Iverson had four seasons in this decade averaging at least 30 ppg, won MVP, and was the sole reason the Sixers were even close to relevant. Kidd was also the sole reason the Nets were relevant, but he never won MVP, never had a 20 ppg season (let alone 30), and just never was as good a player as Iverson. Nash has two MVPs, though he never got his team to the Finals, even though his Phoenix teams were far more talented than Kidd's Nets or Iverson's Sixers. Like Kidd, Nash has pretty ordinary numbers compared to Iverson, save assists. I don't see how you don't choose Iverson if you're making an all-decade team.
lmao why'd you throw that in? Now it reads "Iverson was a better player than Kidd because...Kidd was not as good as Iverson"
But who would you rather have on your team as a PG? I mean, Nash or Kidd. Two of the best in this decade. I mean, give it a few years and it could be Chris Paul.
You can credit Iverson for that, but you can't discredit Nash and Kidd for that reason. If Kidd was scoring 30ppg he would not be Kidd, that's not his job. Once again, Kidd's job is not to score 20ppg, come on. It isn't really about numbers. BTW, does anybody know which of these three players has made the most all NBA teams this decade? That would play a role in my choice. I have a problem with you saying "Nash won two MVPs BUT....." BUT nothing, only a handful of players have won multiple MVPs, that's a huge achievement. Also it doesn't make sense to say that Nash has ordinary numbers compared to AI, but also to say that his teams in Phoenix were more talented. Of course Nash is never going to score 30ppg playing with Marion and Stodemire, or Dirk and Finley.
Does it matter? We're not building your conventional NBA team here, we're deciding an all-NBA team. In essence, a fantasy team. Iverson's the best player and has the best stats.
So? Its an all-NBA team, we're choosing the best players, not the ones who are best suited to run our offense. If I was building a franchise from scratch, I would take Nash/Kidd over Iverson any day. Nash 5 times, Iverson and Kidd 6 each. Okay, but I'm not basing this solely on MVPs won. We're choosing the best players, and Nash, even though he did win those two MVPs, had the least playoff success of the bunch despite having the best team around him. Kidd and Iverson led their teams to the Finals, Nash did not. Sub Nash or Kidd in for Iverson on those early-decade Sixers teams. Do either of them come close to 30 ppg, do either of them win MVP, do any of them take that team deep into the playoffs? No, unlikely, unlikely (though I can't say for sure on that last one, don't remember off the top of my head how deep the East was that year).
Iverson's 2005-2006 season impressed me, however he hasn't always been that efficient and his percentages are ugly various other years. Since you want to make this a talent argument that is fine, but he isn't a pure PG so he would be somewhat out of position on an all-decade team. Kidd or Nash have shown more consistency at the 1.
I'm surprised that nobody would make an argument for Billups. He emerged and has been consistant ever since. He is easily a better defender than Nash and AI, dishes out assists as well as any of them, and has won a finals MVP. Some might argue that Nash has won two MVPs, but Nash did it in the regular season. The NBA finals is the biggest stage in the world for basketball, and Billups tore it up, and he didn't fall off afterwards.
yeah but with billups, was he ever reffered to as the best PG in the game this decade? I say no because it was Kidd then Nash who were reffered to as the best then CP3. so he has been consistently very good, there are better options. Call him this decades Kevin Johnson
Either was AI, yet a lot of people are making an argument for him. Besides somebody already pointed out that it isn't the best pg that is chose, simply the two best overall guards. If that's true then there is a chance that none of these guys make the team.
Kidd Bryant James Duncan Shaq. That is the only reasonable way. 2nd team: Nash Iverson Pierce Garnett Yao Wade over AI is debatable.
Come on guys, Wade has not been better than AI in this decade, that's not even up for debate. I actually would make an argument for Tmac over Pierce if it wasn't for this past season. Pierce has had more playoff success than Tmac, but had fallen off the radar for a while. It all kind of depends on if Tmac is classified as a 2 or 3.
Iverson is one of the best scorers in the history of the league, and if you look at his entire playing career, he has played consistently at a high level for pretty much his entire career. Wade has not. Besides his championship season, and possibly the season after, he hasn't been that great in the grand scheme of things.
Iverson might know how to put points on the board, but he's hardly efficient from the field (except in recent years). He has never had a season where he shot higher than Wade, not to mention they both average in the high 20's. Other then the year they lost in the Finals, Iverson hasn't enjoyed much playoff success. Iverson has more years in this decade, but Wade has been better in his years, IMO. Plus, he has a championship. If you want to consider Billups, then you have to without question add Wade into the argument.
I think Iverson is a great scorer and all, but he's not efficient at all. Until these past couple years, the only reason he was getting his 30ppg was because he was shooting a ton. He was and always has been a volume scorer and not an efficient scorer, hence why his FG% is usually hovering around the 43% mark. He gets his points, but it takes him a lot of shots to get there.
C: Shaquille O'Neal PF: Tim Duncan SF: LeBron James SG: Kobe Bryant PG: Jason Kidd The only debatable one is Jason Kidd. I chose Kidd over Nash because Kidd's all around play. He is a triple-double threat every night, and his defense has been leaps and bounds over Nash's this decade. He also took the New Jersey Nets to the NBA Finals two consequetive years, even though the East was not very good, it is still quite an accomplishment.
