Because as we all know taking 22 shots a game on 43% while playing little defense is the recipe for winning basketball games
Better player: Curry or Iverson?
- Thread starter SpursFanSinceNovember2017
- Start date
-
- Tags
- allen iverson steph curry
Because as we all know taking 22 shots a game on 43% while playing little defense is the recipe for winning basketball games
You dumbass, you looking at the wrong year
2008-2009
Don't call me a dumbass you don't know me, we're comparing the year Wade had 7.5 assists to Iverson's 7.9 Iverson had a better A/T ratio.
You dumbass, you looking at the wrong year
2008-2009
You never specified what year it was you just said when Wade averaged 7.5 assists.
Because as we all know taking 22 shots a game on 43% while playing little defense is the recipe for winning basketball games
Won the Sixers plenty of games and got them to the finals.
Iverson "saving the league" has absolutely nothing to do with him being an actual better player than Steph, Paul & Nash. That's just another hyperbolous statement to put him over players who are more skilled than he was. Even if people have modeled their own games after him, that doesn't mean he can't be surpassed by those who can things to their repertoire that he never had to begin with
Curry in his first three seasons was not in the prime of his career and isn't the player we're comparing here, so no need to really bring that stretch up
He scores in a different manner than Iverson, doesn't need to drive into the teeth of a defense 15 times a game when he can pull up from 24 feet repeatedly and hit at a rate greater than AI's career FG%, dribble inside the arc for a mid range pull up no different from Iverson, or get to the rim when the defense plays him tightly in fear of his jumpshot and finish at an elite rate. Doesn't rely on getting to the FT line in order to score, most contact he'll receive is getting hip checked while trying to get free off ball. Then there's the fact that he's a great off ball player and can be run off screens where's he's automatic, spot up, make well timed cuts and get open 3's in transition. Lot of ways for that man get 30 without taking the same punishment as AI or Westbrook for that matter.
30/10 is a very random statline to place on him, only two players in this games history have ever produced that and it was in an era where the possessions per game were dramatically higher than it is today. Playing such a role in today's league is not more conducive to winning basketball games than a Steph Curry who functions within the flow of his team's offense and draws consistent hard doubles 24 feet away from the basket which creates 4on3 opportunities for his teammates who can't be relied upon to consistently score off the dribble for themselves which is why the team's offense turns to garbage when he's off the floor. But if he did just decide to eat up all of his team's possessions and dominate the fukk out of the basketball? He's going to approach 30 ppg because his skill dictates he can do such, as did his historic postseason run.
Scoring dominance is two fold - volume and efficiency, not either or, and Curry combines the best of both worlds up there with the greatest to have played this game. Iverson is just not in this conversation. Dirk Nowitzki is a far better scorer than Iverson despite never matching his RS totals because of his great balance between volume & efficiency not to mention postseason destruction which proved his average was simply a matter of how aggressive he chose to be.
Volume shooting is what Iverson has in common with Kobe & Jordan, sure but that's where the similarities end. Difference between those two + the likes of Durant is that they were able to maintain good-->excellent efficiency rates while AI was consistently mediocre because he simply could not shoulder such a high usage and remain an efficient player. That separates him from the true dominant scorers to have played this game. FG% also isn't the best testament for player efficiency, try true shooting percentage and you'll see an even bigger disparity between him and others.
Iverson averaged 30 in 4 seasons not 5, and while his volume was impressive we need to take into consideration how many shots it took him to get there and if that's truly more impactful towards the success of a basketball team than a player averaging less with markedly better conversion rates and a greater propensity for making others better around him. This is a team game, not all about putting up monster individual stats but how you influence one side of the ball for the better. Curry had greater impact on the offensive success of the Warriors (who go from top 2 offense to bottom feeder without him) this past season than AI for the Sixers, and that's because he's a flat out more influential offensive player.
LBJ averaging 30 just twice should tell you all you need to know here, volume is not everything. Durant has only averaged 30 twice himself, and its merely a matter of him taking enough shots rather than his actual scoring skill itself which is obviously at a historical level.
In truth, Iverson does not score better than Curry. He just takes more shots. There is nothing to suggest that Steph wouldn't thrive in a role where he needed to jack up 20 shots per game and its a given that he'd produce with a far greater conversion rate than Iverson had ever managed with that responsibility.
Yeah, in 2008-2009, Wade averaged 7.5 AST and 3.4 TOV.
Dumbass
Ok and in 05-06 Iverson averaged 33 ppg, 7.4 assists, and 3.4 to's, any stat u give for Wade Iverson has one that's comparable or better.
I posted the entire stat line and said his best year
30.2 (49%) / 7.5 AST on 3.4 TOV / 5 REB in 38 minutes.
Pick AI's best year and it's not better. Wade scores slightly less points on higher efficiency, averages more rebounds, averages a better A/T, a better PER, and does that all in LESS MINUTES THAN ANY OF AI's BEST SEASON.
In a terrible East, he never had that kind of team success ever again, he had to have a team full of roleplayers and rebounders. This muthafukka took 18.2 shots per game with the Nuggets, Melo took 18.8
No way he should be within 5 attempts per game of Melo.2005-06 33 ppg, 3.4 to, 1.9 stls, 7.4 assists, 3.2 rebs, ft 81.4%, 3pt 32.3%, fg 44.7%, 43 mpg, 72 games played
Show me a better season from Wade.
In a terrible East, he never had that kind of team success ever again, he had to have a team full of roleplayers and rebounders. This muthafukka took 19.0 shots per game with the Nuggets, Melo took 19.2
The east wasnt terrible then, and he got the Sixers to the playoffs 6 seasons.
What's AI's FG% and TS% that season?
33 PPG on 44% shooting (54% TS) / 7.4 AST on 3.4 TOV / 3.2 REB / 1.9 STL / .1 BLK in 43 minutes?
That's the season you think is better than Wade's?
30.2 on 49% FG (57% TS) 7.5 AST on 3.4 TOV) / 5 REB / 2.2 STLs / 1.1 BLK in 38 minutes?
Wade did everything better except score more PPG despite playing 6 less minutes a game.
So Wade scored a whopping 3 less PPG in much higher efficiency while being better in every other statistical category despite playing way less minutes and you think AI had a better season?
The East was terrible, there were zero legitimate title teams and the West was so far ahead that the 6th best team from the West would have won the title.
In a terrible East, he never had that kind of team success ever again, he had to have a team full of roleplayers and rebounders. This muthafukka took 18.2 shots per game with the Nuggets, Melo took 18.8
Why shouldn't he have been within 5 attempts of Melo? He's averaged more pts for his career, and Melo's career fg% is 45% Iverson's is 42.5%.