John Salley: MJ not top five all-time

Playing with better players doesn't make AI significantly better. More so, it does make the team better.

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.

In the end in grand scheme of things, one a ok season isn't a proof but a mere indication of possibility. It's entirely up to you if it's some kind of a prophecy or something.

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.

His team was bad and so was AI(some say because of, lol). And AI shot worse TS% than his such bad teammates for several consecutive seasons.

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.

And we are to ignore how bad the Pistons became. Well, at least the Pistons knew exactly what they were getting in return, expiring contract.

And despite Iverson's one season being one of his better days in his career, it was still a failed experiment in Denver. People were rambling about the team why they couldn't figure it out how to make it work. Initial hype was so great, no reasons were sufficing.

Last edited by NovU on Tue Sep 04, 2012 9:00 am, edited 4 times in total.

Playing with better players doesn't make AI significantly better. More so, it does make the team better.

It clearly made him more efficient, which is the main problem people have with him (or is it?).

In the end in grand scheme of things, one a ok season isn't a proof but a mere indication of possibility.

It's a fact, not a possibility.

Well, at least the Pistons knew exactly what they were getting in return, expiring contract.

Nailed it. The Pistons didn't want AI to help them win, they wanted him to expire. Along with Sheed and McDyess, I believe. All that so they can have a lot of money in the summer and spend it on Ben Gordon and Charlie Villanueva.

And we are to ignore how bad the Pistons became.

Not at all. Only for you it's as simple as "they were bad because Iverson came", I look into more factors. The most important one was complete lack of chemistry. The Pistons crew was upset their buddy Billups got traded. Everyone knew right from the start Iverson was brought there to expire, nobody even tried to make it work. They were losing with Iverson - Hamilton backcourt, because Iverson was unable to suddenly become a PG after being a SG his entire life. When Rip got injured, they went on a little winning streak with Stuckey - Iverson backcourt. After Rip recovered, another losing streak came. Rip had no intention of becoming a sixth man, so there it was. Sheed knew he was just an expiring contract as well, so all he did was jacking up three after three on the court. AI tried to adapt, take less shots, play off-ball more - well, he failed to be efficient in that role. Eventually, coach Michael Curry decided to move Iverson to a 15 mpg off the bench role behind Will Bynum. He wasn't having that and got "injured" for the rest of the season. In case you didn't know, after his "injury" the Pistons still completely sucked. In the meantime, they weren't hesitant to give Rip the role of a primary ball handler and creator, which he never played before and became a turnover machine. Iverson was playing that role his entire career, but they made him a role player on offense. They had every right to do that, but what they did afterwards made no sense and showed major inconsistency. Guess they cared about Rip more - he was signed for like 3 years beyond that season.

His team was bad and so was AI(some say because of, lol). And AI shot worse TS% than his such bad teammates for several consecutive seasons.

So now we're at the point of denying his Philly support sucked? Besides, comparing the efficiency of the centerpiece of the offense, the man who the opposing defense is focused on to the efficiency of a role player whose role rarely goes beyond making an open shot or finishing a layup under the basket is always a great idea.

And despite Iverson's one season being one of his better days in his career, it was still a failed experiment in Denver. People were rambling about the team why they couldn't figure it out how to make it work. Initial hype was so great, no reasons were sufficing.

I already told you why they couldn't make it work: they didn't play defense. With so much offensive firepower, they could effortlessly drop 110-115 on anyone, but so what if they could allow 120-125? I think everyone realises that bigmen are mostly responsible for team defense. In 08-09 season with Billups, Martin and Nene were both healthy (and they signed Andersen). In 07-08 (or 06-07, for that matter) with Iverson, they didn't have that luxury.

Playing with better players doesn't make AI significantly better. More so, it does make the team better.

It clearly made him more efficient, which is the main problem people have with him (or is it?).

Which I would rank as his second best season ever though it's a mere average(or under) of other good names out there. Whoop dee doo though! His TS% increased!

In the end in grand scheme of things, one a ok season isn't a proof but a mere indication of possibility.

It's a fact, not a possibility.

Ok. But sorry the fact that proves what? I mean it's only one good season.

And we are to ignore how bad the Pistons became.

Not at all. Only for you it's as simple as "they were bad because Iverson came", I look into more factors. The most important one was complete lack of chemistry.

No. I was rather putting more emphasis on loss of Billups. Because it was not going to be easy to replace Billups with just about anyone. Especially not AI on last straw.

