DFDepressed FanDepressed Fan

All  

Sixers

, all the time

A Pair Of AIs

Allen Iverson scored a lot of points
Allen Iverson went to the NBA finals and lots of all star games
and he 'carried' a team to the nba finals (though david berri might dispute that)

I believe that's the logic that Iverson is better.

Yup. I'd love it if people could look a little further than points scored. If you look at AI's best seasons, the points scored weren't his most-impressive stat.

user-pic
john reply to Brian on Jul 14 at 13:12
+/-

Well in general I'd like it if people could think a little bit and look beyond the surface, but look around you in your every day life, most people can't do it i bet.

Brian,

I agree completely with you but you are talking to a "retarded" Philadelphia basketball fanbase. They don't understand the sport and have no desire to learn it. I am having a hard time even reading fan boards these days because the people don't understand basketball and all they do is criticize and complain without legit reasons.

When the fans are presented with facts, they play a Jehovah Witness trick and change the subject.

Thank you once again for presenting a factual, informational blog. Great job, once again!

Btw, this is not meant to criticize anyone specific on this blog or someone who disagrees with me or you, Brian. But, show me the money (FACTS). That is all I ask.


user-pic
john reply to DeanH on Jul 14 at 13:48
+/-

Well it's not just the philadlephia fan base, Iguodala is often 'dismissed' in national discussions as well.

user-pic
DeanH reply to john on Jul 14 at 17:17
+/-

John,

you are completely correct. Thank you for your additional thought!

Wow, this Bargnani deal is just hilarious (from Stein's column)

• Andrea Bargnani's five-year extension in Toronto starting in 2010-11 is worth an even $50 million. The deal includes an early termination option to return to free agency in the summer of 2014 as well as a trade kicker and incentives.

user-pic
Real and Speightacular on Jul 14 at 15:20
+/-

As John would say, you like Iggy, we get that. In fact, we got that a long time ago, it's not exactly something you've hidden or been shy about. Which makes this the lamest post you've written in the few months I've been coming here.

Not in terms of quality--everyone knows you're a good writer--just in terms of bringing something new/interesting to the table. As DeanH notes, this couldn't really be for the vast majority of your regular readers here. We already pretty much agree.

"Andre Iguodala is a budding superstar ..."

Nah. He's "merely" a star and this is about it. After all these years, he's going to remain largely underrated. He'll go down as one of the best of his era, but not someone you wonder about in terms of that old Top 50 list they made up some years ago (who would you kick out to replace with Iggy?). Maybe they'll get it in hindsight.

Can we get on with the rest of the roster review from last season?

Sorry if you think I'm repeating myself in this lame post, but can you find another article I've written saying Iguodala has been better than Iverson was over their first five seasons? Can you find an article or post anyone in the world has written on this subject? That was the theme of this post, if you will, not how good Iguodala is, but the fact that the Iverson love/Iguodala hate is completely ridiculous among some Sixers' fans.

user-pic
Real and Speightacular reply to Brian on Jul 15 at 7:33
+/-

Well perhaps not another specific Iggy-vs-AI article, but there's definitely been at least one big time Iggy booster article and you've left lots of comments here and there re your feelings toward AI's gunner mentality (curiously something you didn't seem to mind in S. Curry, who you wanted to trade up for). I was just saying it wasn't your usual level of interesting, in my books. Kinda seemed like you just wanna be startin somethin. But I guess if you want to plant a flag for this argument, fine. They can't all be winners ;-)

I was unaware there was so much Iggy hate to the point where it's not even debateable if Iggy's a better overall player. It's amazing that hasn't been discussed previously. Mebbe I need to get out more and read some other blogs.

Which makes this the lamest post you've written in the few months I've been coming here.

Irony and a solution all in one sentence, that takes skill

user-pic
Real and Speightacular reply to john on Jul 14 at 15:40
+/-

Heh! Love the two-man tag team here. Don't let riding shotgun give you the hemorrhoids, J. As co-blogger, perhaps you can put up a new post telling us how Brian's ass tastes?

