These guys were basically the same player who peaked about 25 years apart.

This should a good discussion similar to the Ray-Reggie and Mac/Archibald battles.

[SuperPippen]

This one is definitely tough.

There are many parallels to be drawn between these two players.

Both known mostly as terrific scorers (even if Ice was significantly more efficient), both won 4 scoring titles, both had playing styles that were very unique and memorable, both grew to be perceived negatively amongst members of the public (Iverson for being a chucking ballhog, Gervin for not caring/coasting) neither of them (allegedly) liked to show up for practice, neither were known for their defensive prowess (though Iverson was able to effectively play the passing lanes and tally up a good amount of steals) and neither of them won a championship.

Again, this is a very tough choice, but I'm going to have to go with Allen Iverson, for having a slightly more impressive career, and winning an MVP.

[ShaqAttack3234]

I'm going to go with Iverson. Both are most notable for their scoring, but Gervin seemed really one-dimensional to me. While neither were great or even what I'd call good defenders, Gervin seemed lazier and less of a factor at that end in the games I've seen. While Iverson gambled a lot, he could make an impact playing the passing lanes and it worked within his team's system when Philadelphia was at their best and could get them some easy baskets.

I was also watching a Spurs/76ers game from 1980 and one of the commentators pointed out how Gervin played much better when he played less minutes and how his shooting percentage dropped when he played 40 minutes and if you look at Gervin's minutes throughout his prime, he seemed to play less than just about any other star with such a big scoring load.

Iverson on the other hand, frequently led the NBA in minutes and had unbelievable stamina, especially considering his style of play.

While Iverson was also a tough player to build around being a 6'0" streaky shoot-first shooting guard, Philadelphia was able to build a solid team around him that could consistently win almost 50 games, and from '99-'03, they only failed to advance past the first round once, and that was in 2002 when Iverson was playing injured, but they still took Boston to the maximum 5 games.

Comparing the 2 players as scorers, well, Gervin initially looks more impressive statistically, but without bringing too much of an era bias into the equation, I'd be lying if I said I didn't believe that it was much harder to put up efficient high scoring numbers in the late 90's/early 00's which I consider the best defensive era.

Also noteworthy is the fact that Iverson was a superior passer/playmaker, and this is the real deciding factor for me. Iverson rejuvenated his career in 2004-2005 after an injury-plagued 2003-2004 season when many thought he was declining. He did so by switching to point guard and having one of the best seasons of his career. And if you look at his overall efficiency numbers in 2008 with Denver, they're really solid all around at 26 ppg/7 apg, 46 FG%, 57 TS%, 3 TO.

You could argue that Gervin was better compared to his peers, but then you also have to factor in how good the other top players are in a particular time frame. And as I've mentioned, Gervin might actually be the best choice for the '78 MVP, imo due to Walton's missed games, but it seems like a weak year for MVP candidates with the top 2 players in the league missing 20+ games.

[D-Wade316]

Gervin all the way.

[magnax1]

Iverson for three reasons. First off, I think the way Iverson was constantly on the move with and without the ball attracted way more attention. Secondly he was a really good passer, which Gervin wasn't and lastly he was a superior defender. Not really a good defender most of his career, but he definitely made an impact on that 01 team that was heavily reliant on pressuring the passing lanes to play defense.
Iverson

[RobertdeMeijer]

I started typing this post wanting to say that Iverson was more important to remember than Gervin...
but as always, the longer I look at "The Answer", the more I wish he received less attention.
(as a side note: even Bill Simmons ranked him lower the second time he made his pyramid)

In short, he was bad for his teams and bad for the league.

Teamwise:
George Gervin had .572 True Shooting % on 30% usage rating, which is amazingly good. In the playoffs, he was .564 on 29%.
Iverson on the other hand, .518 on 32% (ouch) and .489 on 34% (!!!)

These stats back up what I've always felt: letting Gervin be a ball hog is a good thing, giving the ball to Iverson is usually a bad thing.

Iverson never seemed to improve teams: the 76ers were just as good when he left, and Denver and Detroit were better off without him. The 2001 run I see as a fluke: they only won 56 games just barely made it to the finals. After Larry Brown left, the team fell apart.

Leaguewise:
Around Iverson's prime, the league was doing bad and had too many players who were egocentric, thought they were larger than the league and wouldn't work as a whole. I see Iverson's attitude towards talking about practice as a lack of empathy for other players. One should first win some titles before acting like an ubermensch.


Personality wise, I didn't like either of them, but it's better to be boring than to be :facepalm :banghead:
I think both players should be remembered; but I can't give bonus points to Iverson for being more interesting in a bad way.

George Gervin also had his faults, but I'm voting for him.

[SteveNashMVPcro]

George Gervin

[SuperPippen]

I started typing this post wanting to say that Iverson was more important to remember than Gervin...
but as always, the longer I look at "The Answer", the more I wish he received less attention.
(as a side note: even Bill Simmons ranked him lower the second time he made his pyramid)

In short, he was bad for his teams and bad for the league.

Teamwise:
George Gervin had .572 True Shooting % on 30% usage rating, which is amazingly good. In the playoffs, he was .564 on 29%.
Iverson on the other hand, .518 on 32% (ouch) and .489 on 34% (!!!)

These stats back up what I've always felt: letting Gervin be a ball hog is a good thing, giving the ball to Iverson is usually a bad thing.

Iverson never seemed to improve teams: the 76ers were just as good when he left, and Denver and Detroit were better off without him. The 2001 run I see as a fluke: they only won 56 games just barely made it to the finals. After Larry Brown left, the team fell apart.

Leaguewise:
Around Iverson's prime, the league was doing bad and had too many players who were egocentric, thought they were larger than the league and wouldn't work as a whole. I see Iverson's attitude towards talking about practice as a lack of empathy for other players. One should first win some titles before acting like an ubermensch.


Personality wise, I didn't like either of them, but it's better to be boring than to be :facepalm :banghead:
I think both players should be remembered; but I can't give bonus points to Iverson for being more interesting in a bad way.

George Gervin also had his faults, but I'm voting for him.

If you're going to rely on someone else's opinions to validate yours, than don't make it Simmons.

While the guy knows how to write a humorous, engaging column, a lot of the shit in his book is just that: shit.

It's a lot of extremely biased, one-sided arguments that are shined up with quick-witted pop-culture references and dick jokes to appeal to the average sports fan. His credentials as a serious basketball analyst leave MUCH to be desired.

[iamgine]

If you're going to rely on someone else's opinions to validate yours, than don't make it Simmons.

While the guy knows how to write a humorous, engaging column, a lot of the shit in his book is just that: shit.

It's a lot of extremely biased, one-sided arguments that are shined up with quick-witted pop-culture references and dick jokes to appeal to the average sports fan. His credentials as a serious basketball analyst leave MUCH to be desired.
So who do you think is a serious basketbal analyst with great credentials?

[RobertdeMeijer]

heh, all I was saying was that Iverson lost out in the revised edition of his pyramid (went from 29th to 37th).
The more I look at Iverson, the more I think he deserved too much credit. I'm not the only one apparently. George Gervin is 34th.

One last thing to add: SPM likes him:
http://www.basketball-reference.com/blog/?p=1986
5.70 average for seven best seasons.

but likes George Gervin is still close:
http://www.basketball-reference.com/blog/?p=1813
5.27 avearge for seven best NBA seasons

[Phenith]

Iverson

[Toizumi]

In terms of team succes, both their careers were sort of disappointing (never played on great rosters). Individually, both accomplished a lot and were regarded as the top players in their days though. Gervin enjoyed success for a longer period of time and didn

[Big164]

Iverson did more with his body and at 6'0 had an excuse for being a lousy defender.

Gervin at 6'7 should've done better IMO.

Ultimately it's iversons MVP that sets him apart. Beating shaq n Kobe in game 1 of the finals.

[Rose]

[QUOTE=Toizumi]In terms of team succes, both their careers were sort of disappointing (never played on great rosters). Individually, both accomplished a lot and were regarded as the top players in their days though. Gervin enjoyed success for a longer period of time and didn

[PTB Fan]

George Gervin. He's simply a more legendary player, was more dominant, better offensively, better pure scorer and has a decent resume...

[Story Up]

Gervin isn't more legendary but he was a better scorer. AI has an MVP though but I honestly consider Gervin, Jordan and Kobe in their own tier as perimeter scorer's. So Geroge gets my vote too.

