Jordan -----> Pippen
Durant -----> Westbrook
Marc Gasol --> Mike Conley
Paul George -> Roy Hibbert
so because Pippen was a second fiddle there is no way he can be better than lead dogs Gasol and George
All lead dogs are NOT created equal... put Pippen on the Pacers or Grizz and he's the top dog. On the Bulls, however, playing alongside the GOAT Michael Jordan, not so much.
Understand now?
So in essence you're saying that it's only acceptable to compare "lead dogs" to "second fiddles" when you personally deem it appropriate?
Westbrook played a large chunk of this past season without Durant as the number one and put up monster numbers; if Iverson had played with Durant, he'd have been "second fiddle" like Westbrook has been.
In short, your last post basically contradicted everything you said beforehand: "if a "second fiddle" is good enough to be a top dog (like Pippen), then it's fair to compare said "second fiddle" to a "top dog." Westbrook is good enough to be a "top dog": he was an MVP dark horse this year, for Christ's sake.
Westbrook is no top dog, he couldn't even lead his TEAM to the playoffs this past season..... The Thunder lost more often then not when he was leading the show.
Iverson led his team to the Finals and won a game against the Stacked 01 Lakers.
wailuaFC wrote:Westbrook is so far ahead of iverson defensively that the comparison holds no water
I've been told by some prominent posters here, that defense for a point guard is overrated. But sure i'll give you that. Westbrook is a much better defender(except when going against the great pg's).
CP3 is known as a great defender by somebody
Paul is one of the three best defenders in the league at the point.
Westbrook couldn't even win a ring with Durant/Harden. And if Durant leaves, he will never come close to leading OKC to a finals appearance as lead dog.
Obviously Iverson was far superior. HE led a team of SCRUBS to the finals and even took a Game off the Peak 2001 Lakers (One of the greatest teams ever)
Jordan -----> Pippen
Durant -----> Westbrook
Marc Gasol --> Mike Conley
Paul George -> Roy Hibbert
so because Pippen was a second fiddle there is no way he can be better than lead dogs Gasol and George
All lead dogs are NOT created equal... put Pippen on the Pacers or Grizz and he's the top dog. On the Bulls, however, playing alongside the GOAT Michael Jordan, not so much.
Understand now?
So in essence you're saying that it's only acceptable to compare "lead dogs" to "second fiddles" when you personally deem it appropriate?
Westbrook played a large chunk of this past season without Durant as the number one and put up monster numbers; if Iverson had played with Durant, he'd have been "second fiddle" like Westbrook has been.
In short, your last post basically contradicted everything you said beforehand: "if a "second fiddle" is good enough to be a top dog (like Pippen), then it's fair to compare said "second fiddle" to a "top dog." Westbrook is good enough to be a "top dog": he was an MVP dark horse this year, for Christ's sake.
"So in essence you're saying that it's only acceptable to compare "lead dogs" to "second fiddles" when you personally deem it appropriate?"
Pretty much, yes...
...and please go ahead and prove that Iverson (a 4-time Scoring Champion, and #2 all-time in Playoffs PPG behind Jordan) would play second-fiddle to Durant. You can't, so please don't make the assumption because it's completely infounded. All we know as an absolute fact is that AI was the Durant of his teams, while Westbrook has been the CLEAR and undisputed #2 for 90% of his career.
Also, if you're going to use a half-season of Westbrook as the #1 (to assert that he's good enough to be a top dog) then surely you will agree that Pippen ought not be penalized for playing second-fiddle to MJ, correct... and as such, his 6 Rings, arguably all-time greatest perimeter Defense, and 20-7-6 average for nearly a decade surely qualifies him for Top 10 all-time.
Yes?
If not, why not?
"Today's NBA is soft, the Defense is weak, and the rules 'really' favor the Offense."
"Lebron doesn’t guard for a full game and our game plan was to get him to play defense and he left me open all game."
l3bron wrote:Westbrook now is better than Iverson ever was. Neither is going to lead your team to anything meaningful though.
Iverson led his team to the NBA Finals... that IS meaningful. Westbrook (last year with Durant not on the floor) led his team to a 22-18 record and the lottery. That is not meaningful.
"Today's NBA is soft, the Defense is weak, and the rules 'really' favor the Offense."
"Lebron doesn’t guard for a full game and our game plan was to get him to play defense and he left me open all game."
DorianRo wrote:Westbrook couldn't even win a ring with Durant/Harden. And if Durant leaves, he will never come close to leading OKC to a finals appearance as lead dog.
Obviously Iverson was far superior. HE led a team of SCRUBS to the finals and even took a Game off the Peak 2001 Lakers (One of the greatest teams ever)
Iverson averaged 36-PPG in that Finals series, against the Shaq-led Lakers... and his second-best player on the Sixers that year (by far and away) was a 35-year old Mutombo.
