The Value of High Minutes Players such as Wilt and Iverson

[coastalmarker99]

In 1962 Wilt Chamberlain played 48.5 minutes per game, the average number of possessions per game 129.8 possessions. Wilt was playing 130 possessions a game, he didn’t spend a single possession off the court. A lot of people have started to use this against him, saying that his scoring numbers are inflated by the minutes he played, but what they don’t realize is that Wilt is actually giving more value by playing more possessions.

Wilt playing every single minute for a bad team keeps a below-average center from entering the game giving his team more value. It also accumulates more defensive value, if you put Wilt in any era on any team and he’s still shutting down the rim for 48 minutes a game. This also ties into all-time defenders like Bill Russell, not only is Bill the most “skilled” defender ever but he’s giving you that value for 45.2 minutes a game.

A high minutes player gives a lot of floor raising value. Take a player like Steph Curry, due to him constantly running around off the ball he depletes his energy meaning that he can only play a certain amount of minutes per game. On a championship-level team that doesn’t hinder his value that much, obviously, you’d rather have Stephen Curry in the game instead of Shaun Livingston but the supporting cast is usually good enough to keep the team afloat with their best player off the court.

Or in Steph’s case, the team went up by so much with him on the court that they couldn’t blow the lead when they went off. Where this really impacts a team is in the floor raising department. Curry is currently playing 34 minutes a game and the team falls apart in the 14 minutes he’s off the court. If you were to put a player like Wilt into a similar situation though, he would give more value just because he can stay on the court for more possessions.

The “Per 75” method has been adopted in player comparisons too, people in the NBA community often suggest someone like Manu was better than someone like Iverson due to his numbers per 75 possessions. What people don’t realize when doing this comparison is that Manu doesn’t provide the same impact as Iverson since he played so many fewer minutes.

In his season with the most minutes played, Manu only played 31.1 minutes per game versus Iverson who played 43.7 minutes a game as a 6-foot shooting guard in 2002. Iverson was also taking in a much higher load and was much more active than Ginobli. AI playing that much more minutes means that he can play on any team and give value versus Manu who can only give you the same value on a perfectly constructed roster like the Spurs which is why comparing his per 75 numbers to a high minutes player such as Iverson is stupid. Allen Iverson gives more global impact.

When a player can maintain a high load and play high minutes, he gives you an insanely high impact. Look at a player like KG, the most active defender of all time who led his team in every offensive category while playing 40 minutes a game. Always boxing out off the ball and going after every loose ball available. A player with that high of a motor who is also playing high minutes gives you insane value and we’ve started to underrate these types of guys through the emergence of pace adjusted stats.

[Xiao Yao You]

In 1962 Wilt Chamberlain played 48.5 minutes per game, the average number of possessions per game 129.8 possessions. Wilt was playing 130 possessions a game, he didn’t spend a single possession off the court. A lot of people have started to use this against him, saying that his scoring numbers are inflated by the minutes he played, but what they don’t realize is that Wilt is actually giving more value by playing more possessions.

Wilt playing every single minute for a bad team keeps a below-average center from entering the game giving his team more value. It also accumulates more defensive value, if you put Wilt in any era on any team and he’s still shutting down the rim for 48 minutes a game. This also ties into all-time defenders like Bill Russell, not only is Bill the most “skilled” defender ever but he’s giving you that value for 45.2 minutes a game.

A high minutes player gives a lot of floor raising value. Take a player like Steph Curry, due to him constantly running around off the ball he depletes his energy meaning that he can only play a certain amount of minutes per game. On a championship-level team that doesn’t hinder his value that much, obviously, you’d rather have Stephen Curry in the game instead of Shaun Livingston but the supporting cast is usually good enough to keep the team afloat with their best player off the court.

Or in Steph’s case, the team went up by so much with him on the court that they couldn’t blow the lead when they went off. Where this really impacts a team is in the floor raising department. Curry is currently playing 34 minutes a game and the team falls apart in the 14 minutes he’s off the court. If you were to put a player like Wilt into a similar situation though, he would give more value just because he can stay on the court for more possessions.

The “Per 75” method has been adopted in player comparisons too, people in the NBA community often suggest someone like Manu was better than someone like Iverson due to his numbers per 75 possessions. What people don’t realize when doing this comparison is that Manu doesn’t provide the same impact as Iverson since he played so many fewer minutes.

In his season with the most minutes played, Manu only played 31.1 minutes per game versus Iverson who played 43.7 minutes a game as a 6-foot shooting guard in 2002. Iverson was also taking in a much higher load and was much more active than Ginobli. AI playing that much more minutes means that he can play on any team and give value versus Manu who can only give you the same value on a perfectly constructed roster like the Spurs which is why comparing his per 75 numbers to a high minutes player such as Iverson is stupid. Allen Iverson gives more global impact.

