NBA PLayoffs 2003 (1 Viewer)

[Patrick Larkin]

A discussion of "the best players in the NBA" often exclude Iverson mainly because of Iverson's size. His defensive game isn't where those others are. That doesn't mean that Iverson is not the most dynamic scorer in the league.

You can practically bank on the fact that AI will be a Hall of Famer. And his playoff performances are historical. His 55 points in a playoff game has him in the history books with Jordan, Chamberlain, Barkley, Baylor, and Barry. Its his 2nd 50+ performance in the playoffs - matched ONLY by Jordan. Jordan holds the record for points in a playoff game - 63 - but it took him 2 OT's to do it. That record may fall.

You may not like him for whatever reason but there is no denying that he is an incredible talent. And IMHO, the most exciting player in the league.

 

[Mark Leiter]

Cost you a championship? That's an optimistic way of looking at it. The Rockets swept the Magic 4 games to none.

My point was that the Magic had youth and energy on there side. Most would agree that Orlando had the more talented team. But when Anderson missed those free thows, any one of which would have iced the game, it turn that youth into a liability. They just couldn't recover from that kind of let down. The more experienced Rockets just swepted from there.

If he had made those free throws I belive the emotional high would have carried them threw the rest of the series. Remember, the Magic in that year were one of only two teams EVER to knock out the Bulls with both Jordan and Pippen playing.

But, I guess the saying "shoulda, coulda, woulda, never won a game from anybody." So I must conseed your point.

 

[Brian Perry]

You can practically bank on the fact that AI will be a Hall of Famer.

Based on what?

AI is a career 42% shooter with mediocre rebounds, assists, and turnovers. He has never won a title, and unless he's traded to a Western team, probably never will. He's had some standout games with respect to points scored, but again, it's usually done with a terrible field-goal percentage. The only argument pro-Iverson fans can make is that he is surrounded by stiffs, but that is impossible to prove and hardly a credit towards the Hall of Fame.

Yes, he is flashy and sometimes entertaining to watch (if you ignore all the carrying--but I guess "legitimate" great players such as Shaq break the rules as well). I just don't think you can make the argument that Iverson is anything but a scrappy, short, sometimes-dazzling-but-usually-quite-average player.

Switching topics, what happened to Minnesota's attendance? I saw that they were 2,000 shy of a sellout on Sunday. Was it because of Easter or do the fans believe the Timberpuffs are hopelessly outgunned?

 

[Walter Kittel]

I was just teasing you Mark.

I will agree that if the Magic had won that first game, it may have been a different series. However, I'm unsure that one game would have made a difference in the ultimate outcome considering the way the Rockets, particularly Akeem - who won his second NBA Finals MVP Trophy, were playing during that run.

- Walter.

 

[Mark Leiter]

Tease away Walt. This is what makes sports so great. This kind of thing can be debated forever.

You won sure but if this and this and this woulda happened... I tell you things would have been different. he..he.

Hell there's always next year.

 

[Henry Carmona]

Anyway, looking forward to tonights game

 

[Scott Merryfield]

While Iverson is certainly a scoring machine, I do not know if that gains him automatic entry into the Hall of Fame, either. If it did, then Dominique Wilkens and Bob MacAdoo would be there, too. Instead, they will go down in history as players who scored a lot of points for a lot of very bad teams.

 

[Justin Lane]

While Iverson is certainly a scoring machine, I do not know if that gains him automatic entry into the Hall of Fame, either. If it did, then Dominique Wilkens and Bob MacAdoo would be there, too. Instead, they will go down in history as players who scored a lot of points for a lot of very bad teams.

If Iverson breaks the 20,000 point barrier, which he should with about 3 more good years, he will be a lock for the hall of fame. Don't forget he has won the Rookie of the Year, League MVP, All Star MVP, lead the league in scoring 3 times already, steals a couple times, took his team to the finals, and will be a member of the Olympic team. Not too many players in the league today can come close to that resume. McAdoo was never a big winner as the star of his team, whereas Iverson has been to the playoffs five years straight with a finals appearance in there (maybe another one this year).

On a side note, I attended Game 1 in Philly last night, and it was one of the greatest performances I have ever seen in a Playoff game. Iverson single handedly carried his team while the rest of the players struggled. Superstars answer the call when the game is on the line, and Iverson delivered. I highly recommend anyone in the Philadelphia area to check out a playoff game at the First Union Center if you get the opportunity. The atmosphere is unbelievable. If Van Horn shows up (hopefully its just rust after his foot injury), look out for the Sixers in the East.

J

 

[Justin Lane]

Based on what?

AI is a career 42% shooter with mediocre rebounds, assists, and turnovers. He has never won a title, and unless he's traded to a Western team, probably never will. He's had some standout games with respect to points scored, but again, it's usually done with a terrible field-goal percentage. The only argument pro-Iverson fans can make is that he is surrounded by stiffs, but that is impossible to prove and hardly a credit towards the Hall of Fame.

Yes, he is flashy and sometimes entertaining to watch (if you ignore all the carrying--but I guess "legitimate" great players such as Shaq break the rules as well). I just don't think you can make the argument that Iverson is anything but a scrappy, short, sometimes-dazzling-but-usually-quite-average player.

