"Sherman Douglas. 58th on the NBA all time assist list or some such number."

Ah, the poor man's Charles Smith.

Sherm the Worm! Ugliest shots I've ever seen on his drives to the basket. But plenty of them went in.

He was much better than Charles Smith. When Douglas left school, he was the all time leading assist man in DI history.

Everyone that has passed him has been a 4 year starter (Corchiani, Hurley etc.)

Yeah, There wasn't one thing with Billy Owens. He wasn't a bad attitude guy, he wasn't lazy, but his game never really progressed. He was the same player his Jr. year at SU that he was his fifth year in the NBA. He did stick around for almost 10 years though.

His game sure got lazy, though. In college he would fight Alonzo Mourning on the low post all game long and in the NBA he only wanted to play facing the basket. I thought he'd be a great all around offensive threat and he just didn't want to seem to work that hard during a game. Don Neslon has a lot of faults, and I know it must have been irritating for Owens and Webber to listen to his criticism constantly, but they really cost themeselves by not listening. He understood the weakensses in their game but I think they were so hyped coming out of college, they didn't believe they had weaknesses and so they never really developed. Which is why the draft is such a crap shoot. How do you measure a guy's fire or humility or abilty to adapt or their endurance, especially when you put them in a position where things are no longer easy. You can't really, which is why drafts will always be a crapshoot. That said, it's still fun to project and guess.

I wish there were a way to know when a thread changes topics like this. I gave up on the A-Rod / Pedroia imaginary conflict but in doing so ended up missing out on an NBA thread. This may be late in the game, but could kevin please clarify what he meant by the "Jianlian is much better than Yao" comment? Do you mean he's a much better prospect than Yao had been at this stage of development?

"He was much better than Charles Smith. When Douglas left school, he was the all time leading assist man in DI history."

I kid, SJ. Charles Smith was actually the poor man's Charles Smith at that time. Always had a soft spot for him- he made a half-court shot to beat LSU in the NCAAs...

Billy Owens has respectable career stats. No superstar for sure, but looks like a pretty good role player. around 12-14 ppg and 7-8 rpg.

So Durant is a dangerous pick because he's thin but Yi is the guy Kevin wants?


Hulkamania, not runnning wild

aaaand Shooty already answered my question. I was (and am) a casual NBA fan. But no rookie was going to be the featured guy on a team with Tim Hardaway and Chris Mullin.

wow, I have learned one thing in this thread: kevin would likely argue with himself just to be heard. or he really, really needs another hobby.

not saying your point about the capricious nature of #1 picks isn't valid; after all, the draft is very much hit or miss. but if you track it over a long (20 years or so) period, the higher the pick, the better chance of getting the better talent.

plus, and you leave this out in your argument, if the Celts (or anyone) had the #1 pick, they would have the freedom to pick the player they feel is best, rather than pulling four-leaf clovers up like made to hope their lucky stars that the *best* player falls to them.

your pompous, argumentative style and inability to refrain from cursing, coupled with the fact that much of what you're saying (like the Duncan on Iverson argument) is distorted logic, makes you a difficult read. fun to laugh at, but really hard to read.

if you really want to skewer a team's selections--which is really the way it should be done, not be critiquing a particular draft position--please engage in a diatribe against the Hawks. As a former Atlantan, they would have done better picking a player's name out of a hat.

What's best about this thread is that between all the insults, non sequiturs and evasions, kevin has crafted an argument concerning the draft that is no more or less than a shrug and a trite, "you never know."

LOL! He does have a reasonable point--that Celtics fans shouldn't panic because historically some great players have gone farther down in the draft. This is very true. The rest of it is a lot of strange noise.

Yeah, but . . . . The problem with saying that the # 1 guy could be a bust, and then trotting out 20 years worth of picks to show that he often is, is that the same is even truer of the # 5, or the # 8, or the # whatever, pick. You can say, "You never know" about the future of the player you are going to pick at any particular spot in the draft. But your ODDS are best the earlier you pick, because the talent and potential levels are higher then. The kid you pick may not have the work ethic, he may get hurt, blah, blah, blah. But the risks on all or most of those things are relatively equally distributed between the team drafting # 1 and the teams drafting # 5-10. But the talent level isn't. The team drafting # 1 has a head start.

