ISH All-time Top 25 Guards Project: #15 - Allen Iverson vs. George Gervin

[Sampsonsimpson]

Iverson. They both had scoring skills obviously but I feel like Iverson could do more. He was an excellent playmaker on top of his scoring. He had 5 seasons over 7 assists per game and he had one season of 30 points per game and 8 assists per game. And in that year he was 1st in overall points scored, 1st in points per game, 3rd in overall assists made, and 5th in assists per game .

[ShaqAttack3234]

Fisher and Fox both made an impact by being able to come in a space the floor and play defense. They both improved in 01, in that they went on hot streaks in the playoffs. I don't know if they were legitimately much different, and I really doubt either of them would've gotten many more minutes in their 01 forms on the 00 team.

No, they probably would have gotten more minutes on the 2000 team if they were as good as 2001. Fisher had a chance to earn more minutes during the regular season when Kobe was out, but didn't. He play horribly that regular season which is why he was their 4th guard come playoff time. But he worked on his shooting quite a bit when he was out and came back as an improved shooter in 2001.

And Phil was very unhappy with Rice's play throughout the season, even early in the season when his numbers were better(Phil was quoted as saying Glen wasn't playing more because he didn't deserve to play) and even more in the playoffs when Rice's play fell off even more.

If he had a small forward he could trust more, then he certainly would've given them a chance, but Fox simply wasn't playing well enough.

They also did not have one top 10 player. It's nice to have the depth, but their first offensive option was Rasheed who put up a moderately efficient 18 ppg, and an old wildly inconsistent Steve Smith.

Smith was just 30, true, he had the knee problems, but if you remember, that was why the Rider/Smith trade was considered a mistake for Atlanta and a success for Portland. Atlanta reportedly traded him because they were worried about his knee, but when it wasn't an issue during the 2000 season, the deal was considered a big success for Portland.

Smith was not inconsistent either. He put up 15 ppg on 47 FG%/58 TS% during the season and 17 ppg on 49 FG%/64 TS% during the playoffs. Phenomenal efficiency for the era. In fact, he finished 8th in TS% during the playoffs.

And you really can't judge anyone's ability by their ppg on that team when you had that many capable scorers sharing the ball on a slow paced team that emphasized team basketball.

Damon Stoudamire was alright, but I don't think he was a 20-8 guy on very many teams. I think his early stats are very deceiving and they just never matched up with his real impact on the game.

That's true, but while he wasn't as good as those stats suggest, it's undeniable that he was an offensive player that you had to worry about.

And none of those guys were legit 1st option quality. It's great that they had the depth, but they didn't really have anyone you could trust to get you points if your offense became bogged down. They also didn't have the same defensive prowess as LA. Not that they were bad, but LA had really good defenders at the two guard spots and Center, and Horry and Shaw coming off the bench were good defenders too. They were in my opinion, the best in the league that year.

Well, we'll agree to disagree that year. I agree with Phil Jackson himself who said the Lakers were far from being the most talented team that year, and Portland was one of the team's that he cited(and considered the most talented in the league)

The Lakers were not two deep. Glen Rice, Ron Harper, Rick Fox, Robbert Horry, Brian Shaw and Derek Fisher all made an impact in those playoffs. Their PF spot was weak, but to say they were two deep is plainly not true. They just didn't have a lot of on the ball scorers, but both of those things were true for the 01 team as well, and the 01 team lacked the defensive prowess of the 00 team.

The '01 team had a lot of chemistry and injury problems in the regular season, but they played better defensively in the 2001 playoffs when everything came together, and once that team got healthy, they were a much better shooting team than the 2000 Lakers.

Not only that, but Kobe went from a borderline top 10 player in 2000 who averaged around 22 ppg to a 29 ppg scorer and top 3-5 player in 2001.

And look at how important Horace Grant being able to guard opposing power forwards and big men was. Rasheed was shut down in 2001 vs the Lakers, C-Webb struggled and Grant contained Duncan as well. Both C-Webb and Rasheed had killed AC Green the previous year.

