Charles Barkley vs. Kevin Durant: Where do you rank them all-time?

[Im Still Ballin]

Despite KD having two championships, I'm not sure I can comfortably put him above guys like Chuck and Karl Malone. It's highly likely he'd have 0 championships if he didn't go to Golden State, obviously. It makes me think of Malone joining up with Chicago after losing in '97. Or Chuck in '91.

When looking purely at the prime/peak individual talent, Kevin's not above Chuck. It's an argument that's probably 50/50. Both have incredible strengths and some holes in their games.

It's funny: KD has a similar resume to Hakeem when it comes to MVPs and championships, but I could never put Kevin on Dream's level.

[Kawhi_Why_Not]

Current players: Kawhi, Tatum, Giannis, Embiid and lebron are better

Past: Jordan, Hakeem, Kobe, Shaq, Hakeem, Bird

So anywhere from that 12-20 range they start coming up I guess.

I would put Durant over Barkley though and I don't even like Durant. Durant is better shooter, scorer, ball handler and defender. Barkley's suns went to the WCF and beat the magic Johnson and worthy lakers before he got there, so looks like kevin Johnson was driving the bus. I guess it was the kiddie bus for that pedo but he was still driving Barkley around too

[John8204]

Right now I've got Barkley in the top twenty-five and Durant outside the top twenty-five. Durant needs 30K points and another ring for me to realistically put him in the top twenty five. Charles on the other hand never got the rings or the numbers but he was such an outlier and generational talent. Now on paper Durant should be a top ten all-time guy...but if he keeps having seasons like he's had over the past 2-3 he's going to drop down the all-time list for me.

[AussieSteve]

Barkley was widely regarded as the best player in the world, aside from Jordan, for years prior to his back injury in 94.

He was MVP in 90 and 93, and made the finals his first season with a good team, on the back of a 43 point triple double in game 5 and a 44/24 game 7 in the conference finals.

If he didn't hurt his back in 94, he'd have another MVP, a ring and an FMVP to his name.

People don't seem to understand these things about him.

[ArbitraryWater]

probably very even.

Both top 20-25 shit.


The problem is,

KD would have never broken through on his own. As the clear-cut man.

You just know.


And joining a 73-win team cheats that fact.

[Mr. Woke]

He is definitely better than Barkley. Anyone who thinks that Barkley is better is an idiot.

He has more All-NBA First Team selections and two Finals MVPs.

Barkley didn't have the capacity or strength of character to win a championship.

[Wally450]

He is definitely better than Barkley. Anyone who thinks that Barkley is better is an idiot.

He has more All-NBA First Team selections and two Finals MVPs.

Barkley didn't have the capacity or strength of character to win a championship.

Neither did KD until he jumped to a 73 win Warrior team. He got cussed out by Draymond and left to Brooklyn and went back to his OKC ways.

[Mr. Woke]

Neither did KD until he jumped to a 73 win Warrior team. He got cussed out by Draymond and left to Brooklyn and went back to his OKC ways.

The Warriors needed him to win another ring. Anyone who thinks otherwise is braindead.

Draymond was a bus rider.

[Bronbron23]

He is definitely better than Barkley. Anyone who thinks that Barkley is better is an idiot.

He has more All-NBA First Team selections and two Finals MVPs.

Barkley didn't have the capacity or strength of character to win a championship.

Nah bruh it's definitely close. You don’t think barkley gets a chip if he joined mj's 72 win team? Kd dosn't have any fmvp if he dosn't make that weak ass move.

[Mr. Woke]

Nah bruh it's definitely close. You don’t think barkley gets a chip if he joined mj's 72 win team? Kd dosn't have any fmvp if he dosn't make that weak ass move.

KD is better than Barkley.

There is no guarantee that the Bulls would have won with MJ and Barkley on the same team (injuries can happen at any time and screw things up completely; look at the 2019 Warriors, everyone thought they were "guaranteed to win." A ring is never guaranteed.

KD's move wasn't weak at all, you punk. The Warriors needed him and he wanted to put himself in the best position possible to win a ring because he is competitive and wants to win (unlike players who are more complacent like Damian Lillard).

[Kblaze8855]

https://www.hostpic.org/images/2204292016350374.jpeg

[Mr. Woke]

https://www.hostpic.org/images/2204292016350374.jpeg

KD honestly should have another MVP. He got robbed from having another one.

The Warriors only won in 2015 because the Cavs were missing Love the entire series (their third best player) and Kyrie only played in one game (he was their second best player).

[SouBeachTalents]

KD honestly should have another MVP. He got robbed from having another one.

The Warriors only won in 2015 because the Cavs were missing Love the entire series (their third best player) and Kyrie only played in one game (he was their second best player).
No he didn't.

[Mr. Woke]

No he didn't.

Yeah he did.

Also, the Warriors clearly needed him after the 2015-2016 season. There is no guarantee that the Warriors would have won another ring or even made the Finals.