Or if you're bored with your series of selective sniping (takes dedication), maybe you go fetch us a link, will ya? Atta boy.

IMO 5 years in, AI was a better player and much more of a star than Iguodala 9not to mention AI put people in the seasts and generated fan interest here and worldwide.) You can't just dismiss 26 ppg average as just another stat to be weighed along with other stats.

What players in the history of the NBA have averaged 26+ pts after their 1st 6 seasons?

I guess you could make a similar list for players averaging 15/5.5/4.5/1.5+stl after 5 years. It would be a good list, but not all HOF players like the scoring list. Maybe this shows an unfair biased to scorers... but that bias has some merit.

My argument wasn't that Iverson was bad, it was that Iguodala has been better. PPG is a very bad stat to judge players on. PPS, eFG, TS% are all much better indicators.

To answer your question, 13 players averaged 26ppg in their first 5 seasons, only Elgin Baylor and Elvin Hayes did so with a lower PPS. Most of the other guys on the list were great all around players.

By the way, the list of players who averaged 15.5 points, 5.7 boards, 4.4 dimes and 1.8 steals per game over their first five seasons is as follows:

Michael Jordan
LeBron James
Larry Bird
Andre Iguodala
Scottie Pippen
Magic Johnson
George McGinnis

That's it.

I found that out and replied below (its amongst my spam.)

And just like Iverson's FG% and PPS are sorely lacking when he's in that group of HOF players averaging 26ppg, Iguodala's scoring is sorely lacking compared to most of the HOF players on his list.

My point here is that Iguodala is a better building block for a championship because he (a) doesn't dominate the ball to the detriment of his teammates and (b) plays an all-around game. I found it shocking that even though he played a limited role for about 50% of his minutes over his first five seasons, he still topped Iverson in win shares.

Brian, I find that you contradict yourself.

You say, in your initial post:
"I'm not an Iverson hater. I loved the guy when he was here, and I truly believe no other player in the league could've taken that 2001 team to the Finals."

But then you go on to say:
"My argument wasn't that Iverson was bad, it was that Iguodala has been better. PPG is a very bad stat to judge players on. PPS, eFG, TS% are all much better indicators."

A few flaws:
1) Directly comparing players of different era's, and more importantly, when different rules existed. Average FG% in 98-99 was 43.7%. It's up over two full percentage point last year (45.9%). eFG% is even more drastic, at 46.6% in 98-99 and an even 50% last year. If you adjust for balancing to league average, their efficiency is almost the same. The handchecking rules have greatly decreased the effectiveness of perimeter defenders. And that's not even considering...
2) Completely different roles on the team and in the offense. It's fairly common for players with a lower usage % to be more efficient. In fact, it makes sense. If you asked Iguodala to create (both for others and for himself) as much as Iverson was asked to do in the half court, Iguodala's efficiency would drop considerably. Relying on the break as much as we do, and having competent scorers like Miller, Young, and Brand (when he was here) allows Iguodala to remain in his comfort zone. You saw the dramatic increase in efficiency Iverson experienced when he went to Denver. This wasn't a conicidence. His game didn't change. Going from 24-25 shots playing without legitimate options (outside of the inefficient Webber) to 18 shots playing with Carmelo and all of a sudden his eFG% goes from the 43-44% range it was in philly to the 47-48% range.

I don't necessarily think your assertion that ts%, efg%, and pps, particularly in the vaccuum you're looking at them in, are really the true measure in determining ones effectiveness.

I mean, I realize it's easy to discard Iverson now that he's not here, and now that he's slowing down. I think people forget how much playoff success we had in the late 90's/early 00's, and how big of a part of that Iverson was. As much of an Iguodala fan as I am, he's yet to win a playoff series, much less a league MVP or appear in a finals. In order to prove that he's better than a former MVP, without overwhelming statistical evidence (a few points on eFG% in a league that has had its rules changed and is more favorable to offensive players) I find hardly overwhelming.