It's cross btw, I'm just using my phone right now.

[WillC]

Interestingly, these two players are 37th and 38th on my all-time list: http://basketballjournalist.blogspot.com/2011/07/ranking-top-100-players-in-nba-history.html

I give the slight edge to Allen Iverson due to the fact he took a weak Sixers team to the NBA Finals (in an admittedly weak Eastern Conference). In the Finals, he helped his team beat the Lakers in one game, which in itself was a surprise.

Both are great scorers - two of the best ever.

Iverson was a slightly better defender in my opinion.

[SFMF]

Gervin. Iverson's style proved to be not useful at all towards the end of his career.

[KGMN]

Based on the arguments so far, it seems as though I must currently vote for Allen Iverson, although at first I was leaning towards Gervin.

[Story Up]

Based on the arguments so far, it seems as though I must currently vote for Allen Iverson, although at first I was leaning towards Gervin.
He is the most overrated and underrated guard of All-Time; in Gervin's era, the man was undisputably a legend. His resume might be slightly less impressive but the guy did what Iverson is known for better.

Give Iceman AI's team and he probably accomplishes just as much (MVP and finals appearance). Guy could score so damn effortlessly.

[WillC]

Gervin. Iverson's style proved to be not useful at all towards the end of his career.

That's a really bad reason not to vote for Iverson.

I assume, therefore, that you think Brad Daugherty was a better center than Shaq since he was better 'at the end of his career'?

Believe it or not, even the best players decline in ability towards the end of their career. They're only human, after all.

[Gotterdammerung]

Allen Iverson is probably one of the most unique players ever - a high volume shooter with relentless determination and limitless stamina in a under-six-foot package of quickness. We probably will see another Shaq or Barkley before we see anything like Iverson.

But I'll have to go with George Gervin here.

While they both are high scoring offensive machines that weren't much on defense, and it's hard to differentiate on their resumes, then you would have to look at how they fit in a scheme, with other players.

With Gervin, all you need is a ball handler, two strong forwards who take care of dirty work like rebounds, defense, run the floor, and a shot-blocking dreadnought at center. Gervin will hit open shots, or create for himself continuously. In other words, a conventional team could be built around the Iceman. You could play fast or slow with him being effective.

But with Iverson, you had to have a tall ball-handling guard to take care of defensive responsibilities, and forwards who had to be great spot-up shooters to fed off collapsing defenses due to Iverson's bull-rushes to the hoop. His more unorthodox skills made it harder to build a championship style team around him. Iverson's jumper wasn't reliable, so you had to have a defensive, harassing team that slowed the game down.

[NugzHeat3]

He is the most overrated and underrated guard of All-Time; in Gervin's era, the man was undisputably a legend. His resume might be slightly less impressive but the guy did what Iverson is known for better.

Give Iceman AI's team and he probably accomplishes just as much (MVP and finals appearance). Guy could score so damn effortlessly.
What?

[ThaSwagg3r]

What?
That is actually an accurate assessment. Some people overrate the hell out of the guy and some people underrate the hell out of the guy, similar to Scottie Pippen.

[magnax1]

Somebody pointed out that the Nuggets were better after trading AI, but forgot to point out that's only after adding a healthy Nene, Billups, and Chris Andersen and deciding to play defense.They were still +.500 without Carmelo at all, and he wasn't even his normal self when he played.

[ThaSwagg3r]

Somebody pointed out that the Nuggets were better after trading AI, but forgot to point out that's only after adding a healthy Nene, Billups, and Chris Andersen and deciding to play defense. If I remember correctly they were on a better pace then their 50 wins the previous year even when Carmelo was out, or at least close to it.
Iverson was traded for Billups and the Nuggets also lost Marcus Camby who was the DPOY in '06-'07 and had a fairly good season ins '07-'08 too. So while they did add Nene, Billups, and Birdman, they lost Iverson and Camby as well.

[G.O.A.T]

Teams that eliminated Iverson's Sixers from the NBA playoffs

eliminated 4-0 by 1999 Pacers (Lost in six games to Knicks in ECF)
eliminated 4-2 by 2000 Pacers (Lost in six games to Lakers in Finals)
eliminated 4-1 by 2001 Lakers (NBA Champions)
eliminated 3-2 by 2002 Celtics (Lost in six games to Nets in ECF)
eliminated 4-2 by 2003 Pistons (Lost in four games to Nets in ECF)
eliminated 4-1 by 2005 Pistons (Lost in seven games to Spurs in Finals)

Twice beaten by Reggie Miller, twice by the Wallace/Billups Pistons

Finest Hour: Winning consecutive game sevens against the Vince Carter Raptors and Ray Allen Bucks. AI had 21 and 16 assists vs Toronto and 44-6-7 against Milwaukee.


Teams that eliminated Gervin's Spurs from the NBA playoffs

eliminated 2-0 by 1977 Celtics (Lost in seven games to Philadelphia in ECSF)
eliminated 4-2 by 1978 Bullets (NBA Champions)
eliminated 4-3 by 1979 Bullets (Lost in five games to Seattle in Finals)
eliminated 2-1 by 1980 Rockets (Lost in four games to Boston in ECSF)
eliminated 4-3 by 1981 Rockets (Lost in six games to Boston in Finals)
eliminated 4-0 by 1982 Lakers (NBA Champions)
eliminated 4-2 by 1983 Lakers (Lost in four games to Philly in Finals)
eliminated 3-2 by 1985 Nuggets (Lost in five games to Lakers in WCF)

Twice beaten by the Magic/Kareem Lakers, twice by the Unseld/Hayes/Dandridge Bullets, twice by Moses Malone's Rockets

Finest Hour: Scoring 33 points and out dueling Julius Erving to lead SA past the 76ers in game seven of the 1979 ECSF.

[magnax1]

Iverson was traded for Billups and the Nuggets also lost Marcus Camby who was the DPOY in '06-'07 and had a fairly good season ins '07-'08 too. So while they did add Nene, Billups, and Birdman, they lost Iverson and Camby as well.
Point was that the 09 team was a lot more talented. They weren't better because they lost AI, they were better because they had 4 players capable of being part of the offense instead of 2. Saying losing AI was part of the reason they were better is legitimately idiotic.

[L.Kizzle]

I'm watchin Iceman in his 2nd to last season light up the Denver Nuggets.

[NugzHeat3]

I have done some research regarding Gervin and seen a couple of games. He seems like a great offensive player. He doesn't need the ball to be effective, understands proper spacing, cutting and movements off-ball and gives you consistent, efficient and explosive scoring. If that fails, he can always go to that patented finger roll of his.

He also had some great playoff performances. For example in 1979, he had 33 points to lead the Spurs over the 76ers in game 7. His team blew a 3-1 lead to the Bullets in the ECF but I couldn't find anything to blame Gervin. He did his thing. He had 42 points in game 4 but the Bullets seemed to have started focusing their defense on him and he was kept in check for games 5 and 6. Game 7, Gervin exploded for 42 (34 in the 2nd half) but Bobby Dandridge nailed the GW to send the Bullets through.

In 1980, they lost to the Rockets who had home court which is pretty big in a 3 game series. Gervin had 44 points (13 in the 4th) to tie the series at 1 apiece but the Rockets thrashed them in the deciding game thanks to Moses going off for 37/20 and Calvin Murphy chipped in with 31 points. Gervin had 37 and reportedly "scored at will." Hard to blame him here.

1981 seems to be concering since they lost to the sub-500 Rockets but it should be noted, that Houston team played like a much better team in the playoffs with Moses Malone leading the way. A bit weird they had home court but lost three games at home. Of course, Calvin Murphy had a great game 7 with 42 points and stepped up big since Moses was battling flu. Gervin didn't play particularly well but maintained the level he established for himself in the season.

Gervin didn't play particularly well against LA; Wilkes and Cooper probably played some really good defense on him but I don't think anyone expected them to beat LA, a much more talented team.

As for his defense looks terrible due to laziness and just a lack of effort though he's a good shot blocker due to a size advantage he had over the SGs of the late 70s-early 80s. I think he was guarding Magic with not much effectiveness from a Laker-Spurs game I watched from 1982. For what it's worth, Gervin was voted the worst defender of all-time back in 1996.