Fox was also a vastly superior defensive player to Rice and with his improved confidence, he ended up being almost as productive in the 2001 playoffs as Rice was in 2000 while doing everything outside of scoring better.

Once the 2001 team was healthy, Isaiah Rider was off the playoff roster and the Shaq/Kobe and Phil/Kobe problems were resolved, they were much better than the 2000 team.

Out of the players you named making an impact in the 2000 playoffs.

Fisher? Nope, 4th guard
Fox? Not much, limited minutes guy with erratic play
Rice? Well, he was the only shooter you had to respect, but when you're an extremely inconsistent player playing 33 mpg putting up 12/4/2/41 FG%/53 TS%, a defensive liability and a guy who stands around when he doesn't have the ball, well, I fail to see much of an impact. Decent player, but a bad fit for the team and declining quickly. Couldn't be relied on.

Horry? Yes, solid team defender, good passer, solid rebounder.
Harper? Solid defender, smart player, good passer, so yeah. But arguably the 3rd best Laker player throughout those playoffs and certainly their 3rd best player in the finals, which should tell you how little depth and talent they had outside of Shaq/Kobe
Shaw? Really limited impact. Hit those big shots vs Portland, hard to say he changed games that much on a day to day basis.

I'm not the only one who thinks this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wR7P3DOCTJw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=izs53PMDE8s#t=2m24s

And look at how Portland guarded Shaq in the 2000 finals. You don't base almost your entire gameplan defensively around 1 player, and send that many double/triple teams if the other team has a lot of other weapons and good balance.

It's no surprise that the Lakers were the 5th worst 3 point shooting team during the regular season and among last in bench production.

[L.Kizzle]

After some thinking, I'd give AI the slight edge. His MVP and him making the 2001 NBA Finals put him slightly over the top.

[G.O.A.T]

Shaqattack3234 your last two posts are the most complete and excellent analysis of the 2000 and 2001 Lakers I've ever seen.

There is no doubt Portland was more talented, I was half rooting for them, though my hatred of Pippen at that time made me still feel pretty happy when they lost that way.

That Portland team probably had 11 of the top 15 players in the series. And maybe 7 or 8 of the top 10.

The thing with Portland though was that they always seemed unstable. Pippen was a questionable leader, Rasheed as your best player can be dangerous, Smith, Schrempf and Sabonis had major injury concerns. That team was loaded but I never really believed in them. Even though i thought they were better than the Lakers, I didn't think they'd beat the Lakers.

[Gotterdammerung]

Shaqattack3234 your last two posts are the most complete and excellent analysis of the 2000 and 2001 Lakers I've ever seen.

There is no doubt Portland was more talented, I was half rooting for them, though my hatred of Pippen at that time made me still feel pretty happy when they lost that way.

That Portland team probably had 11 of the top 15 players in the series. And maybe 7 or 8 of the top 10.

The thing with Portland though was that they always seemed unstable. Pippen was a questionable leader, Rasheed as your best player can be dangerous, Smith, Schrempf and Sabonis had major injury concerns. That team was loaded but I never really believed in them. Even though i thought they were better than the Lakers, I didn't think they'd beat the Lakers.

I agree, and much props to Shaqattack for carrying the debate.

I was rooting for the Blazers in '00, (probably due to my inherent hatred for the Lakers since Magic left), and the commentators at the time were saying the Blazers were the most talented team on paper and in the league. I don't recall who was the favorite (Lakers won 67 games that year, but at one point they were tied with the Blazers a month before the playoffs started). Wasn't surprised that they came back from a 3-1 deficit in the series, and went up by 15 points in the 4th (or at the start of the 4th).

I actually ordered a round of beer for my mates at the pizza joint by then, and promising them another round after the Lakers get eviscerated at midcourt. Come on, who would've thunk they would've choked a 15 point lead horribly?

You both said what I should've said, so I owe you guys one.

