With curry

[Gohan]

Y’all are seeing what iverson had to go through. Show iverson some respect :pimp:

[Marchesk]

Y’all are seeing what iverson had to go through. Show iverson some respect :pimp:

One is efficient with three titles and the other was a chucker. Westbrook is a better comparison.

[Gus Hemmingway]

Y’all are seeing what iverson had to go through. Show iverson some respect :pimp:

Iverson had heart and wasn’t a front running beta

Curry would’ve faked an injury in Iversons situation

[Wally450]

One is efficient with three titles and the other was a chucker. Westbrook is a better comparison.

:applause:

[Gudo]

Iverson averaged 41.8% fg from 96-05 and averaged 44.4% fg from 05-10. He averaged higher fg% at 30+ yrs old than he did when he was younger.

Curry has been averaging 42.4% fg since last season without the core team.

I know curry is the much more efficient player but AI did not have the benefit of today’s open game. If he played today he would have probably been mych more efficient.

[Kblaze8855]

One is efficient with three titles and the other was a chucker. Westbrook is a better comparison.

On prime Iversons teams Steph would just lose shooting better. Michael Jordan wouldn’t win a title on Iversons teams.

Some people might win a few more games but with an L assured I don’t know that it matters.

Give Lebron or Curry Snow, Olie, Mckie, lynch, Hill, and Mutombo. You would win some games just as AI did...and lose anyway. Or Snow, Mckie, the last of Keith vanhorn, Coleman’s last 20 minutes, and Kenny Thomas. Is there much to be done there beyond 48 wins and a playoff series win?

Every team of AIs career loses with Steph. Just an issue of if he’d shoot better on the way which means absolutely nothing in the end. I don’t know what happens with prime AI on a team with KD, Klay, and Green but winning rings isn’t outta the question.

AI would walk to the rim at will these days with those shooters....and I’m not sure he couldn’t win the 01 finals if the lakers second and third best players were both out like the 2015 Cavs. No Kobe or Fisher?

I....I don’t know that AI isn’t ringed up in that situation. Shaq would have had to give them 45/20. Not impossible...but you can’t assume.

Situations really were too different to compare them that way.

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

Regardless of that, Steph is and will ALWAYS be the better player.

Better shooter. Better scorer. And has more offensive gravity.

[tpols]

Curry is shooting extremely efficiently under these circumstances, unlike AI. Iverson couldn't even score efficiently when he was on the offensively loaded Nuggets.

[Axe]

If the sixers only won that finals way back in 01, then ai would have been the undisputed fmvp.

[Kblaze8855]

Regardless of that, Steph is and will ALWAYS be the better player.

Better shooter. Better scorer. And has more offensive gravity.


Of what use is "gravity" when the players being left open cant shoot? Does your gravity help Kevin Olie who made 9 threes in his entire career? How about Snow who made 55 in 12 years with a season high of 12? Shot 21% from 3 for his career. Aaron Mckie was competent at times but in his 2 best 3 point shooting seasons combined he made 126. Both years together. Wiggins has made 118 in one year and people say he cant shoot. Lynch gonna keep people off your back? 150 threes in 11 seasons. Jerry Stackhouse shot 30% outside for his career. Larry Hughes who AI had briefly shot 19% for two years after leaving AI and is most famous as the first person depicted building a house with bricks in a meme. He had early Iggy who shot about the same outside with AI as with Curry and Klay.

Those are most of his primary wings and guards in his prime. The best of them at least. The people who played.

Give him real shooters AI would get them the ball. Kyle Korver had his highest scoring next to AI who always loved to pass to him. Korver gives AI a lot of credit for making it.



But before Korver developed that leaguewide respect for his shooting ability, Iverson took him under his wing from the jump.Korver built long-lasting memories with Iverson throughout his first four seasons with the Philadelphia 76ers. One of those included the 2004 NBA All-Star Weekend in Los Angeles, where Iverson rooted for Korver from a courtside seat (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5vASqGsruOY) during the 3-Point Shootout.
Iverson also once sported a Korver Sixers jersey over his warm-ups and left an indelible mark on his life. Korver has since played with marquee names such as LeBron James, Dwyane Wade, Derrick Rose, Jimmy Butler, Deron Williams and now a rising star in Jazz second-year guard Donovan Mitchell, but “The Answer” was one of a kind.
“That’s my guy right there,” Korver said of Iverson.

