Degree of Difficulty

Without making the extravagant claims of the Iverson-bashers (that he's frequently been a below-average player, for example) I do think there are a lot of folks out there who overrate the Answer. Bill Simmons, for example, thinks he's "one of the best 30 players of all-time" which I'm really not buying. He does, however, offer up an interesting riposte to Iverson's detractors:

Well, ask yourself one question: How could a coach-killer who allegedly monopolizes the ball, hates to practice and can't sublimate his game double as one of the most revered, respected players in the league? Why did the ex-players on "NBA Coast To Coast" (Anthony, Legler and Barry) trade Iverson war stories last night like they were trading stories about Keyser Söze? Why are Philly fans overwhelmingly heartbroken that he's leaving town?

I think part of what's going on with Iverson is simply that there's a difference between being one of the most impressive basketball players of all time and actually being one of the best. Iverson's small for an NBA player and isn't an especially impressive spot-up shooter. Consequently, to score he needs to do things that you wouldn't think were possible. And he does score. A lot. By doing things that are seemingly impossible. As Simmons writes, "He takes implausible angles on his drives -- angles that can't be seen as they're unfolding, even if you've been watching him for 10 years -- and drains an obscene number of layups and floaters in traffic." Above and beyond the sheer brilliance of the spectacle, there's something wonderful about watching a human-sized individual in the NBA. These are the qualities that make him one of -- if not the -- most enjoyable players in the league to watch and perhaps the post-Jordan Associations more enduringly popular player. They don't, however, make him one of the top-thirty players of all-time.

Comments

Iverson is the only reason I still watch the 76ers. Where he goes, so goes my rooting--although I guess I couldn't root for another Eastern Conference team.

Posted by Justin | December 13, 2006 2:35 PM

I don't know about top 30 all-time, but I certainly think he's top 50 all-time. If you look at the mid-to-late '90s "50 Greatest" list that the NBA put out for its 50th anniversary and think about who would be on it now if it were updated, three names that I think should definitely be on there are Duncan, Kobe, and Iverson.

Posted by Haggai | December 13, 2006 2:45 PM

"They don't, however, make him one of the top-thirty players of all-time."

Comparing players across eras is notoriously difficult. But Iverson has pretty easily been one of the top 10 players of the past decade. I'd feel reasonably comfortable naming him one of the top thirty of all-time. Dude's got the third highest scoring average in the history of the association, and the second highest playoff scoring average.

But trying to rank Iverson vis-a-vis George Mikan truly is a bit of a fool's errand.

Most comfortably, I'd assert that he's one of the three best guys 6'2" or under to ever play the game.

Posted by Petey | December 13, 2006 2:55 PM

You can't be one of the top 30 all time when your team is never that good. If you take out Iverson's rookie season (when the 76ers won less than 30 games) and the year they went to the Finals (when they won over 50 games), Philadelphia has basically been just a bit over .500 with AI. For every year they win 44 games, there's a year they lose 44 games.

Mike

Posted by MBunge | December 13, 2006 2:57 PM

if it were updated, three names that I think should definitely be on there are Duncan, Kobe, and Iverson

Surely Garnett would come before Iverson, but otherwise I agree with you.

I just did a quick exercise trying to find players I would rate as "definitely" better than Iverson and came up with about 20-25. Given I'm unfamiliar with some of the older players, I agree then it's a bit of a stretch to call him top 30 all time, but one could probably make a reasonable argument for it. If, you know, people want to spend time on things like this...

Posted by right | December 13, 2006 3:03 PM

He takes implausible angles on his drives

I like "implausible" as a compliment for an astonishing and real feat.

Posted by Neil the Ethical Werewolf | December 13, 2006 3:08 PM

Let's just compare him to other guards. Who are the guards who are clearly better than Iverson? MJ, Magic, Oscar, West, Cousy. I think Iverson has already surpassed guys like Dave Bing and Earl the Pearl (both of whom were on the NBA's 50 greatest). He needs a couple more great years, but I think he's in the conversation with guys like Clyde Frazier, Isaiah, Barry, Hondo... that could probably put him somewhere around 30-50.

(Standard Disclaimer - of course I never saw any of the guys who played before the Magic/Larry era... so I'm just going on reputation, stats, etc.)

Posted by Al | December 13, 2006 3:10 PM

"If you look at the mid-to-late '90s "50 Greatest" list that the NBA put out for its 50th anniversary and think about who would be on it now if it were updated, three names that I think should definitely be on there are Duncan, Kobe, and Iverson."

I don't care who you add to the top-50 list, as long as you remove Clyde Drexler.

Posted by Petey | December 13, 2006 3:13 PM

Simmons' second point is spot on:

One of the most influential African-American athletes in sports history, a true trendsetter who single-handedly pushed the NBA into the hip-hop era (whether the league was ready or not).

AI is a cultural phenom. The cross-over dribble and lightning quickness helps.

Posted by SoCalJustice | December 13, 2006 3:18 PM

Granted I am biased because I grew up in Portland during the late 80's early 90's, but "I don't care who you add to the top-50 list, as long as you remove Clyde Drexler." seems like a ridiculous statement. For my moeny Drexler is one of the most undderatted players of all time. You compare his numbers to Jordan, you get 7-8 points less a game, about the same rebounds, assists and steals. That is pretty damn good. Granted not only could Drexler not take over the game like Jordan, he did tend to underperform in the clutch. Still, I would take Drexler everytime over Pippen who is also on the top 50 players list.

Posted by nathaniel | December 13, 2006 3:24 PM

Bill James once wrote about why baseball players swear Nolan Ryan is the greatest pitcher ever— they understand how hard it was for a 44 year old guy to throw as hard as he did and respect his refusal to ever give in to hitters. From their perspective, which is colored by difficulty of achievement, he may well have been the best ever. It doesn't mean he was the most effective. Same thing applies to Iverson, who isn't close to a top 100 basketball player on the court, though he's a lot of fun to watch.