The Pistons crew was upset their buddy Billups got traded.

Overblown excuse. Something you can't really measure significance anyways. What's clear and most significant was loss of their best player of recent Pistons' era. I could argue players' slight decline(only for some) are due to having a significantly worse facilitator. Makes more sense considering 14 wins he produced and 35 AST% prior to the trade.

They were losing with Iverson - Hamilton backcourt, because Iverson was unable to suddenly become a PG after being a SG his entire life.

Well... he did try being a PG before. It just didn't work out for him because he loved to shoot too much. But... anyways,

I could again make an argument on this that he's a hard-fit. Lol.

When Rip got injured, they went on a little winning streak with Stuckey - Iverson backcourt. After Rip recovered, another losing streak came. Rip had no intention of becoming a sixth man, so there it was. Sheed knew he was just an expiring contract as well, so all he did was jacking up three after three on the court. AI tried to adapt, take less shots, play off-ball more - well, he failed to be efficient in that role.

You have it nearly all wrong. First of all Rip was still the better player than Stuckey at that stage of their career(and a proven player over promising talent isn't wrong). And Sheed was just about the same player in nearly all categories with a slight decline. Just look at the stats. Lastly, AI tried to adapt by taking less shots but using about the same usage% while taking just about the same shot attempts as before? How is that even possible? Lolz.

Eventually, coach Michael Curry decided to move Iverson to a 15 mpg off the bench role behind Will Bynum. He wasn't having that and got "injured" for the rest of the season. In case you didn't know, after his "injury" the Pistons still completely sucked. In the meantime, they weren't hesitant to give Rip the role of a primary ball handler and creator, which he never played before and became a turnover machine. Iverson was playing that role his entire career, but they made him a role player on offense. They had every right to do that, but what they did afterwards made no sense and showed major inconsistency. Guess they cared about Rip more - he was signed for like 3 years beyond that season.

Sounds like a lot of mess from getting rid of one great player for another great player. Wonder why...

So now we're at the point of denying his Philly support sucked? Besides, comparing the efficiency of the centerpiece of the offense, the man who the opposing defense is focused on to the efficiency of a role player whose role rarely goes beyond making an open shot or finishing a layup under the basket is always a great idea.

And of course comparing him to others who were in similar situation where they were also focused due to shitty teammates isn't. How about making them better or finding anyway possible to make a contribution. Neither Iverson could, because he's more of one way player than others were. Only proves AI was a hard-fit. And this notion that basketball is 1 on 1 continues.

And despite Iverson's one season being one of his better days in his career, it was still a failed experiment in Denver. People were rambling about the team why they couldn't figure it out how to make it work. Initial hype was so great, no reasons were sufficing.

I already told you why they couldn't make it work: they didn't play defense. With so much offensive firepower, they could effortlessly drop 110-115 on anyone, but so what if they could allow 120-125? I think everyone realises that bigmen are mostly responsible for team defense. In 08-09 season with Billups, Martin and Nene were both healthy (and they signed Andersen). In 07-08 (or 06-07, for that matter) with Iverson, they didn't have that luxury.

You seem to be taking Billups's talent too lightly. Kenyon played more games with AI in previous season with AI than Billups in his first season as a Nuggets. But yes Nene brought the difference by becoming an efficient monster, 18.8 per and .645 TS% is impressive. And what Billups did as a Nuggets in that very first year was just as impressive. Two best players from that year's team, no doubt.

With that said I don't want to take anything away from what AI did as a Nuggets in 07-08 season. It is impressive how he was the best player on 50 wins Nuggets team with Marcus Camby and Anthony as next two best players. Definitely one of top 3 best seasons AI ever had. You almost want to forget about his very previous/next seasons.

Which I would rank as his second best season ever though it's a mere average(or under) of other good names out there. Whoop dee doo though! His TS% increased!

No idea how is that under average of other good names. Now that you mention it, his TS% increased also after handchecking became illegal. Handchecking are the times Wade hardly remembers and shaqless Kobe doesn't.

Ok. But sorry the fact that proves what? I mean it's only one good season.

It proves that he could be quite efficient when he wasn't the only offensive threat on his team. Even approaching mid 30s.

No. I was rather putting more emphasis on loss of Billups. Because it was not going to be easy to replace Billups with just about anyone. Especially not AI on last straw.

Wasn't going to be easy to replace a PG with a SG? That's common sense.

Overblown excuse. Something you can't really measure significance anyways.