When a player can maintain a high load and play high minutes, he gives you an insanely high impact. Look at a player like KG, the most active defender of all time who led his team in every offensive category while playing 40 minutes a game. Always boxing out off the ball and going after every loose ball available. A player with that high of a motor who is also playing high minutes gives you insane value and we’ve started to underrate these types of guys through the emergence of pace adjusted stats.

who's to say Manu couldn't have played more. I'd take Manu over Iverson any day

[coastalmarker99]

who's to say Manu couldn't have played more. I'd take Manu over Iverson any day

I would take Iverson over Manu any day of the week as Manu would never be able to carry a bad team to the finals like Iverson did in 2001

[FKAri]

who's to say Manu couldn't have played more. I'd take Manu over Iverson any day

Manu can't carry that kind of load. On the other hand, Iverson can't really NOT carry a load.

[tpols]

I would take Iverson over Manu any day of the week as Manu would never be able to carry a bad team to the finals like Iverson did in 2001

That's a myth. The Sixers elite defense is what carried them that year, not their offense. Iverson was outshot by everybody Carter, Ray, and Kobe in that run. Vince and Ray Allen in particular massively outshot him. I dont think its a stretch to say prime manu couldn't put up one long playoff run in his career. '04 Manu embarrassed Iverson in the 2004 Olympics too. Totally dominated him.

[Smoke117]

Manu is overrated, but still a much better player than Iverson. That isn’t saying much, though, considering Iverson is probably the most overrated professional athlete in sports history.

[SouBeachTalents]

That's a myth. The Sixers elite defense is what carried them that year, not their offense. Iverson was outshot by everybody Carter, Ray, and Kobe in that run. Vince and Ray Allen in particular massively outshot him. I dont think its a stretch to say prime manu couldn't put up one long playoff run in his career. '04 Manu embarrassed Iverson in the 2004 Olympics too. Totally dominated him.
Reggie did too, scored 1 less point on 15 less shots on 10% higher TS%

[iamgine]

Playing high minutes was the norm back then. Bill Russell played 45 minutes. Oscar played 44 minutes. Even unknowns like Bucky Bockhorn were playing like 38 minutes.

NBA athletes can play 48 minutes no problem. Heck, even non-NBA athletes in the park could play for 3-4 hours. Soccer players play for 90 minutes a game in a bigger field. When players play high minutes, they just take more moments of rests. It's as simple as that.

[HBK_Kliq_2]

Manu is such a better player then Iverson per minute, I think spurs lose the title in 2005 if you flip them and that's even if you give Iverson all the extra minutes. Manu is just a better shooter, better passer, better playmaker, wayyyy better defender. Even old Manu in 2014 title was the 2nd best spurs player in RAPTOR behind kawhi.

Manu's minutes per game in this era wouldn't even be a knock on him either, giannis just won mvp last season and he was playing like 32 minutes a game.

Manu is just a way better player then Iverson on my eye test, most high iq fans would agree.

[Gohan]

imma clap all you muphuckas. f all yall

[Gohan]

close this thread now before i shoot. dont call me on my bluff, i just drank my potion.

[Smoke117]

Hey look, it’s that Gohan “Iverson’s a top 5 to 10 all time player” retard. :lol

[Gohan]

Hey look, it’s that Gohan “Iverson’s a top 5 to 10 all time player” retard. :lol

you think its a game kid, im not the nikka for playing games, i let my gunshots rang from the trigger of my gauge.


aint nothing on my mind but getting in some trouble

[SATAN]

you think its a game kid, im not the nikka for playing games, i let my gunshots rang from the trigger of my gauge.


aint nothing on my mind but getting in some trouble

Ever tried meditation? I've heard it works wonders.

[Gohan]

Ever tried meditation? I've heard it works wonders.

now you know i stay in that hyperbolic time chamber just to calm my nerves

[Smoke117]

Ever tried meditation? I've heard it works wonders.

Homeboy needs to lay off the crack and lean.

[dankok8]

Calling Manu better than Iverson is ignorant. Put Manu on that 2001 Sixers team and they are in the lottery.

[Xiao Yao You]

Calling Manu better than Iverson is ignorant. Put Manu on that 2001 Sixers team and they are in the lottery.

Iverson on any Spurs team means no ring

[dankok8]

Iverson on any Spurs team means no ring

Why? AI would shoot much less and have much better efficiency playing with Duncan. I don't think people realize the huge load Iverson carried in Philly. When you're taking 25 shots a game playing with no scorers, teams will load up on you. Plus as I explained in a recent thread his bad scoring efficiency underrates his overall offensive efficiency because he committed historically low turnovers. Overall offensively he wasn't an inefficient player.

[ImKobe]

Calling Manu better than Iverson is ignorant. Put Manu on that 2001 Sixers team and they are in the lottery.

Agreed on the first part. There's no chance they're sniffing the Finals if you asked Manu to carry the scoring load like AI did. I do think he could lead them to the Playoffs with the roster they had, but they're less successful, obviously.


Iverson on any Spurs team means no ring

Doubt this. AI on the Spurs means that he has the elite defense around him that he did in Philly, but he'd also save a lot of energy because he wouldn't have to be chucking 25-30 shots a game to keep his team in games. He'd be a lot more efficient and would get to rest more before the Playoffs, resulting in more team success.

[Xiao Yao You]

Why? AI would shoot much less and have much better efficiency playing with Duncan. I don't think people realize the huge load Iverson carried in Philly. When you're taking 25 shots a game playing with no scorers, teams will load up on you. Plus as I explained in a recent thread his bad scoring efficiency underrates his overall offensive efficiency because he committed historically low turnovers. Overall offensively he wasn't an inefficient player.