Posted by guy | December 13, 2006 3:25 PM

If you look at the mid-to-late '90s "50 Greatest" list that the NBA put out for its 50th anniversary and think about who would be on it now if it were updated, three names that I think should definitely be on there are Duncan, Kobe, and Iverson

Jason Kidd also, who I think is slightly ahead of Iverson. Kidd, after all, has made All-NBA first team 5 times, to Iverson's 3. Iverson has a chance to move ahead of Kidd though, since he's playing at a higher level today.

Posted by Al | December 13, 2006 3:25 PM

Cousy was certainly not "clearly" better than Iverson. If you ever watch any old footage of Cousy, like I mentioned in a thread here a little while back, you'll see that AI's shot selection is practically McHale-esque in comparison to Cousy's. That seems to have been generally true of Cousy's era, lots of insane shots being taken very quickly by perimeter players, but his numbers still don't rank him with AI.

Posted by Haggai | December 13, 2006 3:28 PM

You guys might be right about Kidd and Garnett. Maybe Lebron, Wade, and Carmelo will be up there too, though we'll have to wait another 10 years before deciding on any of those three.

Posted by Haggai | December 13, 2006 3:29 PM

Well, I'm not actually convinced that the only way Iverson is a top 30 all time player is if you factor in how unlikely his success has been given his size. BUT, if that's the case, then a whole bunch of older players need to be taken off the list anyway because they couldn't compete physically in the modern NBA - period. I'm not saying that as a blanket statement: Russell and Chamberlain would still, I'm sure, be all time greats if they were playing in the modern league. But Bob Cousy would be at best a bench player, if he could play in the league at all, and he's said as much (comments to the effect of "I was never fast enough to play today's game," etc.).

Posted by Quarterican | December 13, 2006 3:30 PM

Iverson isn't a great player. He's not a great defender, he misses insane amounts of time with injuries because of the way he plays, and he misses the basket a lot. The idea that he's top 30 is insane.

Posted by guy | December 13, 2006 3:31 PM

"You compare his numbers to Jordan, you get 7-8 points less a game, about the same rebounds, assists and steals. That is pretty damn good."

It is indeed pretty damn good. It's just not good enough for top-50, compared to others left off the list - especially when you consider his true shooting percentage.

He should be ranked significantly below someone like Paul Pierce, who himself probably isn't a top-50 player as of now.

"Granted not only could Drexler not take over the game like Jordan, he did tend to underperform in the clutch."

Yup. A propensity for hitting game winners would start making up for the stats, but as you correctly note, that isn't the case here.

"Still, I would take Drexler everytime over Pippen who is also on the top 50 players list."

Guys like Pippen, McHale, and Parish are problematic selections for the top-50 list. While none of them merit selection based on stats, playing second banana on multiple championship teams should count for something. I'd probably leave Pippen on the list, and probably leave McHale on as well, while cutting Parish. Rodman, who isn't on the list, probably merits consideration.

Posted by Petey | December 13, 2006 3:35 PM

Iverson does get a lot of injuries from his small size and his kamikaze playing style, but he definitely hasn't been missing "insane amounts of time" in his career. He missed about 1/4 of the '02 season and 1/3 of the '04 season with injuries, but aside from that, he's played about 75 games per year, and he's averaged almost 42 minutes per game in his entire career.

Posted by Haggai | December 13, 2006 3:35 PM

Go Hoyas!

Posted by Cain | December 13, 2006 3:43 PM

Misses an insane number of games? Over careers of exactly the same length (they're both in their eleventh season), Iverson has played 697 games and Kobe has played 725. And his weaknesses in FG% can't be divorced from the weakness of his team, etc., etc.

Posted by Quarterican | December 13, 2006 3:43 PM

Is "guy" the blog's "Al" of sports posts? Where normally Al spews batshit craziness, here we have a model citizen in Al, but guy filling the irrelevent antagonist void.

Anyways, I'm not much of a basketball fan, but that just makes my opinion superior to everyone else's, so here's my two cents:

I love AI. I love his knickname, I love the way he plays, I love everything about him. He's the type of player who embodies every moral lesson of sportsmanship: hussle, heart, dedication, and freakin off the charts passion. That's all on the court stuff. I can't speak for stuff I don't see off the court. AI makes sports meaningfull. One can learn a lot about success by watching AI.

P.S. I wouldn't put too much stock into anything the sports guy says. He's a fluff-artist. He is to sports what limbaugh is to the GOP.

Posted by A different matt | December 13, 2006 3:43 PM

Petey -

I want to believe you that Pierce is significantly better than Drexler, though I'm not sure it's more like a wash. I think Pierce is top 10 or 15 in the league right now, but definitely not top 50 all time. I think Pippen should still be on the list, though I'd listen to arguments otherwise; Parish shouldn't be on it; McHale is a no brainer.

Posted by Quarterican | December 13, 2006 3:47 PM

Who are the guards who are clearly better than Iverson? MJ, Magic, Oscar, West, Cousy.

Isaiah. Stockton. Havlicek. Gervin. Kobe.

We could even start talking about Gary Payton and Jason Kidd.

Posted by right | December 13, 2006 3:51 PM

I'd probably put Stockton ahead of Iverson on the "better guards of the last 30 years" list. He was a more efficient scorer, and when you consider the results of those instances when he passed the ball and Iverson would have shot it, he a better offensive player, period. Defensively they're a wash.

In my book, Iverson is Isaiah without the supporting cast. Which isn't a bad place to be--a surefire HOFer--but not at the tip top elite level. If he was a baseball player, he would be Eddie Murray.