[1987_Lakers]

https://www.hostpic.org/images/2204292016350374.jpeg

Interesting facts. Difference is KD got his points more efficiently & played in a tougher conference.

[post]

https://www.hostpic.org/images/2204292016350374.jpeg

iverson was much kinder to the homeless

https://media.istockphoto.com/photos/stack-of-red-bricks-picture-id606651988?k=20&m=606651988&s=612x612&w=0&h=VGbLAw44dc6m5fwpvoRUlXVc67p-Azmf1Odpzyd5_Oc=

[SouBeachTalents]

Yeah he did.

Also, the Warriors clearly needed him after the 2015-2016 season. There is no guarantee that the Warriors would have won another ring or even made the Finals.
Which season was he "robbed"?

And while yes there's no guarantee the Warriors win another ring after 2016, nothing in life is guaranteed, they would've had an excellent chance to anyone who isn't insanely biased. With their core players all 6 years older they have an excellent chance of winning the championship this year.

[Kblaze8855]

Interesting facts. Difference is KD got his points more efficiently & played in a tougher conference.


And his best years weren’t spent with Aaron Mckie(and then a season of Vanhorn and later 40 games of washed Glenn Robinson) as the second best scorer on his team in the best defensive era after the shot clock was invented.

No real comparison between the players they played with who were in their primes. AI got a season and like 25 games with washed Webber who was never heard from again on the Pistons, washed Coleman after his hornets run, 35 year old Mutombo who was probably 43 for real and forgot how to catch an entry pass in Denver, half a season of Robinson who you don’t even remember being a spur as well as he was useless by then, and Kenny Thomas. John Salmons too maybe? He was on more talented lineups later when he was slowing and they were rising but not prime with prime like KD had with 4-5 stars at this point(depending on what you consider Harden last year).

Not heavy on offensively talented teammates when he was at his best. And facing slow it down physical defenses for most of it.

The rule changes extended his prime but nothing like they would have done had he been at his peak when they revamped it again in the mid 2010s.

25 year old AI would be an absolute terrorist with 7 shooters on his team, hands off D, and freedom of movement. He’d easily shoot better. May not win any more but most people who shot better than him didn’t win more anyway. People who blamed his shooting on them losing never got back to me about that. Half the hall of fame played with more talent and shoot better and lost anyway. It’s as if the game takes more than that or something….

And I don’t mean you for the record in just amused thinking back on those days.

[Mr. Woke]

Which season was he "robbed"?

And while yes there's no guarantee the Warriors win another ring after 2016, nothing in life is guaranteed, they would've had an excellent chance to anyone who isn't insanely biased. With their core players all 6 years older they have an excellent chance of winning the championship this year.

2012 IMO.

Still, they weren't guaranteed to win.

[post]

And his best years weren’t spent with Aaron Mckie(and then a season of Vanhorn and later 40 games of washed Glenn Robinson) as the second best scorer on his team in the best defensive era after the shot clock was invented.

No real comparison between the players they played with who were in their primes. AI got a season and like 25 games with washed Webber who was never heard from again on the Pistons, washed Coleman after his hornets run, 35 year old Mutombo who was probably 43 for real and forgot how to catch an entry pass in Denver, half a season of Robinson who you don’t even remember being a spur as well as he was useless by then, and Kenny Thomas. John Salmons too maybe? He was on more talented lineups later when he was slowing and they were rising but not prime with prime like KD had with 4-5 stars at this point(depending on what you consider Harden last year).

Not heavy on offensively talented teammates when he was at his best. And facing slow it down physical defenses for most of it.

The rule changes extended his prime but nothing like they would have done had he been at his peak when they revamped it again in the mid 2010s.

25 year old AI would be an absolute terrorist with 7 shooters on his team, hands off D, and freedom of movement. He’d easily shoot better. May not win any more but most people who shot better than him didn’t win more anyway. People who blamed his shooting on them losing never got back to me about that. Half the hall of fame played with more talent and shoot better and lost anyway. It’s as if the game takes more than that or something….

And I don’t mean you for the record in just amused thinking back on those days.

ai lead the league in scoring in 2002 and was 148th in the league in ts%

kd lead the league in scoring in 2014 and was 3rd in the league in ts%

[1987_Lakers]

And his best years weren’t spent with Aaron Mckie(and then a season of Vanhorn and later 40 games of washed Glenn Robinson) as the second best scorer on his team in the best defensive era after the shot clock was invented.

No real comparison between the players they played with who were in their primes. AI got a season and like 25 games with washed Webber who was never heard from again on the Pistons, washed Coleman after his hornets run, 35 year old Mutombo who was probably 43 for real and forgot how to catch an entry pass in Denver, half a season of Robinson who you don’t even remember being a spur as well as he was useless by then, and Kenny Thomas. John Salmons too maybe? He was on more talented lineups later when he was slowing and they were rising but not prime with prime like KD had with 4-5 stars at this point(depending on what you consider Harden last year).