[magnax1]

No, they probably would have gotten more minutes on the 2000 team if they were as good as 2001. Fisher had a chance to earn more minutes during the regular season when Kobe was out, but didn't. He play horribly that regular season which is why he was their 4th guard come playoff time. But he worked on his shooting quite a bit when he was out and came back as an improved shooter in 2001.

As bad as Harper was offensively, he was still a really smart player, and great defender. Fisher was the better shooter, and that's about it. And that was true when on the 00 Lakers too. While he was a good overall defender, he did often times struggle against the quickest guard even when he was young.

And Phil was very unhappy with Rice's play throughout the season, even early in the season when his numbers were better(Phil was quoted as saying Glen wasn't playing more because he didn't deserve to play) and even more in the playoffs when Rice's play fell off even more.

If he had a small forward he could trust more, then he certainly would've given them a chance, but Fox simply wasn't playing well enough.

Well Phil says a lot of stuff like that, and in general coaches do, just to get their players going. Phil is especially bad about it. He constantly talked about Odom and Pau in a similar way these past couple years. (I don't think he talked about their minutes, but he constantly publicly criticized them)
And Fox was definitely better at some thing, but I think Rice's shooting was a much better fit with the team, and I don't think he was better overall, nor did he really seem to improve from 00-01. He might've had some trouble with the triangle I'm not aware of or something, but I think his best overall year was probably one of his first 2 years with LA.

Smith was just 30, true, he had the knee problems, but if you remember, that was why the Rider/Smith trade was considered a mistake for Atlanta and a success for Portland. Atlanta reportedly traded him because they were worried about his knee, but when it wasn't an issue during the 2000 season, the deal was considered a big success for Portland.

I don't really disagree about it being a great trade. Rider really wasn't a very good player, despite his stats.

Smith was not inconsistent either. He put up 15 ppg on 47 FG%/58 TS% during the season and 17 ppg on 49 FG%/64 TS% during the playoffs. Phenomenal efficiency for the era. In fact, he finished 8th in TS% during the playoffs.

Consistency has little to do with efficiency. Just look at his game logs, and you can tell he wasn't terribly consistent. Though probably the best part of that team was that it didn't struggle as much when individuals had off games because it had 7 or so guys who could average 15+ on lots of teams.

And you really can't judge anyone's ability by their ppg on that team when you had that many capable scorers sharing the ball on a slow paced team that emphasized team basketball.

Like I said, Smith was a good player, but he still isn't first option material. Neither was Rasheed. On most championship teams those guys would've been 3rd options at best.

That's true, but while he wasn't as good as those stats suggest, it's undeniable that he was an offensive player that you had to worry about.

True

The '01 team had a lot of chemistry and injury problems in the regular season, but they played better defensively in the 2001 playoffs when everything came together, and once that team got healthy, they were a much better shooting team than the 2000 Lakers.

They definitely were better in the 01 playoffs, but I still don't think they came near the same level they were in 00. They definitely weren't as bad as their 20th (or whatever it was) defensive rating that year.

Not only that, but Kobe went from a borderline top 10 player in 2000 who averaged around 22 ppg to a 29 ppg scorer and top 3-5 player in 2001.

There definitely isn't any denying he was much better in 01.

And look at how important Horace Grant being able to guard opposing power forwards and big men was. Rasheed was shut down in 2001 vs the Lakers, C-Webb struggled and Grant contained Duncan as well. Both C-Webb and Rasheed had killed AC Green the previous year.

Despite that, they were still a better overall defensive team in 00. The PF position was definitely an issue though. Phil might've been better off starting Horry, though he probably would've struggled against larger PFs.

Fox was also a vastly superior defensive player to Rice and with his improved confidence, he ended up being almost as productive in the 2001 playoffs as Rice was in 2000 while doing everything outside of scoring better.

Like I said, I don't think there was much difference between Fox those two years. He was a vastly superior defender to him in 00 too, and probably could've come close to him in most everything excluding shooting in 00 if he got the minutes.

