There was a discussion over at RB of whos overrated which turned to Iverson against Duncan.Some of the arguements they used for Iverson--No supporting cast-Better defender-7 assists for 2 seasons-Duncan has a better team-Duncan played with superstars like Robinson leading to his 3 championshipsSo what are your takes on this debate, I was supporting Duncan.
I feel neither are overated. they are both great players that get the credit they deserve. If I had to choose I guess I would choose Duncan because he gets maybe just a little to much credit for the spurs success when there's so amny other great players on that team
This is a totally random comparison in my eyes, because they are the exact opposite as players. Iverson is a point/shooting guard, whereas Duncan is a big man. If you're asking me who I think has the better all-around game, I'm going with Iverson. If you ask me who I would rather build a team around, I'm going with Duncan because he is a big man.Duncan has definitely had better supporting casts around him, but he still puts his numbers up and has the ability to take his game to the next level at any given time. It's not like his greatness is "derived" from his supporting casts.
Alright, here's your answer: Watch basketballThere's a reason Tim Duncan is called the "Big Fundamental," because he has more moves than anyone since Kevin McHale, and from what I've seen, he has more. Tim Duncan is able to affect game more than Allen Iverson, because he is a big man. I know Allen Iverson can't help it because of his size, but that's just how it is. Because Tim Duncan is a big man, he is able to post you up, and score on you with any move. Not only that, but he has a consistent 18 footer, a great face-up game, and will finish at the rim any time he wants. Yes Allen Iverson is a great scorer, and can do it from anywhere, in any fashion, but just look at the stats. For his career, he averages 28 PPG on 42% shooting! 42% shooting! Even if you only count his MVP season up, he only shoots 41%! He has actually been shooting worse during his six season tear of averaging a near 30 PPG. Duncan on the other hand, averages 22 PPG on 50% shooting. If we compare his previous 6 seasons, he has averaged 22 PPG on 49.8% shooting.Now who would you rather have? A guy who scores 22 PPG on 50% shooting and 17 Shots Per Game, or a guy who scores 28 PPG on 42% shooting and 6 shots more per game?Watch basketballIn terms of defense, this isn't even close! Let's compare Tim Duncan's number to that of Ben Wallace, this year's Defensive Player of the Year. Duncan averaged 11 RPG to Wallace's 11.3, and 2.03 BPG to Wallace's 2.21 BPG. Wallace did average a steal more per game, but look how close the numbers are! Add in the fact both play on great defensive teams, and how is Tim Duncan not considered an elite defender in the game?Allen Iverson on the other hand, gets his 2 SPG. That's about it. Iverson is actually a horrible defender, something you can only see by watching basketball. In the 01 Playoffs against Toronto, Dell Curry lit the Sixers up for 10+ PPG because Iverson was guarding him. I can't begin to explain how many open shots Curry got because Iverson was constantly trying to steal the ball. Even this year, every Sixer game I saw I noticed at least 10 points being given up off Iverson's gambling. If anything, not only is Iverson a poor defender but he is a liability.Watch basketballIn terms of passing, one now says that Allen Iverson is the better passer because of his assist average. Again, that is deceiving. There was a stat done last year talking about how Iverson is the biggest ball-hog in the NBA because he has the ball something like 88% of the time. Tim Duncan on the other hand, gets the ball something like once every two possessions, whereas Iverson has the ball for what seems like once every 2 seconds.Is Stephon Marbury an unselfish, great passer? No, he just has the ball allot. Is Steve Francis a great, unselfish passer? No, he just has the ball allot. Is Iverson a great, unselfish passer? While I wouldn't put him with the likes of Stephon and Francis, he isn't as good a passer as the numbers indicate.For Tim, even though his assist numbers aren't high, he is a very willing passer out the post, and we all remember him carving the Nets up with his passing 3 years ago. The guy is a great passer, and just like Shaquille O' Neal, the numbers don't support it, but it's there.Watch basketballI'm not even getting into leadership. While Iverson is out getting tattoos, talking about not practicing, and getting in trouble over summer breaks (2002), Tim Duncan looks to be encouraging his teammates and staying calm in all situations. Greg Poppovich has talked