“As I’ve gotten older, I’ve started to understand more and more how big he was for me early in my career. To have a superstar, he’s Allen Iverson,” Korver said. “He really took me under his wing and really forced me to shoot the ball and forced me to make plays, and to have him do that for me and the way he was always in my ear telling me to shoot the ball and supporting me — it’s a big deal.”


Allen Iverson loved shooters. Hed have loved nothing more than to have a guy like Klay next to him....forget Durant. That just makes it too easy.

These guys careers played out so difference from a league, teammates, and luck perspective its crazy. Curry in similar situations to AI(teammates going down....being washed up version of themselves) has done nothing AI didnt and likely...never would. How much do your shooting numbers in a loss matter? Given the offensive support AI had we have seen teams just mob up on Curry and wear him down.

Stick Klay to his left and Durant on his right....see if teams can double any of them. Hell just put Klay next to him in his league with 100 threes taken a game and see if the hands off rules allow you to keep him out of the lane.

Curry and AI are polar opposites far as the situations they found themselves in in their primes. When left to similar situations like the 19 finals or the brief time this year and last....his teams look about as hopeless as Iversons even with the superior spacing and higher pace. Doesnt matter which of them you have.....AIs teams would lose. His healthy version would have a better chance of winning than slowed down 32-33 year old AI did on Denver(before being a 12-17ppg player after leaving....clearly he wasnt peak AI anymore). Prime for prime?

Every AI team loses with Curry. I cant rule out AI/Klay/Durant winning nor can I say AI couldnt have won his finals if the Lakers had the injuries the Cavs did in 2015.

Their situations have been too vastly different to me.

Its like they played different sports almost. AI was in the worst league in history for a player like him and had untalented and often injured teams in it. Steph played in the best league possible for a player like him and has had great(sometimes GOAT level) talent that won when healthy but has looked like nothing special when injured(not Stephs fault...thats what injured teams usually look like).

Its almost like comparing Chris Jackson/Abdul Rauf to Trae Young as a scorer.

Trae better? I think all traditional evidence would say yes.

Could Trae show what he is now put in the 90s when you get benched for missing consecutive early threes?

No. Chris only took the number of threes Trae averaged last year like 3 times and I think he gave Stockton 51 in one of them...Kidd 39 in another...and lit up Jordans Bulls the other.

If he could come take 30 shots win or lose in a league designed for him to eat that didnt care if he ruined the defense in the process? Who knows what he is.

This isnt me saying ____ is better than ____. I dont too much care about that. Its me saying I dont even know where to begin sometimes with these comparisons.

Its like asking what some post up specialist would be in 2020. Still great at the game...but if the league doesnt allow you to exploit your greatest strength.....are you worse?

This is the first time the league has changed enough I legit feel like I cant even make some comparisons. We can just look in international play to see that the league and rules can make you wildly different impact wise. And im not sure 2001 wasnt more different relative to 2020 than say....the 06 NBA was to 06 european ball. And Vspan tears apart team usa...internationally. But cant get into a game in the NBA.

The difference really might be that striking. Great is great. I just dont know where to begin at times you know?

[Stephonit]

Of what use is "gravity" when the players being left open cant shoot? Does your gravity help Kevin Olie who made 9 threes in his entire career? How about Snow who made 55 in 12 years with a season high of 12? Shot 21% from 3 for his career. Aaron Mckie was competent at times but in his 2 best 3 point shooting seasons combined he made 126. Both years together.

Who says gravity only helps 3-point shooters?

https://streamable.com/qqgxho

[warriorfan]

Of what use is "gravity" when the players being left open cant shoot? Does your gravity help Kevin Olie who made 9 threes in his entire career? How about Snow who made 55 in 12 years with a season high of 12? Shot 21% from 3 for his career. Aaron Mckie was competent at times but in his 2 best 3 point shooting seasons combined he made 126. Both years together. Wiggins has made 118 in one year and people say he cant shoot. Lynch gonna keep people off your back? 150 threes in 11 seasons. Jerry Stackhouse shot 30% outside for his career. Larry Hughes who AI had briefly shot 19% for two years after leaving AI and is most famous as the first person depicted building a house with bricks in a meme. He had early Iggy who shot about the same outside with AI as with Curry and Klay.