Gervin heads the list of the 10 worst all-time defenders ahead of Dominique Wilkens, Barkley, Cazzie Russell, Kiki Vandeweghe, Reggie Theus, Mark Aguirre, Adrian Dantley, Doug Collins and Orlando Woolridge.

^Voted by GMs, coaches, front-office personnel and sportswriters.

In this comparison though, I don't see how Gervin's defense could be held against him. Iverson has never been a good defender unless in a certain system like the 2001 76ers and the dilemma he presents is that he needs a bigger PG alongside to cover up 2 guards since AI can't guard SGs for obvious reasons. I also think Gervin wouldn't be as bad of a defender now since the SGs now are closer to his size than they were back then.

The main thing you guys are comparing here is their value on offense and I think Gervin clearly trumps Iverson there. AI is a better playmaker but I don't think it leads to better offenses like Gervin's scoring ability, as one-dimensional as that may be.

I know I'd take Gervin here. AI may have been a better player had he played the right way. John Thompson had him under control in Georgetown and I saw a lot of potential for him back then. Roy Williams who coached Jordan at UNC said AI was the best guard he ever saw.

[NugzHeat3]

That is actually an accurate assessment. Some people overrate the hell out of the guy and some people underrate the hell out of the guy, similar to Scottie Pippen.
I don't think it's that extreme. He's probably overrated on this forum though based on the few threads I have seen.

[nycelt84]

Allen Iverson

[Rose]

Allen Iverson is probably one of the most unique players ever - a high volume shooter with relentless determination and limitless stamina in a under-six-foot package of quickness. We probably will see another Shaq or Barkley before we see anything like Iverson.

But I'll have to go with George Gervin here.

While they both are high scoring offensive machines that weren't much on defense, and it's hard to differentiate on their resumes, then you would have to look at how they fit in a scheme, with other players.

With Gervin, all you need is a ball handler, two strong forwards who take care of dirty work like rebounds, defense, run the floor, and a shot-blocking dreadnought at center. Gervin will hit open shots, or create for himself continuously. In other words, a conventional team could be built around the Iceman. You could play fast or slow with him being effective.

But with Iverson, you had to have a tall ball-handling guard to take care of defensive responsibilities, and forwards who had to be great spot-up shooters to fed off collapsing defenses due to Iverson's bull-rushes to the hoop. His more unorthodox skills made it harder to build a championship style team around him. Iverson's jumper wasn't reliable, so you had to have a defensive, harassing team that slowed the game down.
This post might make me change my vote.

[PTB Fan]

Hey GOAT, do my votes count?

Thanks

[Miller for 3]

I would go with Gervin. He's extremely similiar in his offensive game to Durant. Both are extremely deadly shooters with size and do most of their damage off the ball. Both are also lacking in their handles. I think off the ball scorers like Gervin are easier to build around. Mitchell and Silas thrived playing with Gervin.

But Iverson was no slouch. Once the Sixers got some 3 point shooters (like Korver around him, the Sixers finally had some decent spacing, and AIs efficency and assists sky rocketed. Its hard to imagine a prime Iverson dropping less than a 28 ppg season on around 45% shooting in the no handcheck era. Really a tough call, but I would side with Gervin.

[G.O.A.T]

I'm watchin Iceman in his 2nd to last season light up the Denver Nuggets.

Game five?

Saw it on NBA TV the other day.

Good posts by Nugs and Gotter

[L.Kizzle]

Game five?

Saw it on NBA TV the other day.

Good posts by Nugs and Gotter
It was game 2, he had 41 points. He couldn't miss.

[ThaSwagg3r]

Ice made it three times, but to count that against AI might not be fair.

Iverson's team were 6-8 in playoff series during his 12 prime years.

Gervin's teams were 3-10 in playoff series during his 12 prime years.

Gervin's best teammates (with the Spurs) were Mike Mitchell, James Silas, a past his prime but effective Artis Gilmore and an underrated PG in Johnny Moore.

Iverson's best teammates (with the Sixers) were Derrick Coleman, Jerry Stackhouse, a past his prime but effective Dikembe Mutombo and an underrated PG in Eric Snow.

Gervin's team only cam close in one conference final, so in essence, they both had one signature year as far as team play goes.
I'm going to go ahead and use the weak competition argument against Iverson. The team that Gervin lost to in the Eastern Conference finals (Spurs were in the East during this time period) were the Bullets in '79 (who were the reigning NBA champions at the time) that consisted of Elvin Hayes, Wes Unseld, and Bob Dandridge. When the Spurs moved to the West, Gervin made the Conference Finals twice only to lose to Magic Johnson and his Lakers twice in '82 and '83, who won the championship in '82 and were the runner up champions in '83.

I can't say I am much more impressed with Iverson beating Reggie Miller's Pacers (won 3-1), Vince Carter's Raptors (won 4-3 with Vince Carter missing the last second shot in Game 7) and then Ray Allen's Bucks in 2001 (won 4-3 with supposed questionable officiating in Game 7). It was a very weak competition and when Iverson and the 76ers ran into the Lakers in the NBA finals they lost in the finals 1-4.

Some of the team that Iverson and the 76ers beat weren't really impressive either.

'99 Playoffs (lost in 2nd round) - he beat the Magic 3-1 in a 5 game series when Penny Hardaway was a one man show in Orlando

'00 Playoffs (lost in 2nd round) - he beat the Hornets 3-1 in a 5 game series where their only all star player was Eddie Jones.

'03 Playoffs (lost in 2nd round) - He beat the Hornets 4-2 in a 7 game series (year they changed 1st round series to 7 game series instead of 5 game series) This team was better than the '00 Hornets but they weren't really impressive either. Baron Davis was an all-star then and Jamal Mashburn was a solid player.

[magnax1]

But with Iverson, you had to have a tall ball-handling guard to take care of defensive responsibilities, and forwards who had to be great spot-up shooters to fed off collapsing defenses due to Iverson's bull-rushes to the hoop. His more unorthodox skills made it harder to build a championship style team around him. Iverson's jumper wasn't reliable, so you had to have a defensive, harassing team that slowed the game down.
I don't know how true that is. The Nuggets were successful on a certain level without any of that, despite not really having much talent beyond their three best players. I'll agree that it's best to have another guard to run the offense instead of AI, because he's just not a point guard, but otherwise I don't think there is any sort of proof that anything else you said is true.

[iamgine]

Fun fact: While many people complained about Iverson's shooting efficiency, it became MUCH better after the rule change. He was one of the biggest beneficiaries of the rule change. If he was drafted at 2004, no one would complain about his miserable efficiency.

[SonOfMattGeiger]

Allen Iverson and I feel silly that it's even close

[Papaya Petee]

Allen Iverson!

[ThaSwagg3r]

Fun fact: While many people complained about Iverson's shooting efficiency, it became MUCH better after the rule change. He was one of the biggest beneficiaries of the rule change. If he was drafted at 2004, no one would complain about his miserable efficiency.
Gervin didn't get to play with the no hand-check rule either so that point is irrelevant in this thread.

At the end of the day there is no reason to put either one on the floor if they aren't scoring or making their shots. They just don't impact the game in any other way. They were both scoring threats and really nothing more. Both of them knew how to move and play without the ball and both knew how to score and get a great shot when the ball was in their hands. The difference? Gervin was just much more efficient at it than Iverson was and Gervin's volume was just as good. (Both were 4x scoring champions)

Gervin scored 40 or more points 68 times in the regular season and six times in the playoffs. I believe Iverson has scored 40 or more points 74 times in his career, I don't know if that is regular season combined with post-season or just regular season but that is how many times he scored 40 or more points. Both were phenomenal scorers but Gervin was just more efficient at it.

Gervin was better at their best attribute. I don't think Iverson was that much better at Gervin at the other aspects of basketball like passing, defense, rebounding, etc. and certainly not enough to make up Gervin's scoring efficiency which is why I feel Gervin was the better and greater player of the two.


