John Salley: MJ not top five all-time

[Spree#8]

It's not so much that Kobe is lucky, it's more that management does a fantastic job and them being located in Los Angeles sure helps in this day and age of attention whoring.

True, which pretty much means Kobe's lucky to be playing for a quality organization his entire career. Duncan and some other stars are lucky in the same way. A lot of other great players - not so much.

[Sauru]

the lakers being in LA is the number one reason why they are always getting the top talent. the owners and staff are a very distant second to location

[NovU]

True, which pretty much means Kobe's lucky to be playing for a quality organization his entire career. Duncan and some other stars are lucky in the same way. A lot of other great players - not so much.

Also the franchise is lucky to have Duncan who's a great centerpiece. Makes things much easier for the management to get good players as Duncan can put them in spots where players can shine alongside him.

[Jackal]

the lakers being in LA is the number one reason why they are always getting the top talent. the owners and staff are a very distant second to location

Well I wouldn't say very distant, the Clippers are doing all right now but I didn't see people flocking to them in yesteryears.

[Spree#8]

Also the franchise is lucky to have Duncan who's a great centerpiece. Makes things much easier for the management to get good players as Duncan can put them in spots where players can shine alongside him.

Of course it works both ways. But I think it's worth noting anyway, since there are so many organizations who have/had a great centerpiece to build around, but failed to do so. Take my beloved Sixers, for example. They did a truly remarkable job of completely wasting Iverson's prime. Billy King is just a specialist and a visionary. With all the shitty players he's grossly overpaid, I'm not sure if even Isiah Thomas could have done better. Garnett and the Timberwolves were a similar story, T-Mac and the Magic... the list goes on.

[Dc311]

Wasn't this thread suppose to be about what the title says?

[benji]

And it was. Threads evolve just as discussions, presidents and life.

Also as Kobe did over Jordumb.

[Dc311]

Also as Kobe did over Jordumb.

Heyooooo!!!!!

[Sauru]

the lakers being in LA is the number one reason why they are always getting the top talent. the owners and staff are a very distant second to location

Well I wouldn't say very distant, the Clippers are doing all right now but I didn't see people flocking to them in yesteryears.

move the lakers to the midwest and ten years from now we can revisit this and see who landed the better players

now i dont want to take anything away from the laker owners since they have done a great job while the clippers have been run pretty damn poorly

[Sauru]

Also the franchise is lucky to have Duncan who's a great centerpiece. Makes things much easier for the management to get good players as Duncan can put them in spots where players can shine alongside him.

Of course it works both ways. But I think it's worth noting anyway, since there are so many organizations who have/had a great centerpiece to build around, but failed to do so. Take my beloved Sixers, for example. They did a truly remarkable job of completely wasting Iverson's prime.

building around iverson or duncan is 2 very different things. duncan is a much better team player where iverson was a very high usage player. sometimes its hard to get players to sign with your team when they know one of the players is gonna jack up shot after shot each and every night. on a team with a player like iverson great players tend to go to waste and get shit on by the media. anyone remember glen rice with the lakers? that was one sad sight to see

[Spree#8]

building around iverson or duncan is 2 very different things.

It's generally easier to build around a bigman than a perimeter player.

sometimes its hard to get players to sign with your team when they know one of the players is gonna jack up shot after shot each and every night.

This could be the case if they wanted to sign another high usage perimeter player. Iverson was able to cooperate with his bigmen fine. A lot better than today's Derrick Rose, for example. Unfortunately, a vast majority of his support was completely pathetic offensively. For most of his Philly career, he didn't have neither good shooters, nor good finishers. He took so many shots, because someone had to. He wasn't efficient, because the opponents' defense was always fully focused on him with the rest of the team being so bad on offense. Who was the best offensive player King was able to get him? Chris Webber? Well, during his time on the Sixers the injuries had already gotten the best of him and he was far less efficient than Iverson (TS% below 50). The fact that they were an average offensive team for most of AI's prime (except for 03-04, when he missed half the season and one other, I think) is really worth noting with so little offensive talent on the roster. With an offensive one-man army like prime Iverson, surely you need to look for good defensive players mostly, but: firstly, after 2002 that wasn't the case either and secondly, not to the point where his support can't make a damn shot. And it didn't help that every coach he had except for Brown was a retard as well.

on a team with a player like iverson great players tend to go to waste and get shit on by the media.

Who exactly went to waste on the Sixers, next to Iverson? Cause I remember guys like Eric Snow, Aaron McKie or Kenny Thomas playing their best seasons by AI's side, getting themselves nice, fat contracts and totally disappearing after leaving Philly. I have no idea who was there to go to waste, because all he ever had on his team were defensive role players or washed up ex-stars.