Not heavy on offensively talented teammates when he was at his best. And facing slow it down physical defenses for most of it.

The rule changes extended his prime but nothing like they would have done had he been at his peak when they revamped it again in the mid 2010s.

25 year old AI would be an absolute terrorist with 7 shooters on his team, hands off D, and freedom of movement. He’d easily shoot better. May not win any more but most people who shot better than him didn’t win more anyway. People who blamed his shooting on them losing never got back to me about that. Half the hall of fame played with more talent and shoot better and lost anyway. It’s as if the game takes more than that or something….

And I don’t mean you for the record in just amused thinking back on those days.

No doubt Durant played with more talent, but Jason Kidd made back to back Finals with Kenyon Martin as his best teammate, a Celtics team with Antoine Walker as the #2 made the ECF during that time. And even relative to their era, Durant was still vastly more efficient than Iverson.

[post]

No doubt Durant played with more talent, but Jason Kidd made back to back Finals with Kenyon Martin as his best teammate, a Celtics team with Antoine Walker as the #2 made the ECF during that time. And even relative to their era, Durant was still vastly more efficient than Iverson.

durant is 10 inches taller and is 10% better ts for his career

coincidence...i think not

[post]

kblaze has been here for 16 years and has 26000 posts

and still doesn't seem to understand missing a shot is bad

[iamgine]

I rank Durant higher cause he's the better player. And I don't even count his two coward rings.

[SouBeachTalents]

I rank Durant higher cause he's the better player. And I don't even count his two coward rings.
This is honestly how I see it too. He'd still be at minimum around 20th all time regardless of the move to Golden State, and while I'm sure some do, I think the majority of people don't put much stock in those Warriors titles.

[Kblaze8855]

kblaze has been here for 16 years and has 26000 posts

and still doesn't seem to understand missing a shot is bad

Ive been here for 20 years and like 100k posts and at no point has anyone explained why it matters to the scoreboard exactly who misses a shot when the team is gonna miss 35-40 no matter what. The extra 2 misses that tanks your shooting percentage don’t go away if Eric Snow misses them instead. Helps your stats it doesn’t give the team more points. There is no reason to assume a star missing would have been a make if a role player took it instead and most of them spend whole games forcing the ball to the star for just that reason.

You can shoot worse from the field than everyone on the team yet have the team be better with you. Like when a AI was dead last on his team in shooting but they had a 50 win pace with him and like 30 without. Added more misses and a worse defender then his replacement but had a better outcome.

If basketball were as simple as division you just adjust your offense to play through who shoots the best from the field…except of course…once you did…they’d usually shoot worse and defeat the purpose.

Winning really is chess not checkers. Swap Iverson for Adrian Dantley and he would iso his way to the same 30 points but shoot 55% doing it and lose anyway. It’s only as simple as shooting numbers from “the man” making your team win…..to the simple minded.

There are 200 examples going both ways.

[tpols]

kblaze has been here for 16 years and has 26000 posts

and still doesn't seem to understand missing a shot is bad

:lol Not only that but Iverson did have a 30+ point per game season after the rule changes in 2006 on the Nuggets where he had plenty of offensive help and spacing from shooters. He then proceeded to play like ass in the playoffs. They replaced him with a veteran Chauncey billups and in 2009 went the deepest in the playoffs they've ever gone in franchise history. (Chauncey played awesome)

[Im Still Ballin]

Ive been here for 20 years and like 100k posts and at no point has anyone explained why it matters to the scoreboard exactly who misses a shot when the team is gonna miss 35-40 no matter what. The extra 2 misses that tanks your shooting percentage don’t go away if Eric Snow misses them instead. Helps your stats it doesn’t give the team more points. There is no reason to assume a star missing would have been a make if a role player took it instead and most of them spend whole games forcing the ball to the star for just that reason.

You can shoot worse from the field than everyone on the team yet have the team be better with you. Like when a AI was dead last on his team in shooting but they had a 50 win pace with him and like 30 without. Added more misses and a worse defender then his replacement but had a better outcome.

If basketball were as simple as division you just adjust your offense to play through who shoots the best from the field…except of course…once you did…they’d usually shoot worse and defeat the purpose.

Winning really is chess not checkers. Swap Iverson for Adrian Dantley and he would iso his way to the same 30 points but shoot 55% doing it and lose anyway. It’s only as simple as shooting numbers from “the man” making your team win…..to the simple minded.

There are 200 examples going both ways.

Great post.

It's also worth mentioning that AI showed significant improvements in efficiency in Denver, surrounded by better offensive talent.

55.9% TS across 135 games played in Denver. Compared to a league average of 54.0% TS, that's +1.9% rTS.

In today's league (56.6% TS) I don't see why AI in today's league couldn't be around that 57% to 60% mark... On Trae Young volume.