Gervin's top 5 scoring seasons
'79-'80 - 33.1 ppg with 53% FG, 59% TS - Scoring champion
'81-'82 - 32.3 ppg with 50% FG, 56% TS - Scoring champion
'78-'79 - 29.6 ppg with 54% FG, 59% TS - Scoring champion
'77-'78 - 27.2 ppg with 54% FG, 59% TS - Scoring champion
'80-'81 - 27.1 ppg with 49% FG, 56% TS

Gervin's career FG% - 50% FG
Gervin's career TS% - 56% TS

Iverson's top 5 scoring seasons
'05-'06 - 33 ppg with 45% FG, 54% TS
'01-'02 - 31.4 ppg with 40% FG, 49% TS - Scoring champion
'00-'01 - 31.1 ppg with 42% FG, 52% TS - Scoring champion
'04-'05 - 30.7 ppg with 42% FG, 53% TS - Scoring champion
'99-'00 - 28.4 ppg with 42% FG, 50% TS


Iverson's career FG% - 43% FG
Iverson's career TS% - 52% TS


I am not sure if it means anything but in Iverson's best scoring season he wasn't even the scoring champion. The fourth time he won the scoring champion title was in '98-'99 the year that the NBA only had 50 games. Not to mention two of the scoring titles Iverson won was when they started to enforce the no hand-check rule.

[Gotterdammerung]

I don't know how true that is. The Nuggets were successful on a certain level without any of that, despite not really having much talent beyond their three best players. I'll agree that it's best to have another guard to run the offense instead of AI, because he's just not a point guard, but otherwise I don't think there is any sort of proof that anything else you said is true.
Watch the 2001 playoffs before handwaving such assertions away. :no:

Eric Snow was a pass-first, defensive minded point guard, and he got minutes on Larry Brown's 76ers because he could guard shooting guards. Kobe Bryant that year said Eric Snow guarded him better than anyone else.

The Nuggets were first round victims twice with Iverson, despite having Anthony & Camby & Nene, so I fail to see your point. :confusedshrug:

[magnax1]

Gervin didn't get to play with the no hand-check rule either so that point is irrelevant in this thread.

It's relevant because post hand checking was much more similar to Gervin's league's level of defense. Gervin played on a team with a pace of 110 in his best statistical season, where Iverson's team had a pace of 93.

[magnax1]

Watch the 2001 playoffs before handwaving such assertions away. :no:

Eric Snow was a pass-first, defensive minded point guard, and he got minutes on Larry Brown's 76ers because he could guard shooting guards. Kobe Bryant that year said Eric Snow guarded him better than anyone else.

The Nuggets were first round victims twice with Iverson, despite having Anthony & Camby & Nene, so I fail to see your point. :confusedshrug:
I already said I agreed about needing to play with a real point guard, but there is nothing suggesting he needed any of the other things you listed.

[colts19]

I have to go with Iceman. Iverson was just to much of a gunner and was not effective in his shot selection or doing things to make other players on his team better.

[Gotterdammerung]

I already said I agreed about needing to play with a real point guard, but there is nothing suggesting he needed any of the other things you listed.

Why don't you try and grow a sack by listing what kind of team, players, scheme would allow Allen Iverson to flourish and win titles?

All we have is the 2001 76ers as a template.

Handwaving evidence only makes you look like a dogmatist unable to deal with the plank in his eye. :facepalm

[ShaqAttack3234]

Why don't you try and grow a sack by listing what kind of team, players, scheme would allow Allen Iverson to flourish and win titles?

All we have is the 2001 76ers as a template.

Handwaving evidence only makes you look like a dogmatist unable to deal with the plank in his eye. :facepalm

While I voted for Iverson, I pretty much agree with your assessment on how to build a successful team around Iverson.

He was at his best at shooting guard, and because of this, Snow and McKie were really good fits in the backcourt, and because he was a really streaky volume shooter, putting a great defensive team and rebounding team around him was ideal because they could allow him to gamble defensively and could keep the game close when he went cold, and often pull away and win when he got hot.

I'll also acknowledge that Gervin's scoring titles were more impressive compared to his era considering his shot attempts and efficiency were closer to some of the other top scorers.

[magnax1]

Why don't you try and grow a sack by listing what kind of team, players, scheme would allow Allen Iverson to flourish and win titles?

All we have is the 2001 76ers as a template.

Handwaving evidence only makes you look like a dogmatist unable to deal with the plank in his eye. :facepalm
There is no "scheme" for winning a championship. The scheme for winning is having a more talented team then the opposition without redundancies. You can't just say he needs a slow paced team with a great defense and forwards who can spot up to win, when there is no evidence of it. I'm waving your evidence away, because there is none. You're just making up something you know you can't prove. It's like saying Kobe needs an all star center and large smart point guard who can spot up to win. Just because that's what their good teams were made up of, doesn't mean that's the optimal type of team for them. The optimal team for anyone is just having guys who can make an impact without taking away from someone else's impact on the team.

[G.O.A.T]

Good debate everyone


Allen Iverson and I feel silly that it's even close

ALL OF THESE MATCHUPS ARE CLOSE...

They don't end up right next to each other on the list if there isn't mixed opinion on who is better.




I'm going to go ahead and use the weak competition argument against Iverson.

I made a post a page or two back about the teams that beat Gervin and Iverson in the playoffs during their prime years.

I think the weak competition argument goes both ways here.

Gervin's three playoff series wins are against the worst 76ers team of the Doc era, the 52 win '82 Sonics led by Gus and Sikma and the Nuggets in 1983 with English, Kiki and an end of the road Issel.

Those are all okay teams, but none of them were contenders and none of those teams were led by a player like Gervin who is still widely considered a top-50 guy.

Iverson beat teams led by Miller, VC and Allen as noted as well as Orlando (best player Penny) and Charlotte (best player Eddie Jones) and New Orleans (Jamal Mashburn/Baron Davis)

So neither of them ever beat a team whose best player is ranked above them on an all-time list. Probably why they are at the end of the elite (1st team all-NBA 3+ times) guards.

[L.Kizzle]

A torn between voting. both have their advantages and disadvantages.

Gervin made the playoffs every single season but one. Iverson's playoff career was sporadic. Gervin was considered the best guard probably for 5 year stretch from he mid 80s to the early 80s. If if we're including just shooting guard, probably a little longer. Iverson was the best guard probably twice in his career (though I will admit his guard comp was much deeper than Icemans.)

Iverson does have an MVP and a Finals appearance something Ice doesn't have. Ice does have three finishes at number 2 for MVP and 3 conference finals showings.

As you can see, this is a very tough choice as it can go either way.

[Gotterdammerung]

There is no "scheme" for winning a championship.
False.
Read any book of NBA history, and you'll draw some conclusions that certain make-up of a team is better disposed to winning titles than others. That you lack the courage to distill principles or the foresight to predict such is your problem. :sleeping


The scheme for winning is having a more talented team then the opposition without redundancies.
False. This is immature logic that is always proven incorrect time and time again, when experts often choose the loaded roster vs a team where roles are better defined.

See 2000 Portland Trailblazers.
See 1995 Orlando Magic
See 1977 Philadelphia 76ers.

They all had something in common, and the same edge over their opponents, yet failed to capitalize. Need I go on? :hammerhead:


You can't just say he needs a slow paced team with a great defense and forwards who can spot up to win, when there is no evidence of it.
2001 76ers came closer than any other Allen Iverson-led team, but they were waylaid by one of the all-time greatest teams in league history. Now, why is that the case? Of course the plank will not allow you to admit this. :facepalm

It should be obvious your talent argument (2007, 2008 Nuggets) is laughable.


I'm waving your evidence away, because there is none. You're just making up something you know you can't prove. It's like saying Kobe needs an all star center and large smart point guard who can spot up to win. Just because that's what their good teams were made up of, doesn't mean that's the optimal type of team for them. The optimal team for anyone is just having guys who can make an impact without taking away from someone else's impact on the team.
Weak, ambiguous, and utterly lacking in foresight. A bunch of teams do have guys who make impact w/o taking away from other guys, and they still lose.
:violin:

[Gotterdammerung]

While I voted for Iverson, I pretty much agree with your assessment on how to build a successful team around Iverson. He was at his best at shooting guard, and because of this, Snow and McKie were really good fits in the backcourt, and because he was a really streaky volume shooter, putting a great defensive team and rebounding team around him was ideal because they could allow him to gamble defensively and could keep the game close when he went cold, and often pull away and win when he got hot.
Thanks, Shaqattack. You explained it better than I did.


I'll also acknowledge that Gervin's scoring titles were more impressive compared to his era considering his shot attempts and efficiency were closer to some of the other top scorers.
I did watch a few games of his back in the day. He was almost mythical in his consistency, and downright frightening when he got hot, but at the same time, I never felt scared of him like Bernard King or those other high-powered scorers who turned it up in the clutch. :cheers:

[SuperPippen]

Thanks, Shaqattack. You explained it better than I did.


