Was Chauncey Billups the best player on the 2009 Nuggets?

[Im Still Ballin]

He finished 6th in the 2009 MVP voting. No votes for Carmelo. Was it just a matter of missed games or was Billups considered the better, more impactful player on that team? What was the sentiment as the season unfolded back in 2009?

[FultzNationRISE]

MY sentiment as the season unfolded was certainly that Billups was the more valuable player. I presume most people did not see it that way, because Carmelo makes higher ppgz.

People just dont seem to grasp the more ambiguous concept of making an entire team better vs 'dominating' the point column. Without a stat that directly quantifies impact, people just can't figure out whats going on. It all comes down to whatever's simplest (points per game) (or 'ringz') and that tells you the best player.

Oh well. Not everyone's wired for the nuance. We all have our own way of looking at it.

[L.Kizzle]

No, but he came in and made an impact.

[Baller234]

MY sentiment as the season unfolded was certainly that Billups was the more valuable player. I presume most people did not see it that way, because Carmelo makes higher ppgz.

People just dont seem to grasp the more ambiguous concept of making an entire team better vs 'dominating' the point column. Without a stat that directly quantifies impact, people just can't figure out whats going on. It all comes down to whatever's simplest (points per game) (or 'ringz') and that tells you the best player.

Oh well. Not everyone's wired for the nuance. We all have our own way of looking at it.

It's close, but I would say that Billups was more valuable to the team. Melo was the closer, but he wasn't a leader.

Sort of like how Captain America is more valuable to the Avengers than Hulk.

[RRR3]

Yes.

[Xiao Yao You]

Carmelo will tell you it was all him just like he tried to take all the credit for their improvement his rookie year despite adding Andre Miller and Camby to the roster as well. I'd take all of them over that overrated gunner

[Kblaze8855]

The Nuggets won 50 games and lost in the first round to the lakers before Billips. With him they won 54 and 53 losing to the lakers in the wcf and the Jazz in the first round before trading both he and Melo to the Knicks and having a better record(58 win pace) with them both gone. They fell off but still made the playoffs without both for a full season…losing to the lakers again. Before Karl got fired he had another 57 win season there with Iggy.


Between suspensions(Knicks brawl), injury(Kmart and Nene), and roster moves they could realistically have won the same 50-55 that whole run before, with, and after Billups but for whatever reason some seasons get latched on as magical runs and we have to hear about them for decades if 1-2 things fall into place so…whatever.

Nuggets were a good team leaning a little this way or that most of Karls run. They won 49 games in Melos second season. Ran into the champion spurs in the first round even with that record. They played champion spurs teams twice and 3 Laker teams with Kobe/Pau. One year while having a similar season to a bunch of the others they avoided playing a championship caliber team for a while, so they lost later than usual, but the way people talk you would think they went from the outhouse to the penthouse. They had a swing equal to like one extra week of hot shooting, so the seeding came out different. There wasn’t anything that special about it to me.

[FultzNationRISE]

The Nuggets won 50 games and lost in the first round to the lakers before Billips. With him they won 54 and 53 losing to the lakers in the wcf and the Jazz in the first round before trading both he and Melo to the Knicks and having a better record(58 win pace) with them both gone. They fell off but still made the playoffs without both for a full seasonÂ…losing to the lakers again. Before Karl got fired he had another 57 win season there with Iggy.


Between suspensions(Knicks brawl), injury(Kmart and Nene), and roster moves they could realistically have won the same 50-55 that whole run before, with, and after Billups but for whatever reason some seasons get latched on as magical runs and we have to hear about them for decades if 1-2 things fall into place soÂ…whatever.

Nuggets were a good team leaning a little this way or that most of Karls run. They won 49 games in Melos second season. Ran into the champion spurs in the first round even with that record. They played champion spurs teams twice and 3 Laker teams with Kobe/Pau. One year while having a similar season to a bunch of the others they avoided playing a championship caliber team for a while, so they lost later than usual, but the way people talk you would think they went from the outhouse to the penthouse. They had a swing equal to like one extra week of hot shooting, so the seeding came out different. There wasnÂ’t anything that special about it to me.