[Im Still Ballin]

:lol Not only that but Iverson did have a 30+ point per game season after the rule changes in 2006 on the Nuggets where he had plenty of offensive help and spacing from shooters. He then proceeded to play like ass in the playoffs. They replaced him with a veteran Chauncey billups and in 2009 went the deepest in the playoffs they've ever gone in franchise history. (Chauncey played awesome)

Small sample size for the playoffs. What we did see is that over 135 games with Denver, AI dramatically increased his efficiency. He was +1.9 rTS; meaning, 1.9% above the true shooting league average.

[DMAVS41]

ai lead the league in scoring in 2002 and was 148th in the league in ts%

kd lead the league in scoring in 2014 and was 3rd in the league in ts%

Cool.

Now compare the type of defense they faced and the kind of offensive spacing.

[Kblaze8855]

:lol Not only that but Iverson did have a 30+ point per game season after the rule changes in 2006 on the Nuggets where he had plenty of offensive help and spacing from shooters. He then proceeded to play like ass in the playoffs. They replaced him with a veteran Chauncey billups and in 2009 went the deepest in the playoffs they've ever gone in franchise history. (Chauncey played awesome)


Several things to do with as you please….

1. I said on here around 02 that all that would happen if he got a more talented team is he’d shoot better and probably lose anyway like everyone does and be blamed anyway. He immediately went to Denver shot the same 45% as the guys who weren’t mocked for it earlier(Kobe, Pierce, Tmac and so on) lost and proved it. It was pretty funny seeing the people I said would hate even if he shot better do it…then pretend they didn’t base the whole argument on him shooting 39% as opposed to the others.

2. AIs nuggets lost to the champion spurs and Kobe/Pau lakers…the same team they lost to the next season with Chauncey. They had worse seeding to play good teams early largely because Kmart missing 80 games one year and Nene 70 the next not to mention that massive MSG brawl with biggest non Malice in the palace or Kermit Washington fighting suspensions in history. Take the whole season from one of their bigs and/or suspend Melo for a month I suspect they play the lakers earlier in 09. They were 1 game up on the 5th seed which has them play the lakers earlier. The 4 more wins largely due to health no doubt contributed to a deeper run.

3. The nuggets actually made the WCF in the 80s as well having destroyed Dantley who shot 60% and lost early like most everyone tends to even though only the poor shooting people get blamed for the same results.

4. Billups himself won a conference finals during which he shot 31%. That kinda thing happened in the early 2000s. People shot like shit. Rules matter and even the changes in 05 don’t touch those since. Kobe, AI, and company all had a harder job than anyone since or most before which is why people using shooting numbers against a whole era is just weird to me but it is what it is.

Everyone who peaked late 90s to mid-late 2000s really are gonna be ranked a notch lower forever because people will not put those numbers in context vs….all other eras.

[ShawkFactory]

Cool.

Now compare the type of defense they faced and the kind of offensive spacing.

I mean everyone in the league played against the same defensive and spacing, for the most part. It’s not a direct comparison, it’s them vs their peers.

[RRR3]

2012 IMO.

Still, they weren't guaranteed to win.
Durant MVP over peak LeBron? Good god you’re a moron.

[DMAVS41]

So the argument is that Durant wouldn’t see a noticeable dip in scoring efficiency playing against more physical defense, less spacing, and less offensive help?

Didn’t we just watch that? Dude had a sub 100 offensive rating for basically the whole series.

[DMAVS41]

I mean everyone in the league played against the same defensive and spacing, for the most part. It’s not a direct comparison, it’s them vs their peers.

Not sure the point. Durant doesn’t show a lot of capability playing against physical defense with average help and limited spacing.

Don’t even have to project… we just watched it.

And we watched it in the 13 Grizzlies series as well.

[ShawkFactory]

Not sure the point. Durant doesn’t show a lot of capability playing against physical defense with average help and limited spacing.

Don’t even have to project… we just watched it.

He’s also done well in those scenarios before. It was a bad series.

Literally everyone has them, aside from maybe Jordan.

Are you suggesting that what we saw this series is just how it would be for KD in 2001?

[DMAVS41]

He’s also done well in those scenarios before. It was a bad series.

Literally everyone has them, aside from maybe Jordan.

Are you suggesting that what we saw this series is just how it would be for KD in 2001?

It isn’t about that. You aren’t giving proper weight to how hard it was to carry a poor offensive team with limited spacing playing against different defensive rules.

KD does not look like the same player when he faces physicality in this era… and this era is simply far easier on that front.

[DMAVS41]

2001?

It would depend on the circumstances. Similar to AI Sixers? Yes, he’d struggle much more. He’d get pushed around and worn down a lot more.

He’d still be great, but he would not be as good under those rules.

[Im Still Ballin]

Allen Iverson's numbers and impact would probably look awfully similar to Ja Morant's. Neither are great shooters but have top-tier slashing skillsets.

25-30 PPG on 57%-60% TS.