I did watch a few games of his back in the day. He was almost mythical in his consistency, and downright frightening when he got hot, but at the same time, I never felt scared of him like Bernard King or those other high-powered scorers who turned it up in the clutch. :cheers:

Another reason I voted Iverson.

Gervin was obviously more efficient, but I've never seen or heard of him being a feared crunch-time scorer like Iverson was.

Iverson could have have been having a pretty cold night, going for something like 7-24, but if the game remained close, then the defense would still focus most of their attention on Iverson, knowing he always had the mindset and capability to step up with the game on the line.

[iamgine]

Gervin didn't get to play with the no hand-check rule either so that point is irrelevant in this thread.

It's an interesting point to me though. I wonder how many perimeter players would have been ranked differently without the rule change. Wade? CP3? Nash?

[HylianNightmare]

Allen Iverson

[iamgine]

Also, while we're talking about efficiency here, how many end of quarter desperation shots did Iverson take? Imagine if he just average two of those shots per game and we took those out. His percentage would suddenly be much better. I feel this is an important stat that's missing.

[magnax1]

Read any book of NBA history, and you'll draw some conclusions that certain make-up of a team is better disposed to winning titles than others. That you lack the courage to distill principles or the foresight to predict such is your problem. :sleeping
Almost all of the general what you need to win a championship theories are easily disproved. Like Bigmen. Almost everyone says perimeter players need a big man to win a championship, and in a certain sense that's true, but if you really look deeper the picture just becomes you need talent. Every Big man has had a perimeter sidekick too. KG had Pierce, DUncan had GInobili, Shaq had Kobe, Kareem had Magic/Oscar. And the opposite ends up being true too. Kobe had Pau, Bird had McHale/Parish, Magic Had Kareem, West had Wilt/Wilt had West. Then there are tons of exceptions. Jordan won 6 without a very good PF/C combo. The late 80's pistons did the same, Rick Barry won without a very good front court, and on the other side Hakeem and Duncan won without an all star wing player. So just in 20 years, you can find 8 exceptions to the big men are needed to win rule. Because it's just not true. You just need talent at every spot on the floor.
The second one that's obvious is defense win championships. Almost every team that has won the championship has been top ten in both defense and offense rating. With one exception on offense and 2 on defense (or something like that, I'm not going to look it up)
Those are the two that people love to spout, and right there is your proof that they're basically bullshit.



False. This is immature logic that is always proven incorrect time and time again, when experts often choose the loaded roster vs a team where roles are better defined.

See 2000 Portland Trailblazers.
Well first off, the 00 Blazers were not really any more talented then 00 LA. Best player in the league, top 5 shooting guard, good shooter, Lots of Smart role players like Fox, Harper, Fisher, Horry etc.
However, here's the only thing I forgot to mention. You pretty much always need a top 5 player to win. That's literally the single pattern in championship teams over the past 50 years, but even then talent wins over when there is a big enough gap. Late 70's Sonics. Late 80's Pistons. 04 Pistons. But for general purposes I think it's fair to say you need a top 5 player (or higher in most cases) to win.


See 1995 Orlando Magic
I don't know what you call it, but being outplayed at every position but PG is what I call being less talented.

See 1977 Philadelphia 76ers.
Did not play a lick of defense, and both teams were really talented.


They all had something in common, and the same edge over their opponents, yet failed to capitalize. Need I go on? :hammerhead:
What's funny is that I do think there are a few exceptions where individual just take over (none of the ones you listed are them though) but then again having one guy can score half the opposing teams points kind of falls into the talent category.


2001 76ers came closer than any other Allen Iverson-led team, but they were waylaid by one of the all-time greatest teams in league history. Now, why is that the case? Of course the plank will not allow you to admit this. :facepalm
Why is this the case? Because the team wasn't really very good, even though it was AI's best team until he went to Denver.

[magnax1]

Also, while we're talking about efficiency here, how many end of quarter desperation shots did Iverson take? Imagine if he just average two of those shots per game and we took those out. His percentage would suddenly be much better. I feel this is an important stat that's missing.
You could say that of quite a few players too. It seems like Lebron always tries to get those off. Or at least in the playoffs. TMac was the same way for a couple years, and he even practiced them every day, lol.

[iamgine]

You could say that of quite a few players too. It seems like Lebron always tries to get those off. Or at least in the playoffs. TMac was the same way for a couple years, and he even practiced them every day, lol.
Yep, but not all players. Which is why it would a good stat to have to really measure efficiency.

[magnax1]

Yep, but not all players. Which is why it would a good stat to have to really measure efficiency.
It definitely would be interesting.

[G.O.A.T]

I'm going to cast my vote for Iverson. It's so even in terms of what they achieved from both and individual and team standpoint and I can't say with any certainty that one was clearly a better player than the other. What my vote comes down to is historical significance and I give AI the edge. He represented a part of basketball culture that a lot of people tried to ignore. He made fans in every arena playing a style of basketball that is impossible not to appreciate. He was a player who poured himself into the game, it always meant something to him. Additionally his 2001 campaign is a signature performance Gervin can't match. MVP, All-Star Game MVP, Scoring leader, steals leader. Scored at least 40 points in one game of every playoff round, two 50 point games, five 40 point games and nine 35 point games in the postseason. 16 40-point games during the regular season...truly amazing stuff.

Voting closes at midnight ET, get your voice heard. 8-6 AI right now.

[Kblaze8855]

There really are people who list Gervin as the worst defender of all time. People who remember his prime. Which is odd considering he blocked a lot of shots and had the physical tools to at least contest shots well.

I like geroge. Hes the nicest NBA player ive ever met along with BJ Armstrong. My dad had a lot of tickets to watch the 86 Bulls because with MJ out the people at his job didnt want their season tickets. So I saw him a lot that year. Early before games. Always a smile and always signing things. He took a jumper with a ball I brought to the arena once. I still have it.

I never saw him in his real prime though. I mean...I saw him. But not enough to just say I know his game inside and out. But since ive always liked him ive watched a good number of his games when I can.

He really did nothing but score.

AI scored mostly...but he was always a great passer. And there are years he averaged more rebounds than Gervin in his prime. gervin wasnt playing huge minutes but he was on teams scoring 110-118 a game at points.

I get the feeling he was playing harder in other areas than Gervin. 5'11'' 160 pound guy getting 5 rebounds a game?

Ai played hard all the time. Including on defense. He couldnt guard anyone well man t oman...but he didnt just not try.

Id probably take AI for my team. Both are gonna score 30 a game. But AI I suspect plays harder. hard to put a number on that....

[rodman91]

Iverson.

Iverson : 26.7 ppg 3.7 rpg 6.2 apg
Gervin: 26.2 ppg 4.6 rpg 2.8 apg

Also Iverson has MVP.Reached finals admirable way.And pretty much killed Juggernaut 01 Lakers' potential 15-0 run.

[Soothing Layup]

Iverson did more with his body and at 6'0 had an excuse for being a lousy defender.

Gervin at 6'7 should've done better IMO.

Ultimately it's iversons MVP that sets him apart. Beating shaq n Kobe in game 1 of the finals.

This.

I vote for Iverson.

[ShaqAttack3234]

I did watch a few games of his back in the day. He was almost mythical in his consistency, and downright frightening when he got hot, but at the same time, I never felt scared of him like Bernard King or those other high-powered scorers who turned it up in the clutch. :cheers:

Yeah, Bernard King was maybe the most impressive of those big scorers to me. Part of the reason he was more effective than someone like Adrian Dantley for example, was because King made his move so much quicker and didn't hold the ball nearly as long.

I like watching prime Gervin, but you're right, he doesn't seem like a guy you'd fear as much. Watched game 4 of the 1982 series vs the Lakers not long ago and he was making some tough shots and had around 40, but fouled out with quite a bit of time remaining. His height really seemed to give him a big advantage as a guard back then.



Well first off, the 00 Blazers were not really any more talented then 00 LA. Best player in the league, top 5 shooting guard, good shooter, Lots of Smart role players like Fox, Harper, Fisher, Horry etc.

No, the 2000 Blazers were definitely more talented, and it really does come down to depth.