Posted by Joe | December 13, 2006 3:52 PM

He's not a great defender, he misses insane amounts of time with injuries because of the way he plays, and he misses the basket a lot. The idea that he's top 30 is insane.

He doesn't really miss that much time due to injuries, especially when you consider that he plays an unusually high number of minutes per game when he's healthy.

Misses the basket a lot is more to the point. He's leading the league in scoring right now, but his .413 field goal percentage is lower than that of all 49 guys behind him on the list. And he's not really make up for it from the charity stripe either -- he's .529 TS% is pretty undistinguished as you'll see if you compare him to some other high-scoring guards like Arenas (.563), Redd (.601), Carter (.589), Johnson (.595), Allen (.560), Nash (.655), Wade (.564), Bryant (.593).

I don't mean this as a huge slam on Iverson, but "top 30" is a very strong claim. The reality is that there are lots of guards out there scoring a lot of points and doing so much more efficiently than The Answer. Guys who almost certainly could score as much as AI does if they took as many shots. Johnson, to take another guy lacking in the teammates department, is scoring 2.5 fewer points while shooting three fewer field goals and and 5.3 fewer free throws -- he could easily close that scoring gap if he decided to shoot more even if he wound up taking very low-margin shots. And I assume Joe Johnson isn't in anyone's "best 30 ever" conversation.

Posted by Matthew Yglesias | December 13, 2006 3:53 PM

hmmmmmmmmm. pippen not on list? come on. being the indispensible sidekick on 6 championship teams alone should get you there, let alone taking chicago pretty much all the way the year the GOAT played the other balls (yes, he sat out tony's shot, but the bulls won only a couple less games, didn't make finals because jobbed on noncall in final seconds against knicks). scottie then takes portland near all the way, with one of the greatest comeback of all time, only to have a monumental collapse (yes, that team had way more than pippen). scottie's clearly the man.

as for clyde, you kidding? really one of the greatest?

but my main point: doesn't AI demonstrate we shouldn't be very impressed with garnett? AI at least got his team to the finals once, what has garnett done for anyone lately when not propped up by sam i am and sprewell? put another way, if you accept -- as so many seem to -- that KG is great, doesn't that similarly indicate that AI is truly great? has AI really had more help than KG? and that AI can even play the game with a genetic freak like KG? i think he's gotta be one of the greats (if we don't penalize barkley for being on bad teams, only getting to finals once, and losing, why should AI be penalized for same?).

Posted by dj superflat | December 13, 2006 3:54 PM

Havlicek played small forward, I thought, not 2-guard.

Posted by Haggai | December 13, 2006 3:54 PM

"I want to believe you that Pierce is significantly better than Drexler, though I'm not sure it's more like a wash."

I'd take "significantly" out of that sentence were I to write it again.

Posted by Petey | December 13, 2006 3:54 PM

"In my book, Iverson is Isaiah without the supporting cast."

Yuperoo.

Posted by Petey | December 13, 2006 3:55 PM

pithier:

how is AI any less deserving of acclaim than dominique?

Posted by dj superflat | December 13, 2006 3:56 PM

"doesn't AI demonstrate we shouldn't be very impressed with garnett?"

No.

It demonstrates that a lack of support is fatal.

Put consensus GOAT Michael Jordan in his prime on this year's Bobcats, and they're going to struggle to hit .500 and make the playoffs.

John Stockton was an elite player, but if he'd spent his career on another team, we likely wouldn't be talking about his as top-50.

Posted by Petey | December 13, 2006 4:02 PM

Iverson once took a team to the NBA finals and came thisclose to winning the first two games against the LA Lakers at the absolute peak of the Kobe-Shaq era with this supporting cast:

Dikemebe Mutombo (11.7 ppg)
Aaron McKie (11.6 ppg)
Eric Snow (!!) (9.8 ppg)
Tyrone Hill (9.6 ppg)
George Lynch (8.4 ppg)

That should have been absolutely impossible and makes him a top 30 player on that alone. None of these guys were on the upswing of their career and none of them became future stars. The best player on that team today after Iverson is Raja Bell, who never played and everaged about a point a game that season - all these guys peaking playing with supposed locker-room-battery-acid Iverson. The sheer force of Iverson's will is what got them into the finals, he was an incredible leader that year and won a very deserved MVP.

Posted by Dan Panorama | December 13, 2006 4:02 PM

I hated him, but Reggie Miller > AI

Posted by a | December 13, 2006 4:02 PM

Johnson, to take another guy lacking in the teammates department, is scoring 2.5 fewer points while shooting three fewer field goals and and 5.3 fewer free throws -- he could easily close that scoring gap if he decided to shoot more even if he wound up taking very low-margin shots. And I assume Joe Johnson isn't in anyone's "best 30 ever" conversation.

Come on, Matthew. Joe Johnson's done this for only 18 games! If he keeps this up for another 9 years, yeah, maybe he'd be in the conversation.

Posted by Al | December 13, 2006 4:11 PM

"The reality is that there are lots of guards out there scoring a lot of points and doing so much more efficiently than The Answer."

You fetishize efficiency.

You underestimate dominance.

Michael Redd is a very nice player, but he's never going to be "the man" on a team that goes deep into the playoffs, no matter how good the role players are around him. Why do you think that is? Hint: he doesn't distort the defense.

Posted by Petey | December 13, 2006 4:13 PM

Iverson is the Ichiro Suzuki of the NBA -- a great average-sized athlete in a game that rewards raw size.

Posted by Steve Sailer | December 13, 2006 4:26 PM

I'd take "significantly" out of that sentence were I to write it again.

I was about to call you on that one too... Drexler's first 9 years (through '92, the second Portland NBA Finals appearance) are about a wash with Pierce's career so far. I'd give Glide the edge, but it's not that different. Glide was All-NBA first team once and All-NBA second team twice; Pierce has never been either. Gilde went to two NBA Finals; Pierce, none. What makes Glide clearly better, to my mind, is that he played another 6 years at a good (not great) level - appearing in another NBA Finals and winning a ring (yes, as second banana, but if you give McHale and Pippen credit as second banana, you need to give it to Clyde too).