He did 26.4 PPG on 56.7% TS in '07-'08 on a borderline top 10 offensive team.

[Im Still Ballin]

He did this in a league post-hand-checking rule ('04-'05) but before the advent of the spacing/3pt revolution and freedom of movement rule.

Notice the crowded paint and mid-range pullups. Iverson's game included a lot of off-ball 'catch-and-go' possessions. He'd benefit from the freedom of movement rule for sure.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OtWYYkyJjlE&ab_channel=VintageDawkins

[Im Still Ballin]

Compare AI's 51 to Ja's 52 from this season. I see a lot of the same moves, except that paint is packed with bodies in '08. It's quite interesting to pause the videos as both players use their quickness to blow by their man defender.

Iverson's volume of shots in the paint and at the rim definitely goes up. The quality of looks would increase too, leading to improved efficiency.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WGQjEBmdgVQ&ab_channel=NBA

Ja Morant % of shots from 0-10ft: 62.1% of FGA
Allen Iverson % of shots from 0-10ft: 40.7% of FGA

[Mr. Woke]

Durant MVP over peak LeBron? Good god you’re a moron.

Durant had a legitimate argument that year.

Speaking of LeBron he was robbed of an MVP in 2011.

[999Guy]

kblaze has been here for 16 years and has 26000 posts

and still doesn't seem to understand missing a shot is bad

:roll:

[999Guy]

Allen Iverson's numbers and impact would probably look awfully similar to Ja Morant's. Neither are great shooters but have top-tier slashing skillsets.

25-30 PPG on 57%-60% TS.

He did 26.4 PPG on 56.7% TS in '07-'08 on a borderline top 10 offensive team.
I can accept that. But KD is still tiered up over Ja obviously.

I would take KD over Barkley as a player.

Barkley had no natural position on defense. Good passer but not a good decision maker.

Neither should be your offensive centerpiece, and this will sound odd but it’s much like Giannis in Milwaukee. Best offensive player, not someone who you want getting Carte Blanche with insane usage like LeBron or CP3.

Because then the bad habits come out amidst the stat stuffing.

All that said I’d rather watch Chuck. And neither were really impactful defenders outside a couple random years.

[post]

Ive been here for 20 years and like 100k posts and at no point has anyone explained why it matters to the scoreboard exactly who misses a shot when the team is gonna miss 35-40 no matter what. The extra 2 misses that tanks your shooting percentage don’t go away if Eric Snow misses them instead. Helps your stats it doesn’t give the team more points. There is no reason to assume a star missing would have been a make if a role player took it instead and most of them spend whole games forcing the ball to the star for just that reason.

You can shoot worse from the field than everyone on the team yet have the team be better with you. Like when a AI was dead last on his team in shooting but they had a 50 win pace with him and like 30 without. Added more misses and a worse defender then his replacement but had a better outcome.

If basketball were as simple as division you just adjust your offense to play through who shoots the best from the field…except of course…once you did…they’d usually shoot worse and defeat the purpose.

Winning really is chess not checkers. Swap Iverson for Adrian Dantley and he would iso his way to the same 30 points but shoot 55% doing it and lose anyway. It’s only as simple as shooting numbers from “the man” making your team win…..to the simple minded.

There are 200 examples going both ways.

perhaps if iverson was a better passer those role players might not miss as much

the team would be better because he wouldn't have to force as much because others would be getting better looks

if dantley was in iverson's position and asked to shoot as much as iverson it's intuitively believable he'd score more on better efficiency

bernard king proved it in 85 with almost non existent scoring help

[post]

:lol Not only that but Iverson did have a 30+ point per game season after the rule changes in 2006 on the Nuggets where he had plenty of offensive help and spacing from shooters. He then proceeded to play like ass in the playoffs. They replaced him with a veteran Chauncey billups and in 2009 went the deepest in the playoffs they've ever gone in franchise history. (Chauncey played awesome)

iverson never scored 30 ppg or more in denver

his fga dropped significantly in denver

[ImKobe]

KD is borderline top 10 ATG.. y'all holding him to a different standard than you would with Bran, who colluded for ALL of his championships, in a much weaker Conference at that. Keep making excuses tho. Chuck is somewhere between 20-30 ATG.

[post]

Great post.

It's also worth mentioning that AI showed significant improvements in efficiency in Denver, surrounded by better offensive talent.

55.9% TS across 135 games played in Denver. Compared to a league average of 54.0% TS, that's +1.9% rTS.