The Lakers did have the best player in the league(Shaq) and another top 11 player(Kobe), but there's a reason why they were called a 2 man team and the Blazers depth was constantly praised during the series.

The Lakers lack of shooters and a 3rd option really almost killed them. The Blazers were able to focus almost all of their efforts on containing Shaq.

Phil Jackson also mentioned how starting AC Green and Ron Harper in their mid 30's allowed other teams to not even guard those 2 positions and focus on Shaq. Neither player was an offensive threat, and to make matters worse, Green was too old to guard an athletic big man like Rasheed who feasted on the Lakers.

Fisher and Fox weren't really factors on the 2000 team. Read Phil's book "More Than A Game" he goes into detail about the extent of Fox's mental mistakes at the time. Fisher was the Lakers 4th guard in the playoffs and had shot under 35% during the regular season. Though both players improved a lot in 2001.

Horry and Harper were solid role players on that team, though.

However, Portland had a starting 5 with every position covered with an average to an above average starter, all 5 were offensive threats, and then they had several guys off the bench who would have started on a lot of teams and were also offensive threats. Look at Brian Grant, he goes to Miami the next season, starts and averages 15/9. Or Bonzi Wells, a very capable offensive player who got limited minutes due to how loaded Portland was.

They had a starting point guard who had been a 19-20 ppg, 8-9 apg guy in Toronto before coming to Portland, and a solid backup in Greg Anthony who could hit 3s and defend.

They had Steve Smith at shooting guard who had great size, could post up, handle the ball and shoot. Part of why he was such an efficient scorer and capable of averaging 20.

Scottie Pippen was still one of the best defensive players in the league, one of the most well rounded forwards and a capable scorer. He could do a bit of everything.

They had Bonzi Wells and Detlef Schrempf to back up those positions.

Rasheed Wallace was one of the most talented power forwards in the game. Definitely one of the best defensive forwards and more than capable of hitting mid-range jumpers, finishing around the rim or posting up.

Sabonis was definitely an above average center who Portland ran their offensive through at times due to his ability to play in the high or low post and his excellent passing ability. He had range just about out to the 3 point line and a good hook shot. He rebounded well when he was on the floor and his size alone made an impact in the paint.

You had to respect these players offensive games. You had to at least guard them unlike Harper and Green. And aside from having so many offensive weapons, Portland was also an excellent defensive team.

The two deep Laker vs too deep Blazers is definitely an accurate assessment. LA had the 2 stars, while Portland had capable starters and backups at every position.

[magnax1]

Fisher and Fox weren't really factors on the 2000 team. Read Phil's book "More Than A Game" he goes into detail about the extent of Fox's mental mistakes at the time. Fisher was the Lakers 4th guard in the playoffs and had shot under 35% during the regular season. Though both players improved a lot in 2001.
Fisher and Fox both made an impact by being able to come in a space the floor and play defense. They both improved in 01, in that they went on hot streaks in the playoffs. I don't know if they were legitimately much different, and I really doubt either of them would've gotten many more minutes in their 01 forms on the 00 team.



However, Portland had a starting 5 with every position covered with an average to an above average starter, all 5 were offensive threats, and then they had several guys off the bench who would have started on a lot of teams and were also offensive threats. Look at Brian Grant, he goes to Miami the next season, starts and averages 15/9. Or Bonzi Wells, a very capable offensive player who got limited minutes due to how loaded Portland was.
They also did not have one top 10 player. It's nice to have the depth, but their first offensive option was Rasheed who put up a moderately efficient 18 ppg, and an old wildly inconsistent Steve Smith.


They had a starting point guard who had been a 19-20 ppg, 8-9 apg guy in Toronto before coming to Portland, and a solid backup in Greg Anthony who could hit 3s and defend.
Damon Stoudamire was alright, but I don't think he was a 20-8 guy on very many teams. I think his early stats are very deceiving and they just never matched up with his real impact on the game.


They had Steve Smith at shooting guard who had great size, could post up, handle the ball and shoot. Part of why he was such an efficient scorer and capable of averaging 20.

Scottie Pippen was still one of the best defensive players in the league, one of the most well rounded forwards and a capable scorer. He could do a bit of everything.

They had Bonzi Wells and Detlef Schrempf to back up those positions.

Rasheed Wallace was one of the most talented power forwards in the game. Definitely one of the best defensive forwards and more than capable of hitting mid-range jumpers, finishing around the rim or posting up.

Sabonis was definitely an above average center who Portland ran their offensive through at times due to his ability to play in the high or low post and his excellent passing ability. He had range just about out to the 3 point line and a good hook shot. He rebounded well when he was on the floor and his size alone made an impact in the paint.
And none of those guys were legit 1st option quality. It's great that they had the depth, but they didn't really have anyone you could trust to get you points if your offense became bogged down. They also didn't have the same defensive prowess as LA. Not that they were bad, but LA had really good defenders at the two guard spots and Center, and Horry and Shaw coming off the bench were good defenders too. They were in my opinion, the best in the league that year.



The two deep Laker vs too deep Blazers is definitely an accurate assessment. LA had the 2 stars, while Portland had capable starters and backups at every position.
The Lakers were not two deep. Glen Rice, Ron Harper, Rick Fox, Robbert Horry, Brian Shaw and Derek Fisher all made an impact in those playoffs. Their PF spot was weak, but to say they were two deep is plainly not true. They just didn't have a lot of on the ball scorers, but both of those things were true for the 01 team as well, and the 01 team lacked the defensive prowess of the 00 team.

[Sampsonsimpson]

Iverson. They both had scoring skills obviously but I feel like Iverson could do more. He was an excellent playmaker on top of his scoring. He had 5 seasons over 7 assists per game and he had one season of 30 points per game and 8 assists per game. And in that year he was 1st in overall points scored, 1st in points per game, 3rd in overall assists made, and 5th in assists per game .

[ShaqAttack3234]

Fisher and Fox both made an impact by being able to come in a space the floor and play defense. They both improved in 01, in that they went on hot streaks in the playoffs. I don't know if they were legitimately much different, and I really doubt either of them would've gotten many more minutes in their 01 forms on the 00 team.

No, they probably would have gotten more minutes on the 2000 team if they were as good as 2001. Fisher had a chance to earn more minutes during the regular season when Kobe was out, but didn't. He play horribly that regular season which is why he was their 4th guard come playoff time. But he worked on his shooting quite a bit when he was out and came back as an improved shooter in 2001.

And Phil was very unhappy with Rice's play throughout the season, even early in the season when his numbers were better(Phil was quoted as saying Glen wasn't playing more because he didn't deserve to play) and even more in the playoffs when Rice's play fell off even more.

If he had a small forward he could trust more, then he certainly would've given them a chance, but Fox simply wasn't playing well enough.


They also did not have one top 10 player. It's nice to have the depth, but their first offensive option was Rasheed who put up a moderately efficient 18 ppg, and an old wildly inconsistent Steve Smith.

Smith was just 30, true, he had the knee problems, but if you remember, that was why the Rider/Smith trade was considered a mistake for Atlanta and a success for Portland. Atlanta reportedly traded him because they were worried about his knee, but when it wasn't an issue during the 2000 season, the deal was considered a big success for Portland.

Smith was not inconsistent either. He put up 15 ppg on 47 FG%/58 TS% during the season and 17 ppg on 49 FG%/64 TS% during the playoffs. Phenomenal efficiency for the era. In fact, he finished 8th in TS% during the playoffs.

And you really can't judge anyone's ability by their ppg on that team when you had that many capable scorers sharing the ball on a slow paced team that emphasized team basketball.


Damon Stoudamire was alright, but I don't think he was a 20-8 guy on very many teams. I think his early stats are very deceiving and they just never matched up with his real impact on the game.

That's true, but while he wasn't as good as those stats suggest, it's undeniable that he was an offensive player that you had to worry about.


And none of those guys were legit 1st option quality. It's great that they had the depth, but they didn't really have anyone you could trust to get you points if your offense became bogged down. They also didn't have the same defensive prowess as LA. Not that they were bad, but LA had really good defenders at the two guard spots and Center, and Horry and Shaw coming off the bench were good defenders too. They were in my opinion, the best in the league that year.