I dont see it as coincidence. Billups noticeably straightened out the playoff IQ/culture of the team. Maybe they also benefited from seeding but it was clear at the time he filled a leadership void.

But yeah those Nuggets teams were deep as hell. Over the course of a few seasons they always had some combination of Nene, Camby, Kmart, Birdman, Melo, Kleiza, JR, Billups, AI, Andre Miller, Afflalo, Lawson, Balkman.

The West was tough at the time, and you cant blame the lack of playoff success all on Melo, but it’s hard not to assume if you replace him with someone more mature on and off the court like Bron or Wade, they probably make more playoff noise than they did. (With Bron they win multiple chips obviously). Those teams were never short on talent, only on maturity, IQ, and leadership.

[dankok8]

Kblaze dropping knowledge as usual...

As he said the Nuggets didn't get a lot better with Billups. They went from a 50-32 +3.74 SRS team to a 54-28 +3.13 SRS team when Chauncey came. Difference is in 2009 most of the other top teams in the West had bad years (like Hornets and Spurs) so the Nuggets ended up as the 2nd seed. No doubt they were a bit better than the year before but Billups' impact is overrated. Carmelo and JR had much better form.

The best player on that team was Carmelo. He was killing it in the playoffs until he got hurt in the Lakers series.

[FultzNationRISE]

Kblaze dropping knowledge as usual...

As he said the Nuggets didn't get a lot better with Billups. They went from a 50-32 +3.74 SRS team to a 54-28 +3.13 SRS team when Chauncey came. Difference is in 2009 most of the other top teams in the West had bad years (like Hornets and Spurs) so the Nuggets ended up as the 2nd seed. No doubt they were a bit better than the year before but Billups' impact is overrated. Carmelo and JR had much better form.

The best player on that team was Carmelo. He was killing it in the playoffs until he got hurt in the Lakers series.


Probably not coincidence they played better with Billups at the helm over AI.

[ArbitraryWater]

Thats very surprising to hear that he got more MVP votes than Meo...

maybe cause Meo missed 16 games and Chauncey kept them afoat?

But Meo was a beast that year and easiy their best payer.


He made them go that far.

[ArbitraryWater]

The Nuggets won 50 games and lost in the first round to the lakers before Billips. With him they won 54 and 53 losing to the lakers in the wcf and the Jazz in the first round before trading both he and Melo to the Knicks and having a better record(58 win pace) with them both gone. They fell off but still made the playoffs without both for a full season…losing to the lakers again. Before Karl got fired he had another 57 win season there with Iggy.


Between suspensions(Knicks brawl), injury(Kmart and Nene), and roster moves they could realistically have won the same 50-55 that whole run before, with, and after Billups but for whatever reason some seasons get latched on as magical runs and we have to hear about them for decades if 1-2 things fall into place so…whatever.

Nuggets were a good team leaning a little this way or that most of Karls run. They won 49 games in Melos second season. Ran into the champion spurs in the first round even with that record. They played champion spurs teams twice and 3 Laker teams with Kobe/Pau. One year while having a similar season to a bunch of the others they avoided playing a championship caliber team for a while, so they lost later than usual, but the way people talk you would think they went from the outhouse to the penthouse. They had a swing equal to like one extra week of hot shooting, so the seeding came out different. There wasn’t anything that special about it to me.


2009 was far and away their strongest side. They were a coupe pays from the fina.

[1987_Lakers]

The Nuggets won 50 games and lost in the first round to the lakers before Billips. With him they won 54 and 53 losing to the lakers in the wcf and the Jazz in the first round before trading both he and Melo to the Knicks and having a better record(58 win pace) with them both gone. They fell off but still made the playoffs without both for a full season…losing to the lakers again. Before Karl got fired he had another 57 win season there with Iggy.