Posted by Al | December 13, 2006 4:29 PM

You fetishize efficiency.

If I fetishized efficiency, I'd be following Dave Berri and saying Iverson's a bad player. I'm not doing that by any means. But to claim Iverson as a top-30 guy you need to ignore efficiency.

And note that it's hard to make the case that Iverson's inefficiency is purely a result of his sub-standard teammates. In the 2004 Olympics he started alongside Tim Duncan, Stephon Marbury, Lamar Odom, and Richard Jefferson with Shawn Marion, Carlos Boozer, and Dwyane Wade getting the big minutes off the bench. Under the circumstances, Iverson, appropriately, reduced his field goal attempts to 11.25 per game. He wound up leading the team in points and FGAs anyway, and shot .378 from the field -- worse than all the guys named above except Jefferson.

Posted by Matthew Yglesias | December 13, 2006 4:35 PM

Petey,

So who was the defense-distorting "man" on the 04 Pistons? Anyway, I'd say a guy like Redd can distort the D, by stretching it with his range.

Posted by too many steves | December 13, 2006 4:38 PM

"So who was the defense-distorting "man" on the 04 Pistons?"

No matter what the rule is, the '04 Pistons are the exception that proves that rule.

Posted by Petey | December 13, 2006 4:44 PM

Guys, Iverson has missed about 15% of his team's games over the course of his career. That's a lot of time. Being on the court counts.

Posted by guy | December 13, 2006 4:54 PM

"If I fetishized efficiency, I'd be following Dave Berri and saying Iverson's a bad player."

Does Berri really go that far? I thought he was just saying Iverson was overrated, not that he was below average.

"But to claim Iverson as a top-30 guy you need to ignore efficiency."

Individual metrics are just weak measures in the NBA. Check out the career stats of guys like Theo Ratliff and George Lynch. They were offensive rebounding machines when they played with Iverson, but pretty ordinary when they didn't play with Iverson.

Those offensive rebounds and easy putbacks don't get attributed to Iverson via any individual metrics, but Iverson is responsible for them in reality.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: being able to force the defense out of playing straight up is the single most valuable offensive asset in the NBA. That doesn't show up in the stat sheet for the most part.

Posted by Petey | December 13, 2006 4:54 PM

I think the Pierce-Drexler comparison illustrates a lot about AI too. Bottom line to me is I'd rank Pierce higher, but I also admit that a lot of that is my biases and circumstance. In the grand scheme there is proabbly not a whole lot of difference between the two. If you were to swap their careers, Pierce on the Clyde's teams is likely 1st team all NBA and Clyde on Pierce's Boston teams probably never makes it either. And for that matter Jordan never "retires" and Clyde doesn't win any titles. Or if George Karl knew how to win a 5 game series he doesn't either (look it up the Sonics owned the Rockets back then, so way they beat them in a 7 game series).

The way I see it the all time greatest is a pyramid, the very top (Jordan, Bird, Magic, Big O, Wilt, Russell, a few others) is a pretty small group and the gap between that tier and the next level is pretty big. Once you go down a level the gaps start to narrow and the difference between a top 20-30 guy (say Isaiah, Gervin, etc) and the #100 guy is pretty small. I'd lump AI in with the guys between 50-100, but caveat it with the difference between #21 and #100 is a lot less than the difference between whoever is #21 and The Big O or Magic.

If you want to go with roughly peer (PGs) contemporaries I'd rank Stockton, Kidd, Payton and Nash above AI. All time I'd add of course Magic and the Big O, Isaiah, Frazier, Wilkins, Earl the Pearl, Cousy. Hard to say a guy is top 30 when I can quickly find more than 10 guys at his position alone I'd rank higher.

Posted by Eric | December 13, 2006 4:55 PM

The Pistons were a freak-of-nature case with literally not a single equivalent team in the last 25 years or more. Every other team that's won a final, and virtually every one that's even made it to the finals, has had at LEAST one offensive superstar that messes up the defense such as Bird, Johnson, Isiah, MJ, Hakeem, Shaq, Kobe, Wade, and Duncan, and often two or three.

Put a lot of those players with AI's supporting cast in 2001 and I really am not sure that they'd make it to the finals, let alone win it. As gaudy as his numbers are, they don't even begin to tell the full story of how he can take over a game in the fourth quarter singlehandedly.

Posted by Dan Panorama | December 13, 2006 4:59 PM

How in the world is Paul Pierce being mentioned as better than Drexler?

Pierce has had some teams with talent. They didn't win. Drexler got to the Finals three times and won once. I couldn't even imagine ranking Iverson ahead of Drexler, let alone Pierce.

Posted by a | December 13, 2006 5:01 PM

Still having a tough time understanding why anyone would pick Cousy over AI. Yes, winning does count for something, but come on.

Posted by Haggai | December 13, 2006 5:02 PM

"Pierce on the Clyde's teams is likely 1st team all NBA and Clyde on Pierce's Boston teams probably never makes it either." Who would Pierce beat out during the Prime of Drexler's career, Magic or Jordan?

Comparing Drexler to Pippen I get Drexler averages 4 points more a game, half an assist more, a rebound less, better free throw percentage and attempts (almost two a game more)and about the same fg%, steals, and blocks. This is from the raw per game numbers, so percentages may be a bit off.

Posted by nathaniel | December 13, 2006 5:02 PM

"If you want to go with roughly peer (PGs) contemporaries I'd rank Stockton, Kidd, Payton and Nash above AI."

But, of course, Iverson hasn't played at the point for the great bulk of his NBA games...

