Iverson v Kidd V Nash. Discuss? Anyone else think that perhaps Iverson should fall below these two besides me?

I think I agree. Iverson has the gaudy scoring numbers but his efficiency is pretty low. The other two are much better playmakers and help their teammates much more. Kidd is by far the superior defender and Nash is definitely the superior offensive player. The counter is that there are few guys who can get off their shot like Iverson and create off the dribble like him (I'd argue that Nash is actually one of those guys he just picks his spots so much it doesn't look like it). And Iverson did have the most impressive single accomplishment in dragging the 76ers into the finals against LA. However, I don't think it's enough. Both players have better longevity and I think better peaks. Nash has 2 MVPs (even if both are very arguable Iverson's is also an MVP he shouldn't have won so bets are off there).

I don't think Iverson was particularly undeserving of his MVP (he ranks somewhere in the middle of the pack). It helps that no one else was particularly deserving that year (unless you think Shaq deserved it simply because he was the best player despite being both statistically worse and being less valuable on a Lakers team that won less games).

But you probably right about Kidd and Nash belonging over Iverson. I'll throw Barry into that mix as well. He has a similar resume to Iverson, but with a ring. But I'll break it down in detail in a litle bit because there's definitely no one clear factor to give one the edge over the other.

the new list is pretty damn good. i could disagree with a few spots, but they aren't even big enough to warrant it.

in fact, my biggest complaint is only a matter of 3 spots and only because im a homer: its Reggie being below Allen. i get the argument (Allen making the second team, winning the title with Celtics, taking over the lead for all-time threes etc).

so my argument would be:
1. Allen making All-NBA 2nd team is cool. but its not black-and-white "top 10" like Bill Simmons argues, because its position-based. and it just so happened that he made it the year after the Lakers fell apart and Kobe was at his all-time low in terms of being likeable, which was compounded with the fact that the Lakers fell out of the playoffs and Seattle had an out-of-nowhere season. there is NO WAY that Allen was actually better than Kobe, & he was not a top 10 player (he was the weakest of the 10 members of the 1st and 2nd teams and Kobe and McGrady were both better).

Simmons also makes the case that Reggie was playing in a weakened league, which may have been true. but it was a weak league in which the superstar player during Reggie's peak in the late 90s happened to play his same position (MJ). Reggie by the way had 3 All-NBA 3rd team selections (Allen had 1 of each 2nd and 3rd team).

so its three 3rd teams vs one 2nd team and one 3rd team and i would argue that Ray was lucky to have that 2nd team selection...



2. Ray won a title, yes. but he won it as the third best player on his team. before that, he only took one team to a conference finals. so thats 3 conference finals total: includes 1 title and another finals appearance but one was as the 3rd best player and the other as the 4th best player on his team.

Reggie on the other hand went to 6 conference finals (5 as the best player on his team), and a finals appearance as the best player on his team (teams that were well-constructed but he was the only true all-star). he also was one of the few all-stars in history to have a higher playoff PER than regular season (Allen's dips by almost 2, Reggie's increases by 1). and was damn-close in almost every one of the conference finals (took Jordan to 7, and was a Larry Johnson freak-three and a Tayshaun Prince freak-block from those two series in 99 and 04).



3. Ray took over the lead for threes, with almost the exact same percentage. but overall, Reggie's TS% was .614 compared to Ray's TS% of .578. and honestly, this really is only important to the narrative of their comparison, not much more than that. it seems bigger than it really is.


4. Reggie is 11th all-time in winshares. Ray Allen is 28th.
Reggie is 8th all-time in playoff winshares (amazing actually). Ray Allen is 23rd.



if Ray continues to play great, then he will eventually take over Reggie probably. but if Ray retired right now, he wouldn't beat Reggie. Reggie has the career numbers and he's got the team success and Ray may have a better individual peak, but its not enough to overcome the advantages Reggie has.

imo imo.

Something else Ray has is he has been a 10-time all star to Miller's five. I certainly wouldn't argue Miller was playing in a weaker league than Ray. I made the call mainly on AS selections, but I think it's worth a closer look.