Between suspensions(Knicks brawl), injury(Kmart and Nene), and roster moves they could realistically have won the same 50-55 that whole run before, with, and after Billups but for whatever reason some seasons get latched on as magical runs and we have to hear about them for decades if 1-2 things fall into place so…whatever.

Nuggets were a good team leaning a little this way or that most of Karls run. They won 49 games in Melos second season. Ran into the champion spurs in the first round even with that record. They played champion spurs teams twice and 3 Laker teams with Kobe/Pau. One year while having a similar season to a bunch of the others they avoided playing a championship caliber team for a while, so they lost later than usual, but the way people talk you would think they went from the outhouse to the penthouse. They had a swing equal to like one extra week of hot shooting, so the seeding came out different. There wasn’t anything that special about it to me.

Your Iverson fetish needs to stop. Nuggets got better when they traded him for Billups.

When they lost to the Kobe/Pau in 2008 they got swept, three of the games were blowouts and Iverson per usual had an inefficient series (along with Melo).

Billups brought the team some leadership, defense, & IQ, something that the team desperately needed. They took the Lakers to 6 games, and beat Dirk & CP3 in previous rounds. Chauncey Billups was highly thought of throughout that season.

[iamgine]

2009 Nuggets: Billups best player in the regular season. Melo best player in the playoff.

[Im Still Ballin]

Kblaze dropping knowledge as usual...

As he said the Nuggets didn't get a lot better with Billups. They went from a 50-32 +3.74 SRS team to a 54-28 +3.13 SRS team when Chauncey came. Difference is in 2009 most of the other top teams in the West had bad years (like Hornets and Spurs) so the Nuggets ended up as the 2nd seed. No doubt they were a bit better than the year before but Billups' impact is overrated. Carmelo and JR had much better form.

The best player on that team was Carmelo. He was killing it in the playoffs until he got hurt in the Lakers series.

Denver was also 53-29 with a 4.15 SRS in 2010 for what it's worth.

[dankok8]

Denver was also 53-29 with a 4.15 SRS in 2010 for what it's worth.

Yes they were and they lost to a mediocre Utah team in the first round.

Another data point that shows that the Nuggets with Billups weren't really much better than those in 2008. A bit better sure but that could also be Melo and JR improving.


Probably not coincidence they played better with Billups at the helm over AI.

Both Melo and JR were pretty young before Billups. Could be tied to Billups but maybe not.

[Kblaze8855]

Your Iverson fetish needs to stop. Nuggets got better when they traded him for Billups.

When they lost to the Kobe/Pau in 2008 they got swept, three of the games were blowouts and Iverson per usual had an inefficient series (along with Melo).

Billups brought the team some leadership, defense, & IQ, something that the team desperately needed. They took the Lakers to 6 games, and beat Dirk & CP3 in previous rounds. Chauncey Billups was highly thought of throughout that season.


If that’s what you wanna call it. Team won between 49-57 games like 4-5 times in the Karl run two of them without Billups and lost to the same 2 contenders 5 times. A couple games keeping you from playing that team till later doesn’t show a new level to me. Especially when you go and get beat in the first round by the Jazz and the team plays at a 58 win pace after both were traded.

Just doesn’t point to some magical touch. Like I said sometimes we just make a situation out to be more than it was then we gotta hear about it for 20 years like it mattered. Just don’t get it. Especially a fools gold situation like that where they go get wiped out by Boozer and Deron.

If they were like a .500 team ok. But they were the same basic level. The same win total from 09 makes them a 7 seed in 08. They played champions 5 times in that Karl run. They just met them later one year when less wins got a higher seed.

You don’t need a new level for that. It’s gotta be the smallest difference to keep getting talked about like this. The west was just really close after the Lakers and Spurs. Any of the rest could realistically win a series vs the others. They proved pretty middle of that pack losing to the jazz the next year and being blown up the one after with the team not really getting worse.

They were a good team that would lose to whatever real contender they faced. Just a matter of how the seeding shook out the years in question. A level below being real.