Well, we'll agree to disagree that year. I agree with Phil Jackson himself who said the Lakers were far from being the most talented team that year, and Portland was one of the team's that he cited(and considered the most talented in the league)


The Lakers were not two deep. Glen Rice, Ron Harper, Rick Fox, Robbert Horry, Brian Shaw and Derek Fisher all made an impact in those playoffs. Their PF spot was weak, but to say they were two deep is plainly not true. They just didn't have a lot of on the ball scorers, but both of those things were true for the 01 team as well, and the 01 team lacked the defensive prowess of the 00 team.

The '01 team had a lot of chemistry and injury problems in the regular season, but they played better defensively in the 2001 playoffs when everything came together, and once that team got healthy, they were a much better shooting team than the 2000 Lakers.

Not only that, but Kobe went from a borderline top 10 player in 2000 who averaged around 22 ppg to a 29 ppg scorer and top 3-5 player in 2001.

And look at how important Horace Grant being able to guard opposing power forwards and big men was. Rasheed was shut down in 2001 vs the Lakers, C-Webb struggled and Grant contained Duncan as well. Both C-Webb and Rasheed had killed AC Green the previous year.

Fox was also a vastly superior defensive player to Rice and with his improved confidence, he ended up being almost as productive in the 2001 playoffs as Rice was in 2000 while doing everything outside of scoring better.

Once the 2001 team was healthy, Isaiah Rider was off the playoff roster and the Shaq/Kobe and Phil/Kobe problems were resolved, they were much better than the 2000 team.

Out of the players you named making an impact in the 2000 playoffs.

Fisher? Nope, 4th guard
Fox? Not much, limited minutes guy with erratic play
Rice? Well, he was the only shooter you had to respect, but when you're an extremely inconsistent player playing 33 mpg putting up 12/4/2/41 FG%/53 TS%, a defensive liability and a guy who stands around when he doesn't have the ball, well, I fail to see much of an impact. Decent player, but a bad fit for the team and declining quickly. Couldn't be relied on.

Horry? Yes, solid team defender, good passer, solid rebounder.
Harper? Solid defender, smart player, good passer, so yeah. But arguably the 3rd best Laker player throughout those playoffs and certainly their 3rd best player in the finals, which should tell you how little depth and talent they had outside of Shaq/Kobe
Shaw? Really limited impact. Hit those big shots vs Portland, hard to say he changed games that much on a day to day basis.

I'm not the only one who thinks this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wR7P3DOCTJw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=izs53PMDE8s#t=2m24s

And look at how Portland guarded Shaq in the 2000 finals. You don't base almost your entire gameplan defensively around 1 player, and send that many double/triple teams if the other team has a lot of other weapons and good balance.

It's no surprise that the Lakers were the 5th worst 3 point shooting team during the regular season and among last in bench production.

[L.Kizzle]

After some thinking, I'd give AI the slight edge. His MVP and him making the 2001 NBA Finals put him slightly over the top.

[G.O.A.T]

Shaqattack3234 your last two posts are the most complete and excellent analysis of the 2000 and 2001 Lakers I've ever seen.

There is no doubt Portland was more talented, I was half rooting for them, though my hatred of Pippen at that time made me still feel pretty happy when they lost that way.

That Portland team probably had 11 of the top 15 players in the series. And maybe 7 or 8 of the top 10.

The thing with Portland though was that they always seemed unstable. Pippen was a questionable leader, Rasheed as your best player can be dangerous, Smith, Schrempf and Sabonis had major injury concerns. That team was loaded but I never really believed in them. Even though i thought they were better than the Lakers, I didn't think they'd beat the Lakers.

[Gotterdammerung]

Shaqattack3234 your last two posts are the most complete and excellent analysis of the 2000 and 2001 Lakers I've ever seen.

There is no doubt Portland was more talented, I was half rooting for them, though my hatred of Pippen at that time made me still feel pretty happy when they lost that way.

That Portland team probably had 11 of the top 15 players in the series. And maybe 7 or 8 of the top 10.

The thing with Portland though was that they always seemed unstable. Pippen was a questionable leader, Rasheed as your best player can be dangerous, Smith, Schrempf and Sabonis had major injury concerns. That team was loaded but I never really believed in them. Even though i thought they were better than the Lakers, I didn't think they'd beat the Lakers.

I agree, and much props to Shaqattack for carrying the debate.

I was rooting for the Blazers in '00, (probably due to my inherent hatred for the Lakers since Magic left), and the commentators at the time were saying the Blazers were the most talented team on paper and in the league. I don't recall who was the favorite (Lakers won 67 games that year, but at one point they were tied with the Blazers a month before the playoffs started). Wasn't surprised that they came back from a 3-1 deficit in the series, and went up by 15 points in the 4th (or at the start of the 4th).

I actually ordered a round of beer for my mates at the pizza joint by then, and promising them another round after the Lakers get eviscerated at midcourt. Come on, who would've thunk they would've choked a 15 point lead horribly? :facepalm

You both said what I should've said, so I owe you guys one. :cheers:

[magnax1]

No, they probably would have gotten more minutes on the 2000 team if they were as good as 2001. Fisher had a chance to earn more minutes during the regular season when Kobe was out, but didn't. He play horribly that regular season which is why he was their 4th guard come playoff time. But he worked on his shooting quite a bit when he was out and came back as an improved shooter in 2001.
As bad as Harper was offensively, he was still a really smart player, and great defender. Fisher was the better shooter, and that's about it. And that was true when on the 00 Lakers too. While he was a good overall defender, he did often times struggle against the quickest guard even when he was young.


And Phil was very unhappy with Rice's play throughout the season, even early in the season when his numbers were better(Phil was quoted as saying Glen wasn't playing more because he didn't deserve to play) and even more in the playoffs when Rice's play fell off even more.

If he had a small forward he could trust more, then he certainly would've given them a chance, but Fox simply wasn't playing well enough.
Well Phil says a lot of stuff like that, and in general coaches do, just to get their players going. Phil is especially bad about it. He constantly talked about Odom and Pau in a similar way these past couple years. (I don't think he talked about their minutes, but he constantly publicly criticized them)
And Fox was definitely better at some thing, but I think Rice's shooting was a much better fit with the team, and I don't think he was better overall, nor did he really seem to improve from 00-01. He might've had some trouble with the triangle I'm not aware of or something, but I think his best overall year was probably one of his first 2 years with LA.



Smith was just 30, true, he had the knee problems, but if you remember, that was why the Rider/Smith trade was considered a mistake for Atlanta and a success for Portland. Atlanta reportedly traded him because they were worried about his knee, but when it wasn't an issue during the 2000 season, the deal was considered a big success for Portland.
I don't really disagree about it being a great trade. Rider really wasn't a very good player, despite his stats.


Smith was not inconsistent either. He put up 15 ppg on 47 FG%/58 TS% during the season and 17 ppg on 49 FG%/64 TS% during the playoffs. Phenomenal efficiency for the era. In fact, he finished 8th in TS% during the playoffs.
Consistency has little to do with efficiency. Just look at his game logs, and you can tell he wasn't terribly consistent. Though probably the best part of that team was that it didn't struggle as much when individuals had off games because it had 7 or so guys who could average 15+ on lots of teams.



And you really can't judge anyone's ability by their ppg on that team when you had that many capable scorers sharing the ball on a slow paced team that emphasized team basketball.
Like I said, Smith was a good player, but he still isn't first option material. Neither was Rasheed. On most championship teams those guys would've been 3rd options at best.



That's true, but while he wasn't as good as those stats suggest, it's undeniable that he was an offensive player that you had to worry about.
True



The '01 team had a lot of chemistry and injury problems in the regular season, but they played better defensively in the 2001 playoffs when everything came together, and once that team got healthy, they were a much better shooting team than the 2000 Lakers.
They definitely were better in the 01 playoffs, but I still don't think they came near the same level they were in 00. They definitely weren't as bad as their 20th (or whatever it was) defensive rating that year.


Not only that, but Kobe went from a borderline top 10 player in 2000 who averaged around 22 ppg to a 29 ppg scorer and top 3-5 player in 2001.
There definitely isn't any denying he was much better in 01.


And look at how important Horace Grant being able to guard opposing power forwards and big men was. Rasheed was shut down in 2001 vs the Lakers, C-Webb struggled and Grant contained Duncan as well. Both C-Webb and Rasheed had killed AC Green the previous year.
Despite that, they were still a better overall defensive team in 00. The PF position was definitely an issue though. Phil might've been better off starting Horry, though he probably would've struggled against larger PFs.