I am usually not an Iverson defender, but there is a bit of misinformation here about his game. If you look at the assists charts for this season he is actually in the top 20 in the league as a shooting guard and for his career has averaged 5.6 per game (note: Jordan's careeer assist average is 5.3 a game). Steals career: Iverson 2.4 a game, Jordan, 2.3 a game. By this logic Jordan is mediocre as well because he was never a big assists or rebound guy. Of course we know this is not true. When Iverson has big scoring games, his FG% is not terrible. At times I think he does take some bad shots, but that really is a result of his supporting cast many times and the fact that no one else on the team will take a shot (Larry Brown is a terrible talent evaluator).

As for Iverson carrying the ball, that is the weakest argument I have seen against him to date. Once again if you watch the Sixers, you would notice that Iverson rarely uses the crossover dribble which was one of his early trademarks. As the years go by, he is becoming a better spot up shooter off the screen.

It cracks me up when people have an obvious agenda against Iverson (whether is be prejudice, or something against his appearance or actions, etc.), and refuse to give him respect for his game. Not too many people are in the top 5 all time in career scoring (hint there are only 5, and Iverson is one of them), won a Rookie of the Year, League MVP, All Star MVP, and took their team to the finals.

J

 

[Robert_Z]

I don't know why I continue to be a Spurs fan. Every year the same thing. Stumble out of the blocks to start the year. Begin turning it around by the all-star break. Finish the regular season as the NBA's hottest team. Get into the playoffs, and the punks forget how to shoot!!!

They do it every time. Why do I put myself through this??? Yes I know the Spurs won tonight, but that is little consolation, considering how awful they played. I almost want them to lose to Phoenix because I don't think I can handle another post-season humiliation to the Lakers.

 

[Chris Farmer]

Well, Spurs won tonight to even up the series. And unlike last Sat's fiasco that was a 1 point OT loss, this was a far more solid 8 pt victory. Still didn't get crap from parker though. He's gonna have to step it up.

 

[Steve_Tk]

I was watching the Spurs tonight, but when they started loosing I just turned it off and did some other stuff. Glad to see they ended up winning.

AI is a good player, but can not be compared to Jordan. Maybe AI will break records, or will score more points, or whatever. But that's not the point. Jordan in his day was leaps and bounds ahead of all other players in the league. AI is not like that. The league has gotten better, and he is just one of the top, and even the person at the top is not where Jordan was during his prime.

All records will be beaten eventually, what matters is how dominating you are during your time. Jordan was so far ahead in his time it wasn't even funny.

Look at me going off on a stupid rant.

And oh yeh, go mavericks!

 

[Mark Leiter]

Saw both games tonight. Man the Suns looked good again tonight. To be honest I thought that the Spurs would play with a little more intensity than this. I really was hoping they had gotten over these kinds of let downs. I mean this is like the third year in a row they've dominated the second half of the year only to really come down to earth come playoff time. Im starting to wonder just how good my "spurs in 5" pick is going to hold up. The more I see of that Stoudemire kid the more I like him. He'd have my vote for ROTY for sure. Yao or no Yao.

And the other game....boy did the Jazz look tired. And the Kings were firing on all cylinders. Sac did get a few scares though with CW leaving in the 2nd with a bad ankle and Valdi turning his in the closing minutes. Lucky for them and I guess the Jazz the next game isn't for 4 days. The game itself sucked. I could hardly watched it.

The commentators did mention that Malone might not be in Utah next year. His contract is up and they were saying if he wanted to go for a Championship he would most likly have to go elseware. I wonder where....

 

[Justin Lane]

AI is a good player, but can not be compared to Jordan. Maybe AI will break records, or will score more points, or whatever. But that's not the point. Jordan in his day was leaps and bounds ahead of all other players in the league. AI is not like that. The league has gotten better, and he is just one of the top, and even the person at the top is not where Jordan was during his prime.

Agree totally. But at the same time Iverson is not mince meat like some of the people in this thread make him out to be. People make statements like all he can do is score, then when you look at his career statistics, and accomplishments in the game, there are few that are his peer at this point. I don't agree with some of the things Iverson does or is involved with, but I am not so prejudice as to totally dismiss his game just because I do not like his image.

J

 

[Brian Perry]

People make statements like all he can do is score, then when you look at his career statistics, and accomplishments in the game, there are few that are his peer at this point.

While you keep bringing up "prejudice" being the reason people don't give AI respect, you just have to look at the numbers.

First of all, points scored is not a worthy measuring stick by itself. It is purely a function of how many shots you take and what percentage are successful. Period. And the stats clearly show that Allen Iverson only makes 41-42% of his shots. The better centers are hitting 55-57% while guards and forwards should be upwards of 46%. There is simply no other way to look at it. The point of basketball is to make the most of your teams offensive possessions. If you are hitting 41%, you are doing your team a disservice.

Defensively, you admitted Iverson is average to below-average. His rebounds are negligible, which obviously is because he's short. And again, when you net his assists, steals, and turnovers, there's not a lot there to admire.

