Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins
Forum Rules and Guidelines

NewsNerd.com: Allen Iverson Seen Begging for Change Outside Atlanta’s Lenox Mall

Big Weirdo

By Big Weirdo
in The Tailgate

Recommended Posts

mcsluggo

mcsluggo

Posted
Posted

of course you can say that....

 

Michael Jordan was the greatest player to ever play the game... and he is over-rated all the damned time.   he was the greatest player to ever play the game, not the superhero that people remember whith their mooneyed schoolgirl crushes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
JMS

JMS

Posted
Posted

1.  Allen Iverson is a HOFer.

2.  He could have absolutely worked on his game and gotten better.  Even at his peak, he was known for not being able to finish with his left.

3.  Iverson played SG for most of his career.   During the peak run of the Sixers Eric Snow was the PG.

4.  Talking about TO in isolation is meaningless, and Iverson as a TO machine as compared to great ball handlers.  You need to look at something like assists/TO ratios.

 

Magic had an assists/TO ratio of 2.89, while Iverson's was 1.72.  Jordan is at 2.02

Since when are TO's a meaningless stat? Since when are any of the dozen or so stats specifically tracked in the NBA, NCAA, and even HS basketball levels "meaningless"? Have you proposed your theory, that Turn Overs shouldn't be tracked because YOU find them meaningless to any hoops governing body? How do you think they would respond to your proposition?

Talking about Iverson's career and accomplishments and mentioning TO's first is a joke because his turnovers didn't define is HoF career. And of coarse focusing about his assist to TO ratio is also a joke. Iverson was a scoring machine. That was his role and he filled that role exceptionally well. To choose a metric which entirely ignores scoring (Assists to TO's) is insincere even for haters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
JMS

JMS

Posted
Posted

of course you can say that....

 

Michael Jordan was the greatest player to ever play the game... and he is over-rated all the damned time.   he was the greatest player to ever play the game, not the superhero that people remember whith their mooneyed schoolgirl crushes.

I don't think one who acknowleges Michael Jordan as the Greatest of All Time, would open up discussions about his career saying "over rated".

You are arguing words are meaningless.. "overrated" applies to the folks with the greatest careers in NBA history. That's a bogus premise. There are players in the NBA who have had undistinguished careers yet still carry the mantal of competence based upon athletism, potential, or collegiate achievment. That wasn't Allan Iverson. and it wasn't Michael Jordan either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky21

Rocky21

Posted
Posted

Iverson was a scoring machine. That was his role and he filled that role exceptionally well. To choose a metric which entirely ignores scoring (Assists to TO's) is insincere even for haters.

Yes let's talk about Iverson's scoring. Like his .277 3 point percentage in '02-'03. At one point it was the worst in the history of the league but I think Josh Smith has beaten it since then.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
mcsluggo

mcsluggo

Posted
Posted

Yes let's talk about Iverson's scoring. Like his .277 3 point percentage in '02-'03. At one point it was the worst in the history of the league but I think Josh Smith has beaten it since then.

 

Yeah... Shaq's 3-point percentage sucked donkey testicles too.    atrocious.    

 

Oh yeah... and john Stockton had very few blocked shots.  

.......  And MJ's on-base-percentage was strictly bush league

 

 

which is t say... yeah, i think that we can all agree the three point shot wasn't what was special about THIS specific player.  pointing out his stats in his worst season for one category that wasn't his strength isn't particularly illuminating about whether he was a special player or not.     

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Predicto

Predicto

Posted
Posted

I don't think HoF and over-rated can be applied to the same individual. You could say he sucked and doesn't belong in the HoF. You can say he sucked, will get into the HoF on hype, but doesn't belong there. But how do you say he deserves to be in the HoF and was oveer rated?

 

 

 

Of course you can say that.

 

If someone says that Patrick Ewing deserves to be in the Hall of Fame, I will agree 100 percent.

 

If someone says that Patrick Ewing was one of the three greatest centers in NBA history, I will say you are overrating him.  He was great but he was not Kareem, Russell, or Wilt level of great.  He wasn't even Hakeem or  Shaq level of great.   When you start talking about the David Robinsons and the Moses Malones, he starts to fit in.

 

Allen Iverson belongs in the Hall of Fame and was tough as nails, but people overrate him all the time.  He was a chucker, a volume shooter who happened to play his entire career on teams that didn't mind if he took 30 shots a game and missed 20 of them.   He shot .425 for his career.   He got a lot of steals lurking in the passing lanes, but was a mediocre on the ball defender.  He didn't pass particularly well for a point guard, didn't shoot efficiently as a shooting guard. 

 

Pretty much everything Iverson could do, other players could do better, even while he played.   The only thing they didn't have that he had was a green light to shoot 30 times a game.   Not even Reggie Miller had a green light like that, and Miller shot 52 percent instead of Iverson's 42 percent.

 

So yes, Iverson is a Hallof Famer, and yes, he is overrated if you put him in the top pantheon of NBA guards.  He doesn't belong there.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Predicto

Predicto

Posted
Posted

Yeah... Shaq's 3-point percentage sucked donkey testicles too.    atrocious.    

 

Oh yeah... and john Stockton had very few blocked shots.  

.......  And MJ's on-base-percentage was strictly bush league

 

 

which is t say... yeah, i think that we can all agree the three point shot wasn't what was special about THIS specific player.  pointing out his stats in his worst season for one category that wasn't his strength isn't particularly illuminating about whether he was a special player or not.     

 

 

All true.   But his 2 point percentage was lousy too.   A guy who shoots .425 for his career but scores 26 points per game is the definition of a volume shooter.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
EnFoRcEr_uPu

EnFoRcEr_uPu

Posted
Posted

This is the problem with social media today. Someone posts a story like this on their News Feed and next think you know it's shared or liked or retweeted thousands of times. No one takes any time to read the actual story, they see the headline, then click share or like. People will post anything on FB or Twitter to further their agenda, even if it's proven the article isn't real. Sad.