Now, how big that head start is varies immensely from year to year. Some years, the best that's available is a Kwame Brown, and it's not very big at all, and you can fairly say it's a crap shoot. Then, you better have excellent talent evaluators in your FO, and you better get lucky. But some years the best guy available is Tim Duncan, and you just need to get a little bit lucky that he stays healthy. This year, despite Kevin's silliness, is NOT a Kwame Brown year. Oden and Durant are the reason every team wanted to be in the top two. You can say all you want that this is a "deep draft," and you can get a quality player down further. But what makes this a truly special draft are those two special players at the top. Of course they can bust, but the odds they will are substantially less than most top picks from Kevin's list, and substantially less than whomever the Celtics end up drafting at # 5.

So while I agree that you never know, and there's no point in the Celtics whining about it, what happened was really bad for them, and it was bad for the Eastern Conference generally.

I don't think he's going to, Softball. He'll go third, fourth at the latest. The Celtics will get either Wright or Horford, I think. Either of those guys will be fine.

I bet Lewis Scott is still chained to a radiator in kevin's basement.





(Kidding kevin! I'm just goofing around now since no one has mentioned who the Warriors might get at 18. You bastards!)

The big problem with Kevin's line of thinking is that, while players taken lower than 1 often do end up better for a variety of reasons, he is comparing 1 player to the entire rest of the draft. As far as the Celtics are concerned, that's irrelevant. They can only compare the player they get at 5 to the player drafted 1. As such, for the uncertainty to work out in Kevin's favor, not only does someone after Oden/Durant have to end up better, but that the Celtics actually have to pick that guy. So in all likelihood, depending on what Atlanta does, Wright, Horford or Jianlian has to be better than who they would have taken at 1/2. If Corey Brewer ends up the best pro, it doesn't mean anything for the Celtics.

Because of the 3-pointer, the monster in the middle isn't as important as it used to be. You will note that Utah rolled Houston despite playing a 4 in the middle against Yao.

There is truth in this--the semi-zones and the 3 make big pivotmen somewhat less important, but Utah beat Houston is a very close, seven-game series becuse McGrady failed to take over down the stretch in Game 7 and because Yao and McGrady did not have enough help. Excellent post play is still tremendously important--as watching Tim Duncan, whose team leads Utah 2-0--for a quarter will show. Since Michael Jordan retired, 7 titles have been won by teams with Shaquille O'Neal or Tim Duncan and that number is almost certainly going to go up to 8. The Pistons had no "monster" per se but they had a great low-post defender and rebounder in Ben Wallace and it was the acquisition of a low-post scoring threat, Rasheed Wallace, that put them over the top. Yes, there are caveats--Wade carried the Heat offensively last year, for one--but I still say unless you have Jordan and Pippen you had better have at least top 10 play in the post to win the trophy, and even those Bulls teams made an effort to get competent big men, adding Longley and Cartwright.

and it was bad for the Eastern Conference generally.

I said that earlier--and I think it's bad for the league to a slight extent as well. Having a reason to put the Celtics on TV a lot would help the NBA. As to the "youneverknow" I think it is clear that Oden and Durant are Shaquille O'Neal type-no brainer picks. Oden in particular does not strike me as a future superstar. But the problem for the Celtics, as Sam says, is that they are at a moment where they need some certainty and the guys below the top 2 have a lot less of it than Oden and Durant do. Oden will be a Top 5-10 center, IMO, though he won't be a Duncan-type player. But a Top-10 center would be HUGE for the Celtics or the Grizzlies.

Sam, remember when we got in that argument about the Florida/Boston trade, the Beckett/Ramirez trade?

This is the same thing. You're counting your chickens again.

First of all, those chickens are still roosting: Ramirez is worth two Becketts, maybe more. I could count then, and I still can.

Second, the point is not that I'm counting Oden and/or Durant as a sure thing. The issue is what are the chances of them being high-impact, really important players for Portland and Seattle. The answer is: a lot better than the chances of whomever the Celtics draft at # 5 and the Grizzlies get at # 4. That's why it's bad for the East. Some years, it wouldn't be all that big a deal. This year, it is. IMO, there is a big difference in the ceilings of the top two compared to the rest. If those two didn't exist, the top of the draft would be a big mish-mash of reasonably comparable players, none of whom really stands out, and no one would care all that much about having dropped. All you are saying (or all you should be saying) is that there is a difference between having a ceiling and reaching it. Which is true. But it's still better to have the ceiling in the first place. A lot better.

