At this point I am giving up the debate because it's going to cause me an ulcer. I continue to tell people to stop thinking of this year alone yet people keep talking about the Nuggets and Pistons. The original topic was for the entire decade. you want to ignore the frist 2 years of the decade when Chauncey was on the t'wolves and when Iverson took a Sixers team to the finals. Say what you want, but you replace Chauncey Billups (any year of his you want), and that team does not go to the finals. And yes, Iverson needs the ball in his hands to be effective, but so does every great scorer. He also draws double teams, Billups does not. If you watch basketball enough it is clear that Iverson has had the better DECADE than Chauncey.
*** question to ch15, do you believe Allen Iverson will be in the HOF ?
*** also, do you think Chauncey will be in the HOF ?
*** do you think Billups take's that Sixers team to the Finals ?
*** I said it earlier, Jose Calderon makes his teammates better, so is he better than Iverson ? Andre Miller makes his teammates better, is he better than Iverson?
*** And you are not making any points, the fact that Isiah Thomas had a low PER is awesome simply for the fact that he's one of the top 5 pgs ever.
Also, if you want to compare trades, just look at what it takes to get Iverson. The Nuggets had to give away Miller and multiple 1st rd picks. The Pistons gave up Billups, McDyess, and I think a 2nd rd pick. Clearly Iverson, at least up until the date of the trade, was considered the better player by NBA GMs. Yes it was also a cap move by the Pistons, but they still had to get the deal done.
Didn't that have somethin to do with his huge pay check...cause they cut dyce.
If you measure success by scoring averages and ESPN headlines, Iverson is your man.
We don't have anything else to debate here. You stated your case. I stated mine. Let us move on.
anyone planning to build a franchise around Chauncey Billups is getting fired real quick. Iverson in his prime was light years ahead of Billups on his best day. There's a reason he was the #1 pick. He's a franchise player. nthegoodlife, as far as AI being a 2, he only plays the 2 on offense. and if Kobe is such a defensive force that guards the other teams best offensive guy, why is he guarding Battier and not Artest? once again i'm not arguing that AI is Kobe's equal, just that they have some similar traits. this AI vs. Chauncey debate is even stupider than KG vs.Dirk. Chauncey has never even been the focal point of any team. The offensive star in Denver is Melo. Or J.R. Smith at times. The stars on D are K-Mart and Birdman. The Pistons offense was catered to Rip Hamilton. He was option #1. The defensive stalwarts were Tayshaun Prince, and the 2 Wallace's. Chauncey has provided valuable leadership and steady play for both squads, but he's never been the guy. And here we are debating if he's better than the decades premier scorer? All of the other guys on these lists were franchise players, until you get to Billups. It's strange to me that he would even be considered given the tone of the lists. And downplay his steals and the havoc Iverson creates on defense all you want, but those types of plays make opposing players hesitant and provide a spark thats much bigger than just 2 points.
love ESPN and ESPN "Plays" only. All I see Artest doing is hitting open J's. Wait to they get to the CAVS. Kobe doesn't need to guard Artest to advance, but he will need to guard Bron. Obviously you two are highlight fans, and thats fine, just don't make uneducated bball arguments with the BIG BOYS. OK. I can't imagine to many players in the league even wanting to play with him. You've made your case, and many times theirs two valid sides to any debate, fact is, this isn't one of those times. You two, just need to fold'em. Iverson, haha, that still makes me laugh.
are you kidding me? you make piss poor arguments all the time. you're one of the most unobjective posters i've encountered here. you love to insult the opinion of others, but it means nothing coming from you because no one values your opinion. no one considers you a BIG BOY. you state your opinion, but can never really support those opinions with anything substantial. I can give you information until my hands bleed and in the end you still think you are right because you're so stubborn. as much as i disagree with ch15r36is, at least he can back his opinion with something. you just bring your opinion and fandom to the table. BIG BOYS come with a little more than that. and if you're gonna call me "uneducated" i hope you can back that up...
Okay, here's what I think it really boils down to.
- Iverson is clearly a once-in-a-lifetime talent, just stuck in a very average-sized body that makes it harder for him to use those gifts in the NBA than if he were, say, 6'3-200. This leads to the poor-shooting, turnovers, etc.
- Chauncey is quite talented himself, but not the same type of athlete that Iverson is. However, he has a much better NBA build which allows him to be more efficient and a much better understanding of the game.