Those are most of his primary wings and guards in his prime. The best of them at least. The people who played.

Give him real shooters AI would get them the ball. Kyle Korver had his highest scoring next to AI who always loved to pass to him. Korver gives AI a lot of credit for making it.





Allen Iverson loved shooters. Hed have loved nothing more than to have a guy like Klay next to him....forget Durant. That just makes it too easy.

These guys careers played out so difference from a league, teammates, and luck perspective its crazy. Curry in similar situations to AI(teammates going down....being washed up version of themselves) has done nothing AI didnt and likely...never would. How much do your shooting numbers in a loss matter? Given the offensive support AI had we have seen teams just mob up on Curry and wear him down.

Stick Klay to his left and Durant on his right....see if teams can double any of them. Hell just put Klay next to him in his league with 100 threes taken a game and see if the hands off rules allow you to keep him out of the lane.

Curry and AI are polar opposites far as the situations they found themselves in in their primes. When left to similar situations like the 19 finals or the brief time this year and last....his teams look about as hopeless as Iversons even with the superior spacing and higher pace. Doesnt matter which of them you have.....AIs teams would lose. His healthy version would have a better chance of winning than slowed down 32-33 year old AI did on Denver(before being a 12-17ppg player after leaving....clearly he wasnt peak AI anymore). Prime for prime?

Every AI team loses with Curry. I cant rule out AI/Klay/Durant winning nor can I say AI couldnt have won his finals if the Lakers had the injuries the Cavs did in 2015.

Their situations have been too vastly different to me.

Its like they played different sports almost. AI was in the worst league in history for a player like him and had untalented and often injured teams in it. Steph played in the best league possible for a player like him and has had great(sometimes GOAT level) talent that won when healthy but has looked like nothing special when injured(not Stephs fault...thats what injured teams usually look like).

Its almost like comparing Chris Jackson/Abdul Rauf to Trae Young as a scorer.

Trae better? I think all traditional evidence would say yes.

Could Trae show what he is now put in the 90s when you get benched for missing consecutive early threes?

No. Chris only took the number of threes Trae averaged last year like 3 times and I think he gave Stockton 51 in one of them...Kidd 39 in another...and lit up Jordans Bulls the other.

If he could come take 30 shots win or lose in a league designed for him to eat that didnt care if he ruined the defense in the process? Who knows what he is.

This isnt me saying ____ is better than ____. I dont too much care about that. Its me saying I dont even know where to begin sometimes with these comparisons.

Its like asking what some post up specialist would be in 2020. Still great at the game...but if the league doesnt allow you to exploit your greatest strength.....are you worse?

This is the first time the league has changed enough I legit feel like I cant even make some comparisons. We can just look in international play to see that the league and rules can make you wildly different impact wise. And im not sure 2001 wasnt more different relative to 2020 than say....the 06 NBA was to 06 european ball. And Vspan tears apart team usa...internationally. But cant get into a game in the NBA.

The difference really might be that striking. Great is great. I just dont know where to begin at times you know?

I didn’t read but Steph’s “gravity” pulls players away from the basket allowing lanes for wide open dunks and layups.

If you are going to say none of AI’s teammate could make a layup....Then yeah...

[tpols]

I didn’t read but Steph’s “gravity” pulls players away from the basket allowing lanes for wide open dunks and layups.

If you are going to say none of AI’s teammate could make a layup....Then yeah...

His takes are so embarrassing. Iverson would have zero chance of replicating what Curry did starting in 2015 spurring the Warriors dynasty. He seriously doesn't take into account a players ability, productions, fit or leadership on their respective teams at all. Just a giant wall of bullshit nonsense text.