You do realize that Beckett is a leading contender for a CY, don't you Sam? You are aware of that, aren't you?

So far this year, Hanley Ramirez (age 23), coming off his outstanding ROY 2006:

.345/.423/.565

I would rather have Hanley Ramirez without giving it a second thought. Give me a break, Kevin.

Iverson's a great shooter.

I never said that, either, Kevin. So, you actually can't find anything I said. I did say Iverson shot 44% this year, and shot better than Pierce, but I never said he's a great shooter. I'd save that compliment for people like Dell Curry. Iverson is, however, a great scorer, and the distinction b/w that and "great shooter" is immense in pro ball.

And while Kevin might think his point always was "you never know," that was NOT his point initially. His point was that Jianlian is a better pro prospect than Oden and that Hibbert and Jianlian are better C prospects than Oden too. Which is ludicrous.

Vince: YOu're right about Sampson. He played the 4 in the Twin Towers alignment b/c, as Magic noted, he ran so bloody well.

I'm totally missing the Lewis Scott ref, shooty.

Please advise.

Nope. I want to know there's someone as sad as me out there who actually gets this reference. Come on primates!

Well, that's not he answer at all. The difference between 2, which is where the Celtics should have been, and 5, where they are, is no big deal. Let's say they draft Brandon Wright. I can imagine all kinds of ways that Wright will be a better player than, say, Durant. Will it happen that way? Who knows? Is Durant the better prospect right now? Sure. But the difference between being right and wrong on that are a lot slimmer than it seems.

WHat insightful analysis. I just can't figure out why Ainge and Rivers and West were so crestfallen?!?

beckett argument ignores:

1) last year
2) the fact that he has still never proven that he can actually pitch well and stay off the dl at the same time
3) the fact that the marlins got 6 years of pre-free agency ramirez vs 2 years of pre-free agency beckett
4) how good ramirez is this year himself

beyond that, yeah, he had a good 1.5 months.

The difference between 2, which is where the Celtics should have been, and 5, where they are, is no big deal. Let's say they draft Brandon Wright. I can imagine all kinds of ways that Wright will be a better player than, say, Durant. Will it happen that way? Who knows? Is Durant the better prospect right now? Sure. But the difference between being right and wrong on that are a lot slimmer than it seems.

Well, like I say: I agree to the extent there's no point whining, pouting, or panicking over it. But in my view, Durant and Oden are substantially better prospects than the rest of this field; you obviously disagree. They don't dominate the way Duncan did his year, but they stand out much more than some of the years in which you could just see teams reaching for someone to call a "# 1" pick, like Brown. And the Durant/Oden duo is closer to Duncan than they are to Kwame Brown in terms of standing out.

"he wasn't never even the best option on his own team. He was never even the SECOND best option on his own team."

kevin, you're way overplaying your hand here. Iverson can create his own shot in a way those other players cannot. Yes, he misses a lot of them, and that's a problem, but if you hand him the ball and ask him to score he's generally been the best option on his team.

Does that make him a "great scorer"? Depends on how you define that term, obviously. I think if you define "great scorer" in such a way as NOT to include a guy who is consistently at or near the top of the league in PPG, then you are defining that term too narrowly. I realize there are other arguments to be made, though.

Just as those other, more basic b-ball stats are being misused by others on this board, I think you're missing use efficiency numbers.

"And this from a guy who's principle value is as a scorer. He wasn't ever even the best option on his own team. He was never even the SECOND best option on his own team. And it's not like the teams he played for were lighting the league on fire either. What a bowwow."

You realize that nearly every defense he faced was designed to stop him, right?

If you'd like to take those numbers in a vacuum, so be it. That seems to be a pretty substantial factor you're leaving out in evaluating him.

Iverson is always a leader in Hollinger's stat "Usage Rate" which is a measure of the ability to create his own shot. That has value, clearly.

In all seriousness, Sam, what is your reasoning behind why Derrick never became a premier player? I thought a dominant performance on an NBA title contender was a when, not if proposition when he came out of college.

He didn't want it enough. Or, if you prefer, he wasn't obsessed enough.

Billy Owens broke my heart. Talk about wasted talent.

Golden State wanted him so much they busted up Run-TMC to get him. "M" was a hell of a player, too.