Derek,

I wasn't saying Iguodala was better than Iverson based on any scoring metric. I brought up PPS, eFG and TS% in direct response to tk's assertion that you can't just ignore 26ppg. I was saying the peripheral numbers do dampen the impact of 26ppg. I never said "Look at Iguodala's eFG compared to Iverson's," because that's not the argument here.

My point is twofold:

1. Iguodala's overall game has produced more wins than Iverson's did over the same stretch, yet people complain about his contract when it is for significantly less than Iverson's was 8 years ago.

2. Having Iguodala as the centerpiece of your team allows you many, many more options to fit pieces around him than building a team around Iverson does/did. You don't ever have to ask yourself if there will be enough shots to go around. You don't have to get a big guard to play next to him to even out defensive mismatches. Iguodala not only can play with anyone, but he'll make them better players with his unselfish play. The Iverson-era Sixers couldn't get just anyone to surround him, in fact, they had to get offensively limited players who could handle being frozen out of the offense to make it work, and that direction only really worked for one season on any grand scale.

Iverson did a ton for this city and this team and the culture of basketball, I'm not trying to take anything away from him. Here's the simplest way I can put it. If I'm starting a team and I have a choice between Allen Iverson in 2001 or Andre Iguodala in 2009, I take Iguodala for all the reasons mentioned above.

Maybe this shows an unfair biased to scorers... but that bias has some merit.

Or maybe the bias is broken - PPS, efficiency, overall contribution to the game, don't these things also matter. Iverson even in his prime was a volume shooter who shot a crappy percentage and only thrived when you had 4 guys around whom for whom scoring was an afterthought.

he came into the league with more heralding and expectation, and thus got more attention - that doesn't mean he was actually as good as people want him to have been.

As for the butts in the seat - they stopped coming long before Iverson left - and the sixers kept wasting time...

user-pic
Chris reply to john on Jul 14 at 23:35
+/-

I think a lot of AI was a combo of his style of play plus his image. Especially, in his younger years, he'd go one on one (or, more to the point, one on five) constantly and win quite a few of those. He'd regularly drive into the trees when he's really an average sized guy and before they changed some of the rules could embarrass ever MJ with his crossover. Not to mention all the coast to coast drives where he'd outrun everyone plus he'd play with the reckless abandon of Junkyard Dawg. AI might not have been the best player then but he was probably the most spectacular / thrilling player.

Then add in he was about the first to do the 'keeping it real' thing and about the first of the ballers to do the hip-hop lifestyle full tilt. He was about the first with the cornrows, first doing the rap album (even if it wasn't released), about the first with all the bling bling and one of the first to have a posse. This came right as MJ was fading out (both in basketball and his style) so Iverson kind of became the icon for that mid - late 90s era of basketball.

You know, AI often said he was a lot better football player (QB and DB) than basketball player. He picked basketball as his mother didn't want him to get injured (in football). Michael Vick's coach thought AI was a better player than Vick in HS (one of the two best he said he'd seen along with Ronald Curry). I think it would have been interesting to have seen him take a shot at football like MJ did with baseball...

user-pic
john reply to tk76 on Jul 14 at 16:20
+/-

In your iverson and Jordan thing - check out the FG%.

My guess is that it's the FT shots that puts iverson 'ahead' of other chuckers in pure Points Per game.

user-pic
john reply to tk76 on Jul 14 at 16:23
+/-

And From Brians Link - Petit suffers from not having the 3 pointer available

Here's a fun one, three guys in the history of the NBA have been allowed to take more than 7,000 shots in their first five seasons in the league, while shooting less than 43% from the field. Iverson, Employee #8 and Bob Pettit.

user-pic
Richardson reply to Brian on Jul 14 at 16:26
+/-

Oh man... that is a good one, Brian. I'm not familiar with Petit's game, but it certainly confirms the legendary gunner status of A.I. and ol' #8. LOL

user-pic
bebopdeluxe on Jul 14 at 16:33
+/-

While I understand that this thread is about a Iverson/Iguodala comparison, as part of a thread about whether or not it would make ANY sense to bring AI back on a one-year MLE deal, I reviewed his numbers from his last full season....

