I know this isn't really Celtic related but jimmy butler in line for a 230m extension is mind blowing. He's a good player but the dude can't even win more than half his games as the guy and he plays in the east. Also is IT better than Iverson? I'm a huge Iverson fan but I'm starting to shift towards IT. He's so good and a much better 3pt shot. Iverson was a little bigger and didn't get thrown off his dribble as much but man this season by IT might be better than any of AI seasons.
I don't think IT would be as good during the era AI was playing. Although he is pretty good, IT is greatly benefiting a time where small ball is becoming the norm. I can't say IT is better than one of the greats like AI. Still a lot to prove to me
Do you really think Jeremy Lin is that awful? Yes he is not anywhere close to a star, but he's a solid role player, imo.
I would love to jump in a 3 way deal and acquire jae crowder and/or Avery Bradley or both. Would prefer crowded as a future ariza replacement and his sweetheart contract
Can't make that comparison yet IMO, while always good this is IT's first year being truly elite. It's also worth mentioning AI played in a way tougher era to score. Perhaps the toughest possible era for a player like AI to put up the numbers he did. Put some respeck on his name
I love Iverson, by far my favorite player of that era. I agree that IT need some to stay around this level for 3-4 more years to make the argument valid. But I was mainly trying to ask if any of you guys think this IT season is better than AI best season?
Let me know when IT takes a talent lacking team to the Finals and stun Goliath in game one, and promptly walking over one of the future HOF coaches after hitting a clutch shot. Then we can talk.
My guess is they thought they would become a powerhouse with no bad contracts meaning they could use any and all money available with the cap increases to sign good players. The problem is that trade never made them a power house, so they were never able to attract any good FAs to Brooklyn.
well lets see, AI best season he was MVP and took his team to the NBA Finals. I know the season is not over but I'm going out on a limb to make a bold statement and say IT will not win MVP or take BOS to the Finals. With that said, in no way in hell is this season for IT, better than AI's best season lol
Could Boston pull off another double star trade like they did to acquire the big3. Two separate trades. Jaylen/ smart/ jerebko(expiring filler)/ bkn1st(2017)/ clips1st(2019) to Chicago for Butler/ Canaan Amir/ crowder/ memphis1st(2019)/ minny2nd(2017; very high 2nd) to Atlanta for millsap/ Hardaway jr Can include like 5 more 2nds here and there needed to in order to negotiate. And would be able to keep the 2018 bkn 1st.
Zero hope for the near future, sure. But they will still be dirt bad when they start reclaiming their own 1st rounders.
I respect that but let me ask you this. Player A. Mpg: 42.0 Ppg: 31.1 Rpg: 3.8 Ast: 4.6 TO: 3.3 Stl: 2.5 Fga: 25.5 fta: 10.1 Ft: 8.2 Fg%: .420 3fg%: .320 Player b Mpg: 34.4 Ppg: 29.4 Rpg:2.7 Ast: 6.4 TO: 2.5 Stl: 0.9 Fga: 19.9 Fta: 8.5 Ft: 7.7 Fg%: .466 3fg%: .385 Which numbers are better? As I wrote that IT just had another 44 point game with 7 assist, while shooting 12/22 overall and 5/12 from 3. So he's avg over 30 ppg now while shooting 47/39/91. I like Iverson he's one of my favorite players but you can't act like IT season so far isn't on the level of Iversons MVP season from a statistical standpoint.
Tbh I haven't seen much of IT this year. How's his defense now? IT impressed me in the past as an offensive player, but he keeps disappointing in the playoffs, good teams gameplan and it takes him down a level. We'll see how it goes this year. AI's efficiency was criticized in his time too, but the playoff run in his MVP season made him immortal. As far as stats, it's a different era now, Iverson played in that era post MJ and before Nash, when they allowed zone defense and handchecks at the same time, some 5 years of golden age for defensive teams. Also mentality was still 90s, half the teams didn't have spacing, and the 76ers were the worst at that. Look at those 76ers, nobody could shoot. Kukoc could shoot but he was traded (he had great chemistry with AI). Eric Snow used to sit behind the 3pt line a lot, but he wasn't a dangerous shooter. Most of them used to hang near the paint, so it was very crowded with defenders. I imagine if IT played next to something like Tony Parker, Rudy Gobert and two Corey Brewers, with handchecks allowed, his numbers would go down significantly.
His defense is bad just like iversons was bad because both are extreamly undersized, IT even more than AI. It's impossible to judge players from different eras because everyone thinks certain eras were harder than the other. But IT in his era imo is putting up Iverson type numbers with much better efficiency. Iverson was a better athlete and was a little taller and longer. I think Iverson would have been really good in this era but I also don't think he leads any team to the finals or wins an MVP playing against these guys playing now. The talent and skill is better now than it was in Iverson era imo. The top 6-8 players in the NBA right now are hands down better than Iverson and theres prob more.
I think it's probably more that AI is controversial, rather than people having different opinions about eras. Just like in his prime someone might've said that JKidd or TMac were "hands down" better than AI, so some people might say that 6-8 current players are "hands down better" while many would disagree. The current era has a lot of talent, but early 2000s had a lot of all time great players as well, Shaq, Duncan, CWebb, Kidd, KG, Mourning, Vince, Ray Allen, Pierce, young Dirk, Kobe, Tmac (all three were already beasts), etc. Many people considered AI to be among the very best of that group. Statistical comparisons do seem meaningless. It would be hard to argue that 2000-05 stats aren't deflated. Different era, team building has changed, rules have changed, gameplans. Just for example, when you compare numbers like team offensive efficiency or shooting efficiency, current Sacramento Kings look better than 01 CWebb Kings or even 01 Lakers. In reality, obviously, that's just the difference in rules, spacing, etc. That era was the peak of defensive grinding. Slow pace, low scoring, isos, zone and handchecks, teams built for defense. And then Larry Brown factor makes it even harder to draw any meaning from stats. It's hard enough to compare any numbers from back then to current numbers. But 76ers were an extreme example, extreme team built for defense. Put AI on the 01 Kings, he'd surely have much higher efficiency. Put 01 Kings into the current environment, another big bump. I agree that a team like those 76ers couldn't make it to the finals now. They barely made it then. You'd have to build like the Rockets or OKC. For the Sixers, AI was their whole spacing. I don't think AI was a horrible defender btw. They built the best defense around him. He had flaws, but you could cover them, he was a dynamo, many steals. Good help defense could balance out his gambles, so they built the best defense in the league around him. Not sure that's possible around IT in either era. I haven't seen much of him this year. But in the past, he seemed so horrible to me, useless on that end of the floor. I used to think of him and Lillard as the worst guard defenders in the league, not sure if that's still true. Personally I think of AI as top 5 SG of all time, at his peak. I think he'd be great now. You could see how much his efficiency went up after the handcheck changes, even though he had lost some of his athleticism by then, and the 76ers still didn't have spacing. Put him on a proper team, built like the Rockets, I think he might be an even bigger star today than he was back then. Of course, how long that would last, that's another question, there were other problems with him.