Posted by Petey | December 13, 2006 5:07 PM

I suspect Eric is onto something with the pyramid idea - the list of guys I'd offhand estimate as deserving of "top 30 all time" is probably 50-60 guys long, and I'd bet the same is true of Simmons. This is especially because cross-historical comparisons don't work so well, and for that matter neither do cross-positional ones either. What does it mean to compare Iverson to Kidd/Payton/Stockton? And I don't mean "Iverson spent a lot of time at the 2 and they were 1s," I just mean that what they were asked to accomplish on court were very different things. (Pierce/Drexler is, on this measure, a lot fairer, in that while their actual approaches are/were rather different - I remember Drexler being more about grace/slipperiness/dominant leaping, whereas Pierce relies a lot on being heavier/stronger than the guy guarding him and at times looks like he's designed his game around the principle of saving his knees - their roles are quite similar.) The more relevant comparisons for Iverson are, in the modern game, guys like Arenas, Marbury, Francis, Baron Davis, maybe Chauncey, etc., and historically guys like Earl the Pearl and Isiah Thomas - and I'd take Iverson over any of them.

Posted by Quarterican | December 13, 2006 5:25 PM

Count me as one more for Drexler over Pierce. It's a good comparison, though. They're pretty similar, but Drexler was freakishly athletic in a way that Pierce isn't. Also, Pierce hit a new level last year (he's kept it up this year), and Drexler played at or above that level for 10 years.

Scratch that, it's more like 6 or 7 years. I just looked up his lifetime stats, and I never realized how not-great he was after about 1990. I seem to remember some sort of injury back then.

You can't really compare Drexler to Pippen on numbers, because Pippen played with this other dude you might remember, who took most of the shots. But let's pretend the Blazers weren't retarded, and they drafted Jordan in '84 and teamed him with Clyde. I could easily see Clyde being a better 2nd-banana than Pippen. Like Pippen, he could do it all -- he had a couple years with 25+ points, 7 board, 6 assists a game -- without dominating the ball. He wasn't the defender Pippen was, but from what I remember he was pretty good. Really, if Clyde hadn't played at the same time as Jordan, he'd probably be considered a lock for top 50, because he would have been the best in the league at his position for most of a decade (which happened to be the NBA's glory years, too).

Posted by too many steves | December 13, 2006 5:27 PM

"The more relevant comparisons for Iverson are, in the modern game, guys like Arenas, Marbury, Francis, Baron Davis, maybe Chauncey, etc., and historically guys like Earl the Pearl and Isiah Thomas - and I'd take Iverson over any of them."

I'd say Zeke and Bubbachuck are a pick 'em.

Posted by Petey | December 13, 2006 5:33 PM

NB: According the Halberstam book, Jordan came back from the '92 Olympics claiming that Pippen was the best player on the Dream Team (I assume he was excluding himself). Pippen might be the most underrated great player of my time as an NBA fan. I think I might take Pierce over Drexler; Glide was a freaky athlete and a great player, but he always struck me as a bit soft.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | December 13, 2006 5:33 PM

Yeah, but Iverson would be a way better general manager.

Posted by too many steves | December 13, 2006 5:41 PM

I'd like to believe that given talented teammates, Iverson could adapt his freakish-yet-self-centered game as well as Zeke did, but until he's given that opportunity we won't know (I'm not convinced that All-Star games and international tournaments are a fair/sufficient comparison). So there's that in Zeke's favor. And in terms of sheer on-court attitude/ferocity/what-have-you, Thomas was probably Iverson's equal. But in an actual game between each player at their peak, I believe Iverson would just turn out to be sufficiently quicker that he'd win.

And Pippen, as noted upthread, really doesn't get enough credit for the 93/94 Bulls. They didn't get a chance to do anything like replace Jordan, and yet they lost, what, eight more games from the previous year? I think I posted here several months ago that, as too many steves said, in all likelihood the real world combination of Jordan/Pippen was probably not that much better than hypothetical Drexler/Pippen or Jordan/Drexler combos. Players adapt to each other and the situation - if McHale hadn't played with Bird, maybe he wouldn't have won three rings, but he would've been the centerpiece of his offense and put up truly astounding numbers, at maybe a slight reduction from his already impressive FG%.

Posted by Quarterican | December 13, 2006 5:45 PM

Petey,

True Iverson isn't really a PG, but other than Kidd is any modern player really one? He is generally the guy with the ball in his hands and the guys I listed we're who he'd be matched up against when playing their teams for the most part.

Posted by Eric | December 13, 2006 5:48 PM

"stockton, Kidd, Payton and Nash above AI. All time I'd add of course Magic and the Big O, Isaiah, Frazier, Wilkins, Earl the Pearl, Cousy."

What are the standards to judge by: scoring, assists, defense, times in the finals. Ranked in order.

Scoring: Wilkins, Iverson, robertson, Isaiah, Nash, Earl, Magic, Payton, cousey, stockton, kidd, Frazier.

Assists: COusey, Magic, Robertson, nash, stockton, kidd, iverson, Isaiah, frazier, pearl, payton, wilkins.

Defense: Robertson, Frazier, payton, kidd, Isaiah, iverson, stockton, pearl, cousey, magic, wilkins, nash

Finals: Cousey, Magic, Isaiah, Robertson, frazier/pearl, Stockton, Payton, Iverson

Of this list, I'd say AI is clearly behind Magic and robertson, in the same group with Isaiah and stockton, and ahead of the rest.

Posted by cw | December 13, 2006 5:50 PM

But in an actual game between each player at their peak, I believe Iverson would just turn out to be sufficiently quicker that he'd win.