In today's league (56.6% TS) I don't see why AI in today's league couldn't be around that 57% to 60% mark... On Trae Young volume.

so perhaps he'd be trae young

still obvious you'd rather have kd

[Round Mound]

KD is a better long range and 3-point shooter than Barkley. That´s about it. Barkley's shot where more contested aswell as his rebounds. Barkley was also a better passer (just check out the video i put some days ago about a 94 feet bounce pass to Thunder Dan). Barkley better post game, 1 on 1 driver slasher, better finisher on the break, better dunker, better rebounder, better passer etc

[ImKobe]

kblaze has been here for 16 years and has 26000 posts

and still doesn't seem to understand missing a shot is bad

Missing a shot isn't bad, unless you're Kobe. Never have I seen an ATG disrespected as much as Bean, who dominated Tim Duncan in the POs & doesn't nearly get the same amount of respect from most of these so-called "basketball historians".

[post]

Cool.

Now compare the type of defense they faced and the kind of offensive spacing.

it's a massive efficiency gap

whatever factors you want to consider probably aren't closing it

i don't have an equation to prove that just seems reasonable

kd didn't even have harden in 2014

people should check their info before they post

ibaka is not a star

they had westbrook and that's it and he was a bad 3 point shooter that year like he always is

[post]

it's a massive efficiency gap

whatever factors you want to consider probably aren't closing it

i don't have an equation to prove that just seems reasonable

kd didn't even have harden in 2014

people should check their info before they post

ibaka is not a star

they had westbrook and that's it and he was a bad 3 point shooter that year like he always is

and westbrook missed 36 games for anyone who is paying attention

[Kblaze8855]

perhaps if iverson was a better passer those role players might not miss as much

the team would be better because he wouldn't have to force as much because others would be getting better looks

if dantley was in iverson's position and asked to shoot as much as iverson it's intuitively believable he'd score more on better efficiency

bernard king proved it in 85 with almost non existent scoring help


Bernard King won 10 playoff games in his entire career which included about 10 real years(not counting his missed ones obviously). AI almost doubled that….without counting 2001 which makes it triple. And this is where we hit our problem…..

Most of these super efficient scorers never did anything AI didn’t despite many of them having more talent to do it with. Dozens of hall of famers who didn’t actually do anything more. Not King, Gervin, Dantley, Mullin, Richmond, Oscar, Nique, Harden, English and on and on it goes. A couple did once they were added to previously great teams and you really could add KD to that list too just being factual.

You can talk about why you think it is in each individual case and 40 more but it is what it is.

The bottom line is just that winning is incredibly hard and takes a lot going right at once. Players like AI are just convenient scapegoats for the failure that is usually inevitable.

Let Iverson have another prime MVP and 3 supporting all stars on top of it and lose in the first round. He’d have it brought up every time his name were mentioned. Nash does just that and nobody bats an eye because people feeeeeeel like an efficient player like that isn’t to be blamed.

Truth is a fair look at how teams win and lose would result in blaming individual players a lot less in general but humans aren’t wired that way. We have to hate. It’s our nature. And when our pre existing notions are confirmed by loss it’s too much to ignore even when those same notions suggest others should have won but didn’t.

Fact is AI had more than average hall of famer playoff success and had less reliable help than most of them along the way. Now part of that is him peaking in the post expansion mildly watered down era that also had great D and brought about a lot of one man army experiments.

For whatever reason…AI had more than normal success for a legend and had it with less help than most legends could claim.

And armed with that information we still look for a reason to assign him blame as if his teams should have been great.

He had a couple teams that could have been better and a number that should have been worse.

Nothing in the results show he should have been doing something different and his teams tear up the league. Usually what showed in his prime was getting more than he should….or failing with teams that should have failed. Maybe 2 should have failed by lesser margins?

Look at history most guys efficient or not have the same marks against them but hear little about it. History is full of great efficiency losers who had more help than AI. We just seem to forget when we talk about what wins and loses.

[SouBeachTalents]

Bernard King won 10 playoff games in his entire career which included about 10 real years(not counting his missed ones obviously). AI almost doubled that….without counting 2001 which makes it triple. And this is where we hit our problem…..

Most of these super efficient scorers never did anything AI didn’t despite many of them having more talent to do it with. Dozens of hall of famers who didn’t actually do anything more. Not King, Gervin, Dantley, Mullin, Richmond, Oscar, Nique, Harden, English and on and on it goes. A couple did once they were added to previously great teams and you really could add KD to that list too just being factual.

You can talk about why you think it is in each individual case and 40 more but it is what it is.

The bottom line is just that winning is incredibly hard and takes a lot going right at once. Players like AI are just convenient scapegoats for the failure that is usually inevitable.

Let Iverson have another prime MVP and 3 supporting all stars on top of it and lose in the first round. He’d have it brought up every time his name were mentioned. Nash does just that and nobody bats an eye because people feeeeeeel like an efficient player like that isn’t to be blamed.

Truth is a fair look at how teams win and lose would result in blaming individual players a lot less in general but humans aren’t wired that way. We have to hate. It’s our nature. And when our pre existing notions are confirmed by loss it’s too much to ignore even when those same notions suggest others should have won but didn’t.

Fact is AI had more than average hall of famer playoff success and had less reliable help than most of them along the way. Now part of that is him peaking in the post expansion mildly watered down era that also had great D and brought about a lot of one man army experiments.