Out of the players you named making an impact in the 2000 playoffs.

Fisher? Nope, 4th guard

He played 15 minutes. You can't say a guy who plays more then 1/4th of the game doesn't make an impact one way or another.

Rice? Well, he was the only shooter you had to respect,

That's a bit of an exaggeration. Fisher, Horry, and Fox were all good shooters. Kobe was a good shooter, though he wasn't really an off the ball shooter.

but when you're an extremely inconsistent player playing 33 mpg putting up 14/2/4/41 FG%/53 TS%, a defensive liability and a guy who stands around when he doesn't have the ball, well, I fail to see much of an impact. Decent player, but a bad fit for the team and declining quickly. Couldn't be relied on.

It's true that he wasn't really a great player, but he wasn't exactly a bad fit either. The team needed shooting, and at that point he was really nothing more then a really good spot up shooter. He definitely wasn't really a triangle guy, but the team was really just based more on dumping it off to Shaq and playing off of that more then running a traditional triangle offense, especially once they got deeper into the playoffs.

Horry? Yes, solid team defender, good passer, solid rebounder.
Harper? Solid defender, smart player, good passer, so yeah. But arguably the 3rd best Laker player throughout those playoffs and certainly their 3rd best player in the finals, which should tell you how little depth and talent they had outside of Shaq/Kobe
Shaw? Really limited impact. Hit those big shots vs Portland, hard to say he changed games that much on a day to day basis.

I think you're really underselling Shaw though. He was one of the better back up guards in the league still in 00. He could rebound, pass and defender really well. He also knew the triangle really well and was just a great fit with the system.

And look at how Portland guarded Shaq in the 2000 finals. You don't base almost your entire gameplan defensively around 1 player, and send that many double/triple teams if the other team has a lot of other weapons and good balance.

Maybe I just don't remember correctly, but I thought the Blazers played Shaq pretty similarly to most teams. The only real difference is that Grant and Sabonis just did a lot better job. When he doesn't get that same deep post position, it isn't such a huge problem to double team him.
Also, while it's true that offensively they relied heavily on 2 guys, it wasn't any different in the 01 team, and that team wasn't nearly as deep as the 01 team, with only 7 guys in the rotation compared to the 9 in 00.

I think overall it just comes down to would you rather have the better defense, and a couple extra guys like Shaw (he played in 01, but not very well) Harper and Rice, or would you rather take The better Kobe. Overall, they're probably pretty close.
I definitely don't agree with people saying the blazers were more talented though. Back in 00, I remember the Lakers were by far the favorites in my mind, and I remember emphatically disagreeing with people saying the Blazers were going to win. Even when they came back from the 3-1 deficit.

[Gotterdammerung]

Those are the two that people love to spout, and right there is your proof that they're basically bullshit.

Still false.

MJ is probably the lone exception, and probably will always be. Still you have to discredit his competition in the Finals (Lakers, Blazers, Suns, Jazz & Sonics) as lacking true elite bigmen.

A Kobe-led team couldn't beat the 2008 Celtics, and would've lost to the 2010 version had Perkins stayed healthy. Why? their bigs were better.

Kobe was the best player in the league in 2008. Experts picked the Lakers to win over the Celtics. I'm sure he was top 5 in 2008. True or False?

It's still a golden rule in basketball. The Great bigman is a near guarantee to success, and if you build around him correctly, you'll win titles. GMs will always draft the elite bigman over everyone else, from now until the end of time. Why? They affect the game far more than the elite swingmen, no matter how many rules David Stern tweaks in their favor.

And defense is also an imperative in playoff success - although you need a solid offense, if not a phoenix suns of mid 00's high octane one, but one that gets you key baskets after you successfully stop the other team.

Well first off, the 00 Blazers were not really any more talented then 00 LA. Best player in the league, top 5 shooting guard, good shooter, Lots of Smart role players like Fox, Harper, Fisher, Horry etc.

I believe Shaqattack and GOAT destroyed this silly claim so I'll leave you to their devices.

