KeaneyBlue - The URI Basketball Forum

rodfromcranston wrote:I think when you don't get picky and worry about balance and
team chemistry, you get Jim Baron.
I can't think of any team that went anywhere with a PG ball hogging.Scoring can come from SGs and SFs. We need a distributor
not a gunner at PG.

Allen Iverson?

ramsman75 wrote:

rodfromcranston wrote:I think when you don't get picky and worry about balance and
team chemistry, you get Jim Baron.
I can't think of any team that went anywhere with a PG ball hogging.Scoring can come from SGs and SFs. We need a distributor
not a gunner at PG.

Allen Iverson?

Kemba Walker "ball-hogged" UConn all the way to a National Championship

What did Allen Iverson ever win?
Walker, 16 pts in the Championship game.
I think he had some help.

Always with an answer, Rod

Of course Walker had help (notably Jeremy Lamb), but you cannot possibly deny that he was a ball-hogging shoot-first PG

You're right. Still, you have to admit, he was a rare exception
to the rule. He did average 4.4 assists at UConn, which isn't great for a PG.
He had an incredible run in that NCAA, though.

It sure was a tremendous tournament for Kemba. In my limited memory, I can't recall seeing one player carry his team to a championship the way Kemba did with that team.

Bill Walton in his junior year.
44 points in the NCAA final. 21-22 shots!
Only shot 65% for his UCLA career, and 20.4 ppg and 16 rebounds a game.
He was awesome in the entire tourney. He would have been one of the
all time NBA greats, if his feet had held up. As it was, he was MVP one year.

I think Walton was the best college player I ever saw, and considering the guy he followed at UCLA, that's saying a lot.

rodfromcranston wrote:What did Allen Iverson ever win?
Walker, 16 pts in the Championship game.
I think he had some help.

I apoligize I know this is about Jefferson but Allen Iverson was awesome ....He never won a championship, but was an all american college player, won rookie of the year, an mvp award, and single handedly led his team to the NBA Finals and lost to a stacked Lakers team. Nevermind leading the NBA in steals and scoring for multiple years. Small guards need help to win a title, but that doesn't mean they can't be apart of a championship team.

rodfromcranston wrote:What did Allen Iverson ever win?
Walker, 16 pts in the Championship game.
I think he had some help.

and this is where your shtick jumped the shark.

Allen Iverson is an all time great player. 24,000+ pts, 5,600+ ast

For his career he averaged:

26.7 ppg (4x averaged 30+ ppg in a season)
6.2 apg
2.2 stl

in the playoffs he averaged 29.7 ppg. including 32.9 ppg in the Finals run.

Take a look at some of the teammates he had to drag along. Eric Snow, Aaron McKie, Theo Ratliff, Kevin Ollie, Todd MacCulloch, etc.

I'd kill to have someone just a fraction as good as Iverson was here.

People always point out that Michael Jordan would inflate his numbers in today's league which is designed to keep the defender's hands off of you and the paint unclogged. Deservedly of course, take the whole physical aspect of trying to stop MJ and IDK what you're left with? Like that didn't even work.

To my point! I think the new rule changes would benefit Allen Iverson also.

Iverson was a 41% career shooter with 31% from 3.
He averaged 22 shots per game.
He was with six teams, not counting playing in Turkey.
We won't get into his off court problems.
GMs of teams like The Bulls, Lakers, Spurs and Celtics wanted no part of him.
You liked him, Good for you.

Everyone liked Iverson. My old man, who is the oldest type of old man there is, whose favorite non-Celtic of all time is John Stockton, eventually came to appreciate and love Iverson (after a decade of prodding from me).

He did play with a bunch of teams and GMs of good teams didn't want him, at the very end of his career. When he was in his prime with the 76ers, every GM in the league would have given up a ransom for him, and it is revisionist history to argue otherwise. The guy is a sure-fire first ballot hall of famer, and one of the unique talents to ever play the game.

He was definitely more, culturally, than just a basketball player and represented a generation that changed basketball culture, and I do understand old guys having a visceral reaction against that. But as a basketball player he was an artist and dynamic player at both ends of the floor, and a guy who was saddled with one of the dog-shittiest collections of teammates throughout his career that anyone of his caliber ever dealt with, and he stilled dragged that sorry group to the playoffs repeatedly and even into the NBA Finals, basically all by himself.

Anyone hating on Iverson is making a cultural statement, not a basketball one. Sorry.