Maybe one-on-one, but Isiah was a much better passer than Iverson. I'd take Isiah-the-player over Iverson every day of the week.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | December 13, 2006 5:51 PM

Nathaniel, if your gonna make snid comments at least try not to be absurd. How many times did Drexler beat the guys you mentioned to win a title? Exactly 0 of course. That is what I meant by circumstance. Clyde won a title playing with Hakeem while Jordan was retired. Put Pierce on that team instead of Clyde and they win. Put Clyde on Pierce's C's teams and they do about the same.

The guys use different skill sets but accomplish about the same level of performance.

Posted by Eric | December 13, 2006 5:52 PM

Yeah, Isiah was clearly better than AI. Think about it this way: if Isiah wanted to, he could have been a 30-a-game scorer like Iverson. He was just as quick and probably just as good a scorer. But could Iverson every be the type of PG Isiah was? If so, he hasn't shown it. Isiah averaged close to 25 points a game AND double-figure assists.

Still, Iverson's a better GM.

Posted by too many steves | December 13, 2006 5:56 PM

SCMT -

That's where I plead youth - was Isiah really a much better passer? I don't remember him being, like, an assist highlight reel the way that Magic and Bird were (OK, that's not fair) or even like Kidd and, to a lesser extent, Nash. I remember him more as the guy who knew how to distribute the ball and run an offense (and take over in crunch time), but not so much the sort to pick apart a defense. OTOH, when the Pistons won their second championship I was 7 and a half. And the guys he had to pass to were much better than anyone Iverson's ever had to pass to.

Posted by Quarterican | December 13, 2006 5:59 PM

CW,

Raw stats comparisons are meaningless, they are too dependant on the circumstances that player was under. Pippen being a good example.

It gets especially absurd when you compare eras, Yeah Cousy took shots that are absurd by today's standards, it was a different game then. When you compare eras you have to look at guys in the context of their era.

AI has played his entire career on teams that were designed around him taking most of the shots. Put any number of great players in those circumstances and they would likley score just as much if not more than he does. As for his supporting cast being so bad, could there be a chicken and the egg thing going on here? Maybe his game is incapable of co-existing with other good players?

Posted by Eric | December 13, 2006 6:01 PM

BTW, if you look at only the years where Iverson was explicitly playing the 1 - his first season and a half, and the last few - he averages something like 7.5 apg, and Isiah's career is at 9.3, I think. That doesn't really mean anything, though.

Posted by Quarterican | December 13, 2006 6:06 PM

"But could Iverson every be the type of PG Isiah was? If so, he hasn't shown it."

Both Isiah and MJ both reduced their scoring averages at the urging of their organizations. Up until this year, Iverson has never had a coach who's urged him to reduce his shooting.

Dude's always followed the gameplan.

Quarterican upthread said that all-star games weren't indicative of anythng, but why not?

Posted by Petey | December 13, 2006 6:08 PM

As a Pistons fan from way back, I agree that Isiah is a pretty fair comparison for AI. Isiah was a great player, sure, but one of the reasons he gets so much credit is that he was a prototype, a scoring point guard in a mostly unprecedented sort of way. If Isiah broke into the league today he wouldn't get as much hype because the trail has already been blazed by many others.

I'm also with those who thinks Matt goes way, way too far with this efficiency thing. In theory, it seems there are dozens and dozens of players who should be able to score 30 points a game if they end up on the right team, but in practice it just doesn't work out that way. If Matt was right you'd expect every single bad team to produce a Tony Campbell.

Posted by Steve | December 13, 2006 6:08 PM

Top 30 is a tough standard, true, but I'd put Iverson in the Top 50, and it's not utterly crazy to put him in the Top 30. I make some allowances for him since as Simmons aptly points out, he has rarely played with anybody who was much good. I think it may fair to say that it's hard to build a great basketball team around a 6'0" shooting guard.

I think if you looked closely at Isiah Thomas's numbers, they will not strike you as those of a dominant or highly efficient player. But the force of his personality was crucial to those great Detroit teams. I think if AI had gotten luckier with teammates and coaches, his career would look more like Isiah's.

It's interesting to look at the NBA Top 50 list in this context, because there are a couple of guys there (Nate Archibald and Earl Monroe) who posted great individual numbers early in the careers for mediocre teams, then battled injuries, then got traded to very good teams, where they toned their games down a little bit to fit in and won championship rings. That's my hope for Iverson. I'd like to see what he'd do if opponents didn't key on him every time down the court.

Posted by Dix Hill | December 13, 2006 6:12 PM

I just want Petey to stop calling it "the association."

Posted by ogged | December 13, 2006 6:13 PM

"BTW, if you look at only the years where Iverson was explicitly playing the 1 - his first season and a half, and the last few - he averages something like 7.5 apg, and Isiah's career is at 9.3, I think. That doesn't really mean anything, though."

The real tragedy of the prime years of Iverson's career is the firing of Jim O'Brian.

The guy moved Iverson back to point in a really smart way, and constructed a tight defensive strategy.

He didn't have the personnel to win yet, but with an addition or two that fit his system, it was a direction that could've led to some real success around Iverson.

Posted by Petey | December 13, 2006 6:14 PM

Petey -

Well, nobody plays defense until the last five minutes. But actually, I didn't mean to claim that as a fact, I just wanted to say "I'm not sure it means anything." For one thing, to say "Iverson recognized that he was playing with guys who could also score and that he ought to focus more on distributing the ball for the better balance and therefore success of the team" means something different in an All Star game (when every option is, you know, an All Star) than it does on a well-constructed team. The decision-making looks different - is probably much easier - when you can pass the rock to, say, Pierce, Lebron, Shaq and Sheed than it does when your options are (picking a good team at semi-random) Turkoglu, Hill, Milicic and Howard.

Posted by Quarterican | December 13, 2006 6:15 PM

"The real tragedy of the prime years of Iverson's career is the firing of Jim O'Brian."

I read somewhere this season that the NBA is a coach's league. And I'd never really thought that way before, but recently I've decided it's true.

