Why didn't Paul Pierce and Tim Duncan play for the redeeem team in 2008?

They were the best players of the Team USA who lost in the 2002 fiba world and 2004 athens olympics.

Duncan said he wouldn't play again after 2004. Didn't like the reffing I think was the reason

Paul Pierce was hated by his teammates and coaches in 2002 why would they bring him back?

[QUOTE=Xiao Yao You;14829228]Duncan said he wouldn't play again after 2004. Didn't like the reffing I think was the reason[/QUOTE]

What a *****. And a whiny bitch. Good riddance anyway his game couldn’t even translate to international ball with more physicality. Allen Iverson was their best player. Duncan is the worst big name all time great to ever don the red, white and blue.

[QUOTE=WhiteKyrie;14829252]What a *****. And a whiny bitch. Good riddance anyway his game couldn’t even translate to international ball with more physicality. Allen Iverson was their best player. Duncan is the worst big name all time great to ever don the red, white and blue.[/QUOTE]

Iverson as their best player is why they got beat

Duncan had a horrible experience overall in 04 so was done with it. I really think it was more related to Larry Brown than anything else but he still had a bad taste in his mouth about the whole thing.

[QUOTE=Xiao Yao You;14829253]Iverson as their best player is why they got beat[/QUOTE]

No it’s cause he was the only one that showed up besides a big game from Marbury. And dumb Larry Brown’s refusal to play the trio of LeBron, Wade, and Melo more with young legs.

Your logic, or lack there of, exemplified right here why it’s clear you don’t know shit about basketball, but delusionally talk so definitively like you do.

Tim Duncan didn’t carry his weight that his name brings. He was total dog shit. That’s the problem. Allen Iverson performed.

[QUOTE=WhiteKyrie;14829261]No it’s cause he was the only one that showed up besides a big game from Marbury. And dumb Larry Brown’s refusal to play the trio of LeBron, Wade, and Melo more with young legs.

Your logic, or lack there of, exemplified right here why it’s clear you don’t know shit about basketball, but delusionally talk so definitively like you do.

Tim Duncan didn’t carry his weight that his name brings. He was total dog shit. That’s the problem. Allen Iverson performed.[/QUOTE]

Iverson is going to leave it all on the floor. Unfortunately he was a low IQ player. Carmelo should have never even been on the team like most of them. He was a rookie as were the other two. This was the peak of them picking guys to market them because they thought they could win regardless. The guy picking the team and the coach have to be on the same page and they certainly weren't. Kerr wouldn't play Kessler or Portis. Both could have helped.

[QUOTE=WhiteKyrie;14829261]No it’s cause he was the only one that showed up besides a big game from Marbury. And dumb Larry Brown’s refusal to play the trio of LeBron, Wade, and Melo more with young legs.

Your logic, or lack there of, exemplified right here why it’s clear you don’t know shit about basketball, but delusionally talk so definitively like you do.

Tim Duncan didn’t carry his weight that his name brings. He was total dog shit. That’s the problem. Allen Iverson performed.[/QUOTE]

Duncan averaged 13ppg on great efficiency. The problem is they didn't give him the ball and he is not a selfish player whatsoever. Less than 9 shots per game for Tim is pathetic coaching and decision making by the guards of that USA team.

[QUOTE=Carbine;14829269]Duncan averaged 13ppg on great efficiency. The problem is they didn't give him the ball and he is not a selfish player whatsoever. Less than 9 shots per game for Tim is pathetic coaching and decision making by the guards of that USA team.[/QUOTE]

13 ppg ain’t cutting it and he couldn’t stay on the floor to get touches because he plays defense with his hands and arms and got called for fouls. Another reason why I prefer KG over Duncan. Please don’t tell me you’re arguing Duncan was good on the 2004 team. Or played even close to expectations. You can’t be serious?

He was their best player even with all the dumb shot jacking by the guards.

Also, FIBA gets glorified for being a more physical style but in those particular games for Duncan every other foul he recieved was downright a ticky tack call by any standard.

[QUOTE=WhiteKyrie;14829252]What a *****. And a whiny bitch. Good riddance anyway his game couldn’t even translate to international ball with more physicality. Allen Iverson was their best player. Duncan is the worst big name all time great to ever don the red, white and blue.[/QUOTE]

Iverson literally shot them out of the tournament. Even surrounded by premier star talent he shot jacked and took the most shots out of anybody. Him and Marbury shooting in the 30s% wise taking all the shots.