[Im Still Ballin]

Atlanta in the '90s with Lenny Wilkens was kind of like that. Consistently good but just kind of there to be knocked off by the real players.

[dankok8]

Atlanta in the '90s with Lenny Wilkens was kind of like that. Consistently good but just kind of there to be knocked off by the real players.

You mean Dominique?

[imdaman99]

No but he was their most important player. He brought a winning mentality otherwise melo ain't it. Same shit happened here, melo had nice numbers but they never won consistently until he got veteran leaders on the squad. Melo was never a leader

[tpols]

If that’s what you wanna call it. Team won between 49-57 games like 4-5 times in the Karl run two of them without Billups and lost to the same 2 contenders 5 times. A couple games keeping you from playing that team till later doesn’t show a new level to me. Especially when you go and get beat in the first round by the Jazz and the team plays at a 58 win pace after both were traded.

Just doesn’t point to some magical touch. Like I said sometimes we just make a situation out to be more than it was then we gotta hear about it for 20 years like it mattered. Just don’t get it. Especially a fools gold situation like that where they go get wiped out by Boozer and Deron.

If they were like a .500 team ok. But they were the same basic level. The same win total from 09 makes them a 7 seed in 08. They played champions 5 times in that Karl run. They just met them later one year when less wins got a higher seed.

You don’t need a new level for that. It’s gotta be the smallest difference to keep getting talked about like this. The west was just really close after the Lakers and Spurs. Any of the rest could realistically win a series vs the others. They proved pretty middle of that pack losing to the jazz the next year and being blown up the one after with the team not really getting worse.

They were a good team that would lose to whatever real contender they faced. Just a matter of how the seeding shook out the years in question. A level below being real.

Iverson could shoot 15% from the field and you'd still defend him because "he's got heart" or whatever.

The fact of the matter is Chauncey Billups had 1000x more intangibles and leadership and IQ than Iverson had. He didn't just produce much more efficiently than Iverson, but he also IMPROVED his teammates around him.

Melo was normally an inefficient chucker in almost all of his playoff runs. The ONLY time he was efficient was playing with Billups.

Take that as you will. Either way there's no doubt Chauncey Billups had a stronger impact on winn8ng than Allen Iverson.

[Xiao Yao You]

Iverson could shoot 15% from the field and you'd still defend him because "he's got heart" or whatever.

The fact of the matter is Chauncey Billups had 1000x more intangibles and leadership and IQ than Iverson had. He didn't just produce much more efficiently than Iverson, but he also IMPROVED his teammates around him.

Melo was normally an inefficient chucker in almost all of his playoff runs. The ONLY time he was efficient was playing with Billups.

Take that as you will. Either way there's no doubt Chauncey Billups had a stronger impact on winn8ng than Allen Iverson.

as did Andre Miller

[tpols]

as did Andre Miller

As crazy as it sounds that might be true.

Selfish low IQ maniacal players hurt your chances at winning. We saw it this year with Westbrook... he went OFF with the clippers in the playoffs when kawhi and PG were out.

Yet on a winning talented team like the Lakers the second they unloaded him... LA looked 100x better.

There are certain players that get all the stats for themselves and can't FIT into winning systems. That's just facts.

[Xiao Yao You]

As crazy as it sounds that might be true.

Selfish low IQ maniacal players hurt your chances at winning. We saw it this year with Westbrook... he went OFF with the clippers in the playoffs when kawhi and PG were out.

Yet on a winning talented team like the Lakers the second they unloaded him... LA looked 100x better.

There are certain players that get all the stats for themselves and can't FIT into winning systems. That's just facts.

To be fair the Lakers looked a lot better because they got several good players to replace one

[Kblaze8855]

Iverson could shoot 15% from the field and you'd still defend him because "he's got heart" or whatever.

The fact of the matter is Chauncey Billups had 1000x more intangibles and leadership and IQ than Iverson had. He didn't just produce much more efficiently than Iverson, but he also IMPROVED his teammates around him.

Melo was normally an inefficient chucker in almost all of his playoff runs. The ONLY time he was efficient was playing with Billups.