Why would he shoot less? No one forced him to take bad shots against triple teams in Philly

[Axe]

you think its a game kid, im not the nikka for playing games, i let my gunshots rang from the trigger of my gauge.


aint nothing on my mind but getting in some trouble
Avoid using the N word as much as possible lol

[HBK_Kliq_2]

Calling Manu better than Iverson is ignorant. Put Manu on that 2001 Sixers team and they are in the lottery.

https://stathead.com/basketball/pcm_finder.cgi?request=1&sum=0&player_id1=iversal01&p1yrfrom=2001&player_id2=ginobma01&p2yrfrom=2005

Per 100 possesions comparing Iverson 2001 playoffs vs Manu 2005 playoffs

Iverson has to take 15 more shots per 100 possesions just to get 5 more PPG

Iverson has less VORP despite playing 244 more minutes

Manu has the higher PER

Manu has 1.5 more win shares despite the massive minute gap

65% freethrow rate for Manu vs 32% for Iverson so manu gets to the line better also

On|Off - Manu +19.8

On\off - Iverson -5.2

So Manu beats Iverson in bball reference on\off by a total of +25

Duncan sucked that year and Manu had to carry him. These stats all show that Manu is closer to Kobe\Wade then he is to Iverson.

[HBK_Kliq_2]

Mutombo on\off in 2001 = +11.5

Tim Duncan on\off in 2005 = -5.2

Mutombo was way more important to 76ers in the 2001 playoffs then Duncan was to spurs in 2005 playoffs.

[ImKobe]

https://stathead.com/basketball/pcm_finder.cgi?request=1&sum=0&player_id1=iversal01&p1yrfrom=2001&player_id2=ginobma01&p2yrfrom=2005

Per 100 possesions comparing Iverson 2001 playoffs vs Manu 2005 playoffs

Iverson has to take 15 more shots per 100 possesions just to get 5 more PPG

Iverson has less VORP despite playing 244 more minutes

Manu has the higher PER

Manu has 1.5 more win shares despite the massive minute gap

65% freethrow rate for Manu vs 32% for Iverson so manu gets to the line better also

On|Off - Manu +19.8

On\off - Iverson -5.2

So Manu beats Iverson in bball reference on\off by a total of +25

Duncan sucked that year and Manu had to carry him. These stats all show that Manu is closer to Kobe\Wade then he is to Iverson.

AI played 46.2 mpg in the '01 POs (so basically every minute but garbage time) compared to Manu's 33.6 mpg in '05. The on/off & VORP numbers are meaningless when he's on the court 95+% of the time. Also, Manu's numbers are post-rule changes, just look at how AI's efficiency & FTA increased after '04.

[Gohan]

Avoid using the N word as much as possible lol

oh ok thanks for the heads up..



also, iverson played off the ball mostly in 2001 and if yo watched him you could clearly see he made his team better

[tpols]

Why? AI would shoot much less and have much better efficiency playing with Duncan. I don't think people realize the huge load Iverson carried in Philly. When you're taking 25 shots a game playing with no scorers, teams will load up on you. Plus as I explained in a recent thread his bad scoring efficiency underrates his overall offensive efficiency because he committed historically low turnovers. Overall offensively he wasn't an inefficient player.

Iverson played with Duncan on the 2004 Olympic team, took the most shots on the team, shot like shit and got us the bronze medal. People think Iverson only shot a lot when he had poor offensive help... that's not true. He shot a lot no matter what because he was a greedy low IQ player. We already know he loses with peak Duncan to international teams. What makes you think they'd beat contenders in the NBA? He could have ruined duncans career.

[dankok8]

Iverson played with Duncan on the 2004 Olympic team, took the most shots on the team, shot like shit and got us the bronze medal. People think Iverson only shot a lot when he had poor offensive help... that's not true. He shot a lot no matter what because he was a greedy low IQ player. We already know he loses with peak Duncan to international teams. What makes you think they'd beat contenders in the NBA? He could have ruined duncans career.

Olympics are a small sample size. An already declining AI in Denver took 19 shots a game to score 25-26 ppg over one and a half seasons. His scoring efficiency was above league average in those years. Comparing Manu playing as a 2nd option on the Spurs with AI scoring something like 40% of his team's points in Philly and pretty much no one to take pressure off of him is an apples and oranges comparison.

[tpols]

Olympics are a small sample size. An already declining AI in Denver took 19 shots a game to score 25-26 ppg over one and a half seasons. His scoring efficiency was above league average in those years. Comparing Manu playing as a 2nd option on the Spurs with AI scoring something like 40% of his team's points in Philly and pretty much no one to take pressure off of him is an apples and oranges comparison.

Iverson shot 39% in the playoffs with Denver. His efficiency again was poor when it mattered. They replaced him with a super efficient, high IQ Chauncey Billups and went farther than they ever did with AI.

[dankok8]

Iverson shot 39% in the playoffs with Denver. His efficiency again was poor when it mattered. They replaced him with a super efficient, high IQ Chauncey Billups and went farther than they ever did with AI.