Golden State wanted him so much they busted up Run-TMC to get him. "M" was a hell of a player, too.

Yeah, losing Mitch was the other half of the heart break.

But people, come on, Lewis Scott in kevin's basment. This is comedic gold and you are all not appreciating it properly. Grrrr!

re:TSP

TSP is a very valuable tool in evaluating players, but like all stats, it needs some context. Iverson didnt have the best TSP on those Sixers teams, but that doesnt mean Tyrone Hill was a better scoring option than AI. IF you need a bucket and you give the ball to Hill, you are gonna be in trouble. Iverson is a good player, because he can create a lot of shots that other guys cant. When you have a bunch of guys like Mutombo and Tyrone Hill, who cant score on their own, it isnt always a bad offensive play to have Iverson break down the defense and shoot; even when he doesnt score, the opposing big men are out of position and the Mutombos and Hills of the world can do what they do best.

Iverson does tend to shoot a lot, but he also has the ball in his hands a lot, and he plays a ton of minutes. To compare him to one guy who has been in the conversation today, his career AST rate is higher than that of Paul Pierce. His TO rate isnt that high either; its about the same as Pierce as well. All of his raw numbers are going to be higher because of the insane amount of minutes he plays, and the amount of time he has the ball in his hands. Not say he is a truly elite player in the league, but I he has been a good player for a long time. I think the people who trumpet his scoring totals without other context overrate him, and those who only look at his TSP tend to underrate him.

A few other interesting Iverson tidbits. His Ast rate this year was equal to that of the career average of Larry Bird. And here's one I didn't realize; he cut 5 shots per 40 minutes from his total when coming to Denver from Philly. He took 17.9 shots per 40 minutes this year with Denver; he took 22.9 this year with Philly, and had been over 21, usually at about 23 or so, for about the past 8 years. This is despite the fact that A) Denver played one of the fastest paces in the league, meaning that there were more shots per minute in a typical Denver game B) he didnt play all of those games with Melo. His AST rate went from 17.7 to 21.1 in Denver. So it seems like Iverson made the effort to change his game when he came to a better team, they just lost to the Spurs, who are probably going to win their 4th title in what, 9 years?

No, I didn't know that. If I were the other team, I'd just let him keep jacking them up. that would be the most effective defense.

If teams paid less defensive attention to Iverson, he would likely raise his shooting percentage.

Does anyone remember the guy that wrote a book on basketball statistics and had Iverson rated as one of the 10 worst players in basketball? He also had Jerome Williams rated as one of the best of his generation. I think that's taking the new stats and going off the deep end with them.

I've always thought that Iverson was overrated myself. But I do remember seeing a statistic a few years ago that showed Philly's winning percentage with and without Iverson. They were drastically worse without him. So I think he's a good player - there's no way that a thousand basketball experts could be so badly off the mark about him.

Hollinger's PER has Iverson rated at a 21.5 career, which is very good, but not MVP level. 15 is average, and Michael Jordan has the highest ever at 29. He ranks about 15th on the active career list. The year he won his MVP he was behind at least Shaq, Carter, McGrady, Malone and Webber in the stat. My guess is that this is close to accurate - that he has never truly been one of the handfull of best players in basketball, but that he is still a pretty great player.

Basketball reference has a statistic called TS%. Total shooting percentage. It rolls FG%, 3P% and Ft% into one statistic.

It technically stands for True Shooting percentage, but more importantly, the explanation is correct. For those of you who evaluate NBA players, what metrics do you primarily use to do so? I tend to look at PER, TS%, and ORtg-DRtg relative to team (or Player Winning % relative to Team Winning %).

"Hollinger's PER has Iverson rated at a 21.5 career, which is very good, but not MVP level. 15 is average, and Michael Jordan has the highest ever at 29. He ranks about 15th on the active career list. The year he won his MVP he was behind at least Shaq, Carter, McGrady, Malone and Webber in the stat. My guess is that this is close to accurate - that he has never truly been one of the handfull of best players in basketball, but that he is still a pretty great player."


This is pretty much the impression I have of Iverson as well.

"PER is deeply flawed. It only takes into account available statistics. Defense is almost ignored. Iverson gets crushed there."