[QUOTE=tpols;14829280]Iverson literally shot them out of the tournament. Even surrounded by premier star talent he shot jacked and took the most shots out of anybody. Him and Marbury shooting in the 30s% wise taking all the shots.[/QUOTE]

the fact that anyone thought they could win with that coach and roster is laughable

[QUOTE=WhiteKyrie;14829270]13 ppg ain’t cutting it and he couldn’t stay on the floor to get touches because he plays defense with his hands and arms and got called for fouls. Another reason why I prefer KG over Duncan. Please don’t tell me you’re arguing Duncan was good on the 2004 team. Or played even close to expectations. You can’t be serious?[/QUOTE]

Why didn't your boy KG play? Was he gassed after finally getting out of the first round after 9 seasons?

Duncan did what he had to. Just a shame no other top 10 US player went and all got passes.

They had to get 9 current All-Stars on the same team to beat beat Spain in 08, but now they should have won with 2 current All-Stars in 04. Sure thing.

[QUOTE=Nowitness;14829704]Why didn't your boy KG play? Was he gassed after finally getting out of the first round after 9 seasons?

Duncan did what he had to. Just a shame no other top 10 US player went and all got passes.

They had to get 9 current All-Stars on the same team to beat beat Spain in 08, but now they should have won with 2 current All-Stars in 04. Sure thing.[/QUOTE]

they shouldn't have won with that shitty roster and Brown. They thought they could send whomever and win

[QUOTE=tpols;14829280]Iverson literally shot them out of the tournament. Even surrounded by premier star talent he shot jacked and took the most shots out of anybody. Him and Marbury shooting in the 30s% wise taking all the shots.[/QUOTE]

as usual, you can’t see anything past the simplest explanation. The team you claim he ruined, ended up in the same place the 58% Shooting Wade and LeBron got them next tournament and three spots ahead of where your boys Andre Miller and Reggie got them in the previous tournament, playing hot potato at the end of the game because neither of them were good at creating a shot. Andre finds Reggie who immediately tosses it back to Andre who had to take the bad pull-up instead as USA lost with nba players for the first time ever. You speak literally when you mean figuratively. Reggie Miller literally was useless on the play that actually knocked America out of a tournament(also missed late free throws and a 3 in another L). You wouldn’t remember because as usual, you don’t care to look much into what you speak about but that team was supposed to get back the gold in that tournament after losing the last one.

NBA players didn’t have contracts in 1998 because of the lockout so the team full of all stars they picked refused to go as did the best recently retired NBA players who stayed home in solidarity. So USA sent some college kids, a bunch of CBA players, and some guys playing in Europe. A dude you never heard of named Wendel Alexis led team usa to third without nba players. Then they reload and send two guards I’ve seen you and the poster above me claim were more effective than AI…backed by 8 additional all stars…and come in 6th. 6th place. Worse than New Zealand.

But your evaluations are so basic you can only look at stats and say AI lost them the tournament in his run despite them losing with players his polar opposite before and after him with teams that should have dominated too. Team USA showed in 2000 when there was a shot in the air to beat them at the buzzer, in 02 when they were 6th, and in 04 and 06 being third that they just couldn’t defend the international screen game and no matter who you sent the offense never meshed.

Closest any team usa in that era came to looking right was 03 when(as the announcer here will tell you) AI was also leading them when they actually needed to qualify because the 2002 team was so shitty.

[video=youtube_share;O2sEjAX6Fro]https://youtu.be/O2sEjAX6Fro?si=WmWJWhq0pBPhhV17[/video]



People 20 years later talking about who should have been the focus and don’t know or care guys like Duncan couldn’t even stay on the floor in 04. He was trying not to foul out on ticky tack plays that he got away with in the league. Once they saw they couldn’t rely on him to be aggressive they should have let the kids come in and run.

They had years as both the top scoring and worst defensive team though so it’s clear where the real issues were. Anyone on any of those teams could’ve shot whatever considering nobody was shooting more than 11 or 12 times anyway if they weren’t getting consistently slaughtered trying to defend 70 year old concepts executed by nobodies stiffened by good screen game guards from like 6 countries.

No one player won or lost anything for America for that whole 98-2008 run and then they assembled Voltron for a few runs and still played close games.

People really have to stop looking for individual scapegoats when 5 straight teams either lost or avoided it by a single jumper with 5 different groups of players and actually finished in the same place or better with the CBA guys as they did with all stars and hall of famers.

A team of college kids likely produces the same results as squads starting the Millers, AI/Marbury, Paul/Wade and so on.

The winning and losing of those games was way more involved than what any one player shot which should be clear when the results were essentially the same for 10 years and continues now.