They faced the Spurs and Lakers in the playoffs and Melo was injured in the latter series IIRC. I won't make too much of 9 playoff games. We have 130 games of AI shooting well above league average in Denver. The notion he would be the same player on the Spurs as he was on the Sixers is pretty crazy IMO.

[HBK_Kliq_2]

AI played 46.2 mpg in the '01 POs (so basically every minute but garbage time) compared to Manu's 33.6 mpg in '05. The on/off & VORP numbers are meaningless when he's on the court 95+% of the time. Also, Manu's numbers are post-rule changes, just look at how AI's efficiency & FTA increased after '04.

+25 advantage in on/off is just an embarrassing number that is too much to overlook. Manu also went up against one of the greatest defenses ever in 2005 pistons.

I don't see the argument for Iverson other then he took more shots.

[dankok8]

+25 advantage in on/off is just an embarrassing number that is too much to overlook. Manu also went up against one of the greatest defenses ever in 2005 pistons.

I don't see the argument for Iverson other then he took more shots.

Iverson faced that same Pistons team in the 2005 playoffs and averaged 31/10 on 56 %TS but carry on.

Beating bad arguments with bad arguments! :oldlol:

Why don't you make a case for why AI is not a great player. His teams overachieved, he averaged historically high scoring volumes , historically low turnovers paying with poor offensive rosters.

[HBK_Kliq_2]

Iverson faced that same Pistons team in the 2005 playoffs and averaged 31/10 on 56 %TS but carry on.

Beating bad arguments with bad arguments! :oldlol:

Why don't you make a case for why AI is not a great player. His teams overachieved, he averaged historically high scoring volumes , historically low turnovers paying with poor offensive rosters.

Manu won the series and Iverson lost 1-4 though.

Webber averaged 19PPG on 41% FG for iversons team

Duncan averaged 20PPG on 41% FG for Manu's team

See what I did there? Now do you want to continue to act like defense doesn't exist? Because Manu is 2 or 3 times the defensive player that Iverson is.

All the metrics say Duncan was shit and manu had to carry him those playoffs.

[HBK_Kliq_2]

Also 2005 playoffs rounds 2,3,4

Duncan only 79 more total minutes then Manu. So that's 26 more total minutes a series. That's not significant at all, like 5 extra minutes a game.

Duncan didn't really do much that season, besides be a giant Iverson pretty much (super high usage, jacking up tons of bricks, teams better when he's on bench).

[HBK_Kliq_2]

Iverson played with Duncan on the 2004 Olympic team, took the most shots on the team, shot like shit and got us the bronze medal. People think Iverson only shot a lot when he had poor offensive help... that's not true. He shot a lot no matter what because he was a greedy low IQ player. We already know he loses with peak Duncan to international teams. What makes you think they'd beat contenders in the NBA? He could have ruined duncans career.

OP had a decent argument with the minutes thing but Manu is a rare exception. Manu was very Draymond Green lite. He's actually the most important and best player on those title teams, the media just gives all the credit to Curry/Duncan because they are more marketable i guess.

[dankok8]

Manu won the series and Iverson lost 1-4 though.

Webber averaged 19PPG on 41% FG for iversons team

Duncan averaged 20PPG on 41% FG for Manu's team

See what I did there? Now do you want to continue to act like defense doesn't exist? Because Manu is 2 or 3 times the defensive player that Iverson is.

All the metrics say Duncan was shit and manu had to carry him those playoffs.

Based on the bolded I'm really starting to think you have no clue about basketball.

[HBK_Kliq_2]

Based on the bolded I'm really starting to think you have no clue about basketball.

Can you show me any evidence disputing the claim? Because I have lots of evidence

[Spain_]

who's to say Manu couldn't have played more. I'd take Manu over Iverson any day

The game is 5x5, and teams are allowed a 12 man roster.
Having a player play 48 minutes a game on very high usage is just bad coaching and bad basketball.
Manu, as a guy who in his prime played about 28 minutes per game had a bigger inpact on actual winning than a lot of guys that played 35 with high usage and had seemingly better numbers than him.
In terms of just raw talent and bball ability, Manu was probably a top 5 SG in the league in his prime, but he only made 2 All Star teams and 2 All NBA teams in his career because people have a fetish for raw stats.

[Spain_]

These are the top scoring SGs of the 2007-2008 season, when Manu averaged 19.5 4.8 4.5 on 40% from 3 in 31 mpg


1.Kobe 28.3
2. AI 26 (on really bad efficiency)
3. Kevin Martin 23.5
4. Michael Redd 22
5. Joe Jonson 22
6. T-Mac 22 (sub 30% from 3)
7. VC 21
8. Jamal Crawford 21
9. Monta Ellis 20
10. Manu

Manu had a higher efg % than all of them

Besides Kobe, I wouldnt choose any of these guys over manu in 2007-08

[Spain_]

Manu didnt make an All star team but only the 3rd All Nba team that year.

Not to mention the stuff than Manu has done with Team Argentina, they beat a very stacked team US in 04 in a high stakes elimination game quite easily.
I dont think AI wins the 04 Olympics with team Argentina.