about how hard he works, and Steve Kerr has talked about how he is the joker of the team behind closed doors.Don't even compare leadership you ignorant fucks!Watch basketballIn terms of clutch play, I'm not going to lie, Iverson is truly special here. However, in the past three years, 10 seconds left or less, down by a point or tied, Iverson has shot 40%. Duncan on the other hand? 47%.In the playoffs, both up their games considerably. Both have set records. Both have had moments of glory. I give it a draw here, but it could go either wayWatch basketballSo, Duncan is more efficient, has more effect on a game, can score more if only because of size, rebounds more, is a better passer, a better leader, has won more, and... Well, Tim Duncan is simply put - Better. Need proof besides this post?Watch basketball
Nothing pisses me off more on BBW when I come to the Comparison forum and see a 6'0'' (on a good day) PG/SG being compared to a 7'0'' All-Time great PF/C with 3 rings. You can't compare a little guy like Iverson and a dominant big man in Duncan. Two TOTALLY different players/styles. But if anyone would pick Iverson over Duncan is kidding themselves.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (CelticBalla32 @ May 25 2006, 09:37 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Nothing pisses me off more on BBW when I come to the Comparison forum and see a 6'0'' (on a good day) PG/SG being compared to a 7'0'' All-Time great PF/C with 3 rings.You can't compare a little guy like Iverson and a dominant big man in Duncan. Two TOTALLY different players/styles.But if anyone would pick Iverson over Duncan is kidding themselves.</div>Agreed. A dominant big man in the paint on both sides or a streaky shooting point guard. It is a no brainer to me who I'd pick.
U cant really compare AI to TD like CelticBalla said they both bring diff. things to the table. Id take TD however because in order to win a ring u need a strong inside presence on offense and defense. TD is also more of a team player and wont call attnetion to himself. He is more of a humble guy and seems easier to coach and get along with. So if I were making a team Id take Duncan over Iverson
It's much easier to get a perimiter scorer (all over the damn place) than a dominant big man, not to mention the fact that the dominant big man has 3 extra rings.
K-mart, Duncan down the stretch is not good [i have to admit this]. He misses too many freethrows down the stretch.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (KMart @ May 25 2006, 08:47 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Alright, here's your answer: Watch basketballThere's a reason Tim Duncan is called the "Big Fundamental," because he has more moves than anyone since Kevin McHale, and from what I've seen, he has more. Tim Duncan is able to affect game more than Allen Iverson, because he is a big man. I know Allen Iverson can't help it because of his size, but that's just how it is. Because Tim Duncan is a big man, he is able to post you up, and score on you with any move. Not only that, but he has a consistent 18 footer, a great face-up game, and will finish at the rim any time he wants. Yes Allen Iverson is a great scorer, and can do it from anywhere, in any fashion, but just look at the stats. For his career, he averages 28 PPG on 42% shooting! 42% shooting! Even if you only count his MVP season up, he only shoots 41%! He has actually been shooting worse during his six season tear of averaging a near 30 PPG. Duncan on the other hand, averages 22 PPG on 50% shooting. If we compare his previous 6 seasons, he has averaged 22 PPG on 49.8% shooting.Now who would you rather have? A guy who scores 22 PPG on 50% shooting and 17 Shots Per Game, or a guy who scores 28 PPG on 42% shooting and 6 shots more per game?Watch basketballIn terms of defense, this isn't even close! Let's compare Tim Duncan's number to that of Ben Wallace, this year's Defensive Player of the Year. Duncan averaged 11 RPG to Wallace's 11.3, and 2.03 BPG to Wallace's 2.21 BPG. Wallace did average a steal more per game, but look how close the numbers are! Add in the fact both play on great defensive teams, and how is Tim Duncan not considered an elite defender in the game?Allen Iverson on the other hand, gets his 2 SPG. That's about it. Iverson is actually a horrible defender, something you can only see by watching basketball. In the 01 Playoffs against Toronto, Dell Curry lit the Sixers up for 10+ PPG because Iverson was guarding him. I can't begin to explain how many open shots Curry got because Iverson was constantly trying to steal the ball. Even this year, every Sixer game I saw I noticed at least 10 points being given up off Iverson's gambling. If