For whatever reason…AI had more than normal success for a legend and had it with less help than most legends could claim.

And armed with that information we still look for a reason to assign him blame as if his teams should have been great.

He had a couple teams that could have been better and a number that should have been worse.

Nothing in the results show he should have been doing something different and his teams tear up the league. Usually what showed in his prime was getting more than he should….or failing with teams that should have failed. Maybe 2 should have failed by lesser margins?

Look at history most guys efficient or not have the same marks against them but hear little about it. History is full of great efficiency losers who had more help than AI. We just seem to forget when we talk about what wins and loses.
We've seen Ben Wallace & 38 year old Duncan win as (arguably) their teams best/most impactful player, so I'm not gonna ask you if it's feasible to win with Iverson as your teams best player. But do you think if you swapped him with any of the best players on the 7 teams that have already advanced, would you pick any of them to win the title with Iverson in their place? Or more importantly, do you think he would increase any of their chances of winning?

[Kblaze8855]

This is a hard year to ask that because I don’t pick any team to win only accept the inevitability of one of them doing it. Not a traditional contender season. It might come down to who makes it through healthy. Well it always is but even more so. Nobody really “feels” like they should be an nba champion for any reason but it being a weird year. If one does it’s the Warriors. But if you’re gonna squeak by because half the contenders are not ready or injured yes I could see whoever does it being replaced by AI in most cases. Not in a drop in tomorrow situation but having been there all along.

It feels like someone is just gonna squeak by off luck. Swear I can’t check nba news without hearing some impact guy is out.

[DMAVS41]

it's a massive efficiency gap

whatever factors you want to consider probably aren't closing it

i don't have an equation to prove that just seems reasonable

kd didn't even have harden in 2014

people should check their info before they post

ibaka is not a star

they had westbrook and that's it and he was a bad 3 point shooter that year like he always is

You aren't following my point if you think your post is refuting something I said. I chose the 2013 Memphis series because Russ was out. Durant didn't have much offensive help and he faced a physical defense. What happened? He lost and wasn't efficient.

Efficiency of course matters, but it isn't everything...and has been pointed out time and time again on here by blaze and myself...players "playing the right way" or "within the team" or "efficiently" or "with the midrange" on and on...all usually just lose as well. It is like the teams with the best players usually win...regardless of "style"...crazy, I know.

As great as Durant is...and he's great...what has he done with that "efficiency" when winning wasn't basically guaranteed? Well, he's had a great career that really isn't any more noteworthy than Iverson.

And all I'm trying to point out...is that the era in which AI played would have been significantly tougher on a player like Durant than this era.

[tpols]

You aren't following my point if you think your post is refuting something I said. I chose the 2013 Memphis series because Russ was out. Durant didn't have much offensive help and he faced a physical defense. What happened? He lost and wasn't efficient.

Efficiency of course matters, but it isn't everything...and has been pointed out time and time again on here by blaze and myself...players "playing the right way" or "within the team" or "efficiently" or "with the midrange" on and on...all usually just lose as well. It is like the teams with the best players usually win...regardless of "style"...crazy, I know.

As great as Durant is...and he's great...what has he done with that "efficiency" when winning wasn't basically guaranteed? Well, he's had a great career that really isn't any more noteworthy than Iverson.

And all I'm trying to point out...is that the era in which AI played would have been significantly tougher on a player like Durant than this era.

The problem is KD has demonstrated he can exist tremendously in an offense where he doesn't disrupt chemistry. And plays off ball a ton to do it. Were talking 35 on 70 TS. Y'all are talking help. Imagine Iverson and Westbrook. LOL!

Iverson simply didn't have his shooting ability or general IQ. He literally shot like shot in every playoffs while Durant generally shot very well. While being better at everything outside offense. A lot of you guys would get hustled out your money if you bet on Iverson over Durant all things else considered. Its become a total joke. If Kblaze bet Iverson over Reggie or Durant or curry I would just laugh. Given equal circumstance I would be picking his pocket. :oldlol:

[post]

Bernard King won 10 playoff games in his entire career which included about 10 real years(not counting his missed ones obviously). AI almost doubled that….without counting 2001 which makes it triple. And this is where we hit our problem…..

Most of these super efficient scorers never did anything AI didn’t despite many of them having more talent to do it with. Dozens of hall of famers who didn’t actually do anything more. Not King, Gervin, Dantley, Mullin, Richmond, Oscar, Nique, Harden, English and on and on it goes. A couple did once they were added to previously great teams and you really could add KD to that list too just being factual.

You can talk about why you think it is in each individual case and 40 more but it is what it is.

The bottom line is just that winning is incredibly hard and takes a lot going right at once. Players like AI are just convenient scapegoats for the failure that is usually inevitable.