[Reggie43]

Iverson was an Mvp level talent that lead his own team to the Finals.

Manu was one of the smartest players ever and won championships as the Spurs do it all 3rd option and had the luxury of playing with a Goat level player in Duncan.

You could hate on Iverson all you want and he really deserves criticism for the way he played but Manu is not better than him. Being smarter and easier to play with doesnt make you better especially for a career 3rd option that has never experienced being a franchise player and the focal point of opposing defenses in the Nba.

[ImKobe]

+25 advantage in on/off is just an embarrassing number that is too much to overlook. Manu also went up against one of the greatest defenses ever in 2005 pistons.

I don't see the argument for Iverson other then he took more shots.

Are you this dense? The On/Off numbers mean nothing for AI in the '01 Playoffs when he was off the court for about a total of 50 minutes for the entire Playoff run (garbage time) compared to 300+ for Manu. :facepalm

Oh, and they both played the Pistons in '05

AI: 31.2 ppg 10.0 apg 56.2%TS 22.8 GmSc
Manu: 18.7 ppg 4.0 apg 63.6%TS 14.1 GmSC

So Manu was more efficient as a 2nd option and at about half the volume that AI scored at. Put AI on the Spurs and they don't need a Game 7.

[Xiao Yao You]

Are you this dense? The On/Off numbers mean nothing for AI in the '01 Playoffs when he was off the court for about a total of 50 minutes for the entire Playoff run (garbage time) compared to 300+ for Manu. :facepalm

Oh, and they both played the Pistons in '05

AI: 31.2 ppg 10.0 apg 56.2%TS 22.8 GmSc
Manu: 18.7 ppg 4.0 apg 63.6%TS 14.1 GmSC

So Manu was more efficient as a 2nd option and at about half the volume that AI scored at. Put AI on the Spurs and they don't need a Game 7.

AI on the Spurs and Pop calls it quits and Duncan asks for a trade. He wouldn't have fit

[ImKobe]

AI on the Spurs and Pop calls it quits and Duncan asks for a trade. He wouldn't have fit

Sure.. Duncan was fine with being a 2nd option to TP & Manu in many Playoff series, but AI would be a problem here? You must not have seen much of Parker on the Spurs, he'd go chuck mode every now and then and Pop would reign him in. Nothing fixes team chemistry more than winning. Also, Duncan in the early 2000s wanted to leave San Antonio to team up with T-Mac, another "chucker".

[ShawkFactory]

Sure.. Duncan was fine with being a 2nd option to TP & Manu in many Playoff series, but AI would be a problem here? You must not have seen much of Parker on the Spurs, he'd go chuck mode every now and then and Pop would reign him in. Nothing fixes team chemistry more than winning. Also, Duncan in the early 2000s wanted to leave San Antonio to team up with T-Mac, another "chucker".

That was in 2000, before McGrady was with Orlando. Before he was even a regular starter.

[WhiteKyrie]

That's a myth. The Sixers elite defense is what carried them that year, not their offense. Iverson was outshot by everybody Carter, Ray, and Kobe in that run. Vince and Ray Allen in particular massively outshot him. I dont think its a stretch to say prime manu couldn't put up one long playoff run in his career. '04 Manu embarrassed Iverson in the 2004 Olympics too. Totally dominated him.
Manu didnt guard him?

And he can’t defend on ball for shit, so he definitely wouldn’t be able to stay in front of Allen Iverson, even if that was his assignment.

And Iverson didnt guard Manu either, so how did he dominate him?

Manu was easily his teams best player. So there was a hierarchy. Easier for him to put up numbers. Not as many mouths, egos to feed with the basketball.

The 2004 Olympic team was a mess.

Most of our best players werent playing, other ones that pulled out from team USA the year prior in 2003, the same squad the beat the hell out of the same Argentina team?

We didnt have most of those players. We had a lot of redundant players and not a lot of shooters. Tim Duncan was supposed to be our teams best player, yet was kind of trash in internationally.

2004 Allen Iverson was the best player on team USA. And the year prior when they beat everybody in the qualifying tournament. He also was their best player. Or at worst second best after McGrady.

Whats your point besides underrating Allen Iverson?

So based on your logic was Kobe the third best player for Team USA in the 2008 Olympics? Because statistically LeBron and Wade where superior.

[tpols]

Manu didnt guard him?

And he can’t defend on ball for shit, so he definitely wouldn’t be able to stay in front of Allen Iverson, even if that was his assignment.

And Iverson didnt guard Manu either, so how did he dominate him?

Manu was easily his teams best player. So there was a hierarchy. Easier for him to put up numbers. Not as many mouths, egos to feed with the basketball.

The 2004 Olympic team was a mess.

Most of our best players werent playing, other ones that pulled out from team USA the year prior in 2003, the same squad the beat the hell out of the same Argentina team?

We didnt have most of those players. We had a lot of redundant players and not a lot of shooters. Tim Duncan was supposed to be our teams best player, yet was kind of trash in internationally.

2004 Allen Iverson was the best player on team USA. And the year prior when they beat everybody in the qualifying tournament. He also was their best player. Or at worst second best after McGrady.

Whats your point besides underrating Allen Iverson?