NBA fans trained to look only at offense and shooting numbers are some of the blindest basketball fans ever. Before basketball got so individualized fans would see the larger team issue of those losses.

Kids of the hot take era can’t do anything but see a box score and assign blame to shit they can’t explain any other way.

Like 7 little(and two big) crafty guards cooked our ass for a decade of lineups with 3 dozen all stars in and out of lineups and the argument is still “Look what ____ shot”. The problem was defense. Even when we send defenders the problem is defense. Contain Arroyo, Jasakevisnwhateveris, Vspan, Manu and so on they may have lost one game all those years. And not even scoring wise. They could just do whatever they wanted in that setting like little guards do in college.

They were out there playing together and focused on one or two lead guards beating us while we had times Ben Wallace was the only guy getting buckets on a team of stars.

Team USA just didn’t play good basketball for 10-15 years relative to talent. Hell relative to talent the redeem team didn’t either unless you think a team with prime Kobe, Lebron, Wade, and Paul should be within 5 points of anyone.

The talent advantage just doesn’t fully translate to the international level and it hasn’t for 25 years now. AI. Reggie. Wade. Lebron. Vince. Whoever.

The only team USA to play to potential since 96 was the cba squad in 98 that did its best and came in third.

any mention of AI :roll:

Putting aside for now that you have like 20 thousand posts about someone who won’t be remembered or celebrated anywhere in about 6 years…

Exceptionally stupid points are my bat signal, and he happens to be someone who generates exceptionally stupid points. He’s probably lead the league in stupid point generation more times than points per game. It actually has me wondering who the all-time leader would be. It’s probably Jordan or LeBron, because of the high percentage of points being made about them by people just trying to further a stupid argument but pulling aside, the Internet big three of those two and Kobe?

Wilt Chamberlain maybe? He may be the all-time leader in dumb points on the Internet made by people who clearly only care enough to criticize not to investigate. Considering he gets criticized for scoring too much and for sacrificing his scoring too much while winning he’s gotta be the leader. Luckily it comes up less often

A team that has to depend on a 37 year old Miller playing on a severely sprained ankle that needed surgery deserves to lose.

Its not a sure bet if they could have won with him healthy either but they could have had better chemistry and leadership atleast.

I actually wouldn’t say it’s Reggie’s fault at all if we are being serious. He was factually involved in the final play that was the first time the NBA ever lost but as I pointed out, they didn’t have a team beating people by the margins they should have for well over a decade and no one played was on all of them. When we watch a team with Paul, Wade, Durant, Kobe, and Lebron beat a European team by 5 we really all should have stopped thinking it was as simple as the right names being untouchable.

But we didn’t. Because we are stubborn on this issue. That or just stupid. Note the “we”. I don’t exclude myself. It still feeeeeels like a super team should curbstomp everyone.

But they won’t.

Let Jokić show up for Serbia next time. It doesn’t matter who we send it could be a dogfight. And people really aren’t getting that despite 20 years of evidence.

[QUOTE=WhiteKyrie;14829252]What a *****. And a whiny bitch. Good riddance anyway his game couldn’t even translate to international ball with more physicality. Allen Iverson was their best player. Duncan is the worst big name all time great to ever don the red, white and blue.[/QUOTE]

I don't think Tim Duncan ĥad a problem with physicality having to bang with prime Shaq, Ben Wallace, Rasheed Wallace etc. in the NBA.

And he was never much of a guy who flopped or played soft. Tim Duncan played straight up. No chaser.

Allen Iverson actually ruined him in international play. Shooting 30 something % from the floor taking the most shots out of anybody on the team. And offering zero floor man ship or set up ability. Straight ghetto AAU glory baller.

People like Kblaze like to harp on Eric snow and derrick mckie as to why AI always took tons of shots but even playing with a prime top 10 GOAT he still did the same thing. And still shot poorly while bringing nothing else to the table. Defense, rebounding, passing.... nothing. Just in efficient hero ball shot jacking.

[QUOTE=tpols;14830371]I don't think Tim Duncan ĥad a problem with physicality having to bang with prime Shaq, Ben Wallace, Rasheed Wallace etc. in the NBA.

And he was never much of a guy who flopped or played soft. Tim Duncan played straight up. No chaser.

Allen Iverson actually ruined him in international play. Shooting 30 something % from the floor taking the most shots out of anybody on the team. And offering zero floor man ship or set up ability. Straight ghetto AAU glory baller.

