Bigblackted4
Superstar
Same guy that did the greatest Peaks series last year let’s use this for this series and discuss these videos.
Last edited:
Ben Taylor’s Greatest Offensive Players Series
- Thread starter Bigblackted4
- Start date
Same guy that did the greatest Peaks series last year let’s use this for this series and discuss these videos.
No player has been “ misremembered” by the new analytics, Gen Z crowd of fans more than Allen Iverson. You go on Reddit and dudes will argue you down on how Steve Nash, Ray Allen, Vince Carter, etc, were all better because of X stat and Y percentage, and I always have to retort that literally NO ONE thought those guys were better in real time. I feel like Westbrook and Harden will get that treatment in the future.
Russ it’s already been happening. Harden I don’t think so. He’s got the numbers and efficiency. Even when he’s been called a playoff choker. His numbers in the playoffs still look good with no context
SadimirPutin
Superstar
Didnt realize he had put up a new one.....will go watch the AI one and come back and comment
I spoke on the reggie one in a different thread
I spoke on the reggie one in a different thread
I feel like that guy doesn't really let the stats and context lead him to the conclusions the way he pretends to. He's just as biased as the next person but he dresses it up more nicely.
If you look closely, it's a cleverly disguised Jordan stan trying to justify ring count as the main criterion for greatness but only when it suits one's own agenda.
The fact that he makes it a post-merger list is the first giveaway.
If you look closely, it's a cleverly disguised Jordan stan trying to justify ring count as the main criterion for greatness but only when it suits one's own agenda.
The fact that he makes it a post-merger list is the first giveaway.
James Harden is a career 42.4% shooter in the playoffs, 33.8% from 3pt, and turns the ball over 3.5 times a game to just 6.3 assists.
What about that looks good with no context? He put up big scoring totals in Houston, but shot even worse there (42/32) with 4.4 turnovers/game.
Future fans are going to be aware enough that ppg alone is not good.
Trying to justify ring count as the main criteria BUT excluding pre merger Celtics? Backwards.
It’s Post-Merger because that era resembles the modern game in terms of rules, number of teams, quality of players and facilities. Jordan was just good at all metrics, he’s at the top of all lists no bias required.
42.4% is not low for this era. You should look at his effective and true shooting percentages.
Harden has a better effective and true shooting percentage in the playoffs than Larry Bird and a better true shooting percentage than Michael Jordan (effective FG% are virtually tied, slightest of edges to MJ), to name just two great players considered great in the playoffs.
Last edited:
People swoon over Iverson stats without context. He only shot above 43% ONCE in his entire playoff career. IN CONTEXT Iverson gets credit for having to carry subpar offensive players against superior competition( Harden vs Warriors)
He's clearly excluding Wilt and Bill Russell because it poses a problem for Jordan stans. If rings are what counts most, Bill is the GOAT. If mindblowing stats are what counts, Wilt is the GOAT. If a combination of both and overall career is what counts, Kareem is arguably the GOAT.
By choosing 1977 as an arbitrary point to start making comparisons, Jordan is guaranteed to come out on top.
I thought that was a really fair, solid breakdown of both his skills and overall impact on his team.
You're confusing advanced stats with analytics. Did you watch the video? He's mostly using analytics, not advanced stats, and I believe it shows Iverson fairly.
murksiderock
Superstar
It's always gonna be hard for me to not consider Iverson the basketball player overrated. I grew up in Virginia in the Iverson era, he and Vick were GODS there. Still are. Can't nobody talk to me about being an Iverson fan. I am one...
His play on the floor was what it was. He was one of the more entertaining players of his era, very skilled offensively, but he could only raise a team's ceiling so far. My love for Iverson probably is more about what he was off the court in The Commonwealth rather than his game, I just know what he means to Virginians. I love Iverson. Not his game though, even though in real time I was right with everyone else doing his moves at Branchester Park, Pocahontas Island, Carter G Woodson courts with EVERYONE else!
His play on the floor was what it was. He was one of the more entertaining players of his era, very skilled offensively, but he could only raise a team's ceiling so far. My love for Iverson probably is more about what he was off the court in The Commonwealth rather than his game, I just know what he means to Virginians. I love Iverson. Not his game though, even though in real time I was right with everyone else doing his moves at Branchester Park, Pocahontas Island, Carter G Woodson courts with EVERYONE else!
Bird is an odd comparison because I point out repeatedly that Bird shot like shyt from outside in the playoffs.
It's amazing that Bird is considered a great playoff scorer. He not only has mediocre playoff numbers, but he played especially poorly in a ton of critical games and doesn't have a great resume of amazing games. Most of his image as a clutch playoff scorer is based on reputation more than results.
But overall your point is fair. Harden kept his eFG%/TS% respectable by spamming threes and trips to the line, and by beating up easy first-round opponents. To understand how bad he was in the playoffs, you do have look a little bit deeper and see how much worse he played in big series, especially in games 4/5/6/7 in big series.
Career .585 TS 6.2 BPM .172 WS/48. Peak BPM at 9.4, peak WS/48 at .263, peak TS .673. If we’re going to be honest if you just look at those numbers and then look at Kobe’s or Wade’s for the most part Harden’s look better. But if you add context you start to see they aren’t as good as they look.
And I think fans in the future are finally gonna start using stats like TS and all in one box metrics instead of ppg, assists, FG%, and tovs. But I could be wrong
fifth column
Superstar
I guess you don’t want Jordan to come out on top? It takes a lot of effort to come up with objective basketball scenarios where MJ is not on top so why go out of the way for that. Btw that guy is a Steph stan more than anything else