So based on your logic was Kobe the third best player for Team USA in the 2008 Olympics? Because statistically LeBron and Wade where superior.

Iverson took (by far) the most shots for his team just like Manu did over the course of the tournament. In the famous knockout game between USA and Argentina, Iverson took 12 shots, Manu took 13. Manu made 9/13 shots and scored 29 points. Iverson shot 3/12 and had 10 points. Joke. Manu totally shit on him on a nuetral stage with less help. You wrote a lot of words but there's no way you can spin it.

And the way you just disregarded Manus big defensive ability advantage over AI shows your further ignorance, and quite frankly racism ~ because he's white and not as athletic he cant be a good defender, but we know for a fact Manu was a very good defender based on every metric and evaluation, while Iverson was an undersized liability that got targeted. Not cool bro.

[Xiao Yao You]

Sure.. Duncan was fine with being a 2nd option to TP & Manu in many Playoff series, but AI would be a problem here? You must not have seen much of Parker on the Spurs, he'd go chuck mode every now and then and Pop would reign him in. Nothing fixes team chemistry more than winning. Also, Duncan in the early 2000s wanted to leave San Antonio to team up with T-Mac, another "chucker".

yes he would be be a problem. the spurs were the ultimate team. Iverson was the opposite. never got the impression Iverson was all about winning. He could have chose to take a role at the end of his career for the sake of winning and he preferred to hang it up since no one wanted him gunning anymore. Mcgrady was hardly a gunner like Iverson. Few were

[Xiao Yao You]

Manu didnt guard him?

And he can’t defend on ball for shit, so he definitely wouldn’t be able to stay in front of Allen Iverson, even if that was his assignment.

And Iverson didnt guard Manu either, so how did he dominate him?

Manu was easily his teams best player. So there was a hierarchy. Easier for him to put up numbers. Not as many mouths, egos to feed with the basketball.

The 2004 Olympic team was a mess.

Most of our best players werent playing, other ones that pulled out from team USA the year prior in 2003, the same squad the beat the hell out of the same Argentina team?

We didnt have most of those players. We had a lot of redundant players and not a lot of shooters. Tim Duncan was supposed to be our teams best player, yet was kind of trash in internationally.

2004 Allen Iverson was the best player on team USA. And the year prior when they beat everybody in the qualifying tournament. He also was their best player. Or at worst second best after McGrady.

Whats your point besides underrating Allen Iverson?

So based on your logic was Kobe the third best player for Team USA in the 2008 Olympics? Because statistically LeBron and Wade where superior.

2004 team was a mess and Iverson was the main reason. Larry Brown was able to make it all work one year in Philly but Iverson wasn't a guy you were going to win big with

[dankok8]

People hating on Philly Iverson still can't address the points that I made. Yes he shot poorly but:
- he shot on incredibly high volumes
- he was the only scoring threat on his teams
- he was a capable playmaker
- he averaged historically low turnovers
- he played in the slowest and most defensive era in league history

and most importantly...

- his teams actually overachieved

He led several teams to better records and playoff results than could be expected which brings us to the obvious conclusion... he obviously did a lot of things right to help his team. This wasn't a guy dragging his teams down but he was lifting them up. And that's not my opinion.

Here are AI's stats in his prime Philly years from 2001-2006:

Season: 30.1 ppg, 3.9 rpg, 6.3 apg, 2.5 spg, 0.3 bpg on 51.3 %TS (-1.0 rTS) with 3.8 topg
Playoffs: 32.0 ppg, 4.2 rpg, 6.7 apg, 2.4 spg, 0.2 bpg on 49.7 %TS (-2.6 rTS) with 3.3 topg

Shooting 2.6 points below league average in efficiency on that volume looks bad but is actually pretty decent. Apart from MJ, give me another player who consistently shot more efficiently than AI on similar volume and with little offensive help... examples are very few.

AI had a a playoff ORtg of 106.0 in that span which was above league average of about 104.

And how much did his teams depend on him? Well...

2001: 50-21 with/6-5 without
2002: 36-24 with/7-15 without
2003: 48-34 with/0-0 without
2004: 19-29 with/14-20 without
2005: 41-34 with/2-5 without
2006: 35-37 with/1-9 without

For those 6 seasons, AI's Sixers played at a 229-179 (46-win pace) with him and 30-54 (29-win pace) without him. It shows that his impact on that team was rather huge. 17 wins is no small improvement. Those are pretty big samples as well.

Those teams had pretty low ceiling of roughly 50-ish wins but that's isn't surprising given the total lack of offensive talent even in 2001 which was their best team.

[mehyaM24]

iverson was nice but overrated at the same time. plenty of players carried teams on their back, but were efficient doing it. iverson only being 6 foot doesn't give him a pass lol

[HBK_Kliq_2]

Are you this dense? The On/Off numbers mean nothing for AI in the '01 Playoffs when he was off the court for about a total of 50 minutes for the entire Playoff run (garbage time) compared to 300+ for Manu. :facepalm

Oh, and they both played the Pistons in '05

AI: 31.2 ppg 10.0 apg 56.2%TS 22.8 GmSc
Manu: 18.7 ppg 4.0 apg 63.6%TS 14.1 GmSC

So Manu was more efficient as a 2nd option and at about half the volume that AI scored at. Put AI on the Spurs and they don't need a Game 7.