Last edited by thedangerouskitchen on Sat Aug 08, 2015 4:47 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"Today's NBA is soft, the Defense is weak, and the rules 'really' favor the Offense."
"Lebron doesn’t guard for a full game and our game plan was to get him to play defense and he left me open all game."
thedangerouskitchen wrote:
All lead dogs are NOT created equal... put Pippen on the Pacers or Grizz and he's the top dog. On the Bulls, however, playing alongside the GOAT Michael Jordan, not so much.
Understand now?
So in essence you're saying that it's only acceptable to compare "lead dogs" to "second fiddles" when you personally deem it appropriate?
Westbrook played a large chunk of this past season without Durant as the number one and put up monster numbers; if Iverson had played with Durant, he'd have been "second fiddle" like Westbrook has been.
In short, your last post basically contradicted everything you said beforehand: "if a "second fiddle" is good enough to be a top dog (like Pippen), then it's fair to compare said "second fiddle" to a "top dog." Westbrook is good enough to be a "top dog": he was an MVP dark horse this year, for Christ's sake.
"So in essence you're saying that it's only acceptable to compare "lead dogs" to "second fiddles" when you personally deem it appropriate?"
Pretty much, yes...
...and please go ahead and prove that Iverson (a 4-time Scoring Champion, and #2 all-time in Playoffs PPG behind Jordan) would play second-fiddle to Durant. You can't, so please don't make the assumption because it's completely infounded. All we know as an absolute fact is that AI was the Durant of his teams, while Westbrook has been the CLEAR and undisputed #2 for 90% of his career.
Also, if you're going to use a half-season of Westbrook as the #1 (to assert that he's good enough to be a top dog) then surely you will agree that Pippen ought not be penalized for playing second-fiddle to MJ, correct... and as such, his 6 Rings, arguably all-time greatest perimeter Defense, and 20-7-6 average for nearly a decade surely qualifies him for Top 10 all-time.
Yes?
If not, why not?
I don't think Pippen should be penalized because he played "second fiddle" to MJ-- that's exactly the point. I think the entire notion of your "second fiddles can never be compared to top dogs" concept is completely flawed...
Should "lead dog status" be a factor when discussing such player comparisons? Of course it should-- that only makes sense.
It's A determining factor, not THE determining factor. It's exactly why several factors all need to weighed against when doing this kind of comparison. Like, what did their numbers look like, standard and advanced? What kind of conference did they play in? What kind of teams did they play on? etc. etc.
rtiff68 wrote:
So in essence you're saying that it's only acceptable to compare "lead dogs" to "second fiddles" when you personally deem it appropriate?
Westbrook played a large chunk of this past season without Durant as the number one and put up monster numbers; if Iverson had played with Durant, he'd have been "second fiddle" like Westbrook has been.
In short, your last post basically contradicted everything you said beforehand: "if a "second fiddle" is good enough to be a top dog (like Pippen), then it's fair to compare said "second fiddle" to a "top dog." Westbrook is good enough to be a "top dog": he was an MVP dark horse this year, for Christ's sake.
"So in essence you're saying that it's only acceptable to compare "lead dogs" to "second fiddles" when you personally deem it appropriate?"
Pretty much, yes...
...and please go ahead and prove that Iverson (a 4-time Scoring Champion, and #2 all-time in Playoffs PPG behind Jordan) would play second-fiddle to Durant. You can't, so please don't make the assumption because it's completely infounded. All we know as an absolute fact is that AI was the Durant of his teams, while Westbrook has been the CLEAR and undisputed #2 for 90% of his career.
Also, if you're going to use a half-season of Westbrook as the #1 (to assert that he's good enough to be a top dog) then surely you will agree that Pippen ought not be penalized for playing second-fiddle to MJ, correct... and as such, his 6 Rings, arguably all-time greatest perimeter Defense, and 20-7-6 average for nearly a decade surely qualifies him for Top 10 all-time.
Yes?
If not, why not?
I don't think Pippen should be penalized because he played "second fiddle" to MJ-- that's exactly the point. I think the entire notion of your "second fiddles can never be compared to top dogs" concept is completely flawed...
Should "lead dog status" be a factor when discussing such player comparisons? Of course it should-- that only makes sense.
It's A determining factor, not THE determining factor. It's exactly why several factors all need to weighed against when doing this kind of comparison. Like, what did their numbers look like, standard and advanced? What kind of conference did they play in? What kind of teams did they play on? etc. etc.
So where to you rank Pippen on the all-time list (with 6 Championships, all-time great Defense, 20-7-6 prime for a decade, et al)?