People like Kblaze like to harp on Eric snow and derrick mckie as to why AI always took tons of shots but even playing with a prime top 10 GOAT he still did the same thing. And still shot poorly while bringing nothing else to the table. Defense, rebounding, passing.... nothing. Just in efficient hero ball shot jacking.[/QUOTE]

exactly what you'd expect from a low IQ gunner

[QUOTE=Xiao Yao You;14829291]the fact that anyone thought they could win with that coach and roster is laughable[/QUOTE]

Larry Brown being the coach I feel like enabled Iversons shot jacking. It was almost like your dad being the coach and giving you free reign to do whatever you want even if it was to the detriment of the team. Like a spoiled AAU kid.

It amazes me that kblaze continually defends it. He always brings up past failures by other players to justify everything and absolve glaring issues of the main culprit to the issue at hand.

[QUOTE=tpols;14830386]Larry Brown being the coach I feel like enabled Iversons shot jacking. It was almost like your dad being the coach and giving you free reign to do whatever you want even if it was to the detriment of the team. Like a spoiled AAU kid.

It amazes me that kblaze continually defends it. He always brings up past failures by other players to justify everything and absolve glaring issues of the main culprits.[/QUOTE]

It's all about which players you like and don't like. You like the right ones and you're cool. You don't there's a problem

Kblaze888555 is off he damn rocker on this one.

If I loved the legendary Carlos Boozer not playing D and being injured all the time I'd be in like Flynn

[QUOTE=Xiao Yao You;14830388]It's all about which players you like and don't like. You like the right ones and you're cool. You don't there's a problem[/QUOTE]

It's not even that...

It's about what you appreciate leads to winning basketball. I "like" iversons game. It's fluid and aesthetic and remarkable.

Does it really contribute to winning? Maybe when we were teenagers and he could juke everybody out and be the most popular kid for it.

At top levels of competition though it becomes stagnant. That hero stuff wears out. You eventually need to bring other facets to the table which he never brought.

[QUOTE=tpols;14830392]It's not even that...

It's about what you appreciate leads to winning basketball. I "like" iversons game. It's fluid and aesthetic and remarkable.

Does it really contribute to winning? Maybe when we were teenagers and he could juke everybody out and be the most popular kid for it.

At top levels of competition though it becomes stagnant. That hero stuff wears out. You eventually need to bring other facets to the table which he never brought.[/QUOTE]

I wouldn't have wanted him on my team unless he was a 6th man which he wouldn't accept. He played hard, not smart. Made the finals behind a great D and an awful conference

You’re all free to love or hate whoever you want if you can make a good point. The idea that one person is the reason team USA lost when the primary thing he does that gets criticized was not done by the team before and after him who lost just makes it a tough case. Replaced with a dude shooting Shaq numbers they lose. They lost with eight All-Stars and finished behind New Zealand before he ever played for team USA. But the team he was on lost because he was there and not because a list of impressive names doesn’t necessarily win in a national ball, which has been proven by them losing like….15ish times with nba players.

team USA loses all the time. They were literally one shot from losing five tournaments in a row with something like 30 Hall of Famer’s, but the reason they lost the one Allen Iverson was there is Allen Iversons shot selection.

We go out there and get in a dogfight with a squad of nobodies and role players with Kobe, LeBron, and Durant there at the same time with the justice league behind them as support and we are here acting like Allen Iverson ruined team USA that has not played up to the talent it has for like 27 years.

team USA lost with a loaded squad in 2004 for the same reason they have lost I wanna say six tournaments with teams that shouldn’t have. You watch the shit happen over and over and over and over and over and over and over and can’t get it through your head that these talented lineups no longer mean you should win. The 2004 team lost the same reason they lost all the other times. The talent disparity isn’t what you think it is because of the names on the back of the jersey because as I’ve been saying on here for 20 years…..on the same floor there isnt nearly the difference fans want to believe there is among groups of good players.

Iverson being top whatever all time and Duncan being top whatever doesn’t mean you just hand one of them the ball and they kick somebody’s ass because you never heard of them. I could understand thinking it the first time you saw it but after you see it seven or eight times, it’s probably about time to adjust your thinking.

most of the time team USA just plays shit defense for the kinds of teams they face. They send all timers over there and can barely defend NBA third stringers playing internationally. Even great fundamental guys like Duncan were getting shit on and having to be pulled for foul trouble in a matter of minutes. Guards who barely get a shot off in the NBA are out there dancing around all league defenders and throwing floaters to the heavens. The third string guard on like a 32 win warrior team ran wild and almost beat team USA in back to back Olympics with a squad of people who wouldn’t get picked up the park at a glance. Thinking shit is a simple as one guard shot selection just feels like people aren’t paying attention.

at what point do you just accept that your old idea of what should make an international team dominant was wrong?