2007-08 season with DEN:

started all 82 games
41.8 mpg
26.4 ppg
46% FG pct
35% 3-pt pct
81% FT pct
3 rbg
2 spg
7.1 apg
2.4 ast/TO ratio

His FG and 3-pt % were among the highest of his career...his TO's were the lowest of his career, and his 2.4 ast/to ratio was the best of his career. To mesh with Carmelo Anthony, he dramatically reduced that amount of shots that he took in a game...down to 18.9 per game, as opposed to 25.3 shots/game in his last full year in Philly (Anthony took 19.2 shots/game in 2007-08).

Iverson had the best season of his career in 2007-08. There was ZERO complaints from George Karl, Carmelo Anthony or any of his teammates. AI was right at 'Melo's side when he got busted for DUI right before the '07-08 playoffs.

He could not have done anything more.

If Comcast wants to be cheap and Stefanski wants to pi$$ away another season of Brand's contract to let the Lou and Jrue Show go through its growing pains, then fine...but if we are going to consider the Chris Duhons and TJ Fords of the world to help us get through the 2009-10 season, you can't possibly tell me that they would be better options than Allen Iverson. What - is TJ FREAKING Ford going to be some kind of PG mentor for Jrue Holiday?

Please.

Yes, Iverson had a good year two seasons ago in Denver, no arguing that. It was the best season of his career. I still don't want, I want absolutely no part of him. Even if he replicated those stats, and didn't implode like he did last season, I don't want any point guard on this team taking 19 shots/game and using up 27% of the team's possessions.

Here are the potential pitfalls, and I'd say there's a very good likelihood at least a couple of them would happen:

1. Too many shots for Iverson = not enough shots for Thad, Iguodala, Brand and Speights.
2. Too many minutes for Iverson = not enough minutes for (a) Iguodala at the two, (b) Jrue at the point
3. Too few minutes for Iverson = a huge headache in the locker room and a cancer on a team who already has one too many (depending on Sammy's adjusted attitude)
4. If you bring Iverson onto your team, especially a young team like this, you're changing it back into an AI team. Meaning, everyone stand around and watch AI far too much.
5. You've managed to downgrade your defense at the point of attack.

And to answer your question about Duhon and TJ Ford (neither of whom I really feel are particularly good fits) is that adding a point guard with some experience shouldn't do anything to hinder the development of the young core group. If you bring Iverson in, it's more than likely that those guys will get frozen out, if not regress, and their roles will almost certainly shrink.

He won't fit into the princeton offense in my opinion, it's a step backward for the franchise and would go badly. Iverson isn't looking to be a supporting player on any team or he wouldn't be so adamant about a starting job.

All this would do in my opinion is delay the maturation of the team as a unit under Jordan for another season

user-pic
bebopdeluxe on Jul 14 at 16:53
+/-

I'm not necessarily pushing to bring AI back - for many of the reasons that you guys have stated...although I think that - as he changed his game to mesh with Melo (in an effort to salvage his career) - he would be willing to give up some of his game for the good of the team.

If you are going to do a sign-and-trade for a Chris Duhon, however, I would think that you are doing that to try to win games - as opposed to just letting the kids play the point and take your lumps this season...and if you DO want to try to win games, you would win a LOT more games with AI than with Chris Duhon.

I guess that my read is that he's not expecting to be a 40 minute a game player on a title contender...but he also doesn't want to be a 20 minute a game reserve for a crappy team to just get an NBA paycheck, either. I think that there is a happy medium that could be found if the Sixers wanted to pursue it...but it ain't going to happen.

My guess is that Duhon and Ford, neither of whom have really been officially linked to the Sixers, would probably deserve more PT than the Sixers are really looking to give to a PG acquisition. I think they're looking for a guy who can handle at the most 15-20 minutes/game, with Lou/Jrue taking the other 28-33. Just my gut feeling.