As for the awards you mentioned, All-Star MVP is meaningless. League MVP was a joke (Shaq was miles ahead that year.) Rookie of the year is nice, but not that significant--Elton Brand also won RoY, but I don't think he's going to the Hall of Fame. And of course, AI has not won any championships.

Again, I will give credit to Iverson for being an entertaining player. But when you look at the stats and apply them to why a team wins or loses, Iverson comes up short. And while some make the argument about his supporting cast being bad, perhaps he is making them bad (or not allowing them to reach their potential). Look at Jordan with the Wizards--many people say he actually made them worse this year.

 

[Chris Farmer]

Of course, FG% isn't the be-all, end-all. Jason Kidd shoots in the 30s last time I looked, and he's still the top point in the league. It's a question of total contributions.

Iverson is god, no question about it, but I'm not sure he shows the one-man brilliance that really sets apart a Hall-of-Farmer. Not sayign he doesn't have it, just nto sure. It's certainly not as clear cut as say Shaq, Duncan, David Robinson, Karl Malone, etc.

 

[Jeremiah]

Iverson is god, no question about it, but I'm not sure he shows the one-man brilliance that really sets apart a Hall-of-Farmer. Not sayign he doesn't have it, just nto sure. It's certainly not as clear cut as say Shaq, Duncan, David Robinson, Karl Malone, etc.

Whoa, back up, did you just say David Robinson and Karl Malone as having that one-man brilliance and not AI? First Robinson is so far from having that one-man brilliance it's a joke; and Malone, that guy will choke once the game is on the line. He choked in the WCF against Seattle, and he choked in back-to-back years in the NBA Finals.

How can you say AI doesn't have that one man brilliance? We just saw it the other night, and quite a few other times in the post season. He does jack some bad shots up but the guy doesn't have help, and yes, he supporting cast leaves much to be desired.

Also, nobody is trying to compare AI to Jordan, the only comparisson was with Assists and rebounds, and that was just to show AI is still doing a decent enough job.

I still can't believe people will only say Allen Iverson is good, sorry, but the guy is a great ball player and he is nowhere near usually and average player. If we asked all the head coaches, scouts, and people that matter in the NBA, not one of them would say Allen Iverson is an average player.

Sorry, but a man with a ROY award, NBA MVP(he deserved it as much as anyone, just that fact he is being considered is huge), an All-Star award, a Finals appearance(which he was the main reason for), steal titles, and a few scoring titles, is not an average player, that is a resume that people strive to get, and a measuring stick on greatness. How many other players in the league's history have that resume?

 

[Hunter P]

The Kings are the first team to jump to a 2-0 lead. Go Kings.

Them Spurs are going to have a battle in every one of their games against the Suns. But experience should win out against youth again. It helped them win last night. The Suns had a nice lead in the fourth but got impatient. When the Suns' 9 pt lead got drained to 1 pt in about a minute or two, Marbury jacks up a quick three. When I saw that, I said to myself that the game is over and the Spurs are going to win.

On the "what if" front:
Imagine today's Minnesota team with today's Marbury. That team would be scary and would have a legitimate chance of beating LA.

 

[Jeremiah]

Hunter, I was thinking the same thing as I was watching Marbury dominate. That situation was a shame, two of the best young players and they were perfect fits for each other, they were on there way to being the next Gary Payton/Shawn Kemp.

The Spurs are going to have their hands full with the Suns, IMO the Spurs got lucky last night; the Suns made some poor plays down the stretch. For some reason the Suns match up quite well with them, I knew I should of taken the 9!

The Kings looked like they pulled their heads out of the @sses and started to play basketball like they should be playing. They looked pretty good last night.

 

[Carlo_M]

True greatness, for me, requires one of two things (and both involve winning it all):

You should either:
1. Make those around you better. Magic would get creamed by a lot of NBA superstars one-on-one, but it was how he elevated his team and made them championship caliber that establishes his greatness.
2. Be so good at the game that you carry your team despite the bad cards that were dealt. Jordan had Pippen, and a few role players. But he carried that team to six championships.

AI hasn't done #1 - though you could argue with his supporting cast Magic couldn't have done it either, but we'll never know. He almost did #2 but they came up short against the Lakers.

I will admit AI is probably one of the top 3 one-on-one players in the game today. But that doesn't establish greatness in my eyes. And yes I know Dominique and Sir Charles never won one, and yes I do consider that a mark against them. I still consider them great talents but not in the same level of greatness that in one way or another, get the job done and hoist the trophy over their heads.

I will also admit that in the older days, when teams were much deeper, that you can forgive older players who never won it all because there were some dynasties back then that if you didn't have a good, deep team, you couldn't hope to beat them (Celtics in the sixties). I'm not enough of a historian to rattle off names of great past players who never won it all, but I am willing to cut them slack and consider that there were past players who were truly great but were unfortunately caught under the wheels of dynasties. Just like in the sixties and seventies there were great NCAA players who tended to lose to John Wooden's UCLA squads. But in today's overstretched, talent-thin NBA, with most teams only having 2 or so legitimate stars, a truly great player will be able to win the championship at least once.