[Sauru]

no one really went to waste on the sixers that is cause no one wanted to play with a player like iverson. if they had signed a top guy he would not have lived up to the hype i am sure. however defenders, and i mean people who enjoy playing defense and could care less about scoring, those kind of people would thrive with a guy like him

[benji]

The Sixers never could have signed a top guy...and still have yet to.

Basic facts:
Iverson could never be your best player. Duncan could.

The Spurs are a far superior organization.

The 2001 Sixers are remarkable even if they beat the shit out of the ruins of the East.

If Todd MacCulloch doesn't have his career end, we talk about the Sixers and Iverson differently probably.

Glen Rice was perfect in his 2000 Lakers role.

[Spree#8]

no one wanted to play with a player like iverson.

Not true. Like I said, high usage perimeter players probably didn't. Bigmen were a different story. In late 2006, when it became as obvious as it gets that Iverson would be traded, Kevin Garnett was heavily pushing the Timberwolves to trade for AI, but I don't remember any trade talks between the two teams taking place. Another guy interested in playing with Iverson was Elton Brand. Those negotiations fell apart because the Clippers didn't want to give up Shaun Livingston. There were many rumors about Bulls and Celtics being interested. He eventually ended up in Denver and I don't remember Melo complaining about him, because he got his shots all the same. Of course they didn't get anywhere due to not playing defense and the West being stacked.

The Sixers never could have signed a top guy...and still have yet to.

Well, they signed Elton Brand in 2008 when everybody thought he would still be a force and would make the Sixers a top3 East team easily with Iggy and Andre Miller still on board. It would probably be even more difficult now when apparently all the big name guys care about is making superteams in big markets.

Iverson could never be your best player. Duncan could.

Why couldn't Iverson be your best player? Because he was inefficient? All he needed to be reasonably efficient was not being watched by the entire opposing defense all the time, as showcased in Denver. His only full season there he had 57% TS and 115 ORtg. And that was a past-prime, 33-year old Iverson. Give prime AI a competent (not necessarily great) offensive bigman and two decent 3-point shooters and he'd be pretty efficient. If you mean his defensive deficiencies - yeah, those are obvious with a 6'0 SG. That is why he needed good defenders on his team to cover up his weaknesses.

[NovU]

Well, I thought the comparison itself was comical, at first. Duncan and AI do not belong in the same sentence. Duncan arguably is the top powerforward in the history especially with a few of his rings came as him being the best player on his team. AI? Ai dominated the ball, ala Kobe or LeBron or Westbrook, but the return on his efficiency wasn't worth his usage. 50-55% TS% for good chunk of his career. I mean it stifled ball movement and put way more pressure on AI than need be. At best he give you 30ppg on average TS%, ok defense, and 20-23 PER, is not ideally what you want out of your swingman on a championship caliber team that built around him. If you're going to be the highest usage player in the league(or close to it), you'd normally want more from him.

[Spree#8]

Well, I thought the comparison itself was comical, at first. Duncan and AI do not belong in the same sentence.

I wasn't even comparing them as players. I just used Duncan as an example of a star player being drafted by a quality organization that knows how to build a great team around him. And I used Iverson as an example of a player drafted and stuck in a shitty organization that can't get him much help and makes him fight for getting to the playoffs, not for rings. It was meant to show how differently their careers can turn out because of that and how they'll go down in history. Overall, comparing a bigman and a perimeter player isn't the best idea, so if we want to go into that, then Bryant - Iverson or Duncan - Garnett (lost in the first round 6 or 7 times in a row in Minnesota) would surely be better.

I addressed his inefficiency in my previous post. As for championships, to be the best player on a championship team, you need to have a championship team in the first place.

[NovU]

I see your point.

But his inefficiency and under-productiveness have more to do with his ceiling as a player(and not competent big man). Give Wade and Kobe for example. Shaq and no-Shaq.

[Spree#8]

But his inefficiency and under-productiveness have more to do with his ceiling as a player(and not competent big man). Give Wade and Kobe for example. Shaq and no-Shaq.

Wade's efficiency increased when Shaq came and decreased when he was traded. The differences weren't huge, but still.

Competent bigman aside, Iverson's Sixers had terrible spacing as well, which I touched on earlier. If you have one perimeter player who's not a threat from outside, it's already bad, because he'll be sagged off of to give help elsewhere, he'll eventually have to get the ball and he won't be able to take advantage. Philly always had several players on the perimeter who were either poor outside shooters or average at the very best. Spacing is important to give your stars room to work. If Iverson had poor percentages, because he couldn't do any better, how do you explain the season in Denver? Did he suddenly learn how to shoot at age 33?

[NovU]

I wouldn't really call that a decrease but rather close to maintaining. Also consider injuries Wade was constantly dealing with, it's not really a decrease. Unless you want to get into a nitpicking game.

how do you explain the season in Denver? Did he suddenly learn how to shoot at age 33?