The actual CBA did better in a tournament during an NBA lockout than eight All-Stars did when they came back. None of them being Allen Iverson.

how do you have these facts available to you and still think throwing big names at the wall automatically means the resulting team is supposed to dominate?

Maybe…..just maybe…basketball isn’t as simple as you’d like it to be.

[QUOTE=Kblaze8855;14830406]You’re all free to love or hate whoever you want if you can make a good point. The idea that one person is the reason team USA lost when the primary thing he does that gets criticized was not done by the team before and after him who lost just makes it a tough case. Replaced with a dude shooting Shaq numbers they lose. They lost with eight All-Stars and finished behind New Zealand before he ever played for team USA. But the team he was on lost because he was there and not because a list of impressive names doesn’t necessarily win in a national ball, which has been proven by them losing like….15ish times with nba players.

team USA loses all the time. They were literally one shot from losing five tournaments in a row with something like 30 Hall of Famer’s, but the reason they lost the one Allen Iverson was there is Allen Iversons shot selection.

We go out there and get in a dogfight with a squad of nobodies and role players with Kobe, LeBron, and Durant there at the same time with the justice league behind them as support and we are here acting like Allen Iverson ruined team USA that has not played up to the talent it has for like 27 years.

team USA lost with a loaded squad in 2004 for the same reason they have lost I wanna say six tournaments with teams that shouldn’t have. You watch the shit happen over and over and over and over and over and over and over and can’t get it through your head that these talented lineups no longer mean you should win. The 2014 lost the same reason they lost all the other times. The talent disparity isn’t what you think it is because of the names on the back of the jersey because as I’ve been saying on here for 20 years…..on the same floor there isnt nearly the difference fans want to believe there is among groups of good players.

Iverson being top whatever all time and Duncan being top whatever doesn’t mean you just hand one of them the ball and they kick somebody’s ass because you never heard of them. I could understand thinking it the first time you saw it but after you see it seven or eight times, it’s probably about time to adjust your thinking.

most of the time team USA just plays shit decent for the kinds of teams they face. They send all timers over there and can barely defend NBA third stringers playing internationally. Even great fundamental guys like Duncan were getting shit on and having to be pulled for foul trouble in a matter of minutes. Guards who barely get a shot off in the NBA are out there dancing around all league defenders and throwing floaters to the heavens. The third string guard on like a 32 win warrior team ran wild and almost beat team USA in back to back Olympics with a squad of people who wouldn’t get picked up the park at a glance. Thinking shit is a simple as one guard shot selection just feels like people aren’t paying attention.

at what point do you just accept that your old idea of what should make an international team dominant was wrong?

The actual CBA did better in a tournament during an NBA lockout than eight All-Stars did when they came back. None of them being Allen Iverson.

how do you have these facts available to you and still think throwing big names at the wall automatically means the resulting team is supposed to dominate?

Maybe…..just maybe…basketball isn’t as simple as you’d like it to be.[/QUOTE]

It's very possible they lose no matter who they sent and who coached but they sent an awful team and probably the wrong coach certainly for the players they gave him. Iverson and Marbury leading the charge with a bunch of rookies wasn't going to get it done

[QUOTE=tpols;14830392]It's not even that...

It's about what you appreciate leads to winning basketball. I "like" iversons game. It's fluid and aesthetic and remarkable.

Does it really contribute to winning? Maybe when we were teenagers and he could juke everybody out and be the most popular kid for it.

At top levels of competition though it becomes stagnant. That hero stuff wears out. You eventually need to bring other facets to the table which he never brought.[/QUOTE]


this is the other side of it, and it goes way way beyond Iverson. There is no particular style that consistently translates to winning. We just choose to ignore the many many people who play the styles you think lead to winning who never won anything. A bunch of names will no longer win international ball but traditionally, it is giving you a pretty good shot in the NBA.

and even the few people who manage to win without a team of the right names to a man spend their career mostly losing.

fans are just so convinced they know the game they ignore all evidence of what they say should win, mostly losing. It’s easy to say the style Russell Westbrook plays with doesn’t win and to assume the style John Stockton plate with would. But the fact is John Stockton was given an MVP caliber partner for about 15 years backed up with defensive players of the year and All-Stars taking a small roles to win and 20 points per game six men and great defenses or high power offenses and great coaching and did literally nothing Russell Westbrook didn’t. Lose in the first round with 55 win teams…61…fail all the time. Don’t hear a peep.

and every single one of these players be at Iverson or Westbrook or Carmelo or guys like Dominique before them have the same supposed purist talking about how they played, doesn’t win games while ignoring that plenty of time, they win more than people who play the “right way” do even one surrounded by talent.