- Iverson can make bad teams mediocre.
- Billups can make good teams great.
So, start a franchise with Iverson, then trade him after 2-3 years for Chauncey. We all win.
I know I would rather have a guy who could take over a game himself, rather than one who depends on others. One more question lol. If Kobe never played with Shaq and never won any titles, would Richard Hamilton be better than him because he is efficient and won a ring?
Listen, guys, for the sake of future arguments, taking one of my arguments about one player, twisting it, and applying it to other players is not an effective way to state your case.
For example, if I were to say:
- Has shown the ability to make good teams great.
- Was the best player on a team that went to 6 consecutive Conference Finals, and 2 NBA Finals.
- Was an NBA Finals MVP.
- During their peak years, has overall PER numbers on par with Allen Iverson.
- Is a better shooter, turns the ball over less, and runs a team better than Iverson
- Has career Win Share numbers on par with Iverson.
- Was the much better player after the trade for Iverson, and made the Nuggets a better team than Iverson did.
You cannot say...
- Well, if Rip Hamilton won a ring (simply winning a Finals was not one of my arguments) does that make him a better player than Kobe (hypothetically, if Kobe never won three rings)?
- Jose Calderon and Andre Miller makes their teammates better (also, not one of my arguments), does that mean they are better than Iverson?
I never claimed you were uneducated, don't take my text out of context. I just don't see how a true fan of the game could come to the conclusion Iverson is great, thats all. We're all entitled to our own opinions, so we'll agree to disagree. In support of the defense of my argument, I was basing my answer off the many people I know personally who play. It just seems to me that the guy who is a fan of Iverson is more about the "crossover" and "one - on - one" play, and doesn't gauge the entire game for what it is. I guess thats not you after all, but we'll agree to disagree.
1) He is a bum without a good team.
2) I always thought Billups was the third and sometimes fourth most important guy on the team behind everyone except Rasheed.
3) They possibly wouldn't even had been in the finals if it was not for Tayshaun blocking Reggie Miller's lay-up.
4) You still haven't answered my boy espn's question, if he was on the sixers could they make it to a championship.
5) How many times has this guy scored 30 in a game? Has he hit 40?
The only thing he is better at is shooting percentages.
1) Hard to say since he has been on a good team for the entire prime of his career.
2) You were always wrong, then.
3) They WERE in the Finals, though...twice.
4)In his prime, it's very possible. Aaron McKie, Snow and Mutombo (in a conference with NO centers) all played well for that team. It took them 7 games in each of the preceding two series to win. That was the weakest the Eastern Conference has ever been.
Could Iverson have taken the Pistons to the Finals if he were in Billups place? No, he probably just would have sat on the bench and then eventually decided to stop playing.
5) How many times has Iverson turned the ball over 8 or more times in a game in his career? (The answer: 28)
Billups has had a more successful decade than iverson team wise. The man made it to what 6 six eastern conference fianls, not to mention it looks like he will now make it to the western conference finals this year which iverson never did. you cant argue that would the pistons been as good as they were with iverson and without billups. its not a fair argument, nobody can guess what it would have been like. the pistons had way more talent then those sixers team. Billups has had a very good decade team wise, which is the most important. but billups doesnt come close to iverson as a player and that is the end of that. yea iverson has turned the ball over alot but so has steve nash and jason kidd. then someone will argue that they have a better assist to turnover ratio then iverson, who cares. the fact is iverson was putting up close to 30 a game. the assist to turnover thing is stupid for iverson because he is a 2 guard with the ball in his hands all the time. my point is iverson is a better individual and an easy hall of famer. billups has been the ultimate team player and had more success.
1) Iverson has been good since day one, it shouldn't take you 5 years to get decent.
2) I'm definitely not wrong about him being the third most important
3) I meant to say won a finals ring and mvp, not been to a Finals.
4) He wouldn't have cam anywhere near the Finals, he wouldn't even of made the playoffs a matter of fact
5) And he hasn't hit 40 lol, and that turnover number doesn't seem that bad since he always has the ball in his hands and has almost played 1,000 games.
lol...i know you dont believe Chauncey could have taken that 76ers team to the finals that year! i know for a fact that you are much smarter than that. who would score?
Aaron McKie will be hitting them 3's lol I guess. And Chauncey will be throwing them alley-oops to Mutumbo all day lolololol. And don't forget about Matt Geigers, Olajuwon like post moves.