That was indeed a remarkable season. But in the big picture, that was one good season, and a fairly average(more like under) season compared to other great names. You seem to put a lot of emphasis into that one season whereas I don't.

Basically it comes down to what was needed to maximize his talent and how high his ceiling was. All that while him still remaining as the centerpiece(franchise*) player. I'm inclined to believe it'd have required a lot of work and luck to make it work.

[Spree#8]

You seem to put a lot of emphasis into that one season whereas I don't.

I do so because it shows the difference in efficiency between Iverson as the only legit offensive option of his team and Iverson with some help on offense.

Basically it comes down to what was needed to maximize his talent and how high his ceiling was. All that while him still remaining as the centerpiece(franchise*) player. I'm inclined to believe it'd have required a lot of work and luck to make it work.

It takes a lot for everyone. I don't recall a championship team with only one reliable offensive option in at least somewhat recent times. Look at how much it took for Kobe to ever pass the first round. Look how much it took for LeBron, I don't think I need to remind you about all the "king without a ring" jokes. Look at McGrady being laughed at for never passing the first round, because always either he was injured, Yao was injured, both were injured or his team was complete shit. Look at Garnett passing the first round once in 12 years before being traded to Boston. The list goes on and on.

[deihatein]

I don't recall a championship team with only one reliable offensive option in at least somewhat recent times.

Dirk?

[Spree#8]

"Reliable offensive option" doesn't necessarily mean "superstar". Jason Terry was great in those playoffs and Dirk had a ton of shooters beside him. It is still amazing that he won a title as the only star of his team, but he wasn't the only man capable of putting the ball in the basket.

[benji]

They also, as Cuban has basically admitted, got a nice route towards it. They had the best matchups they could get.

[NovU]

You seem to put a lot of emphasis into that one season whereas I don't.

I do so because it shows the difference in efficiency between Iverson as the only legit offensive option of his team and Iverson with some help on offense

There are reasons to like about his effiency increase, but as I said I don't really put too much meanings to it. Why? Could be due to millions of reasons, perfect role, motivation, fluke, who knows. One good season after years of struggle then going right back into that slump-mode after that one good season, it doesn't change my overall perception. I mean you still have to love 32-34 years old Denver-Chauncey more than 33 years old Denver-Iverson. Yet the Answer is the legitimate franchise player? Falls short on my list.

It takes a lot for everyone. I don't recall a championship team with only one reliable offensive option in at least somewhat recent times. Look at how much it took for Kobe to ever pass the first round. Look how much it took for LeBron, I don't think I need to remind you about all the "king without a ring" jokes. Look at McGrady being laughed at for never passing the first round, because always either he was injured, Yao was injured, both were injured or his team was complete shit. Look at Garnett passing the first round once in 12 years before being traded to Boston. The list goes on and on.

AI should be more like a #3(not ideal but #2 at best) guy on a Championship team. Iverson will always be a couple of steps below, even if he adapted his game as he did in Denver.

[Spree#8]

There are reasons to like about his effiency increase, but as I said I don't really put too much meanings to it. Why? Could be due to millions of reasons, perfect role, motivation, fluke, who knows.

Role? His usage dropped a bit, but was still over 25%, so he still did a fair share of ball handling and carrying the load on offense. His role was pretty similar to the one in Philly, only this time he had someone to share the ball with and pass off to if he got overwhelmed. Motivation? I've seen a lot of arguments against Iverson, but you might be the first person I've seen to ever question his motivation at anytime. An 82-game fluke... okay.

One good season after years of struggle then going right back into that slump-mode after that one good season, it doesn't change my overall perception.

I've talked about those years of struggle and the most likely reasons why he was struggling so much with his percentages. Put any perimeter scorer (especially one who looks to drive so often) on a team with no spacing and no secondary option, I doubt they'd do much better, if any better at all. Detroit was a messed up team all-around in that season, there were a lot more problems there than Iverson - which doesn't change the fact he was bad there, of course.

I mean you still have to love 32-34 years old Denver-Chauncey more than 33 years old Denver-Iverson. Yet the Answer is the legitimate franchise player? Falls short on my list.

Because they didn't defend with Iverson and when Billups came Nene and Martin were finally healthy - hardly anyone remembers about that which is a real shame because it was the reason why they started playing some kind of defense, ultimately making them a lot better as a team. So Billups was more of a franchise player than Iverson? Wow.

AI should be more like a #3(not ideal but #2 at best) guy on a Championship team. Iverson will always be a couple of steps below, even if he adapted his game as he did in Denver.

Why is that and who would he have to be second (or third, wow) to in order to have a championship team? The only thing you've mentioned so far is that it'd take a lot of effort to build a good team around Iverson... only it takes a lot for everyone, like I said. How was Iverson supposed to prove he could be the main guy on a great team if his teams were always either shit or average while championship teams are always totally stacked or in perfect time and place to win ('11 Mavs)?