Those players just aren’t polarizing so they escape all the criticism. There’s like 80-100 people in the hall who never get mentioned who never won shit. MVPs with high shooting percentages taking three All-Star teammates and losing in the first round. Don’t hear a word. But let Westbrook take a team that should’ve won 35 games and win 50 and lose in the first round with a poor shooting line you would think he was trying to invent a time machine travel back and kill Doctor Naismith with the damage people act like he’s doing the game.

Chris Mullin can lose with two other Hall of Famer’s in the first round. But we don’t talk about is his style was just not prone to winning. There are so many teams of people who play nothing like Allen Iverson who are loaded with talent and don’t accomplish as much in the playoffs is he did without these questions.

It’s not even playing the result. It’s extremely selective playing the result. People I would personally put three tiers ahead of Allen Iverson take better squads and win less and do so with less criticism.

you can put Steve Nash, Amare, Shawn Marion, and Joe Johnson on the same team and lose. You could put Moses Malone, Dr. J Charles Barkley Mo cheeks and Bobby Jones on one team and loose. Never hear about it. But Allen Iverson wins like 50 games with a lineup that should win 14 and wins a playoff series and nobody gives a ****.

entire topics on what his team didn’t do 15 or 20 years later, while in the same league two MVP, first ballot Hall of Famer’s are on the same team with two additional All-Stars and accomplished precisely dick.

when it gets right down to it, there are no results showing his supposedly cancerous style hurts teams any more than any other style. You just have to ignore the hundreds of times better teams with people Nothing like him fell apart. And people are entirely willing to do that. He switch his teams and the team he left wins like three more games with an different all star guard and gets eliminated later in the playoffs by the same team that eliminated him and there are topics about it. 15 years later. Steve Nash leaves a team that added a 6th man , and it immediately began the most successful run in franchise history with that much less talented core even making the finals

Like I said, it’s all really really selective because the narrative has to be framed to fit what we feeeeeel. Not what is.

Allen Iverson’s flashy shot jacking style is easy to criticize but the actual results are right in line with or above the results. Highly acclaimed players get with the kinds of teams he had. And that goes for the NBA or international. This is just another example of it. Allen Iverson’s cancerous style ruins the team then you replace him with two super efficient top 15 or so all time players in their primes one of them coming off winning the NBA title in dominating fashion, and finish the exact same place… both of them better than they finished with the squad full of all star before Allen Iverson was there.

The criticisms just make a lot more sense in theory then when you look at the actual results. There’s no more real world evidence Allen Iverson hurts teams than there is for 50 Hall of Famerswho don’t get that criticism. Guys like him are just easy to pick on in a time ”inefficiency”is the buzz word and groupthink has people afraid to stand away from the crowd.

Shitting on people like Allen Iverson is the easiest thing to do on a board full of people who have their opinions assigned to them by basketball reference. You think it through and start looking at the actual career accomplishments of a lot of people you don’t have shit to say about because their numbers don’t draw negative attention?

You’ll quickly realize how unfairly the criticism get spooned out over a certain type of player who traditionally doesn’t really do any worse than most people who get a pass.

1 game elimination style tournament could make anybody a winner or loser but are we allowed to point out what makes a winning or losing style of play?

[QUOTE=Kblaze8855;14830419]this is the other side of it, and it goes way way beyond Iverson. There is no particular style that consistently translates to winning. We just choose to ignore the many many people who play the styles you think lead to winning who never won anything. A bunch of names will no longer win international ball but traditionally, it is giving you a pretty good shot in the NBA.

and even the few people who manage to win without a team of the right names to a man spend their career mostly losing.

fans are just so convinced they know the game they ignore all evidence of what they say should win, mostly losing. It’s easy to say the style Russell Westbrook plays with doesn’t win and to assume the style John Stockton plate with would. But the fact is John Stockton was given an MVP caliber partner for about 15 years backed up with defensive players of the year and All-Stars taking a small roles to win and 20 points per game six men and great defenses or high power offenses and great coaching and did literally nothing Russell Westbrook didn’t.

and every single one of these players be at Iverson or Westbrook or Carmelo or guys like Dominique before them have the same supposed purist talking about how they played, doesn’t win games while ignoring that plenty of time, they win more than people who play the “right way” do even one surrounded by talent.