This has nothing to do with Miller vs. Allen, but I do have to say as amazing as being 8th all-time in playoff winshares is, the system does favorite the expanded playoffs by a bit. The players who played before the current 4-round format (1975) who are in the top 25 are Chamberlain, Russell, West and George Mikan (partial credit to Abdul Jabbar and Havlicek).

OK, here's how I'm leaning now for 30-34:
30. Dolph Schayes (12xAS, 12xAll-NBA, championship)
31. Jason Kidd
32. Rick Barry
33. Allen Iverson
34. Steve Nash

Iverson has had the biggest impact on influencing the game, but it's really hard to argue he's had a better career than Kidd or Schayes (or possibly Barry). As for Iverson vs. Nash, Iverson's scoring and Nash's play making roughly cancel each other out. Neither player plays much defense to speak of. And Iverson is probably about as good an assist man as Nash a scorer. Nash's teams fair better during the regular season for the most part. He has had a lot more help, but it could be argued he utilizes that help better (that's hard to say). However, as a playoff performer, Iverson has Nash beat, imo. First, there's the aforementioned dragging the Sixers into the finals. On top of that, he has one of the highest playoff scoring averages and not too shabby assist numbers as well. I think Iverson's playoff performances plus his overall influence give him the edge over Nash.

Nash's story isn't done yet, but that's how I see their respective careers up to this point.

Kidd is almost at the Dolph Schayes level. I think I underrated Schayes a bit because I was a bit bullish on pre-shot clock players. Schayes had a pretty solid career post-shot clock as well, though.

I think this is the one point of your comparison that is false. Iverson is a decent passer but given Nash's uncanny shot making ability the only thing that holds him back as a scorer is he always looks for his shot last. Dude can score a ton if he wants (remember the loss against Dallas in 2005 when he exceed the 50 point mark)?

Iverson dragged that Sixers team (amazingly as it was) through a poor conference while Nash battled with his Suns against much better competition in those Duncan-Spurs and Dirk-Mavs teams. one Duncan random three or Horry hip check might have been the only reason Nash doesn't have a championship (that last sentence is speculation of course. but the first statement is pretty much true)

Before I respond to the Nash vs. Iverson debate, can I ask everyone if they have thoughts on Pave's Reggie Miller vs. Ray Allen arguments? I wonder where everyone else stands.



The only thing holding Iverson back from being a great assist man is he always looks to pass last.. OK, that's not exactly true either, but Iverson could be one of the league's top assist men if his role was as a PG and his offense wasn't needed (whether he would do that is another question). But still, even as the league's top scorer, Iverson was one of the better assist men. In 2005, he finished 5th in the league, while leading it in scoring.

But I don't think this should really hinge on individual ability, nor should it be based on breaking down how well a player does in certain aspects of the game (scoring, rebounding, etc.).




This is completely true. But while Iverson played in an easier conference, Nash has always played with much better teammates. When talking about each player's respective legacy as a playoff performer, do you think Nash is greater? This isn't a question of who is better (I agree that Nash is probably better).

their legacies as playoff performers probably goes in Iverson's favor. but i think those legacies are based mostly on certain images than on overall evidence. i think people remember that 01 season and ignore the rest of Iverson's career. and i think people often criticize Nash for not going further without looking at the circumstances.

but yes, Iverson's legacy is probably slightly greater than Nash's at this point.

ive talked to everyone else and they agree with me.

Haha. I'm actually leaning that way too. I think I've been under-counting playoff performances and especially Reggie's.

Bill Simmons will argue that we have selective memory when it comes to Reggie's playoff performances.

i would counter-argue that we have selective memory with everyone's playoff performances and that Reggie's bad performances shouldn't take away from his many great ones (and "many" is the key word there).

Bill Simmons, my favorite person in the world of sports basically, also was trying his absolute hardest to prove Reggie should be below Allen without actually doing it. for the same reason, i'll admit, that i'm doing the same thing for Reggie: home-team bias. but i really think Reggie > Ray, at least right now. i dont hold out hope for the argument two or three seasons from now.

I don't have selective memory when it comes to last year's NBA finals. Outside of game 2 when he went off, Allen took a dump against the Lakers. 13% from 3 and 31% from the field? Gracias, Ray.

I lean very slightly towards Reggie but Allen has the potential to pass him still.