anything, not only is Iverson a poor defender but he is a liability.Watch basketballIn terms of passing, one now says that Allen Iverson is the better passer because of his assist average. Again, that is deceiving. There was a stat done last year talking about how Iverson is the biggest ball-hog in the NBA because he has the ball something like 88% of the time. Tim Duncan on the other hand, gets the ball something like once every two possessions, whereas Iverson has the ball for what seems like once every 2 seconds.Is Stephon Marbury an unselfish, great passer? No, he just has the ball allot. Is Steve Francis a great, unselfish passer? No, he just has the ball allot. Is Iverson a great, unselfish passer? While I wouldn't put him with the likes of Stephon and Francis, he isn't as good a passer as the numbers indicate.For Tim, even though his assist numbers aren't high, he is a very willing passer out the post, and we all remember him carving the Nets up with his passing 3 years ago. The guy is a great passer, and just like Shaquille O' Neal, the numbers don't support it, but it's there.Watch basketballI'm not even getting into leadership. While Iverson is out getting tattoos, talking about not practicing, and getting in trouble over summer breaks (2002), Tim Duncan looks to be encouraging his teammates and staying calm in all situations. Greg Poppovich has talked about how hard he works, and Steve Kerr has talked about how he is the joker of the team behind closed doors.Don't even compare leadership you ignorant fucks!Watch basketballIn terms of clutch play, I'm not going to lie, Iverson is truly special here. However, in the past three years, 10 seconds left or less, down by a point or tied, Iverson has shot 40%. Duncan on the other hand? 47%.In the playoffs, both up their games considerably. Both have set records. Both have had moments of glory. I give it a draw here, but it could go either wayWatch basketballSo, Duncan is more efficient, has more effect on a game, can score more if only because of size, rebounds more, is a better passer, a better leader, has won more, and... Well, Tim Duncan is simply put - Better. Need proof besides this post?Watch basketball</div>I must say thats a great post and makes a ton of sense. Now I do watch basketball and I have just a few problems w/ this. First off your comparing shooting %. I mean Duncan is a bigman while iverson is a sg/pg. Big men almost always have a better shooting % because they mainloy play in the painbt where you have a better chance of scoring. If Duncan played sg i bet you his shooting % would go down about 5%. Also Iverson did really get his shooting % up this year. He got it up to around 45% nearly 3% higher than his career average and he did seem to have a better shot selection this season.My last thing is passing. Now im not saying Iverson is a better passer because of the assist average. I have watched both players a lot and from what ive seen iverson is a better passer. true maybe it is because i see him w/ the ball more, but from what ive seen hes one of the best blind passers in the league and can find a lot of people open. I have watched Duncan though and he is a very good passer for a big man.Other than those two things I really do agree w/ you. Even though I love Iverson, Duncan would be a better choice.
I just love the way Iverson plays. Barely 6 foot tall he is the toughest player in the NBA. All that he has to endure. He's is on a lackadasical team. A.I. tries to do everything to win but when your on a inconsistent team like he is on you can see why he has to do it all. He gets banged up, but still manages to be a great player. You can't go wrong with A.I.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (iversonfan268 @ May 25 2006, 06:44 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I must say thats a great post and makes a ton of sense. Now I do watch basketball and I have just a few problems w/ this. First off your comparing shooting %. I mean Duncan is a bigman while iverson is a sg/pg. Big men almost always have a better shooting % because they mainloy play in the painbt where you have a better chance of scoring. If Duncan played sg i bet you his shooting % would go down about 5%. Also Iverson did really get his shooting % up this year. He got it up to around 45% nearly 3% higher than his career average and he did seem to have a better shot selection this season.</div>You make some valid points. However, I know Iverson would have more trouble scoring due to his size and position, yet Duncan still scores more efficiently. Maybe a SG shooting 46% would equal out the percentages, but Iverson shoots 42% for his career. I don't care who you are, that is horrible.
