Originally Posted by StateOfMind12
Again, being considered better and actually being better is two different things. Iverson probably peaked higher than Pierce did but Pierce peaked longer than Iverson did.
Also, nobody thinks Iverson was better than Kobe at any point and he probably wasn't..
Probably, he did peak higher and they peaked about the same amount of time with Iverson being better. Iverson was crossing over Jordan while Pierce was still at Kansas. Iverson was still relevant until what 08, when Boston won the title. So that's about the same time as Pierce had.
No, because Miller isn't even close to the talent Iverson is. CP3 and Pierce actually are.
Portable means ability to adapt and play multiple roles on any team. Iverson is not very portable, CP3 and Pierce are. Pierce has shown it since KG/Ray came to Boston and CP3's game is portable just based off of how he plays. Those two can play multiple roles on a team, Iverson can only play one role and that's the first option/volume scorer. He can't impact the game in any other way nor does he choose to.
Adrian Dantley is another examples of someone who is not very portable. Dantley put up sexier numbers than Mark Aguirre but Aguirre fit in with the Pistons better which was why the Pistons were so much better with Mark opposed to with Adrian despite Adrian being the better talent and putting up better numbers.
As I said, in three years even if CP3 does nothing, people will say Cp3 surpassed Iverson. It is annoying how that works...
So is Mark Aguire better than AD too? Again, they played in the same era and AD was considered better.
Other than AI not being "portable" I still see no reason how Pierce is like ten spots above Iverson?