Iverson has publicly said he's not looking to come off the bench - he's going to want his same minutes as his career and as we saw in Detroit, he's still not grown up enough to accept a lesser role if the coach deems it so.

I don't buy the S&T for duhonn as real - I think the agent made it up - doesn't make sense for the knicks to sign him for more than one year, and since Miller has refused a one year MLE deal from the sixers, why take the equiv from the knicks.

Millers agent is desperate to find Miller 10 mil per year for 3 years - and I don't think he'd find it.

Duhon would be a one year place holder with more starting point guard experience than Williams or Jrue - i don't see him as a 'commitment' to winning now

The Bulls just bought out Tim Thomas, Ben Wallace was also bought out. Anyone consider either of these guys on a cheap one-year deal (Minimum for Thomas, portion of the MLE for Wallace?)

user-pic
john reply to Brian on Jul 14 at 18:16
+/-

Not wallace - not really - some sort of ofefensive game in a big man would be nice and he sucks worse than sam offensive and he's done. I have no idea if Thomas has anything left

user-pic
zig reply to john on Jul 14 at 19:59
+/-

thomas is pretty much a 3 p shooter at this stage in his career. somewhat of an 'offensive role player' you could say. can give you about 10 ppg and 4 rpg in 20 minutes of work. probably a good option to sign for minimum as 3rd string 4. wallace on the other hand is done. he wants to retire and i think he should. if we do want a defensive backup for cheap at the center spot, i would prefer nesterovic way ahead of wallace.

user-pic
eddies' heady's on Jul 14 at 23:02
+/-

So, Anthony Parker signs for minimal money and minimal years (less money than Willie G. makes), the Bulls sign Jannero Pargo (who is a more than serviceable backup, legit outside shooter, and can play point if in a pinch), and the Nuggets give up a measly 2nd rounder for Aaron Afflalo (who is another serviceable backup who can play D and a somewhat spotty shooter).

And Ed just sits idly by and patiently attempts to scheme up a roster addition. Any of these above guys were gettable and on the cheap at that. But more importantly, we could use them. Guess Eddie J. and Ed love themselves some Willie G.

While the priority is to obtain a serviceable point (since they drafted a long term project which created this need), we still need another backup guard/wing because if not, it will be more of the Willie show and you just have to love that as a fan (insert sarcasm).

Maybe this is all part of Ed's plan to 'contend' in 2 to 3 years, but just last year he wanted to compete now by signing Brand and tossing Cheeks, not one, but two extensions. Which way is it Ed - up, down; left, right??

*Sigh* 1983 (and maybe even 2001) was so long ago......the glory days, Ed, the glory days...

Parker - Went to a contender, Sixers had no shot unless they severely overpaid for a 34 year-old SG, and they still may not have had a shot.

Afllalo - Traded to Denver for a pick because Denver had a trade exception. Detroit took no money back in that deal, which was the purpose of the deal. The Sixers do not have a trade exception, so they could not have made that trade.

Pargo - There are literally 10 PGs or combo guards still available as free agents who are better players than Pargo.

Try a little perspective once in a while.

user-pic
eddies' heady's reply to Brian on Jul 14 at 23:47
+/-

Well if perspective is the thought, then if, as you say, 'there are literally 10 PGs or combo guards still available as free agents who are better players than Pargo', wouldn't they cost more if they are better? I mean, wouldn't this guy have been serviceable and filled a need at the same time while on the cheap since this franchise appears to be operating on that mantra?

Even if they are willing to spend, there isn't an abundance of money to go around on these, obviously more expensive, better players you speak of considering the cap constraints this franchise is going to be facing in the coming years, especially when they have to grease Thad's palms.

How's that for perspective?

So now you're mad that Ed didn't get the cheapest available PG?

