What do you guys think of a Westbrook-Iverson comparison?

[vcsgrizzfan]

Westbrook brings more what though. More defense? Defense for point guards isn't even important. Look at some of the top defensive point guards in the league.

Conley
Westbrook
Wall
Paul

Etc.

What have their teams won?

Now look at the most recent nba champions starting pg's.

Parker
Chalmers
Curry

All average defensive point guards at best.

Defense for a pg's is overrated big time.

That is Westbrooks only advantage on Iverson.

The whole thread has debunked that notion. Defense obviously matters, as does his rebounding advantage and even better play making. He doesn't need to be paired with a bigger guard because he's not a munchkin either.

But in the concept of team defense it doesn't. If his defense was so great, why we're the thunder so bad on defense last year? Ditto for Chris Paul. There solo defensive contributions dont translate to team defense, which is what is actuallu important.

And it's not hard to cover up a bad defender on the perimeter. Warriors just proved that as well as the spurs and the heat before them.

Individual defense for big men is far more important because their defense much more impactful.

I agree that defense from bigs is more important than defense from wings, at least in most match ups. But let's not pretend defense from guards doesn't matter. That contention is silly.

I'm getting tired of going in circles here. You love Iverson and despise Westbrook. Nothing I can say will disabuse you of those two thoughts. There certainly is nothing you can say about Iverson that can change my perception as I've had a long time to think that one through.

The book is still not complete on Westbrook so my views on him are still being formulated. At this point, I think he generally takes more criticism than he deserves while the opposite is true of Iverson who seems to have received Catholic absolution because of one playoff run that was far less impressive in real time than many like to romanticize.

[thedangerouskitchen]

Well, I don't weigh championship rings as heavily as a lot of people do on these boards, because there are so many determining factors. Pulling a number squarely out of my ass, maybe in the 25-30 range? You're also exaggerating Pippen's numbers a wee bit by stating that he "averaged 20-7-6 for a decade." Pippen only broke the 20ppg threshold twice in his career, and both times he did it by a fraction of a point. Pippen was one of the best perimeter defenders I've ever seen, and he was an excellent passer for a wing. That said, there was nothing elite about him in an "all time" sense when it came to scoring or play making, so that boots him outside of the top 20 for me (most likely, like I said I would have to have a closer look to tell you for certain).

Where do you have him?

Many determining factors... exactly... like your role on the team (ie; #1 guy vs. #2 guy vs. role players), which is my point AI vs. Westbrook.

From 1990 - 98 Pippen averaged 19.6 / 7.2 / 5.9... to go along with 6 Championships, and arguably the greatest perimeter Defense in NBA history, so I'm not exaggerating at all.

I have him Top 20-25 because I place more value on "lead dog" accomplishments / rings.

TDK, dude, this is exactly why you get accused of moving the goalposts all of the time.

Your "point" in this thread was absolutely not that "there are many determining factors, and role is one of them;" rather, you specifically said this in this thread:

"That's why it's intellectually dishonest to compare a #1 guy (Iverson) to a second-fiddle (Westbrook) on an apples-to-apples basis... unless you're trolling."

In short, the #1/#2 isn't "a" determining factor, it's "the" determining factor, and that it's impossible to fairly rate #1's against #2's. You held steadfast to this until Pippen came up, I pointed out that your argument had shifted from the aforementioned to "it's ok to compare #1's to #2's when I see fit to do so," and you agreed!

You came in guns-a-blazin' with hyperbole and now you're acting like you've been saying what your opponents have been saying all along-- that there are many determining factors.

Other note: where did you get your Pippen stats from? I only ask because over the 8 year period you listed, his ppg is wrong, according to Basketball Reference. You said he averaged 19.6ppg, when according to the former he averaged 19.01. That obviously doesn't matter pragmatically, but I always find it weird when someone cites a statistic THAT precise and there is a discrepancy from another reliable source, no matter how minute.

I already made my case about why you can't compare a #1 to a #2. If you disagree? Fine... refute what I wrote on Page 3 (to wailua), and we'll start from there.

Pippen's numbers from 90 - 98 are exactly what I said they were... and the period I listed is 9 years, not 8. Basketball reference is the source: 19.6 / 7.2 / 5.9 / 2.3 / 1.0 / .484% / .332% / .702%

http://www.basketball-reference.com/pla ... esc01.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Go to his "Per Game" stats, and left click on the 1989-90 season (it will turn blue). Scroll down to the 1997-98 season and left click. The 9 seasons will turn blue and a box will pop up, providing you with the stats I listed above.