That aside, what I said is that you can't compare a #1 to a #2 on an apples-to-apples basis... and you canNot, for reasons I mentioned previously.
"Today's NBA is soft, the Defense is weak, and the rules 'really' favor the Offense."
"Lebron doesn’t guard for a full game and our game plan was to get him to play defense and he left me open all game."
thedangerouskitchen wrote:
"So in essence you're saying that it's only acceptable to compare "lead dogs" to "second fiddles" when you personally deem it appropriate?"
Pretty much, yes...
...and please go ahead and prove that Iverson (a 4-time Scoring Champion, and #2 all-time in Playoffs PPG behind Jordan) would play second-fiddle to Durant. You can't, so please don't make the assumption because it's completely infounded. All we know as an absolute fact is that AI was the Durant of his teams, while Westbrook has been the CLEAR and undisputed #2 for 90% of his career.
Also, if you're going to use a half-season of Westbrook as the #1 (to assert that he's good enough to be a top dog) then surely you will agree that Pippen ought not be penalized for playing second-fiddle to MJ, correct... and as such, his 6 Rings, arguably all-time greatest perimeter Defense, and 20-7-6 average for nearly a decade surely qualifies him for Top 10 all-time.
Yes?
If not, why not?
I don't think Pippen should be penalized because he played "second fiddle" to MJ-- that's exactly the point. I think the entire notion of your "second fiddles can never be compared to top dogs" concept is completely flawed...
Should "lead dog status" be a factor when discussing such player comparisons? Of course it should-- that only makes sense.
It's A determining factor, not THE determining factor. It's exactly why several factors all need to weighed against when doing this kind of comparison. Like, what did their numbers look like, standard and advanced? What kind of conference did they play in? What kind of teams did they play on? etc. etc.
So where to you rank Pippen on the all-time list (with 6 Championships, all-time great Defense, 20-7-6 prime for a decade, et al)?
That aside, what I said is that you can't compare a #1 to a #2 on an apples-to-apples basis... and you canNot, for reasons I mentioned previously.
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).
AI was a really good ball player but I think that he benefited much by playing shooting guard as most weren't able to guard him. But on the other end "Who did he guard?". Remember he played at SG so Eric Snow the PG would usually have to check the opposing teams SG.
I think AI should have played point guard but he probably didn't want that responsibility of setting up the offense which would have taken away from him getting his shots.
Playing in the Least helped him to get to the finals though just to get crushed by the west coast team.
plmr wrote:Iverson's game does not hold up in today's league. He was way too inefficient, even for his time. Wasn't the greatest passer either.
Well... Curry/Thompson weren't exactly efficient either in the NBA finals.. Hell neither even won the FMVP and they still won the championship
Curry and Thompson had a TS% of 63.8% and 59.1% respectively this year. Allen Iverson's best TS% in a season he played more than 30 games is 51.2% which is worse than league average in the nba today
Smelters wrote:AI was a really good ball player but I think that he benefited much by playing shooting guard as most weren't able to guard him. But on the other end "Who did he guard?". Remember he played at SG so Eric Snow the PG would usually have to check the opposing teams SG.
I think AI should have played point guard but he probably didn't want that responsibility of setting up the offense which would have taken away from him getting his shots.
Playing in the Least helped him to get to the finals though just to get crushed by the west coast team.
I don't think anyone could have guarded him, and considering he wasn't surrounded by much offensive talent in his prime he would generally receive the teams best perimeter defender. Playing two guard benefited him in the sense that he could free lance and don't have to worry about running the offense.
plmr wrote:Iverson's game does not hold up in today's league. He was way too inefficient, even for his time. Wasn't the greatest passer either.
Well... Curry/Thompson weren't exactly efficient either in the NBA finals.. Hell neither even won the FMVP and they still won the championship
What does the fact that Curry and Thompson had a relatively inefficient series in the NBA Finals have to do with the fact that Iverson was inefficient all of the time?
Smelters wrote:AI was a really good ball player but I think that he benefited much by playing shooting guard as most weren't able to guard him. But on the other end "Who did he guard?". Remember he played at SG so Eric Snow the PG would usually have to check the opposing teams SG.
I think AI should have played point guard but he probably didn't want that responsibility of setting up the offense which would have taken away from him getting his shots.
Playing in the Least helped him to get to the finals though just to get crushed by the west coast team.
I don't think anyone could have guarded him, and considering he wasn't surrounded by much offensive talent in his prime he would generally receive the teams best perimeter defender. Playing two guard benefited him in the sense that he could free lance and don't have to worry about running the offense.
Oh wait elmer. AI was on that great Nugget team, that everyone here reminds me of, with Melo.