That still doesn't change the fact that Manu was a +20 on/off. He carried them to the title. Duncan was terrible those playoffs, especially in the finals when he was shut down by rasheed and manu had to save them. Spurs relied on Manu to carry them, Iverson just played a lot of minutes.

Manu actually was by far the best offensive player on his team that eliminated the 2005 pistons, Iverson lost to them 1-4. Those are not comparable situations.

[HBK_Kliq_2]

People hating on Philly Iverson still can't address the points that I made. Yes he shot poorly but:
- he shot on incredibly high volumes
- he was the only scoring threat on his teams
- he was a capable playmaker
- he averaged historically low turnovers
- he played in the slowest and most defensive era in league history

and most importantly...

- his teams actually overachieved

He led several teams to better records and playoff results than could be expected which brings us to the obvious conclusion... he obviously did a lot of things right to help his team. This wasn't a guy dragging his teams down but he was lifting them up. And that's not my opinion.

Here are AI's stats in his prime Philly years from 2001-2006:

Season: 30.1 ppg, 3.9 rpg, 6.3 apg, 2.5 spg, 0.3 bpg on 51.3 %TS (-1.0 rTS) with 3.8 topg
Playoffs: 32.0 ppg, 4.2 rpg, 6.7 apg, 2.4 spg, 0.2 bpg on 49.7 %TS (-2.6 rTS) with 3.3 topg

Shooting 2.6 points below league average in efficiency on that volume looks bad but is actually pretty decent. Apart from MJ, give me another player who consistently shot more efficiently than AI on similar volume and with little offensive help... examples are very few.

AI had a a playoff ORtg of 106.0 in that span which was above league average of about 104.

And how much did his teams depend on him? Well...

2001: 50-21 with/6-5 without
2002: 36-24 with/7-15 without
2003: 48-34 with/0-0 without
2004: 19-29 with/14-20 without
2005: 41-34 with/2-5 without
2006: 35-37 with/1-9 without

For those 6 seasons, AI's Sixers played at a 229-179 (46-win pace) with him and 30-54 (29-win pace) without him. It shows that his impact on that team was rather huge. 17 wins is no small improvement. Those are pretty big samples as well.

Those teams had pretty low ceiling of roughly 50-ish wins but that's isn't surprising given the total lack of offensive talent even in 2001 which was their best team.

Comparing their best playoff runs:

When Iverson was on the court in 2001 playoffs:

76ers had a 106 offensive rating, held teams to a 106 offensive rating. So basically playing even basketball and not even beating teams.

When Mutombo was on the court in 2001 playoffs:

76ers had a 105 offensive rating and held teams to 104. +1 when Mutombo was on court.

When manu was on court in 2005 playoffs:

Spurs had a 115 offensive rating and held teams to 104 offensive rating. That's +11 when manu was on court.

When Duncan was on court in 2005 playoffs:

Spurs had a 110 offensive rating and held teams to a 107 offensive rating. That's +3 when Duncan was on court.

So Manu is +8 over Duncan and Iverson is -1 over Mutombo. Sounds like manu had a lot less help from his defensive anchor and still put out way better results.

[WhiteKyrie]

2004 team was a mess and Iverson was the main reason. Larry Brown was able to make it all work one year in Philly but Iverson wasn't a guy you were going to win big with
That isn’t remotely true at all. He was their best player, when Tim Duncan was supposed to be their best player.

Tim Duncan was ass in international play. Constantly in foul trouble. Too slow of foot. KG in his place would’ve been much better.

Larry Brown is a crappy coach, couldn’t make the best of the talent he had. Too restricted to his own ideologies instead of adapting to the talent he did have.

Iverson wasn’t a problem on that team. Larry Brown never said this at all. He already had a great relationship after 2001 coaching AI.

He had beef with Stephon Marbury. You don’t even know what you’re talking about :oldlol:

Also, as I said, Iverson was at worst the second best player on the 2003 team, that totally Molly walked every other country. So that also means your other statement about not being able to win with him, makes no sense.

He took a team with Mutombo, George Lynch, Tyrone Hill, Eric Snow and Aaron McKie to the Finals and gave the two headed monster in the 2001 Lakers their only playoff loss.

Stick to saying dumb shit about the Jazz, kiddo.

Also Allen Iverson did better on team USA in consecutive years than your boy Donovan Mitchell did a couple summers ago. Can’t win big with that dude either. Hell, can’t even get third place. They came in 7th.

:oldlol:

[HBK_Kliq_2]

That isn’t remotely true at all. He was their best player, when Tim Duncan was supposed to be their best player.

Tim Duncan was ass in international play. Constantly in foul trouble. Too slow of foot. KG in his place would’ve been much better.

Larry Brown is a crappy coach, couldn’t make the best of the talent he had. Too restricted to his own ideologies instead of adapting to the talent he did have.

Iverson wasn’t a problem on that team. Larry Brown never said this at all. He already had a great relationship after 2001 coaching AI.