[tpols]

Iverson was scoring 30 PPG in the post 2005 era where everybody was scoring 30 because they took away all handchecking and allowed little guys to slash at will. 2006 and the next few years were considered extremely easy scoring environments. So he was in the perfect environment and on a good team too. Totally shit the bed in the playoffs. This stuff is just laughable lying.

[warriorfan]

His takes are so embarrassing. Iverson would have zero chance of replicating what Curry did starting in 2015 spurring the Warriors dynasty. He seriously doesn't take into account a players ability, productions, fit or leadership on their respective teams at all. Just a giant wall of bullshit nonsense text.

:roll:

The KBlaze method of debating. When you don’t have any real substance just keep going off on wild tangents until everyone falls asleep. He is the filibuster of InsideHoops.

[tpols]

:roll:

The KBlaze method of debating. When you don’t have any real substance just keep going off on wild tangents until everyone falls asleep. He is the filibuster of InsideHoops.

For real... like Iverson is winning UMVPs and leading 73 win teams in Curry's place with just Klay spacing the floor for him? Dray and Bogut aren't shooters... Harrison Barnes has proven to be a big time bust... like... you can't help but laugh. It's mind boggling how somebody could think he'd replicate it.

[BigKobeFan]

Kblaze is one of those old grandpas that will just keep talking and talking and no one listening

[warriorfan]

Kball

[highwhey]

Kball

you're the trashiest poster on this forum, don't think i don't know you reported that thread you snitch bitch

[Kblaze8855]

I didn’t read but Steph’s “gravity” pulls players away from the basket allowing lanes for wide open dunks and layups.

If you are going to say none of AI’s teammate could make a layup....Then yeah...


How is that working out without other big time offensive players?

Lets say the warriors win 45-50 games this year. You expecting real playoff success?

If not....what are we even talking about? “Gravity” pulling defenders away from people who aren’t good doesn’t win anything.

Pull defenders from Klay and Kevin Durant....problems.

I’m reminded of when Barkley talked about how fans in the 80s said Bird and Magic made people
better and he and Jordan didnt. His response was along the lines of “Its easy to make Kevin Mchale and James Worthy better. They already good!”.

Wasnt those exact words but that was the point.

The only evidence of what Steph does with poor offensive teammates is the portion of the finals without Klay and KD and this year and the bit of last year. Maybe hang your hat on 2013 and 14?

Fact is Steph...like everyone...loses with prime AIs teams. Doesn’t matter who the replacement is. Whoever it is lost on every team they ever played on similar to his.

The peaks of talent he had were washed up Webber who went to the Pistons and did like 11 a game and retired....the 40ish games of Glenn Robinson....before he went to the Spurs and retired. The brief run with Vah horn before he went to the....Knicks? Wherever it was he was never heard from again.

The 06 76ers when they had I think rookie Iggy and old Webber are about the only team of his 10-11 years in Philly that should have been any better than it was....and they still shouldn’t have actually won.

Losing on teams that should lose doesn’t mean anything.

I don’t know why people even talk about Denver as if 32-33 year old AI was in his prime...or as if they were supposed to beat the Spurs who won the title that year or the Lakers who almost won in 08 and then did win in 09 and 10....eliminating the Nuggets on the way.


AI had essentially the perfect career for internet experts who don’t really evaluate anything to use their “But this happened so ____” meaningless logic.

AI played in the most dedicated defensive era....while expansion made teams less talented...and the rules helped defenses not the offense....and nobody ran like today. It was the worst time in history for a guy like him....or Steph.

Luckily Steph wasn’t on such teams, in such an era, with such rules, with coaches who felt shooting threes is a waste of a good post opportunity so we don’t have to ask “What if?”.

It doesn’t matter which late 90-early 2000s star guard the question is about....he simply had a harder hill to climb than he would have today. And it’s by design. Kobe...AI...Nash...none of them had the same opportunity to thrive in a league designed for it.

Shooting a lot by request on teams that desperately need you to score with no other steady option isn’t the same thing as opportunity. AI played like 6 years on teams with similar scoring talent to the 06 Lakers.

Not Steph or Kobe or Lebron or whoever would have done anything that mattered on those teams and the evidence is....none of them doing anything that mattered when they had those teams.