Take that as you will. Either way there's no doubt Chauncey Billups had a stronger impact on winn8ng than Allen Iverson.

First of all…the most efficient Melo ever was in the playoffs was in 07 vs the Spurs when AI got there. Not that it matters.


Second there’s nothing to defend. He had a better than average career for a hall of famer while a bunch of people efficiently won no more(usually less) than he did despite better teams. Dudes out here playing with two other stars shooting 54% winning 43 games and losing in the first round their whole life in the Hall of Fame and never get a world of criticism.

He doesn’t require a defense against Chauncey Billups of all people. He’s a first ballot hall of famer with the respect of the other hall of famers. The admiration of many of them in fact.

He doesn’t need the props of haters on the internet. Especially not because a guy like Chauncey who shot 35, 40, and 31% for back to back to back series in his prime won more on much better teams while asked to do less. 15 years of talking about a teams vast improvement which was losing to the same team because the win total from the second year resulted in like a second seed instead of the 7th where it would have previously. And totally ignoring that they then got wiped out by a Jazz team that was itself a pretender.


Talking about facts….

People on the fringe like nothing more than to pretend what they think is indisputable despite the extreme majority reaching other conclusions. It’s fine. Keep your “facts”. You have a deeper understanding of the game than everyone. Whatever I think about that I’m not interested enough that you think it to have a whole fight. The whole “Let me explain what all society doesn’t get…” thing is rarely entertaining. And it’s usually from people like you who are know nothing know it alls on such a level they can conclude that Giannis is a bad basketball player.

The type of who is such a contrarian while trying to look smart talking about casuals they end up looking stupid.

knowing it won’t go anywhere, I’ll leave you alone. Ill just let you know how funny I find it you think Allen Iverson is overrated while also thinking Giannis is bad at the game and hot sauce is a basketball genius.

You can’t decide when you want to be a ****ing moron 15-year-old, and when you want to play professor and pontificate on the intricacies of the game while showing disappointment the normies can’t get theirs heads around your advanced concepts.

it’s interesting how you bounce back-and-forth but not interesting enough to use my Saturday talking to you about it.

[RRR3]

First of all…the most efficient Melo ever was in the playoffs was in 07 vs the Spurs when AI got there. Not that it matters.


Second there’s nothing to defend. He had a better than average career for a hall of famer while a bunch of people efficiently won no more(usually less) than he did despite better teams. Dudes out here playing with two other stars shooting 54% winning 43 games and losing in the first round their whole life in the Hall of Fame and never get a world of criticism.

He doesn’t require a defense against Chauncey Billups of all people. He’s a first ballot hall of famer with the respect of the other hall of famers. The admiration of many of them in fact.

He doesn’t need the props of haters on the internet. Especially not because a guy like Chauncey who shot 35, 40, and 31% for back to back to back series in his prime won more on much better teams while asked to do less. 15 years of talking about a teams vast improvement which was losing to the same team because the win total from the second year resulted in like a second seed instead of the 7th where it would have previously. And totally ignoring that they then got wiped out by a Jazz team that was itself a pretender.


Talking about facts….

People on the fringe like nothing more than to pretend what they think is indisputable despite the extreme majority reaching other conclusions. It’s fine. Keep your “facts”. You have a deeper understanding of the game than everyone. Whatever I think about that I’m not interested enough that you think it to have a whole fight. The whole “Let me explain what all society doesn’t get…” thing is rarely entertaining. And it’s usually from people like you who are know nothing know it alls on such a level they can conclude that Giannis is a bad basketball player.

The type of who is such a contrarian while trying to look smart talking about casuals they end up looking stupid.

knowing it won’t go anywhere, I’ll leave you alone. Ill just let you know how funny I find it you think Allen Iverson is overrated while also thinking Giannis is bad at the game and hot sauce is a basketball genius.