Let Iverson have another prime MVP and 3 supporting all stars on top of it and lose in the first round. He’d have it brought up every time his name were mentioned. Nash does just that and nobody bats an eye because people feeeeeeel like an efficient player like that isn’t to be blamed.

Truth is a fair look at how teams win and lose would result in blaming individual players a lot less in general but humans aren’t wired that way. We have to hate. It’s our nature. And when our pre existing notions are confirmed by loss it’s too much to ignore even when those same notions suggest others should have won but didn’t.

Fact is AI had more than average hall of famer playoff success and had less reliable help than most of them along the way. Now part of that is him peaking in the post expansion mildly watered down era that also had great D and brought about a lot of one man army experiments.

For whatever reason…AI had more than normal success for a legend and had it with less help than most legends could claim.

And armed with that information we still look for a reason to assign him blame as if his teams should have been great.

He had a couple teams that could have been better and a number that should have been worse.

Nothing in the results show he should have been doing something different and his teams tear up the league. Usually what showed in his prime was getting more than he should….or failing with teams that should have failed. Maybe 2 should have failed by lesser margins?

Look at history most guys efficient or not have the same marks against them but hear little about it. History is full of great efficiency losers who had more help than AI. We just seem to forget when we talk about what wins and loses.

that's a lot of words to jump around the fact king could score more than ai in regular and post season and miss a lot less which is better

[post]

You aren't following my point if you think your post is refuting something I said. I chose the 2013 Memphis series because Russ was out. Durant didn't have much offensive help and he faced a physical defense. What happened? He lost and wasn't efficient.

Efficiency of course matters, but it isn't everything...and has been pointed out time and time again on here by blaze and myself...players "playing the right way" or "within the team" or "efficiently" or "with the midrange" on and on...all usually just lose as well. It is like the teams with the best players usually win...regardless of "style"...crazy, I know.

As great as Durant is...and he's great...what has he done with that "efficiency" when winning wasn't basically guaranteed? Well, he's had a great career that really isn't any more noteworthy than Iverson.

And all I'm trying to point out...is that the era in which AI played would have been significantly tougher on a player like Durant than this era.

defense in the playoffs is generally more physical

that memphis team had the defensive player of the year and 2 other all defensive team guys that year plus another 4 time all defensive team guy

keep fighting that ai crusade for another decade though if it makes you happy

[Phoenix]

:lol Not only that but Iverson did have a 30+ point per game season after the rule changes in 2006 on the Nuggets where he had plenty of offensive help and spacing from shooters. He then proceeded to play like ass in the playoffs. They replaced him with a veteran Chauncey billups and in 2009 went the deepest in the playoffs they've ever gone in franchise history. (Chauncey played awesome)

Iverson was on the Sixers in 2006, I'm amazed that hasn't been pointed out yet:

https://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/PHI/2006.html

The only 'spacer' he had was a young Kyle Korver who didn't start half the time. No... the reason Iverson, 31 at the end of his prime, boosted his efficiency that year( along with a career high PPG) had everything to do with the rule changes, just as it did for every other prime perimeter player who saw a net gain in scoring volume/%. Which is exactly what would happen if the scenario you dreamed up in 2006( Iverson with shooters and spacing) ACTUALLY happened if he played in 2022.

[DMAVS41]

defense in the playoffs is generally more physical

that memphis team had the defensive player of the year and 2 other all defensive team guys that year plus another 4 time all defensive team guy

keep fighting that ai crusade for another decade though if it makes you happy

Cool, so you agree with my point.

[DMAVS41]

The problem is KD has demonstrated he can exist tremendously in an offense where he doesn't disrupt chemistry. And plays off ball a ton to do it. Were talking 35 on 70 TS. Y'all are talking help. Imagine Iverson and Westbrook. LOL!

Iverson simply didn't have his shooting ability or general IQ. He literally shot like shot in every playoffs while Durant generally shot very well. While being better at everything outside offense. A lot of you guys would get hustled out your money if you bet on Iverson over Durant all things else considered. Its become a total joke. If Kblaze bet Iverson over Reggie or Durant or curry I would just laugh. Given equal circumstance I would be picking his pocket. :oldlol:

I don't know what you are really arguing then or maybe I missed it. I didn't see Blaze say AI was better....and I certainly didn't.

I simply just pointed out that Durant's career, outside of the Warriors, was basically what AI did....and agree with the point that all that efficiency and playing the right way and high IQ...didn't really matter when Durant just loses every single year...often with way more help than AI ever had.

[DMAVS41]

that's a lot of words to jump around the fact king could score more than ai in regular and post season and miss a lot less which is better

Sure, and...you are right about that.

Unfortunately for you...there is more to basketball than that. So when KD loses year after year after year...doing nothing more noteworthy than Iverson...often with better help....you'd understand someone having the view that perhaps winning in basketball is a little more complicated than scoring efficiency out of one player.

[Gohan]

Durant is not better than iverson, i dont care what anyone says. Hes also not better than barkley. He is supremely overrated