Best case? Make the playoffs in 06 and lose....or lose in a later round on the Nuggets.

Nobody has ever played this game who would make the 97-05 full speed prime AI 76ers a winner. So I’m not sure why it matters what anyone shoots while losing.

Yes Ray Allen I assume shoots better than AI. And then loses too.

So....what does that get you?

[hold this L]

Warriors had a 110ORtg with dogshit players in 2019, I'm not sure what your argument is. 5/7 best players for GS either didn't play, played very little or played injured. Everyone outside of Steph or Draymond.


Anyone who thinks AI and Steph are even in the same level clearly don't know what they're talking about. But if you want to see the weaker ORtg of a team that loses in the finals, here's a comparison in the last decade.

Lesser ORtg in Finals
2020 - Heat, 104 (Lakers had 110)
2018 - Cavs, 101
2017 - Cavs, 115
2016 - Cavs/Warriors, 100
2015 - Cavs, 94 (Warriors 108)
2014 - Heat, 105
2013 - Heat/Spurs, 109
2012 - OKC, 111
2011 - Heat, 108
2001 - Philly, 103

If anybody thinks AI would get that pile of trash (except for Klay) offensively to come anywhere near that ORtg Steph got them in 2019, they need to be put on a mental institution by tomorrow morning.


The primary reason Warriors lost in 2019 was because their defense was horrible due to injuries. Iggy when he was fit enough to play was flat out terrible, Looney played injured and was rushed back which may have hurt his overall career, played injured and couldn't defend like he used to, Shaun was a corpse, the emotional lesbian was injured and shouldn't have played but the Warriors were so desperate then. I don't want to turn this into excuses because Warriors have profited from injuries just as it's hurt them, just laying out that Steph offensively was turning water into wine with that pile of trash he played with. The team just couldn't defend in that final, had no depth since the depth players were starting. Also we have seen the box & 1 being used in the playoffs for the first time in the history of the sport.

[Kblaze8855]

If anybody thinks AI would get that pile of trash (except for Klay) offensively to come anywhere near that ORtg Steph got them in 2019, they need to be put on a mental institution by tomorrow morning.



I have to imagine Klay doing 26 a game on 54/59/88 has something to do with that....not that it means anything at all.

You don’t get advanced stat trophies. You win or you don’t.

[hold this L]

I have to imagine Klay doing 26 a game on 54/59/88 has something to do with that....not that it means anything at all.

You don’t get advanced stat trophies. You win or you don’t.
Unfortunately for you I've debated with enough women to know that when they're wrong, they try to change the debate. AI can't touch Steph in offensive impact, that's the facts.

Not even sure why you're even mentioning winning and AI compared to a guy that has 3 rings, and the highest winning % in the history of the regular season NBA.. and highest win % in a playoff year.

[Kblaze8855]

First of all....this isn’t a debate. It’s a conversation. I’m sitting in Bad daddy’s burgers waiting on fried pickles. I have no desire for an internet fight with someone who wants to toss numbers that mean nothing to me and chirp about “facts”.

Second....it’s fairly obvious why a reasonable person wouldn’t compare the two by success....the incredibly different teams they played on in incredibly different leagues. When one has himself, Klay, Kevin Durant and Draymond and the other has himself, Eric Snow, Aaron Mckie, Tyrone Hill and Mutombo or Theo Ratliff I’m not even listening to an argument about winning.

One had the monstars at his peak and he other had a scrappy defensive lineup that needed him to score 35 most nights to get the 88 to win.

In their only finals appearances as a teams best player one played Kobe and Shaq healthy while the other played Lebron and no Kyrie or Kevin Love. Obviously....01 AI gets to play the Lakers without Kobe after the game one they won....and without whoever you wanna call their Kevin Love...he might have a ring. He wouldn’t be any better at basketball though. Just like Steph wouldn’t if Durant had been healthy last year. He’d have won...and been the same guy with an extra ring.

Winning is and always has been largely circumstantial which is why it doesn’t settle the matter to people taking basketball....and not legacy. The people on great teams always have the legacy. It’s a given.