 

What's sad is people truly believe anything they read.  It's honestly sickening...no offense  OP.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
JMS

JMS

Posted
Posted

If someone says that Patrick Ewing was one of the three greatest centers in NBA history, I will say you are overrating him.

I don't think anybody is saying Iverson had the greatest career of all time... He was a great player, a first ballot hall of fame player, who for a time cold arguable have been called the best player in the NBA. Those are all realistic accolades.

Calling Allen Iverson an over rated player is over stating it. The guy had a great career worthy of acknowlegement, without any further editorializing or mitigation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
PeterMP

PeterMP

Posted
Posted

Since when are TO's a meaningless stat? Since when are any of the dozen or so stats specifically tracked in the NBA, NCAA, and even HS basketball levels "meaningless"? Have you proposed your theory, that Turn Overs shouldn't be tracked because YOU find them meaningless to any hoops governing body? How do you think they would respond to your proposition?

Talking about Iverson's career and accomplishments and mentioning TO's first is a joke because his turnovers didn't define is HoF career. And of coarse focusing about his assist to TO ratio is also a joke. Iverson was a scoring machine. That was his role and he filled that role exceptionally well. To choose a metric which entirely ignores scoring (Assists to TO's) is insincere even for haters.

 

Almost any number in isolation is meaningless.

 

The most common way to put TOs in some sort of prespective is with respect to assist.  I didn't make that up.

 

There are pages and pages of hit returned from google on assist to TO ratio, and there is a reason for that.

 

https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=basketball+assist+to+turnover+ratio

 

Pages that say things like:

 

"The assist to turnovericon1.png ratio is one of many basketball statistics used to evaluate the ball control and ball handling skills of a player."

 

http://www.sportingcharts.com/dictionary/nba/assist-to-turnover-ratio.aspx

 

You count the number TOs because that number lets you do other things, like determine an assist/TO.

 

The point is that AI had pretty large flaws in his game, and he was prone to TO.  He was a good scorer, but he did turn the ball over a lot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Predicto

Predicto

Posted
Posted

I don't think anybody is saying Iverson had the greatest career of all time... He was a great player, a first ballot hall of fame player, who for a time cold arguable have been called the best player in the NBA. Those are all realistic accolades.

Calling Allen Iverson an over rated player is over stating it. The guy had a great career worthy of acknowlegement, without any further editorializing or mitigation.

 

If he was arguably the best player in the NBA, it was only because the NBA was going through its weakest stretch in the modern era.  Which it was.

 

But even then he wasn't arguably the best player in the NBA, not ever.  Every year Iverson was playing, some relatively large combination of Michael Jordan or Tim Duncan or Shaq or Lebron or Kobe or Malone or Garnett or Stockton or Nowitzki or Wade or  Nash or Paul was also playing, and every one of them was a better overall player than AI was.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites
JMS

JMS

Posted
Posted

If he was arguably the best player in the NBA, it was only because the NBA was going through its weakest stretch in the modern era.  Which it was.

 

But even then he wasn't arguably the best player in the NBA, not ever.  Every year Iverson was playing, some relatively large combination of Michael Jordan or Tim Duncan or Shaq or Lebron or Kobe or Malone or Garnett or Stockton or Nowitzki or Wade or  Nash or Paul was also playing, and every one of them was a better overall player than AI was.   

 

I humblely suggest his NBA Most Valuable Player award makes your assertion comedic.   Arguable,  he was the best player in the NBA 2001,  at least the majority of NBA MVP voters felt so.. which makes it arguable so.  

 

NBA Rookie of the Year, 4 times NBA scoring champion..  11 x NBA Alstar,  3 time NBA steals Leader,  and almost single handedly transformed the 76'ers from worst team in the NBA and put them into the NBA finals 4 years in the league...

 

I think clearly there was a time when most people considered Iverson the best player in the NBA.   He had that kind of gravitos and inpact in 2001 4 years into his career.

 

I think he goes down as a great over achieveing hard working playeer who had a great career...  not someone who was over rated and didn't earn every accolade he recieved.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Predicto

Predicto

Posted
Posted

I humblely suggest his NBA MVP award makes your assertion comedic.   Arguable,  he was the best player in the NBA 2001,  at least the majority of NBA MVP voters felt so.. which makes it arguable so.  

 

NBA Rookie of the Year, 4 times NBA scoring champion..  11 x NBA Alstar,  3 time NBA steals Leader,  and almost single handedly transformed the 76'ers from worst team in the NBA and put them into the NBA finals 4 years in the league...

 

I think clearly there was a time when most people considered Iverson the best player in the NBA.   He had that kind of gravitos and inpact in 2001 4 years into his career.

 

I think he goes down as a great over achieveing hard working playeer who had a great career...  not someone who was over rated and didn't earn every accolade he recieved.

 

 

Then we are talking past one another, because I don't disagree that he was a great over achieving hard working player who had a great career.

 

I still say he is overrated, but I don't want to have an argument based on how you define "overrated" vs how I define "overrated."  There's no point in that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Predicto

Predicto

Posted
Posted

You two are just arguing about where the bar is set.

 

And about what it means to be overrated.   In my view, great players can be overrated or underrated depending on what accolades you are trying to give them.  

 

Pete Rose was a truly great baseball player who is also overrated - not because he wasn't really great but because he wasn't close to being the GOAT, or even one of the top ten or 20 players in baseball history.  Many, many people think he was because all they do is count base hits and "hustle".   That makes him overrated and great at the same time.

 

AI is the Pete Rose of the NBA.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...