First it was that they were too cheap to get "studs" like Parker and Afflalo, neither of whom were ever an option, now you're mad that they didn't jump at the chance to sign Pargo because you think it's going to cost them more to get a better PG later on, which is also most likely a false assumption. You're on a roll tonight.

user-pic
eddies' heady's reply to Brian on Jul 15 at 0:18
+/-

No offense, but do you practice insertion of words into other's mouths daily? You seem to make a habit of this. Lighten up a little as I am just as passionate about this team and franchise as you are. The ire you cast is simply unnecessary.

And I'm not mad, just frustrated that this franchise has taken on a fiscally responsible hat (considering the Summer League fiasco) but aren't signing guys that are on the cheap, but very useful at the same time.

Never said Parker or Afflalo were "studs", I merely said they are players we could use. You know, we need shooting from the perimeter sorely and a backup wing/defender is never a bad addition. I know you love to see Willie fill up the boxscore in the minutes played column and everything but...

And it isn't about guys being better than Pargo, the question is can those 10 or more guys you speak of provide what this team would get from him off the bench - quality and timely shooting? And I'm curious who those exaggeration of 10 or more guys are that you speak of; I only count 4, maybe 5.

Make some sense and you'll see the ire disappear quickly. Your initial post was wrought with faulty logic, I pointed it out, you've since talked in circles and tried to act cute, as usual.

Any thoughts on Ty Lawson's Summer League debut tonight?

user-pic
eddies' heady's reply to Brian on Jul 15 at 0:56
+/-

So, disagreement or difference of opinion = not making sense or faulty logic?? At least you're consistent, I'll give you that much.

It won't be called nonsensical or illogical when Willie is getting 20-25 minutes a night this coming season.

Ty's debut was respectable, in the sense that George Hill or whomever was guarding him couldn't keep the jitterbug in front of them, hench his 8 for 8 from the line. And if selective memory isn't practiced, you will remember that his ability to penetrate and beat his guy off the dribble with the new rules was ONE of my hang-ups with us not drafting him. It's there, just go read it.

How many free throws did Jrue shoot the whole 5 games?

So one article, it is if you put your neck out there then be able to defend it when called out, so I defend my thoughts and now it's cute? Which one is it with you?

You complained about Parker and Afflalo, neither of whom were really options for the Sixers. Hence, faulty logic. Then you complained about Pargo, apparently because he was the cheapest option, when better options are still available, potentially for the same money. Again, faulty logic. Then you completely ignored your asinine comments about Parker and Afflalo and concocted something about Pargo being the cheapest option, and how the Sixers apparently weren't cheap enough and let someone else snag him. Then you started throwing stones my way to deflect attention from your poorly thought out complaints, that's being cute.

Difference of opinion is welcomed, as is reasoned debate. But have a thick skin when you come here and start spewing nonsense that can't be backed up.

Your analysis of Lawson's game pretty much falls in line w/ the rest of your comments from the night.

You've officially reached ignore status. Congrats.

user-pic
Real and Speightacular reply to Brian on Jul 15 at 7:25
+/-

Gotta say Brian, for a blog host, the tone of your commenting is decidedly crabby when someone takes a different stance from yours. EH didn't attack you personally, but there's a tone in your responses that suggests otherwise. It's as if logic that's different from yours is a personal affront. That may or may not be so, but you should be aware of the perception. It's unbecoming of a blog host. Taking the high road is one of the annoyances of hosting. Then again, depends on what kind of environment you want to cultivate for this blog. Can't say no one told you.

It's not a great look on superiority complex guys like john either, but that's a whole nother ball of wax.

I like when people tell others how to run their own blogs, it's like telling people how to decorate their house.

If you don't like it, you don't hvae to read the posts or comment on them...it's hysterical when people whine about how they're treated on the internet.

As for your needless shot at me (yet again) - I suppose if you want maturity in a blog you should act maturely then shouldn't you?

Brian is under no obligation to be nice to you if he doesn't want to, it's his blog, he pays to host it, it's his sand box...if he thinks you're logic is faulty for instance, instead of whining about it, prove to him when it's not faulty. The fact that someone goes to whining when their logic is called faulty usually indicates they realize it's faulty too and can't defend their original point.