It has little place taking ability alone. And Steph vs Iverson on ability isn’t even something I’ve mentioned my stance on.

Doesn’t matter which one I think is best....when what I said was both would lose on those 76ers.

Knowing that....knowing whoever you give them would lose...losing isn’t the argument to make in my eyes.

Just leaves basketball. And when so many 25-30 year olds talk about the events of 20 years ago they talk nothing but numbers they googled and that just isn’t worth it for me.

Its often you guys bending over backwards to fight about some bullshit. I don’t care which of them you like more. Just writing random thoughts about basketball.

I couldn’t care less what formula you have. Just isn’t entertaining to me. I just say my peace and you can take it how you will. Such and such ratings aren’t what I’m here to read. Just killing time.

[Stephonit]

First of all....this isn’t a debate. It’s a conversation. I’m sitting in Bad daddy’s burgers waiting on fried pickles. I have no desire for an internet fight with someone who wants to toss numbers that mean nothing to me and chirp about “facts”.

Second....itÂ’s fairly obvious why a reasonable person wouldnÂ’t compare the two by success....the incredibly different teams they played on in incredibly different leagues. When one has himself, Klay, Kevin Durant and Draymond and the other has himself, Eric Snow, Aaron Mckie, Tyrone Hill and Mutombo or Theo Ratliff IÂ’m not even listening to an argument about winning.

One had the monstars at his peak and he other had a scrappy defensive lineup that needed him to score 35 most nights to get the 88 to win.

In their only finals appearances as a teams best player one played Kobe and Shaq healthy while the other played Lebron and no Kyrie or Kevin Love. Obviously....01 AI gets to play the Lakers without Kobe after the game one they won....and without whoever you wanna call their Kevin Love...he might have a ring. He wouldnÂ’t be any better at basketball though. Just like Steph wouldnÂ’t if Durant had been healthy last year. HeÂ’d have won...and been the same guy with an extra ring.

Winning is and always has been largely circumstantial which is why it doesnÂ’t settle the matter to people taking basketball....and not legacy. The people on great teams always have the legacy. ItÂ’s a given.

It has little place taking ability alone. And Steph vs Iverson on ability isnÂ’t even something IÂ’ve mentioned my stance on.

DoesnÂ’t matter which one I think is best....when what I said was both would lose on those 76ers.

Knowing that....knowing whoever you give them would lose...losing isnÂ’t the argument to make in my eyes.

Just leaves basketball. And when so many 25-30 year olds talk about the events of 20 years ago they talk nothing but numbers they googled and that just isnÂ’t worth it for me.

Its often you guys bending over backwards to fight about some bullshit. I donÂ’t care which of them you like more. Just writing random thoughts about basketball.

I couldnÂ’t care less what formula you have. Just isnÂ’t entertaining to me. I just say my peace and you can take it how you will. Such and such ratings arenÂ’t what IÂ’m here to read. Just killing time.

Kblaze8855, do you think Jordan is the best player ever? How far do you think would he take this current Warriors team?

Saying Curry only appeared once in the finals as the team's best player is baloney. He's appeared in the finals 5 times and arguably the best all five times. KD didn't get them there for four of them maybe even all five.

But let's just take the non-KD teams into consideration starting from 2013 when Curry was given the baton to lead his team so 2013-2016. Pick any 4 Iverson seasons. Compare them side-by-side to Curry's and tell me they are better.

You're sounding like an old man yelling at the clouds and even you know it.

[tpols]

It's such a shallow analysis to say that because Curry couldn't win with Iverson's teams they're somehow equal. If thats the argument Iverson is equal to just about everybody outside like a top 3 GOAT. And even they might lose. Iverson could never elevate a team to dynasty status like Curry could, and if you were to hypothetically place them in every situation across bad, mediocre, and good teams Curry would squeeze way more juice out of the situation and end up winning significantly more because he's a better individual player, team player, and leader.

Comparing Iverson to Curry is like comparing Melo to Durant... or Westbrook to Chris Paul... or Webber to Duncan. It's just insane.

[warriorfan]

Bill Russell wasn’t really that much of a winner if you think about it, if he played on AI’s teams he wouldn’t have nearly as many championships.