Posted by Petey | December 13, 2006 6:18 PM

"I just want Petey to stop calling it "the association."

Hell, no.

Posted by Petey | December 13, 2006 6:19 PM

Quarterican upthread said that all-star games weren't indicative of anythng, but why not?

All star games are chosen for fan entertainment (and, of course, are chosen in part BY fans, for their entertainment), not particularly based on level of play. As I've indicated above, I think a MUCH better measure for this level is number of times on the All-NBA first or second teams. That is not based at all on "entertainment" value and is based solely on level of play. That's (in part) why I'd rate J-Kidd slightly above Iverson now (J-Kidd's 5 first teams and 1 second team, to Iverson's 3 first teams and 3 second teams).

(BTW - So far this season, J-Kidd is 0.4 assists and 1.3 rebounds per game away from averaging a triple-double. Speaking of "degree of difficulty"...)

Posted by Al | December 13, 2006 6:20 PM

Whoops - I see that Quarterican mean play in all star games, not times chosen for... my mistake.

Posted by Al | December 13, 2006 6:23 PM

But even all NBA rankings are subject to circumstances. Someone could have been the 2nd best SG of all time but if his career coincided with Jordan's he would have 0 1st teams.

Posted by Eric | December 13, 2006 6:27 PM

"All star games are chosen for fan entertainment"

I didn't mean the choosing process, I meant Iverson's style of play at said games.

I think Iverson could've become a successful Zeke-style PG if he'd been put in the right circumstances. He's still a quarterback at heart.

Posted by Petey | December 13, 2006 6:27 PM

My point was going to be that Isiah and AI are the same player minus a decent organization that can acquire and hold some decent players and keep a great coach, but unless AI gets traded to an organization like that we'll never know. And everybody seems to have already said this.

Migraine Pippen and Drexler must go. They're 'greatness' is a product of the era during which they played (new expansion teams and less efficient scouting of high schools and foreign countries for players) which is the weakest era ever excluding the ABA competition time period. Much as the six time champion Bulls of the 90s are overrated.

I'd also point out to everyone that if AI's defense is bad (he lurks around and gets some steals, particularly in important moments), then the Stockton love must go as well because that guy couldn't stop a ham sandwich. Not even an inefficient ham sandwich, let alone Isiah or AI.

Posted by keatssycamore | December 13, 2006 6:33 PM

The Pistons championship teams didn't run that different an offense from what they run now. They had more good shooters, but it was a higher-scoring league back then. The Bad Boys were known as a great defensive team because they were about the only team in the league holding anyone under 100 ppg.

But my point is, the offense was about set plays, pick-and-rolls, dumping the ball to guys like Adrian Dantley and James Edwards in the post and letting them work. It wasn't Showtime and Isiah's assists didn't tend to be of the flashy type. I'm not saying he was overrated, but his assists were more a function of having good players around him than anything. What made Isiah a big deal was the scoring, which is what makes AI a big deal too, in my view.

Posted by Steve | December 13, 2006 6:34 PM

Boston at Philly tonight. That game is going to have a seriously weird vibe.

Posted by Petey | December 13, 2006 6:34 PM

"It wasn't Showtime and Isiah's assists didn't tend to be of the flashy type. I'm not saying he was overrated, but his assists were more a function of having good players around him than anything. What made Isiah a big deal was the scoring, which is what makes AI a big deal too, in my view."

Brevin Knight is not a top-30 player.

The scoring sets up what gives the passes a special advantage.

If you can score on penetration in volume, the defense has to focus on you. If the defense has to focus on you, and if you have the other assets to make them pay, you've got a real advantage as a passer.

Posted by Petey | December 13, 2006 6:41 PM

Petey,

Not to mention your previous point about all the easy rebounds and put backs that are created when players like Zeke get in the lane. Helped Laimbeer be more than just a spot up three shooter on offense and made Rodman playable despite his lack of ham sandwich like offensive skills.

Posted by keatssycamore | December 13, 2006 6:47 PM

Somebody upthread referred to Isiah as a 25 ppg scorer. He wasn't, more like 21 in his best years. He had a whole lot of assists, and quite a few turnovers to go with them.

Now Adrian Dantley, there was a really efficient and prolific offensive player. (DC native too, Dematha High if I recall correctly.) But nobody thinks of him as a great player.

Posted by Dix Hill | December 13, 2006 7:01 PM

'm not saying he was overrated, but his assists were more a function of having good players around him than anything.

Isiah's teammates--especially in his pre-championship years, when it's easier to see his ability--sucked. Kelly Tri-puke-a! If you're willing to look at All-Star games for style of play, go watch a couple with Isiah in it. My recollection is that he took a couple of MVP's home from that event, though he had better passing games when other people won.

I can't believe this is considered debatable. Simmons, who started this whole mess with the 30, considers Thomas the best pure point guard of his lifetime (and I think he's called him "the perfect point.") These aren't provable debates, but...I dunno. I'm not really sure how to respond to people who think Iverson's the equivalent of Isiah as a point guard. That would just never occur to me. Isiah was a better passer than Stockton, and Iverson would have to show his ability before I considered him a better passer than Stockton.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | December 13, 2006 7:01 PM

Now Adrian Dantley, there was a really efficient and prolific offensive player.

Well, he always got the ball at the exact same spot, and he only had three moves from that spot, ever. However, none of those moves were stoppable, which I guess is how you become one of the top-10 alltime scorers.

Posted by Steve | December 13, 2006 7:11 PM

I don't think poor shooting in the 2004 Olympics should be held against AI. That's the year we sent nobody to the Olympics who could shoot from long range. The only guys who outshot him for 3 were dudes who took 10 or less shots. So the long-range burden fell on AI's shoulders (41 of his 90 shots were from 3-land), which brought down his shooting percentage.