Those players just aren’t polarizing so they escape all the criticism. There’s like 80-100 people in the hall who never get mentioned who never won shit. MVPs with high shooting percentages taking three All-Star teammates and losing in the first round. Don’t hear a word. But let Westbrook take a team that should’ve won 35 games and win 50 and lose in the first round with a poor shooting line you would think he was trying to invent a time machine travel back and kill Doctor Naismith with the damage people act like he’s doing the game.

Chris Mullin can lose with two other Hall of Famer’s in the first round. But we don’t talk about is his style was just not prone to winning. There are so many teams of people who play nothing like Allen Iverson who are loaded with talent and don’t accomplish as much in the playoffs is he did without these questions.

It’s not even playing the result. It’s extremely selective playing the result. People I would personally put three tiers ahead of Allen Iverson take better squads and win less and do so with less criticism.

you can put Steve Nash, Amare, Shawn Marion, and Joe Johnson on the same team and lose. You could put Moses Malone, Dr. J Charles Barkley Mo cheeks and Bobby Jones on one team and loose. Never hear about it. But Allen Iverson wins like 50 games with a lineup that should win 14 and wins a playoff series and nobody gives a ****.

entire topics on what his team didn’t do 15 or 20 years later, while in the same league two MVP, first ballot Hall of Famer’s are on the same team with two additional All-Stars and accomplished precisely dick.

when it gets right down to it, there are no results showing his supposedly cancerous style hurts teams any more than any other style. You just have to ignore the hundreds of times better teams with people Nothing like him fell apart. And people are entirely willing to do that. He switch his teams and the team he left wins like three more games with an different all star guard and gets eliminated later in the playoffs by the same team that eliminated him and there are topics about it. 15 years later. Steve Nash leaves a team that added a 6th man , and it immediately began the most successful run in franchise history with that much less talented core even making the finals

Like I said, it’s all really really selective because the narrative has to be framed to fit what we feeeeeel. Not what is.

Allen Iverson’s flashy shot jacking style is easy to criticize but the actual results are right in line with or above the results. Highly acclaimed players get with the kinds of teams he had. And that goes for the NBA or international. This is just another example of it. Allen Iverson’s cancerous style ruins the team then you replace him with two super efficient top 15 or so all time players in their primes one of them coming off winning the NBA title in dominating fashion, and finish the exact same place… both of them better than they finished with the squad full of all star before Allen Iverson was there.

The criticisms just make a lot more sense in theory then when you look at the actual results. There’s no more real world evidence Allen Iverson hurts teams than there is for 50 Hall of Famerswho don’t get that criticism. Guys like him are just easy to pick on in a time ”inefficiency”is the buzz word and groupthink has people afraid to stand away from the crowd.

Shitting on people like Allen Iverson is the easiest thing to do on a board full of people who have their opinions assigned to them by basketball reference. You think it through and start looking at the actual career accomplishments of a lot of people you don’t have shit to say about because their numbers don’t draw negative attention?

You’ll quickly realize how unfairly the criticism get spooned out over a certain type of player who traditionally doesn’t really do any worse than most people who get a pass.[/QUOTE]

Stockton had a cheap owner and a coach(not to mention the comedian that preceded him) that wouldn't be fired even when they went from 3rd to 1st with two of the greatest players ever(did it again with Deron and the legendary Boozer). The so-called DPOY that was completely useless other than being big and being able to keep his arms up in the air close to the rim. Everyone would want Stockton on their team if they have a clue at all. Not everyone would want AI

[QUOTE=tpols;14830420]1 game elimination style tournament could make anybody a winner or loser but are we allowed to point out what makes a winning or losing style of play?[/QUOTE]

It would seem like standards have changed. In the not to distant past Utah fans wouldn't have liked The Bum. But they do. All I can figure is Mitchell made it acceptable to be a low efficiency gunner? No way Sloan would have put up with either. For me it's not just about winning or losing. I loved last year's Jazz team outside the Bum because they played hard and unselfish. Most of their games were close despite the overall lack of talent. Much more enjoyable than watching iso

[QUOTE=tpols;14830420]1 game elimination style tournament could make anybody a winner or loser but are we allowed to point out what makes a winning or losing style of play?[/QUOTE]


absolutely and it’s exactly the kind of abstract in the weeds conversation I would like to have. But if we’re going to have it, I would like it to consider the fact that whatever style you picked is going to have a tremendous number of people who in fact did not win anything even when given the talent to do so. That’s where I live these days. Trying to understand what isnt obvious.