I don't know what you call it, but being outplayed at every position but PG is what I call being less talented.

Wrong. 1995 Magic were heavily favored on account of talent, homecourt edge, and 2-0 record vs the Rockets in the regular season. They lost because they were mentally fragile.

"outplayed" implies something else other than pure sheer talent. Such as chemistry, coaching, willpower, clutch play, experience, and sometimes, fortitude.

Did not play a lick of defense, and both teams were really talented.

One was more talented than the other, from top to bottom. If you can't admit this then nobody can help you.

What's funny is that I do think there are a few exceptions where individual just take over (none of the ones you listed are them though) but then again having one guy can score half the opposing teams points kind of falls into the talent category.

Sure, a 40-50 point game by one guy means he's incredibly talented. It also implies his team is weak and his offense is one-dimensional, and less balanced than the other team.

Why is this the case? Because the team wasn't really very good, even though it was AI's best team until he went to Denver.

You heard it here first, folks. the 2007 Nuggets were better than the 2001 Sixers.
Any takers?

[magnax1]

MJ is probably the lone exception, and probably will always be. Still you have to discredit his competition in the Finals (Lakers, Blazers, Suns, Jazz & Sonics) as lacking true elite bigmen.

I already gave you other examples. Go re read the post, because I'm not going to retype it.

A Kobe-led team couldn't beat the 2008 Celtics, and would've lost to the 2010 version had Perkins stayed healthy. Why? their bigs were better.

I think old KG and Perkins being better then Bynum/Odom/Pau is really a stretch.

Kobe was the best player in the league in 2008. Experts picked the Lakers to win over the Celtics. I'm sure he was top 5 in 2008. True or False?

lots of people realized how dumb the majority of the media was for expecting LA to win. I think they were just over reacting to Boston's first two rounds. It was really obvious Boston was better. They had nearly as much, or maybe even more offensive talent (especially since LA was so reliant on Kobe for stretches in 08) and were one of the best defenses ever.

It's still a golden rule in basketball. The Great bigman is a near guarantee to success, and if you build around him correctly, you'll win titles. GMs will always draft the elite bigman over everyone else, from now until the end of time. Why? They affect the game far more than the elite swingmen, no matter how many rules David Stern tweaks in their favor.

I've already given you tons of examples of this being false. 8 champions in 20 years won without an all star bigman, and tons more where the wing player was the best on the team.

Wrong. 1995 Magic were heavily favored on account of talent, homecourt edge, and 2-0 record vs the Rockets in the regular season. They lost because they were mentally fragile.

Mental fortitude is part of being a good individual player, and mental fortitude was not the main reason Houston won. Houston just outplayed their opponents in terms of defense and shooting. Houston made all their threes, they played much better defense, and they just were better at every position other then point guard.

One was more talented than the other, from top to bottom. If you can't admit this then nobody can help you.

I literally watched this series a week ago. Portland had 3 guys averaging 17+ ppg in the playoffs, and 6 with 10+ ppg. Philly was a little better offensively, but as I said previously, they were just god awful on defense in that series.

Sure, a 40-50 point game by one guy means he's incredibly talented. It also implies his team is weak and his offense is one-dimensional, and less balanced than the other team.

Okay?

You heard it here first, folks. the 2007 Nuggets were better than the 2001 Sixers.
Any takers?

That's not exactly what I said, and I don't really agree with it. The 08 Nuggets, excluding AI were probably a better team then the 01 Sixers, but AI wasn't nearly as good in 08 as 01. Even then, they won 50 games in a year when that was the lowest team to get in the playoffs. That's just as impressive to me as winning 57 when the east was at it's weakest that I can remember. In fact, once I calculated that the 01 Sixers only end up winning 50 games in the 01 West, so I think that should give a good view on how much of a difference there is. However, the 01 Sixers were probably the slightest bit better overall.

[G.O.A.T]

Allen Iverson wins the vote. A pretty good and close match-up

Next Round AI v GP