He had beef with Stephon Marbury. You don’t even know what you’re talking about :oldlol:

Also, as I said, Iverson was at worst the second best player on the 2003 team, that totally Molly walked every other country. So that also means your other statement about not being able to win with him, makes no sense.

He took a team with Mutombo, George Lynch, Tyrone Hill, Eric Snow and Aaron McKie to the Finals and gave the two headed monster in the 2001 Lakers their only playoff loss.

Stick to saying dumb shit about the Jazz, kiddo.

Also Allen Iverson did better on team USA in consecutive years than your boy Donovan Mitchell did a couple summers ago. Can’t win big with that dude either. Hell, can’t even get third place. They came in 7th.

:oldlol:

That's because Tim Duncan is the most overrated player in NBA history and was exposed when he was away from the spurs and teammates who were better then him (Manu, Kawhi).

1999 - he was drafted into a team that had David Robinson who won the MVP in the last season he played, Beat Marcus Camby's 8th seed knicks in the finals. Lockout year and Duncan dodges Jordan\Pippen.

2001-2002 - Being Kobe's personal whopping boy.

2003 - Manu had to come along and save Duncan. Look at the 2 man lineups in playoffs when you take Manu out:

Duncan\Manu - +21.9
Duncan\Rose - +9.5
Duncan\Jackson - +6.8

They never win the title without the Manu minutes or the Dirk injury.

2004 - got his ass kicked again by Kobe and shut down by 40 year old Malone

2005 - carried by manu as already spotlighted in thread

2006 - destroyed by dirk, dirk didn't even know duncan's defense existed

2007 - manu had a 23.6 BPM in closeout game against suns to duncan's 4.4 BPM. Amare was also torching duncan before his suspension. Duncan shot terribly in finals and parker won finals MVP

2008 - ass kicked by kobe again

rest of 2000s he did nothing before transitioning into 3rd wheel to Parker\Manu in 2010s and ultimately 4th wheel to Kawhi by 2013\2014.

That makes you a goat level player? Sounds more like Rudy Gobert with better teammates.

[Xiao Yao You]

That isn’t remotely true at all. He was their best player, when Tim Duncan was supposed to be their best player.

Tim Duncan was ass in international play. Constantly in foul trouble. Too slow of foot. KG in his place would’ve been much better.

Larry Brown is a crappy coach, couldn’t make the best of the talent he had. Too restricted to his own ideologies instead of adapting to the talent he did have.

Iverson wasn’t a problem on that team. Larry Brown never said this at all. He already had a great relationship after 2001 coaching AI.

He had beef with Stephon Marbury. You don’t even know what you’re talking about :oldlol:

Also, as I said, Iverson was at worst the second best player on the 2003 team, that totally Molly walked every other country. So that also means your other statement about not being able to win with him, makes no sense.

He took a team with Mutombo, George Lynch, Tyrone Hill, Eric Snow and Aaron McKie to the Finals and gave the two headed monster in the 2001 Lakers their only playoff loss.

Stick to saying dumb shit about the Jazz, kiddo.

Also Allen Iverson did better on team USA in consecutive years than your boy Donovan Mitchell did a couple summers ago. Can’t win big with that dude either. Hell, can’t even get third place. They came in 7th.

:oldlol:

they could have had a better team. Iverson should have never been on the team, Neither should Marbury or Carmelo off hand. Brown certainly wasn't the right coach for that situation either. Never said Brown had a problem with him on the team. He certainly had problems with him in Philly. Doesn't mean he should have been there. Mitchell is a rich man's Iverson so I wouldn't use him to help your arguments

[dankok8]

Comparing their best playoff runs:

When Iverson was on the court in 2001 playoffs:

76ers had a 106 offensive rating, held teams to a 106 offensive rating. So basically playing even basketball and not even beating teams.

When Mutombo was on the court in 2001 playoffs:

76ers had a 105 offensive rating and held teams to 104. +1 when Mutombo was on court.

When manu was on court in 2005 playoffs:

Spurs had a 115 offensive rating and held teams to 104 offensive rating. That's +11 when manu was on court.

When Duncan was on court in 2005 playoffs:

Spurs had a 110 offensive rating and held teams to a 107 offensive rating. That's +3 when Duncan was on court.

So Manu is +8 over Duncan and Iverson is -1 over Mutombo. Sounds like manu had a lot less help from his defensive anchor and still put out way better results.

Because Manu's Spurs were a much better team than Iverson's Sixers... It's hard for AI and Mutombo to have good ON-OFF differentials when their team as a whole had a bad point differential and AI played almost all of their minutes. Sixers in the 2001 playoffs had a -0.2 point differential. Spurs in the 2015 playoffs had a +4.3 point differential. I don't think you understand how to use ON-OFF numbers. And in the playoffs, the sample are insanely small. Sixers played 87 total minutes without AI in the playoffs. Those numbers are super noisy to have any confidence in to begin with.

I showed you game data over 6 seasons with significantly large sample of both WITH and WITHOUT categories. AI's teams were hot garbage without him (29-win pace) and respectable with him (46-win pace). If I had more time I could calculate the ORtg numbers with and without him. He provided some HEAVY LIFTING on that offense. Which again disputes what you and a few others are claiming on this thread...