[Gohan]

For real... like Iverson is winning UMVPs and leading 73 win teams in Curry's place with just Klay spacing the floor for him? Dray and Bogut aren't shooters... Harrison Barnes has proven to be a big time bust... like... you can't help but laugh. It's mind boggling how somebody could think he'd replicate it.

I guarantee you warriors when 2016 finals with iverson instead of curry

[Gohan]

Lol Currys my favorite player but I can’t deny that iverson would be just as good if he played the same era. Not 2016 good but currys other years he would. He also wouldn’t get the stupid turnovers curry got. I’ll take an iverson brick instead of an ill advised turnover any day

[tpols]

I guarantee you warriors when 2016 finals with iverson instead of curry

They wouldn't have even made the Finals. Curry went nuts on the thunder which were the toughest test. Iverson would've shot them out of it easily. And that's assuming they get by Portland who held leads in every game and needed Chef to go nuclear to such an extent the very inventor of the internet, Paul Allen, was left dumbfounded at his genius.

[Axe]

you're the trashiest poster on this forum, don't think i don't know you reported that thread you snitch bitch
Welfarefan thought he could easily get away with his amusing shtick but we are all aware that everytime something gets deleted instantly, he's the only unanimous suspect to be pointed out. :ohwell:

[Kblaze8855]

It's such a shallow analysis to say that because Curry couldn't win with Iverson's teams they're somehow equal. If thats the argument Iverson is equal to just about everybody outside like a top 3 GOAT. And even they might lose. Iverson could never elevate a team to dynasty status like Curry could, and if you were to hypothetically place them in every situation across bad, mediocre, and good teams Curry would squeeze way more juice out of the situation and end up winning significantly more because he's a better individual player, team player, and leader.

Comparing Iverson to Curry is like comparing Melo to Durant... or Westbrook to Chris Paul... or Webber to Duncan. It's just insane.


Youre nibbling on it but not quite getting the meal im serving. Problem is youre starting with the assumption that "These players would get similar results in this situation" means I think they are the same to begin with. And that is not the case. Go look at the 88 hawks and 88 Bulls. Id say Oakley was the third best player on those two rosters...then Doc Rivers...then a tossup of role players. Both win 50 games and lose in the second round. One to the Pistons one to the Celtics. Similar results with similar teams.

Doesnt mean Nique and Jordan are the same.

It means basketball isnt as simple as "Well...what did/would ______ win".

And saying that doesnt mean I have issues with anyones conclusion about Jordan/Nique or AI/Steph. In the second one I dont care who you take. You have never even heard me say a bad word about Steph. You have not heard me talk shit about AI. They are both among my favorite players. You can rank Steph 12th all time and AI 39th for all I care. That means nothing to me.

What means something to me.....is the argument. Who won what simply has no place when neither of them would win in the less accomplished players situation. You think hes better at basketball....has abilities you value more? I couldnt care less. "This guy won 3 rings and this guy didnt win anything" is just a bad argument when they would both be losers if both faced the situation the loser lost in. Its legacy talk. Not basketball.

[Kblaze8855]

Bill Russell wasn’t really that much of a winner if you think about it, if he played on AI’s teams he wouldn’t have nearly as many championships.


Winning and losing are facts. Why you won and lost are opinions.

In Russells case he won 2 state titles, back to back NCAA titles with 55 wins in a row, the gold medal by a record margin, the NBA title as a rookie, got hurt his second season and they lost...won 8 in a row healthy....lost the one elimination game he was healthy for....in his entire life....then he player/coached the team to two more...last of which was as the bottom seed in the east facing 2 superteams on the way...at which point he retired and they missed the playoffs.

Bill Russell is victory itself. The human avatar of the abstract god of success.

And yet....the idea that people who won less cant be compared because of it....is absurd. Oscar won nothing in the same league Russell won everything and half the people thought Oscar was the best player ever at the time. The winning is a legacy matter. There was and will always be a basketball question to be asked regardless.