So, you're playing the fucking age card? Are you kidding me?
41% shooter. Got that? 31% from 3. It's called volume shooting.
Not everyone liked Iverson, so you're full of shit, as usual, just because you
father happened to like him.
Oh, and he was an total scumbag of a human being, since you bring it up.
Declared an unfit parent by a judge. A drunk, who gambled and pissed
away 160 million dollars.
This from Bill Simons:
" his freewheeling play, clashes with coaches, and brushes with the law made him the poster child for the sport's post-Jordan decline. If Jordan defined his era by being an icon everyone could agree on, then Iverson's divisiveness defined his"
"There's an important difference between Iverson and stars like Duncan and Garnett: They're team players, and he is not. Duncan and Garnett are unselfish, versatile, and almost deferential to their teammates. Iverson shoots relentlessly, disrupts any attempts at team strategy, and has proven incompatible with just about every kind of complementary scorer. The Sixers may never have given him a competent starting five, but he never achieved any kind of chemistry with above-average players like Chris Webber, Jerry Stackhouse, Andre Iguodala, Larry Hughes, Matt Harpring, and Keith Van Horn. Whenever the team succeeded, it was because of his individual efforts. Conversely, when Iverson clanked his way through an off-night, there was no alternative to turn to."

I'm not playing a card. I'm saying there is a generational divide. Settle yourself. There are some people who didn't like him, and they are almost all of an age which makes which makes the hippity-hop culture foreign and threatening to them (including my dad, who I use as an example because he eventually came around). Obviously nobody ever confused Iverson with Tim Duncan. They are different types of guys, I just think you can appreciate both as a basketball fan. I don't see why you need to get so enraged and go on these crusades against people. What does it matter to you if people liked Allen Iverson?

League MVP. Seven time all-NBA. Got that? It's called first ballot hall of famer.

Seven out of 13 years.
Culture has nothing to do with it. That's you bag.
Kobe Bryant is younger than Iverson and managed to win
championships with many different casts around him.
Lebron James makes teammates around him better.
Steph Curry scores as many points and manages well with the
framework of a team.
Iverson never did.

Kobe and Lebron are in the conversation for the best handful of players of all time, so I can concede that Iverson was not on their level. If I were picking a team, there is no way Iverson would be chosen ahead of those guys. They also were blessed with bodies that made basketball much easier for them. I think what a lot of people really admired about Iverson was his ability to score in a league where he was frequently the smallest guy on the court, and his absolute fearlessness which is a quality you have to admire even if you believe he shot too much and wasn't a good teammate. His willingness to go to the rim and confront bigger and stronger players and abuse his body in the process probably resulted in his career being much shorter than it could have been otherwise.

All of what you say is true.
It's what made Iverson the best under 6' player in NBA history.
He was fun to watch, and made incredible plays.
He just didn't make those around him better, which to most,
is the hallmark of greatness.

Agree. I am only saying I liked the guy, not that he is the greatest player of all-time. I also recognize why people didn't like him, but I think the counter to that is that he was a cultural symbol because of his brashness and fearlessness. I get that is not everyone's cup of tea.

rodfromcranston wrote:All of what you say is true.
It's what made Iverson the best under 6' player in NBA history.
He was fun to watch, and made incredible plays.
He just didn't make those around him better, which to most,
is the hallmark of greatness.

Eh, Michael Jordan didn't really make players around him better either, except that he was Jordan, and thus, defenses had to account for him and give open looks to others. Unless you're talking about a point guard or a back-to-the-basket post player that draws obvious double teams, it's hard to pinpoint how much effect they have. It's seldom that "challenge" trades are made to provide evidence of the effect. (The most famous recent one was probably Marbury for Jason Kidd, but while the Nets excelled with Kidd, the Suns didn't go in the crapper as much as people remember with Marbury.)

MJ disagrees:
"There are plenty of teams in every sport that have great players and never win titles. Most of the time, those players aren't willing to sacrifice for the greater good of the team. The funny thing is, in the end, their unwillingness to sacrifice only makes individual goals more difficult to achieve. One thing I believe to the fullest is that if you think and achieve as a team, the individual accolades will take care of themselves. Talent wins games, but teamwork and intelligence win championships."

Michael Jordan quotes

And he loved to practice.

In my opinion, Iverson very much gets a pass, perception-wise, because he was so fun to watch. Post Jordan's retirement, you can make the argument that he was the most fun player to watch in the league and a big reason why he was so popular with people my age at time (people who were just old enough to remember the very end of Jordan's career). Personally, I always thought he was overrated, but I can understand how people would view him as a great player. As time has passed, I think there are people who consider him a great player because he was so fun to watch, while allowing the flaws of his game (volume shooter, conflicts with coaches/management, etc.) to fade from memory.

People always jump on "Volume shooters" these days and point to analytics. Come on. That doesn't account for the fact you can't put your hands on the ball handler and the fact they CHANGED THE GAME to open up the lane. Like its easier to play when someone doesn't have their hand on your hip holding you.

Nobody claims AI is a great shooter or anything besides a bigtime competitor.

Also claiming he is broke is uninformed. Supposedly he has a trust that pays him 1million each year until he is like late 50s and then 30million is released to him. .... Oh and he had along NBA career making him absolutley eligible to take the NBA pension.