I have absolutely nothing wrong with you or anybody thinking it’s generally best to not shoot all the time. If most of your shots don’t go in. Broadly speaking that’s obviously true. Investigating the results of this specific situation? It would seem hard to blame such a play style for losing when the extreme vast majority of losers didn’t play that way.

we are letting five or six dozen people go almost completely without criticism when they get similar results to people we criticize all day because we have an easy means to attach it via analytics and numbers.

Big picture wise I think my argument across a wide spectrum of stances I take on here might just come down to “There isn’t THAT big a difference”.

I feel like half the subjects I talk about come down to that in one way or another.

Everything and everyone being closer than the hot take nature of sports talk wants to believe.

[QUOTE=Xiao Yao You;14830421]Stockton had a cheap owner and a coach(not to mention the comedian that preceded him) that wouldn't be fired even when they went from 3rd to 1st with two of the greatest players ever(did it again with Deron and the legendary Boozer). The so-called DPOY that was completely useless other than being big and being able to keep his arms up in the air close to the rim. Everyone would want Stockton on their team if they have a clue at all. Not everyone would want AI[/QUOTE]


Want whoever you like. I want Stockton. Hes with no close competition other than a season long love affair with Andre Kirilenko my favorite player in the history of your organization. I ****ing love John Stockton. I’ve also come to really appreciate Steve Nash. And I’ve always liked Chris Paul.

But you know what? Put Allen Iverson in all those situation having played with the many MVPs and All-Stars and Hall of Famer’s those guys got to spend large stretches of their career with and if they lose? Every single person like you would be suggesting they could have won with an ultra efficient pass first guard who made people around him better. And every single person who hates on him now would nod in agreement.

We would say that if you give Steve Nash Dirk +3 all stars, orAmare, Marion, the sixth man of the year and an all defensive three and D player or the lob city clippers or MVP Harden or booker and Kevin Durant they would win, and it was Iversons cancerous style that prevented it.

I just find it funny.

[QUOTE=Kblaze8855;14830426]Want whoever you like. I want Stockton. Hes with no close competition other than a season long love affair with Andre Kirilenko my favorite player in the history of your organization. I ****ing love John Stockton. I’ve also come to really appreciate Steve Nash. And I’ve always liked Chris Paul.

But you know what? Put Allen Iverson in all those situation having played with the many MVPs and All-Stars and Hall of Famer’s those guys got to spend large stretches of their career with and if they lose? Every single person like you would be suggesting they could have won with an ultra efficient pass first guard who made people around him better. And every single person who hates on him now would nod in agreement.

We would say that if you give Steve Nash Dirk +3 all stars, orAmare, Marion, the sixth man of the year and an all defensive three and D player or the lob city clippers or MVP Harden or booker and Kevin Durant they would win, and it was Iversons cancerous style that prevented it.

I just find it funny.[/QUOTE]

Karl Malone wouldn't have been the 3rd leading scorer in history playing with AI not that Sloan and Iverson would have lasted long together. He'd have been relegated to the Tyrone Hill role of standing around watching Iverson shoot prayers against triple teams. Could he run a pick and roll? Same story with Amare. Would he have thrown a lob to Griffin or Deandre or would they just be standing around waiting for scraps?

Yeah, Allen Iverson would turn Malone to Tyrone hill. Sure.

The issue is what did maximizing Karl Malone actually win the Utah jazz that Allen Iverson didn’t win with the actual Tyrone hill? What did the beautiful symmetry with Amare and Marion actually get the Phoenix Suns? What did lob city do exactly?

Mark Price and Brad Daughtery had a beautiful two-man game with a solid supporting caste. Extremely fundamentally sound both of them. What came of it?

What did all these little efficient guards with great teams accomplish in reality to oppose whatever theoretical damage Allen Iverson would’ve done in place of them?

instead of losing in the first round with 55 and 60 win teams, and blowing a bunch of gigantic series leads, were they have simply lost in less remarkable fashion? Maybe missed playoffs a couple of seasons? What did any of these people do in reality that having a player like Allen Iverson takes away?

Every one of them failed miserably with MVP, caliber teammates over and over and over and over. We just choose to look the other way. Throw some braids on one of them and drop that shooting percentage a few points and we would act like every one of those guys would’ve had success they never had in reality if they were given the chances they already got.

as I said, the criticism isn’t truly results based. It’s selectively applied results based.

as I said wins and losses aren't everything to me. Last years Jazz team was certainly much more joyful to watch(when The Bum wasn't on the floor of course) than Mitchell and The Bum iso and 3's for 48 minutes