That team was built FOR IVERSON. Guys who play good TEAM D and PLAY HARD. THEY COULDN"T SCORE, thats where IVERSON CAME IN to the equation. This is ridiculous, you guys act like he did something so great that year. If anything that season was a tribute to how good that TEAM REALLY WAS. Iverson ONLY MADE IT ONCE and got WHACKED. Remember Iverson did the same thing he always does, SCORE. You Iverson lovers keep forgetting that, HE JUST SCORED. Nothing different from his ENTIRE CAREER. He didn't carry SH*T, he scored, it was A TEAM EFFORT. Iverson fanboy's, their something else...
I'm totally ok with Iverson vs. Billups arguments b/c they can be justified and carried with knowledge and everything. But to say Iverson "didn't carry SH*T" is a little out there. I was only stating facts earlier, and the person who I may have been arguing with (ch15) accepted the argument and we have moved on b/c obviously people have differing points-of-view. But REALLY ? ( only CAPS to make a point) Nthegoodlife, I feel like I've read some comments of yours and you seem very knowledgeable. But man, I may be the most objective person who posts on this site, look at what you are saying. I think we all have to move on from this debate and start a new one... How bout--- in their primes, would you rather have John Stockton or Isiah Thomas (different peak seasons) ????
Just trying to get my point, maybe overdone though. Its all good though...
Well ESPN, I would rather have Stockton lol.
1999: The Knicks make it to the Finals as the 8th seed.
2000: Jalen Rose leads the Pacers to the Finals.
2001: Allen Iverson leads the 76ers to a12-11 playoff record and a trip to the Finals. The only time Iverson has ever made it past the 2nd round or been on a team that has won 50 games.
nthegoodlife does make a reasonable point. That team was built to allow a 6-foot turnover-prone scoring guard who can't shoot, basically do whatever he wants with the ball. They made it to the Finals. That was as far as he could ever lead a team.
1999: I definitely thought that was the lock out season, so that season was very short and didn't truly have the right seeds in the right place.
2000: Don't forget about Reggie Miller lol, and Jalen Rose isn't a bum by the way.
2001: If Billups was on that team, they probably would have had a 50 loss season.
You guys both make good points, but none of us are going to change each others opinion lol. But you guys act like the West was an Extreme powerhouse during the '99, '00, and '01 season, it was the Spurs and Lakers. Anybody else out of the west could have been beaten by an east team.
6 teams in the West won 50 games in 99-00, 7 teams in the West won 50 games in 00-01.
I would argue at least 6 West teams could have won the title before an East team did from 1999 through 2003.
Once the competition in the East got serious enough to compete with the West again, the Sixers stopped winning playoff series.
They won 50 games but it definitely wouldn't have been a blowout series. A matter a fact the Lakers didn't even blowout the Pacers in the '00 finals, it went to 6 games and was pretty close. So im confident that the East would have a chance against anybody except the Lakers and Spurs.
Let's compare both of their careers:
Billups - 6'3" 202 PG
15.1 PTS, .416 FG%, .388 3-PT%, .889 FT%, 5.6 ASTS, 2.9 REBS, 1.04 STL & 2.03 TO's.
Iverson - 6'0" 165 SG/PG
27.1 PTS, .425 FG%, .313 3-PT%, .780 FT%, 6.2 ASTS, 3.7 REBS, 2.22 STLs & 3.61 TO's.
There is NO comparison here. Iverson has averaged more PTS & has shot a better FG%. Iverson has even averaged more ASTS & REBS. Other than FT%, 3-PT% & TO's, Iverson is better than Billups in every area.
Let's get serious. Not only has Iverson had a better career statistically wise, he's just a better baller than Billups. Billups has never carried a team on his back, nor is he even capable of doing so. Iverson carried Philadelphia on his back & was considered a SUPERSTAR. Iverson is a lock for the Hall of Fame and will go down as one of the most prolific scorers in NBA HISTORY. I mean, Iverson came into the league and put up 23.5 PTS, 7.5 ASTS & 4.1 REBS in his ROOKIE season. Billups played on 5 different teams in his first 6 seasons. With the lack of games he was playing & PT he was getting, Billups should be fresh at this point in his career. This shouldn't even be a debate.
I like Billups, but I just don't think he's in the same breath as Iverson. I mean, Iverson carried a franchise people! Knock his game all you want, but not too many players can CARRY A FRANCHISE. Iverson at 6'0" 165 lbs carried a franchise!