Fox was also a vastly superior defensive player to Rice and with his improved confidence, he ended up being almost as productive in the 2001 playoffs as Rice was in 2000 while doing everything outside of scoring better.
Like I said, I don't think there was much difference between Fox those two years. He was a vastly superior defender to him in 00 too, and probably could've come close to him in most everything excluding shooting in 00 if he got the minutes.


Out of the players you named making an impact in the 2000 playoffs.

Fisher? Nope, 4th guard
He played 15 minutes. You can't say a guy who plays more then 1/4th of the game doesn't make an impact one way or another.


Rice? Well, he was the only shooter you had to respect,
That's a bit of an exaggeration. Fisher, Horry, and Fox were all good shooters. Kobe was a good shooter, though he wasn't really an off the ball shooter.


but when you're an extremely inconsistent player playing 33 mpg putting up 14/2/4/41 FG%/53 TS%, a defensive liability and a guy who stands around when he doesn't have the ball, well, I fail to see much of an impact. Decent player, but a bad fit for the team and declining quickly. Couldn't be relied on.
It's true that he wasn't really a great player, but he wasn't exactly a bad fit either. The team needed shooting, and at that point he was really nothing more then a really good spot up shooter. He definitely wasn't really a triangle guy, but the team was really just based more on dumping it off to Shaq and playing off of that more then running a traditional triangle offense, especially once they got deeper into the playoffs.


Horry? Yes, solid team defender, good passer, solid rebounder.
Harper? Solid defender, smart player, good passer, so yeah. But arguably the 3rd best Laker player throughout those playoffs and certainly their 3rd best player in the finals, which should tell you how little depth and talent they had outside of Shaq/Kobe
Shaw? Really limited impact. Hit those big shots vs Portland, hard to say he changed games that much on a day to day basis.
I think you're really underselling Shaw though. He was one of the better back up guards in the league still in 00. He could rebound, pass and defender really well. He also knew the triangle really well and was just a great fit with the system.



And look at how Portland guarded Shaq in the 2000 finals. You don't base almost your entire gameplan defensively around 1 player, and send that many double/triple teams if the other team has a lot of other weapons and good balance.
Maybe I just don't remember correctly, but I thought the Blazers played Shaq pretty similarly to most teams. The only real difference is that Grant and Sabonis just did a lot better job. When he doesn't get that same deep post position, it isn't such a huge problem to double team him.
Also, while it's true that offensively they relied heavily on 2 guys, it wasn't any different in the 01 team, and that team wasn't nearly as deep as the 01 team, with only 7 guys in the rotation compared to the 9 in 00.

I think overall it just comes down to would you rather have the better defense, and a couple extra guys like Shaw (he played in 01, but not very well) Harper and Rice, or would you rather take The better Kobe. Overall, they're probably pretty close.
I definitely don't agree with people saying the blazers were more talented though. Back in 00, I remember the Lakers were by far the favorites in my mind, and I remember emphatically disagreeing with people saying the Blazers were going to win. Even when they came back from the 3-1 deficit.

[Gotterdammerung]

Those are the two that people love to spout, and right there is your proof that they're basically bullshit.

Still false.

MJ is probably the lone exception, and probably will always be. Still you have to discredit his competition in the Finals (Lakers, Blazers, Suns, Jazz & Sonics) as lacking true elite bigmen.

A Kobe-led team couldn't beat the 2008 Celtics, and would've lost to the 2010 version had Perkins stayed healthy. Why? their bigs were better.

Kobe was the best player in the league in 2008. Experts picked the Lakers to win over the Celtics. I'm sure he was top 5 in 2008. True or False? :oldlol:

It's still a golden rule in basketball. The Great bigman is a near guarantee to success, and if you build around him correctly, you'll win titles. GMs will always draft the elite bigman over everyone else, from now until the end of time. Why? They affect the game far more than the elite swingmen, no matter how many rules David Stern tweaks in their favor.

And defense is also an imperative in playoff success - although you need a solid offense, if not a phoenix suns of mid 00's high octane one, but one that gets you key baskets after you successfully stop the other team.


Well first off, the 00 Blazers were not really any more talented then 00 LA. Best player in the league, top 5 shooting guard, good shooter, Lots of Smart role players like Fox, Harper, Fisher, Horry etc.
I believe Shaqattack and GOAT destroyed this silly claim so I'll leave you to their devices. :oldlol:


I don't know what you call it, but being outplayed at every position but PG is what I call being less talented.
Wrong. 1995 Magic were heavily favored on account of talent, homecourt edge, and 2-0 record vs the Rockets in the regular season. They lost because they were mentally fragile. :violin:

"outplayed" implies something else other than pure sheer talent. Such as chemistry, coaching, willpower, clutch play, experience, and sometimes, fortitude.


Did not play a lick of defense, and both teams were really talented.
One was more talented than the other, from top to bottom. If you can't admit this then nobody can help you. :rolleyes:


What's funny is that I do think there are a few exceptions where individual just take over (none of the ones you listed are them though) but then again having one guy can score half the opposing teams points kind of falls into the talent category.
Sure, a 40-50 point game by one guy means he's incredibly talented. It also implies his team is weak and his offense is one-dimensional, and less balanced than the other team.


Why is this the case? Because the team wasn't really very good, even though it was AI's best team until he went to Denver.

You heard it here first, folks. the 2007 Nuggets were better than the 2001 Sixers. :facepalm
Any takers? :hammerhead:

[magnax1]

MJ is probably the lone exception, and probably will always be. Still you have to discredit his competition in the Finals (Lakers, Blazers, Suns, Jazz & Sonics) as lacking true elite bigmen.
I already gave you other examples. Go re read the post, because I'm not going to retype it.


A Kobe-led team couldn't beat the 2008 Celtics, and would've lost to the 2010 version had Perkins stayed healthy. Why? their bigs were better.
I think old KG and Perkins being better then Bynum/Odom/Pau is really a stretch.

Kobe was the best player in the league in 2008. Experts picked the Lakers to win over the Celtics. I'm sure he was top 5 in 2008. True or False? :oldlol:
lots of people realized how dumb the majority of the media was for expecting LA to win. I think they were just over reacting to Boston's first two rounds. It was really obvious Boston was better. They had nearly as much, or maybe even more offensive talent (especially since LA was so reliant on Kobe for stretches in 08) and were one of the best defenses ever.


It's still a golden rule in basketball. The Great bigman is a near guarantee to success, and if you build around him correctly, you'll win titles. GMs will always draft the elite bigman over everyone else, from now until the end of time. Why? They affect the game far more than the elite swingmen, no matter how many rules David Stern tweaks in their favor.
I've already given you tons of examples of this being false. 8 champions in 20 years won without an all star bigman, and tons more where the wing player was the best on the team.




Wrong. 1995 Magic were heavily favored on account of talent, homecourt edge, and 2-0 record vs the Rockets in the regular season. They lost because they were mentally fragile. :violin:
Mental fortitude is part of being a good individual player, and mental fortitude was not the main reason Houston won. Houston just outplayed their opponents in terms of defense and shooting. Houston made all their threes, they played much better defense, and they just were better at every position other then point guard.



One was more talented than the other, from top to bottom. If you can't admit this then nobody can help you. :rolleyes:
I literally watched this series a week ago. Portland had 3 guys averaging 17+ ppg in the playoffs, and 6 with 10+ ppg. Philly was a little better offensively, but as I said previously, they were just god awful on defense in that series.


Sure, a 40-50 point game by one guy means he's incredibly talented. It also implies his team is weak and his offense is one-dimensional, and less balanced than the other team.
Okay?




You heard it here first, folks. the 2007 Nuggets were better than the 2001 Sixers. :facepalm
Any takers? :hammerhead:
That's not exactly what I said, and I don't really agree with it. The 08 Nuggets, excluding AI were probably a better team then the 01 Sixers, but AI wasn't nearly as good in 08 as 01. Even then, they won 50 games in a year when that was the lowest team to get in the playoffs. That's just as impressive to me as winning 57 when the east was at it's weakest that I can remember. In fact, once I calculated that the 01 Sixers only end up winning 50 games in the 01 West, so I think that should give a good view on how much of a difference there is. However, the 01 Sixers were probably the slightest bit better overall.

[G.O.A.T]

Allen Iverson wins the vote. A pretty good and close match-up

Next Round AI v GP