Posted by Neil the Ethical Werewolf | December 13, 2006 7:41 PM

I love the Isiah/Iverson debate. Two guys with massive force of will, as quick as any who have ever played in the association :), and both by physical stature should never have even played in the league.

Iverson's Sixers not only getting to the finals but actually winning a game against the Shaq/Kobe juggernaut that season is major league impressive. I made the comment that season many times (to blank stares mostly) that Iverson had to have had the most missed shots put back for scores ever. It happenend constantly. Any stat geek out there want to compare guys from that team with their career averages for offensive rebounding? I'd bet there is a massive difference.

On the other hand anybody who has seen Isaih's 25 point 4th quarter (int the playoffs against the Bullets (not sure about the team) would have to come away equally impressed. Awesome stuff.

In the end I think you'd have to say AI gets to the rim (and line) better than Thomas but Isaih had a better shot. Strangely, I'd give Iverson the edge on passing since he gets most of his on a much higher degree of difficulty than Isaih did (easy stuff to Laimbeer on a pick-and-roll, etc) and yet he's a top notch passer, not just a give it up when you get in trouble type. Remember the game 7 against the Raptors (VC's infamous graduation ceremony game)? AI had 16 assists and they won......

Still can't tell you who's better though. But I'm buying the top 30 all time for each.

Posted by Sigh | December 13, 2006 7:58 PM

That was the Lakers where Isiah had the ridiculous 4th quarter. Game 6 of the Finals.

I'm not going to compare AI to Jordan, obviously, but I do remember that back before Jordan started winning titles there were a lot of people who talked about Jordan in much the same way as Iverson's detractors discuss him. He lacked that magic "efficiency" quality, you see. "Heck, I could score as much as Jordan if I took all those shots!" was the common refrain. Iverson does have a certain something extra. You could tell from the run to the Finals, if nothing else, that he's not just another overrated ball hog on a bad team.

Posted by Steve | December 13, 2006 8:55 PM

Just to echo the people I agree with, Isaiah in my recollection was not a super creative passer like Nash or magic, but just a reall solid stockton type passer. And he was not a quick to the rim as AI. But he did have a better jump shot.

Here are his lifetime stats 19.2 points on 45% shooting, 3.5 rebounds, 3.75 TO and 9.3 assists.

Here are AIs: 28 ppg on .42% shooting, .309 rebounds, 3.74 TO, 6.1 assists.

So iverson has scored more and passed less. Otherwise they are very comparable. I think Stockton, Iverson, Thomas are all in the same ballpark, but it's hard to compare them exactly becausee the first two were point guards and AI is mostly a shooting guard, and becuase Stockton and Thomas played on way better teams. You can say that those guys made the guys around them better or played more of a team game, but it's easier to do that when you have a karl malone or a joe dumars and dennis rodman on your team. So Matt, I don't think you can say that AI is way worse than stockton or Thomas, and I think both those guys are probably close to the top 30. So AI is in the ballpark.

Posted by cw | December 13, 2006 9:06 PM

There might not be anyone as fast to the rim as AI, but Isiah was damn fast on the drives. I remember one time the Hawks forced us to a deciding 5th game, and the very first possession Isiah took it from the 3-point line - zip! - right past everyone to the rim for a layup, and the game was just a romp from there. Very, very few could blow by the defense like he could.

The thing that kinda bugs me about talking top 30 or 50 or whatever is that we've had an awful lot of great players come around since the famous top 50 list came around, and we might have like 70 players in the top 50 by now. If we really sat down and talked about who we'd add and who we'd drop and whatnot, I'm seriously not sure how many "top 30" players would really make it into the top 30.

Posted by Steve | December 13, 2006 9:45 PM

Eric, I wasn't being snide, you said "Pierce on the Clyde's teams is likely 1st team all NBA" in order for Pierce to be first team he would have to have been better then either magic or jordan. SO I am asking you, who is he better then? AS someone previously mentioned, if it wasn't for jordan, Drexler would have been considered the best at his position for 6 ot 7 years.

Posted by nathaniel | December 13, 2006 10:31 PM

These kind of discussions are fun (to an extent), but ultimately futile. There simply is not an agreed upon set of criteria, so everyone has opinions based on their own set, with different emphases.

I work in the Thoroughbred racehorse industry, and we run into the same problem, both in terms of comparing athletes (horses in my case) from different eras, and in terms of which set of variables to use when comparing.

Also, there always tends to be an emphasis on more recent players, as many of those expressing opinions did not have the important benefit of seeing the older players in action. Cases in point: I believe no more than two of the many previous comments touched on Nate Archibald. Tiny was absolutely phenomenal in his prime, and also had the ability to successfully adapt to very different circumstances later in his career. Not that I can quantify it, but I saw them both (many times), and consider him to be better than AI.

I also dislike Isiah for a number of reasons, but he was clearly a better all-around guard than AI. And that brings me to another point: defense is almost invariably underrated in these kind of discussions. Scottie Pippen was a superior defender, and statistics will never be able to shed light on his immense value as a defensive stopper against potent guards AND forwards when necessary. I'm not suggesting that he is an obvious top 30 (or 50), but that players with dominant defensive skills should be upgraded significantly.

Finally, I do agree with those who suggest that it is much easier to separate the very best few from the rest. Trying to parse the next 20 or 40 is very difficult.

Tony C.

Posted by Tony C. | December 13, 2006 11:18 PM

Guys, Iverson has missed about 15% of his team's games over the course of his career. That's a lot of time. Being on the court counts.

Can we put a dagger in this one? Other guards, and total games played, from the 96 NBA draft through last year:
Kobe Bryant: 707
Ray Allen: 735
Steve Nash: 703
Stephon Marbury: 725
Allen Iverson: 682

Over a 10 year career, he has misse