He declared bankruptcy and had his house foreclosed on and claims
not to be able to pay alimony or child support.
He's broke. 160 million dollars down the toilet.
He can't touch the Rebok money until he's 55 years old.
Wonder why he's broke?
This from Matt Barnes a few days ago:
“Allen was the first guy that showed me how NBA players spend money in strip clubs,” Barnes says. “That guy went. HARD. He’d throw so much money, and this was when I was first in the league, that I used to take my foot and scoop the s— under my chair and either re-throw it or put some in my pocket. He’d throw $30,000, $40,000 every time we went. I’m like, ‘You realize what I can do with this money?’”

Shaolin Swat wrote:In my opinion, Iverson very much gets a pass, perception-wise, because he was so fun to watch. Post Jordan's retirement, you can make the argument that he was the most fun player to watch in the league and a big reason why he was so popular with people my age at time (people who were just old enough to remember the very end of Jordan's career). Personally, I always thought he was overrated, but I can understand how people would view him as a great player. As time has passed, I think there are people who consider him a great player because he was so fun to watch, while allowing the flaws of his game (volume shooter, conflicts with coaches/management, etc.) to fade from memory.

i think the volume shooter monicker with Iverson is unfair too. He was a volume shooter by necessity, not by choice. He never had other players he could count on to take on some of the scoring burden.

Pretty similar to the Lakers teams after Shaq left and before Gasol got there. Kobe got killed as a ball hog and volume shooter in those years. But same as Iverson, he had no one around him he could defer to. It was on him alone to win games.

Quick shooting comparison:

Kobe..............Iverson
45.1% fg........42.5% fg
33.4% 3pt......31.3% 3pt
83.7% ft........78.0% ft

about as close as you can get for over careers as long as they had.


btw Rod, athletes and wasting money to the point of bankruptcy was around WAY before Iverson came around. Even those clean cut good ol white guys were blowing their money back in your day

Except those clean cut white guys, didn't blow 160 million dollars.
Guys like Ted Williams were lucky to make 100K.
Many ballplayers worked other jobs in the off season.

rodfromcranston wrote:So, you're playing the fucking age card? Are you kidding me?
41% shooter. Got that? 31% from 3. It's called volume shooting.
Not everyone liked Iverson, so you're full of shit, as usual, just because you
father happened to like him.
Oh, and he was an total scumbag of a human being, since you bring it up.
Declared an unfit parent by a judge. A drunk, who gambled and pissed
away 160 million dollars.
This from Bill Simons:
" his freewheeling play, clashes with coaches, and brushes with the law made him the poster child for the sport's post-Jordan decline. If Jordan defined his era by being an icon everyone could agree on, then Iverson's divisiveness defined his"
"There's an important difference between Iverson and stars like Duncan and Garnett: They're team players, and he is not. Duncan and Garnett are unselfish, versatile, and almost deferential to their teammates. Iverson shoots relentlessly, disrupts any attempts at team strategy, and has proven incompatible with just about every kind of complementary scorer. The Sixers may never have given him a competent starting five, but he never achieved any kind of chemistry with above-average players like Chris Webber, Jerry Stackhouse, Andre Iguodala, Larry Hughes, Matt Harpring, and Keith Van Horn. Whenever the team succeeded, it was because of his individual efforts. Conversely, when Iverson clanked his way through an off-night, there was no alternative to turn to."

Well if Bill Simmons doesn't like him I get that closes the debate.

Volume shooter argument is always chicken and egg. Is a guy a volume shooter by nature, or does the rest of his team lack offensive skills? On a much smaller scale, we had those same discussions about Xavier Munford a short time ago, and even with EC this past season.

Andrew wrote:Volume shooter argument is always chicken and egg. Is a guy a volume shooter by nature, or does the rest of his team lack offensive skills? On a much smaller scale, we had those same discussions about Xavier Munford a short time ago, and even with EC this past season.

It can be tough to separate out, especially when a guy is repeatedly put into situations where he's forced to be a volume shooters. It's obviously easier to spot when a guy like Dion Waiters is a chucker with the Cavs without Lebron, then continues to chuck when Lebron is there, and he still continues to chuck when traded to Oklahoma and even as he loses playing time.

The other night Westbrook went for a boatload of points but took 43 shots in the game....he even dwarfed Waiters in that game....I think Waiters took 13....he took the 2nd most shots....

Yeah that Westbrook game was ridiculous. ESPN kept running the headline "Westbrook scores 53" and that seems impressive, but it is so much less so when you find out it took him 43 shots. That was like a typical TruePoint rec league stat line. Not an efficient performance.

Holy crap thats amazing...I can't wait!! Favorite player of all time.

So, wait, is that the player on our team or what?

If "our team" is Team Awesome, then yes.