And we get back to the fact that having or not having more success in a similar situation is not the same as being better or worse. Its a combo of many circumstances. Jordan wouldnt win on the 04 76ers. Doesnt mean he isnt better than Iverson. It means Iverson not winning is a bad point to make. The argument doesnt require it. Youre just conditioned to think it does by decades of sports talk trying to dumb the conversation for casuals who are lost when we get past "Its the only argument I need Shawn!".

A radio caller will never talk about Jordans footwork or defensive recovery speed. That isnt what sports talk is.

Thats what basketball is though.

I dont even have to disagree with someones conclusion to explain the problem with how they reached it.

Sure....I think Magic is better than AI.

I also think its stupid to list rings and accomplishments as a reason why when one of them had an average at best team and the other had 4 all stars starting with 2 hall of famers and a DPOY on the bench. That shit is just steak sauce...not the steak. Maybe you want a little steak sauce....but usually? You only use it when the steak isnt that good. It covers a spotty argument in a similar way.

If your steak is good....you dont need to spoon some bullshit on it....even if casual steak fans really like it. Let them add that. Their business. You paid 140 dollars for a porterhouse for 2....you arent gonna drown it in 2 dollar sauce to make it taste like one from applebees.

Respect the steak. If they dont get why its good....thats on them. Dont ruin your steak to fit in.

[tpols]

"This guy won 3 rings and this guy didnt win anything" is just a bad argument when they would both be losers if both faced the situation the loser lost in. Its legacy talk. Not basketball.

They would both be losers in the situation the loser lost in, but one would be a winner, and one would be a loser, in the situation the winner won in.

You're not considering the half the equation. And the most important one to be frank.

[warriorfan]

Winning and losing are facts. Why you won and lost are opinions.

In Russells case he won 2 state titles, back to back NCAA titles with 55 wins in a row, the gold medal by a record margin, the NBA title as a rookie, got hurt his second season and they lost...won 8 in a row healthy....lost the one elimination game he was healthy for....in his entire life....then he player/coached the team to two more...last of which was as the bottom seed in the east facing 2 superteams on the way...at which point he retired and they missed the playoffs.

Bill Russell is victory itself. The human avatar of the abstract god of success.

And yet....the idea that people who won less cant be compared because of it....is absurd. Oscar won nothing in the same league Russell won everything and half the people thought Oscar was the best player ever at the time. The winning is a legacy matter. There was and will always be a basketball question to be asked regardless.

And we get back to the fact that having or not having more success in a similar situation is not the same as being better or worse. Its a combo of many circumstances. Jordan wouldnt win on the 04 76ers. Doesnt mean he isnt better than Iverson. It means Iverson not winning is a bad point to make. The argument doesnt require it. Youre just conditioned to think it does by decades of sports talk trying to dumb the conversation for casuals who are lost when we get past "Its the only argument I need Shawn!".

A radio caller will never talk about Jordans footwork or defensive recovery speed. That isnt what sports talk is.

Thats what basketball is though.

I dont even have to disagree with someones conclusion to explain the problem with how they reached it.

Sure....I think Magic is better than AI.

I also think its stupid to list rings and accomplishments as a reason why when one of them had an average at best team and the other had 4 all stars starting with 2 hall of famers and a DPOY on the bench. That shit is just steak sauce...not the steak. Maybe you want a little steak sauce....but usually? You only use it when the steak isnt that good. It covers a spotty argument in a similar way.

If your steak is good....you dont need to spoon some bullshit on it....even if casual steak fans really like it. Let them add that. Their business. You paid 140 dollars for a porterhouse for 2....you arent gonna drown it in 2 dollar sauce to make it taste like one from applebees.

Respect the steak. If they dont get why its good....thats on them. Dont ruin your steak to fit in.

Literally all the stuff you listed is completely irrelevant if we are keeping consistent with your criteria.

Bill Russell wouldn’t have had the same success if he played on AI’s team, so you can’t really say either way who was more of a winner.

[Kblaze8855]

It isn’t my criteria. It’s you trying extrapolate a conclusion when my point isn’t about the answer....but the path to it.

Added to that “You can’t say who is more of a winner” is nothing I said to begin with.

Winning and losing are...as I said...facts. Everyone who won is a winner.