I'd rather Iverson, I can't stand Duncan. For gods sake, he is just way too boring. Nobody wants to watch San Antonio play, he's a big doofy loser.Allen Iverson is an elite player and scorer. With the right team and coaching he can be even better. You can't compare the 76ers to the Spurs..David Robinson to Theo Ratliff? (Old times..)Bruce Bowen to.....Kyle Korver?Andre Iguodala to Manu Ginobili?Tim Duncan to Chris Webber?Michael Finley to Kyle Korver?Brent Barry to Kyle Korver?Fact is, the Spurs have better bench players than the Sixers have starters. It's not even close talent wise and when you've got Bruce Bowen guarding the perimeter it isn't hard to put up numbers like Duncan defensively. He does not have any perimeter defense whatsoever, whereas Ben Wallace can guard any position on the court (HORRIBLE comparison dude..) and Tim Duncan is a liability defensively outside of the paint. Iverson is no good defensively, but if his team was actually going to contend he would try harder..he honestly doesn't care on defense..I know you lead by example, but when you have Sam Dalembert and Kyle Korver..Kevin Ollie, Tim Salmons! What the hell!Watch basketballDude...small men shoot lower FG% then big men and not only that but when you score more PPG you shoot lower FG% usually too. Tim Duncan is NOT consistent out to 18 feet, he's a poor shooter, consistent to maybe 10-12 feet. He is also an awful FT shooter..
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (nygiants4life @ May 26 2006, 10:58 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I'd rather Iverson, I can't stand Duncan. For gods sake, he is just way too boring. Nobody wants to watch San Antonio play, he's a big doofy loser.Allen Iverson is an elite player and scorer. With the right team and coaching he can be even better. You can't compare the 76ers to the Spurs..David Robinson to Theo Ratliff? (Old times..)Bruce Bowen to.....Kyle Korver?Andre Iguodala to Manu Ginobili?Tim Duncan to Chris Webber?Michael Finley to Kyle Korver?Brent Barry to Kyle Korver?Fact is, the Spurs have better bench players than the Sixers have starters. It's not even close talent wise and when you've got Bruce Bowen guarding the perimeter it isn't hard to put up numbers like Duncan defensively. He does not have any perimeter defense whatsoever, whereas Ben Wallace can guard any position on the court (HORRIBLE comparison dude..) and Tim Duncan is a liability defensively outside of the paint. Iverson is no good defensively, but if his team was actually going to contend he would try harder..he honestly doesn't care on defense..I know you lead by example, but when you have Sam Dalembert and Kyle Korver..Kevin Ollie, Tim Salmons! What the hell!Watch basketballDude...small men shoot lower FG% then big men and not only that but when you score more PPG you shoot lower FG% usually too. Tim Duncan is NOT consistent out to 18 feet, he's a poor shooter, consistent to maybe 10-12 feet. He is also an awful FT shooter..</div>Duncan took a less talented team in 2003 to a championship. Duncan plays defense. Thread over.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (nygiants4life @ May 25 2006, 07:58 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I'd rather Iverson, I can't stand Duncan. For gods sake, he is just way too boring. Nobody wants to watch San Antonio play, he's a big doofy loser.Allen Iverson is an elite player and scorer. With the right team and coaching he can be even better. You can't compare the 76ers to the Spurs..David Robinson to Theo Ratliff? (Old times..)Bruce Bowen to.....Kyle Korver?Andre Iguodala to Manu Ginobili?Tim Duncan to Chris Webber?Michael Finley to Kyle Korver?Brent Barry to Kyle Korver?Fact is, the Spurs have better bench players than the Sixers have starters. It's not even close talent wise and when you've got Bruce Bowen guarding the perimeter it isn't hard to put up numbers like Duncan defensively. He does not have any perimeter defense whatsoever, whereas Ben Wallace can guard any position on the court (HORRIBLE comparison dude..) and Tim Duncan is a liability defensively outside of the paint. Iverson is no good defensively, but if his team was actually going to contend he would try harder..he honestly doesn't care on defense..I know you lead by example, but when you have Sam Dalembert and Kyle Korver..Kevin Ollie, Tim Salmons! What the hell!Watch basketballDude...small men shoot lower FG% then big men and not only that but when you score more PPG you shoot lower FG% usually too. Tim Duncan is NOT consistent out to 18 feet, he's a poor shooter, consistent to maybe 10-12 feet. He is also an awful FT shooter..