If you can't measure it, how are you so sure it's an overblown excuse? Sure, we don't know exactly how it affected their game, but Iverson was being alienated from the team. I remember watching a game (don't remember who it was against, sorry), Iverson got hit on the play and went down holding his knee in pain. About a minute lasted, nobody from the Pistons even came to check on him. Eventually, one of the opposing players did so, AI soon got up and continued playing. Just one example that they didn't like Iverson too much. We don't know whose fault the complete lack of chemistry was, but the fact remains.

Well... he did try being a PG before. It just didn't work out for him because he loved to shoot too much.

PG Iverson didn't work out too well, because that's when he had the tendency to hold the ball way too long in halfcourt. He was very good at running fastbreaks, but... yeah, that wouldn't cut it. Trying to force any SG to become a PG wouldn't go too well, I'd have to imagine.

You have it nearly all wrong. First of all Rip was still the better player than Stuckey at that stage of their career(and a proven player over promising talent isn't wrong).

I never said Stuckey was better. I said he worked with Iverson better (and in reverse). If Rip agreed to becoming a sixth man (Ginobili/Terry/Harden-type, not 15 mpg behind Will Bynum), it would probably work out a lot better with AI-Stuckey doing their thing and Rip having quite a bit of freedom off the bench and all the shots he wanted, because obviously he had to share them with AI when starting. Again, speculation, but I think it was worth a try. Definitely better than watching them lose game after game with Rip and AI starting together.

And Sheed was just about the same player in nearly all categories with a slight decline. Just look at the stats.

The stats tell me that his 3PA/FGA ratio went significantly up and he was worse on defense. He rebounded more, though.

Lastly, AI tried to adapt by taking less shots but using about the same usage% while taking just about the same shot attempts as before? How is that even possible? Lolz.

15 FGA in Detroit compared to 20 in Philly/Denver is the same? Usage didn't go down much probably due to making Iverson more of a finisher, less of a ballhandler.

Sounds like a lot of mess from getting rid of one great player for another great player. Wonder why...

Indeed. Bad coaching, chemistry issues, bad player roles, bad fit. And all that for Gordon and Villanueva.

And of course comparing him to others who were in similar situation where they were also focused due to shitty teammates isn't.

Show me another star player surrounded by no shooters, no finishers and no secondary ball handler for pretty much all of his prime.

How about making them better or finding anyway possible to make a contribution. Neither Iverson could, because he's more of one way player than others were. Only proves AI was a hard-fit. And this notion that basketball is 1 on 1 continues.

You could make a case that Iverson made Snow, McKie, Thomas and the likes of them better, because of their performance after leaving Philadelphia. Iverson's no Nash however. Did Kobe, Wade, T-Mac ever make anyone better?

Only proves AI was a hard-fit.

Again, show me someone who would "fit" better in those Sixers teams.

You seem to be taking Billups's talent too lightly.

No, I just don't think of him as some kind of magician who single-handedly turned the sucky Iverson Nuggets into big, bad, scary Billups WCF Nuggets.

Kenyon played more games with AI in previous season with AI than Billups in his first season as a Nuggets.

5 more to be exact. Not the difference I had in mind. Martin missed the entire 06-07 season (except for two games when AI was still in Philly) and Nene was fighting cancer in 07-08 which caused him to only play 16 games and not be his usual self when he did play. They were both more or less healthy in 08-09 and the addition of Andersen was also a plus - all that combined worked wonders for team defense.

Definitely one of top 3 best seasons AI ever had. You almost want to forget about his very previous/next seasons.

I'm not forgetting anything. I just don't like the fact that people seem to remember him as the biggest ballhog and chucker ever, which in my opinion is pure disrespect. He was not put in a position to succeed and lasted 10 years on a bad team without screaming about Pluto or a big market. I think his inefficiency was caused mostly by complete lack of help on offense and don't believe the efficiency jump when he did have some help to be a coincidence. That's probably a more valid argument than "he hit his ceiling as a player", which is rather impossible to prove.

Kenyon actually played worse with Billups than Iverson. Probably has something to do with sharing space with other bigs. And Iverson averaged just about 1.5 to 2 less shots per 36 minutes with Pistons. Huge decrease from PHI days but not that much from Denver. He logged less minutes though. As for Wallace, he logged 0.7 3pa more per game after the trade and just about 0.2 attempts more per 36 minutes. But all that doesn't really matter really. Billups was an amazing player as a Pistons. He definitely played a major major role in Pistons' good days that produced 1 championship and many great runs. Start of decline happend as he arrived in Denver though he was still awesom-estic.