Kind of like when you take shots at people randomly who aren't even involved in the conversation.

user-pic
Real and Speightacular reply to John on Jul 15 at 10:22
+/-

Of course he's free to run his blog however he chooses. The consequences are all his, too. I'm not dictating anything, just offering friendly advice. Take it or leave it.

John, you're right, I should be more like you who never jumps in to take cracks at anyone. You're a sweetheart with lots and lots of friends.

Real:

I haven't been around here a long time, but I would say that Brian is a blog host who is more willing to "mix it up" (with the emotion that can come with that) with posters than some other hosts/mods that I have seen...but it's not like it is unheard of...over at the Philly board for RealGM there is a mix of mods who are pretty down-the-middle with others who can definitely mix it up. At the end of the day, it is Brian's sandbox, and each of us have to make the call whether they want to participate in the debate. I think that his threads are interesting and thought-provoking, which is why I come by to check out the scene.

I would say, however, that this forum can have a fair amount of content within threads that turn into personal smack-fests...it is one thing to have differing points of view...it is OK to argue your point passionately...it is when the pithy, condescending posts come out (to show the poster's obvious intellectual superiority and biting wit) that I turn off. For the most part, I have not seen that with Brian - he argues his positions with intelligence and energy, but he never goes into the "your point is a joke because you are an idiot" mode that really poisons a thread.

user-pic
eddies' heady's on Jul 15 at 9:41
+/-

"You complained about Parker and Afflalo, neither of whom were really options for the Sixers."

So when did you become a part of the front office and become privy to their decision making or inquiries? Parker signs for scraps (around 3 mil per year) and has comments that state that Cleveland 'showed the most interest and pursued me the hardest', while following up with them being a contender was merely gravy on top.

"Then you complained about Pargo, apparently because he was the cheapest option,.."
"...and concocted something about Pargo being the cheapest option,.."

Re-read the script above. I never said he was the cheapest option, you are indeed the one who concocted that and did it in the form of a question.

"Then you completely ignored your asinine comments about Parker and Afflalo.."

So Parker signing for minimal years and minimal money (less than Willie G. makes) along with Afflalo being a serviceable backup who can play D and a somewhat spotty shooter is asinine commenting? See nothing silly there myself. Just factual on Parker and subjective evaluation on Afflalo. I see the routine - you slice something up, chew on it momentarily, then spit it back out. Only problem is when it is spit back out, it's not in the same form it was when slicing.

Guess I'll just retreat to my desk at the back of the class while the mad scientist carries on lecturing... I mean, he did put me in time out.

user-pic
Real and Speightacular on Jul 16 at 8:12
+/-

There really is no argument about who is the better overall player. I think that's why this post was kind of ho-humish to me. Iggy's a solid all-round player and those don't come along every day. But in comparison to the HOF-level all-rounders, he's a very poor imitation. He does a variety of things well but none of them outstandingly so and combined with his glaring weaknesses (A/TO, jumpshooting) his overall impact is muted compared to the greats.

So if the argument is you're always better off building around a defensively-oriented all-rounder vs. a dazzling offensively-oriented create-his-own-shot type like Iverson, I don't know if that's necessarily so. Yes, I suppose you'll have more options in terms of what you can put around Iggy, but every chip team still needs a bona fide scorer, one who can consistently create his own shot and put tremendous pressure on defenses; one who has the mentality that he can take over a game most any time he chooses.

If you have (prime) Iverson, you have that piece, then it's about building the complimentary pieces around him. Obviously, it can be done. You're not guaranteed anything but perhaps more options with Iggy. And options doesn't equal chips, if you can't manage the window of opportunity to get all the other pieces in place. Perhaps AI19 gives you more time and ways to experiment but you do have to realize he's not exactly a big rock in the pond, but more key stepping stone.

Every winning team (possible exception Pistons) needs a superstar and Iggy, god love 'im, ain't it. Maybe it'll be Thad, if Iggy will allow him to reach his potential.


Expand/Contract all comments

Leave a comment


back-to-story.gif