</div>u must have problems. when duncan won the championship in 99, tell me who he had? David Robinson was 5 years past his prime, and he had Sean Elliot who was good for 3 pointers, Mario Elli who was ONLY good for 3 pointers, and avery johnson. That was an awful lineup and that team absolutly KILLED in the playoffs. I absolotley guarantee if Tim was on the Sixers, they would be a very good team in the east. At worst a number 4 seed. If Allen was on the spurs, they would be at best a number 5 seed. You build your team around big men. Name the last time a team won the championship where their best player was a PG. And you cant use Chauncey Billups because he is not their clear cut best player. Thats right, U CANT. and who cares if hes boring, he gets the job done night in and night out. period
Easily Ai. AI has Webber and Iguadola to back him up, Duncan has men like Ginobili and Parker. Duncan is a huge height advantage over AI, one of the great talents of AI is taking the beating and maintaining to get up. AI never stops that's one of the reasons i wanted him on my sim league team. Lastly I'll admit that part of the reason I picked AI is because Duncan bores me.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (GArenas @ May 28 2006, 04:41 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Easily Ai. AI has Webber and Iguadola to back him up, Duncan has men like Ginobili and Parker. Duncan is a huge height advantage over AI, one of the great talents of AI is taking the beating and maintaining to get up. AI never stops that's one of the reasons i wanted him on my sim league team. Lastly I'll admit that part of the reason I picked AI is because Duncan bores me.</div>Dude, Ginobili had a poor year and was injured a lot, but yet they still finished at the #1 seed in the West. AI had plenty of talent on that team. A past-star PF who can still shoot the ball and score points, an athletic Guard who can get you easy points, one of the top shooters in the game, and a defensive guy at Center. And yet, with that team, they dont even make the playoffs in the East!!! How many titles does AI have? 0. Duncan has 3 and was obviously the leader of all because he won Finals MVP for all 3 of 'em. He led that team in 2003 to a champonship didnt he? With young guys who didnt really contribute in Parker and Ginobili, an old David Robinson that couldnt do much. For chris sakes, the 2nd best player was Stephen Jackson. Explain that, why dont ya? And also Duncan is the best player in the post today, fundamentally. And he has been for a while, well maybe Shaq, but this year he has been more dominate than Shaq in the post. Duncan plays great defense too, AI gets steals so people think he is great there. Well guess what, he sucks at man to man defense. He couldnt hold a flower pot to under 10 points. Duncan on the other hand can lock you down. Its obvious you only picked AI because Duncan isnt "exciting". And it shows your basketball IQ too.
If any of you watched the Sixers play this season, then the argument that AI had a capable team around him and they should have made the playoffs should be thrown out the window. That team was amazing offensively, but where they fell short was the defensive end. No one player can play defense for the entire team. Not Iverson, not 'Dre, not Artest, not Ben Wallace, nobody. Most of their defensive woes was Webber's fault. His lack of effort defensively contaminated the other players, and Dalembert (who was supposed to be our defensive anchor) made boneheaded play after boneheaded play. If Philly improves their defense even just a little bit, they would have made the playoffs.There was a stat during the Lakers-Suns series that summarized that up. The Sixers lost 15 games this season when they were up by atleast 7 within the final minute of the game.Defense was their problem, not offense. Unless you guys think that Iverson could have single-handedly played defense for the entire team (or any other player for that matter), then that argument doesn't fly.Also, yes, AI isn't the greatest man-to-man defender in the world, but he certainly isn't the worst. When it comes time to play defense (i.e. the final minutes of the game), he gets the job done. Like KMart pointed out in the other thread he made about things that annoy him, most superstar perimeter players do this, yet are regarded as good perimeter defenders. Yes, AI has his problems defensively, but he gets the job done when he needs to.Anyway... Duncan is the better player, plain and simple.