You can’t decide when you want to be a ****ing moron 15-year-old, and when you want to play professor and pontificate on the intricacies of the game while showing disappointment the normies can’t get theirs heads around your advanced concepts.

it’s interesting how you bounce back-and-forth but not interesting enough to use my Saturday talking to you about it.
:applause: :applause: :applause:


He picks and chooses arguments based on whether or not he likes players. For guys he likes such as Kobe, Kyrie etc stats don’t count because they had skill, “will to win”, etc. So he’ll rate them over guys with better advanced stats such as LeBron, Shaq or Giannis because those guys “lacked skill”. But then he’ll turn around and say Iverson, a skilled player with certainly a lot of will to win, stinks because of advanced stats.

[tpols]

Whew....

Talk about the phrase "the truth hurts."

I ain't ever see you get that riled up without a legit rebutall.

[tpols]

:applause: :applause: :applause:


He picks and chooses arguments based on whether or not he likes players. For guys he likes such as Kobe, Kyrie etc stats don’t count because they had skill, “will to win”, etc. So he’ll rate them over guys with better advanced stats such as LeBron, Shaq or Giannis because those guys “lacked skill”. But then he’ll turn around and say Iverson, a skilled player with certainly a lot of will to win, stinks because of advanced stats.

Kobe and Kyrie both produced elite on the championship level. (NBA and international)

Comparing them to Iverson is stupid.

[Xiao Yao You]

Whew....

Talk about the phrase "the truth hurts."

I ain't ever see you get that riled up without a legit rebutall.

you got to like the right players or else!

[Overdrive]

Kobe and Kyrie both produced elite on the championship level. (NBA and international)

Comparing them to Iverson is stupid.

27.7 points, 4.2 assists and 4.2 rebounds on 46,8% FG
25.3 points, 5.7 rebounds and 5.1 assists on 41,2% FG
35.6 points, 5.6 rebounds and 3.8 assists on 40% FG

Where do you draw the line here between elite production and not? The 1,2% FG while having much less raw points? The 1,3 assists, while playing with great finish pieces?

[Kblaze8855]

Whew....

Talk about the phrase "the truth hurts."

I ain't ever see you get that riled up without a legit rebutall.

You’ve never seen me riled up at all. The only thing that annoyed me that day was looking at 30 different nail options for my girlfriend who I’m taking to Disney this weekend and won’t stop obsessing with Halloween based nails even though it’s two months away.

You certainly do make a lot of stupid hypocritical arguments, and it is my nature to point out all the reasons I find something stupid and hypocritical, which is why I probably lead this place in words over the last two decades….but this particular one is no worse than most.

Once it hit the point you were seriously trying to argue Hall of Famers as being bad at basketball it was clear you’re just an over the top contrarian taking weird stances to stand apart as if an unusual take means you have an intelligent one. And when you mix that with people you have a personal vendetta against you often end up cosigning the kind of idiot who thinks Steph Curry was worse than Brian winters and couldn’t make the NBA in the 70s or that Rudy Gobert setting a lot of screens makes his offensive contribution as significant to his team as Jokic.

Bad posters just kinda tend to find a way to agree and end up on the dumb side of wide ranging arguments. Its curious but not really upsetting.

I think the last time somebody like you actually annoyed me was one of those analytic nerds on here years ago pushing one of those weirdly named plus minus stats and explaining that five Amir Johnson’s would beat a team of five Kobes and such numbers when in conflict with one’s eyes tells us our eyes are wrong.

Theres a lot of weird shit on the internet. That’s what I consider you and Xiao. Weird shit on the internet. Can’t keep getting upset by it even if I have a propensity to over explain myself for the sake of clarity, and not having to repeat it. Id have to get back on the blood pressure medication I was finally able to quit if I cared what you posted beyond a quick scoff at the absurdity of it all.

[tpols]

27.7 points, 4.2 assists and 4.2 rebounds on 46,8% FG
25.3 points, 5.7 rebounds and 5.1 assists on 41,2% FG
35.6 points, 5.6 rebounds and 3.8 assists on 40% FG

Where do you draw the line here between elite production and not? The 1,2% FG while having much less raw points? The 1,3 assists, while playing with great finish pieces?