I'm not forgetting anything. I just don't like the fact that people seem to remember him as the biggest ballhog and chucker ever, which in my opinion is pure disrespect. He was not put in a position to succeed and lasted 10 years on a bad team without screaming about Pluto or a big market. I think his inefficiency was caused mostly by complete lack of help on offense and don't believe the efficiency jump when he did have some help to be a coincidence. That's probably a more valid argument than "he hit his ceiling as a player", which is rather impossible to prove.

Well, it's not like he doesn't deserve all the criticism just like there are as much support for him out there, if not more. After all, whether or not for bad team/luck, players are judged for what they produced. And we know it still was amazing as fuck. Pound for pound best player ever? Case can be made. He's an HOF 100%.

That's why John Salley wasn't a big player. Now you talk about him. That's what he wanted. He wanted people to talk about him.

So you're suggesting that John Salley should have his own podcast?

wait john salley was not a big player because he wanted us to talk about him?


funny note about john salley, i play poker every friday night with the guy who sat on the bench behind him in college. guy even brought a picture of him trying to guard MJ once. i said it looked like he had good defense on him and he said 3 seconds later he was dunked on lol

It continues.

But while Salley's statements were stringent in tone, he claims they were taken out of context, "They asked me who the greatest of all time was, I said time is still going. MJ was the best of the '90s, but you can't say he's the greatest of all time."

The old "time is still going" argument, which I do get but it misses the point of the phrase, which is more along the lines of "the best we've ever seen" or "the best in all the time that's elapsed so far". It's still something that can be debated of course, but that's a cop out.

Salley went on, "I was there in '98 when Alan Iverson destroyed that motherfucker (Jordan). Iverson would go one way, Jordan would go the other. Alan Iverson took over the last part of the '90s, the way Jordan had the seven years before that. Then came Kobe and Lebron."

What.

AI broke MJ's ankles on one play, in a great crossover. One play. One crossover. That doesn't exactly equal complete destruction. It also happened in 1997, not 1998, and since he retired in 1996 he certainly wasn't there at the time unless he was a spectator in the stands or watching on TV, in which case he was there as much as the next Average Joe was. Also, AI took over the last part of the 90s? I don't know about that.

Though Salley's statement was misinterpreted, he still paid the ultimate price. After the episode aired, Oakley put Salley in the hot seat, pressuring the Spider to repeat himself in front of Jordan, Dave Chappelle and Chris Tucker at the Kentucky Derby. "Oakley says to me, 'ok, your boy's right here. Say it, who's better? Kobe or Michael at 24." Salley turned to His Airness and said, "Kobe would have eaten your lunch." Bam. Salley got hit again, but this time it wasn't the media doing the fighting. "Oakley punched me in the stomach. I didn't even see him coming."

That Oakley...also, Kobe destroying MJ at 24? I'm going to respectfully disagree there, at the very least it would be a reasonably even matchup.

John Salley is a vegan. And a strict one at that, so strict that when his daughter brought a pizza home, he told her to move out, "I got nothing against my daughter, she was at the house last night. But she knew the rules, now she's gotta live with the consequences." Harsh. Even for a guy from Brooklyn.

I'm going to suggest that's as douchey as anything MJ has ever done, if not more so.

What.

AI broke MJ's ankles on one play, in a great crossover. One play. One crossover. That doesn't exactly equal complete destruction.

jordumb annihilated

cry moar babby

I believe Wade in prime would have left Jordon ankless.

Maybe so, but he himself would've fallen down at the end of the play. Gotta get that inner ear condition checked.

Salley = Skip Bayless

Today's so called experts. Lol.

That piece is as terrible as the subject it covered.

For a contributor to Grantlad, Esquire, and that website he doesn't even do simple fact checking.

Adrian Dantley...affable guard who now works for the Nuggets

As for the terrible subject, that moron John Salley.

his (Salley) own vegetarian wine, The Vegan Vine, a surprisingly good vegan alternative to cabernet sauvignon (Prior to this I had no idea most wines contained meat... I'm still unclear on this).

Salley = Skip Bayless

Bitch please. Salley is nowhere near to that of Skip Bayless or even a Stephen A. Smith.
Skip Bayless and Stephen A. Smith are our generation's equivalent to Plato and Aristotle, enlightening us who like to dwell in the dark with their guiding and insightful basketball philosophies.