1a. Shaq - The most dominate & charismatic big man ever, PERIOD. There will never be another like him.
1b. Duncan - The best power forward ever. He's a flat out winner in every sense of the word.
3. Kobe - Hate, but this man came into the league at 17. He's competed consistently at a high level for years. What hasn't he done? The closest player to Jordan the NBA will EVER see.
4. LeBron - Just drafted in 2003. We all know he'll be #1 eventually. It's amazing he's at #4 so soon in his career, but at only 24 years old he's already a world wide name. I didn't think it was possible, but he doesn't have a ceiling. As long as he gets the rings, I don't think there's any question he'll be considered the greatest ever. Even better than Jordan.
5. Iverson - How can anyone question the impact he's had over the last decade? If you are, you're hating. At 6' 0" 165, you have to be amazed at what he's done CONSISTENTLY.
6. Kidd - The best point guard since Magic. A walking triple double, even still in his old age. All he needs is a ring.
7. KG - Has more talent than Duncan, but not the rings. Success in the NBA is about timing... Duncan landed with The Admiral & Popp, while Garnett landed with Minny & McHale. It's unfortunate to see him get injured & not have the chance to get another ring.
8. Wade - Drafted in 2003. Lucked up and got a ring early with Shaq, GP & Mourning. A phenomenal talent, but how long will his career last considering his style of play? The only player on this list who hasn't won a MVP (of the reg season). He does have a Finals MVP & he beat the Mavericks almost by himself.
9. Dirk - A unique 7-footer who started the infatuation with overseas players. Darko & Bargnani should thank Dirk. He's underappreciated, but he's a matchup nightmare. He just doesn't seem to have the killer instinct or confidence. He's a unique talent, but doesn't possess the leadership qualities or toughness to push his teams over the hump.
10. Steve Nash - Doesn't play any defense whatsoever, but you can't deny the impact he's had. He basically changed the MVP award to the "who can make your teammates better" award.
This is seriously played, but I will give you one thing. He can't play D, which Billups is great at, also players like playing with Billups.
...and holding them down at the same time.
I've already made the argument, but I think he really limited what the Sixers have been able to do this past decade. Sorry, but only hitting 50 wins and getting past the second round once over a 10 year span is not my idea of "carrying a franchise."
Stop using the "career averages" platform as well. We've already been over this. Take Billups' last 7 years. Take Iverson's 7 best years. There is not a large statistical difference when you look at the overall measure of PER or Win Shares.
I am certainly amazed at what Iverson has done at his size, but he's accomplished less (albeit, in a more spectacular/flashy fashion) than Chauncey has this decade.
To emphasize, this post was never about most talented, or best scorers. It was about most overall accomplished players this decade. Iverson's overall resume just falls short of making the top 10.
Im pretty much done talking about it as well but I have one suggestion......Put Tony Parker ahead of Billups, because he is a better player and has accomplished more. But neither one of them should be higher than Iverson in my opinion.
once again, how can we put a guy on the top 10 players of the decade when he was never the best player on his own team? this debate certainly needs to die...
Billups was and is the best player on his own team. Statistically, and otherwise. He was the leader, the one who they ran the offense through, and the most valuable player of the Pistons, and the most valuable player now on the Nuggets (check the MVP voting.) You can argue otherwise all day long, but there is no legitimate basis for such an argument, so I will not acknowledge it.
Allen Iverson has been the best player on a lot of very mediocre and bad teams. Chauncey has been the best player on a lot of very good and a couple great teams.
I'd take Billups. So would the Nuggets. So would the Pistons.
Let it die, then...or keep trying to get in the last word.
obviously, we all want the last word! lol. this thing should have died days ago. it is fun though, i must admit. i think Chauncey's best player status is very debatable. Chauncey proved his value to the nuggets through his leadership, but is he really their best player? what he's done for these Nuggets is essentially what Rasheed did for that Pistons team, which is add a dimension that they needed to put them over the top. which is exactly why one could argue that Rasheed was the best player on that team. no doubt, he was the most talented. i'm guessing Big Ben probably got the most regular season MVP consideration that year. he was the face of that team. i would argue that the offense was catered to Rip Hamilton. there's some legit basis for argument there. i dont think you should dismiss it that easily.
theres no argument in between kobe lebron and dwayne. they're the best players in the nba.