You're using a 5 game sample size for Iverson with those stats... Compare the whole run. AI was shooting 34% in the 2001 ECFs vs the Bucks while Kobe was destroying the spurs in the WCFs that same year. Run for run in 2001 playoffs Kobe played way better than Iverson. Championship level doesn't only = the Finals especially when using such small sample size for the comparison. It accounts for tough playoff series in general.

Compare their play in international ball and its even worse. Iverson was the main culprit in taking the USA down with his chucking and ballhogging. Kobe restored Gold in 2008 with his leadership and clutch shot making, and Kyrie was FIBA MVP in 2014. They're just way higher IQ players and much better shooters than Iverson.

[Kblaze8855]

Iverson was the main culprit in taking the USA down with his chucking and ballhogging.



And when they lost to the same team with Andre Miller getting the most minutes at point and Reggie the most at the 2 in 02….AI did that from home? And with Wade and Lebron as the go to guys shooting 58 and 59% the next time with AI also at home….did his chucking and ball hogging cause that too?

Or could it be that basketball isn’t as simple as people who, ironically, are out to convince people they are knowledgeable about by leaning on efficiency stats…think it is?

People always on here talking up their deeper understanding than the casuals making the absolute most simplistic observations and ignoring mountains of evidence that it’s really a nuanced conversation.

[Kblaze8855]

Did I miss AI out here?


https://s.imgfi.com/images/IMG_6030.gif



All I see is Andre Miller getting it to Reggie who he didn’t realize can’t always make a shot from nothing and getting it thrown back so we could lose again…and finish not first…or second…or third. Not even 4th. We finished 6th. You’d figure all that basketball IQ and and unselfishness in the backcourt could help a team with 9 nba all stars finish ahead of New Zealand but unfortunately…it isn’t nearly that simple.

[Overdrive]

You're using a 5 game sample size for Iverson with those stats... Compare the whole run. AI was shooting 34% in the 2001 ECFs vs the Bucks while Kobe was destroying the spurs in the WCFs that same year. Run for run in 2001 playoffs Kobe played way better than Iverson. Championship level doesn't only = the Finals especially when using such small sample size for the comparison. It accounts for tough playoff series in general.

Compare their play in international ball and its even worse. Iverson was the main culprit in taking the USA down with his chucking and ballhogging. Kobe restored Gold in 2008 with his leadership and clutch shot making, and Kyrie was FIBA MVP in 2014. They're just way higher IQ players and much better shooters than Iverson.

Yeah, pretty sure Kobe faced the same defensive attention against the Spurs as AI did vs the Bucks. It's funny how you only apply context when it suits your agenda. The moment someone brings up Lebron vs Kobe it's all context and no stats again.

Sorry, but AI had elite production on bad efficiency. Just like Kobe for most of his career. You're just dishonest.

[tpols]

Yeah, pretty sure Kobe faced the same defensive attention against the Spurs as AI did vs the Bucks. It's funny how you only apply context when it suits your agenda. The moment someone brings up Lebron vs Kobe it's all context and no stats again.

Sorry, but AI had elite production on bad efficiency. Just like Kobe for most of his career. You're just dishonest.

And that's why we brought up the Nuggets in this thread, who were a very talented offensive team so you cant cry about defensive attention. Where Iverson still shot very poorly in the playoffs while Kobe lit him up. And then in the following years Billups took AIs place and was hyper efficient in the playoffs helping Denver advance further than they ever previously did.

Kobe has a handful of playoff runs where he was very efficient overall that ended up in rings most of which came without Shaq. AI literally never had a single efficient playoff run whether it was on a defensive team like the sixers, an offensive team like Denver or a general stacked team like in the Olympics where he was chucking double the shots of prime Tim Duncan.

That's as much context as you can possibly get.

[paksat]

duncan and iverson will never get a pass for losing in 04

two first ballot hall of famers getting HANDLED and ABUSED