I dont know about being "crushed", but going back through the years, it seems that his teams generally do better defensively when he isnt on the court, usually to the tune of about 2 points per 100 possessions.

kevin, you're a bit touchy, and I don't know why. you make good arguments (sometimes) but then you leave out key points like that it's a good thing the Celtics dropped or something. why would anyone want to lose the lottery?

in addition, to dismiss a stat rating like PER when something like TS% incorporates even less data into evaluating a player is sort of hypocritical. a statisical method gives some indication of a player's value and has limitations...but you can't pick just one that favors your argument and tout it to the ignorance of all others. that's like saying PECOTA is the only measure of a player's projection, and that ZiPS and the rest are bunk. especially when the stat you keep leaning on like a crutch only takes into account about 1/3 of the variables that PER does. And you have to admit, the list of players at the top of PER tend to be the better/best players, so if it rates Iverson well, then I'd have to say it might have something there. Especially given that, when you get down to it, many of the other players at the top are also similarly sieve-like on defense. So even the defensive aspect is watered down.

you clearly know a lot about basketball, but with an edge that is unnecessary. why not explain some of the reasoning, rather than jamming it down our throats? it's not making an alternative sport to baseball seem any better when it's a topic lined with razor wire every time the Celtics are concerned.

"I can't write an opus to every argument."

that's the truest thing on this thread. nor can I, for that matter. and I agree that hypocritical was an error of diction. seriously, the good stuff you've got is good, and your passion for the Celtics...well, as a Hawks fan, all I can say is a) you beat us back in the day, and b) you have some banners in the rafters, which we don't. Other than that, it's a long road to hoe for both franchises back to .500, let alone the playoffs.

I wasn't being hypocritical. I was directly challenging JC's assertion that Iverson was a good shooter by using TS% as a counterargument.

(1) Again, I said great scorer, not good shooter.
(2) Your reply doesn't address the poster's charge: why cherrypick one stat and ignore (and then dismiss) another that doesn't support your position?
(3) AI is a great scorer. Arguing anything else is lunacy; it's overcommitment to a principle ("He's not a Celtic") or abuse of statistics (as exemplified by cherrypicking one stat and dismissing another).

I pretty much agree w/PJ Martinez re Iverson.

in an attempt to not write, or rewrite, an opus, i thought that 295 and 297 both described iverson fairly accurately. oh, and i still disagree with kevin's basic premise. sure, you never know what's going to happen, but he's trying to apply that specifically to the celtics. it's like betting on tiger woods or the field. kevin's argument is that the celtics will be fine because they have the field, but in reality, they don't. they've got vijay. that's still good, but it's not nearly as good as the field.

I've bookmarked this thread and will never let it die until A) somebody gets the Lewis Scott reference B) Acknowledges that it's endlessly hilarious as a reference to kevin.

If after never this still isn't acknowledged, I curse you all to a lifetime of Diet Coke Slurpees. There. It's actually come to this. I'm ashamed for me, and I'm ashamed for all of you. But though Heaven falls, you will acknowledge Lewis Scott! It's all any of us have, really.

By the way, in case anyone was wondering: Macallan 12 y/o. Not the greatest but it Pitches in a Pinch.

(1) Again, I said great scorer, not good shooter.

(3) AI is a great scorer. Arguing anything else is lunacy;

JC, I love Iverson, even if I'm not as sold on his greatness or superstardom as some people. But as a matter of pure logic, the only way that you can be a great scorer without also being a great shooter---is by being a shameless gunner. Which is in fact exactly what Iverson has been during many cruicial games of his career. A 30 point game is evidence of great scoring, but when it's based on 12 for 30 (or worse, which it often is) with 6 foul shots thrown in, I'm not sure whether it's evidence of anything more substantive than that.

Combining the heart of a lion with the accuracy of a BB gun isn't always the best possible strategy for winning a basketball game.

the only way that you can be a great scorer without also being a great shooter---is by being a shameless gunner.

That's not true. There are many ways to score in basketball and being a great perimeter shooter (which is usually what is meant by "great shooter") is only one of those ways.

As usual, kevin has no idea what he's talking about. All the evidence indicates that Iverson is a great scorer. Whether he does all the other facets of the game sufficiently to elevate him to "superstar" level, that's where the debate lies.

the only way that you can be a great scorer without also being a great shooter---is by being a shameless gunner.

That's not true. There are many ways to score in basketball and being a great perimeter shooter (which is usually what is meant by "great shooter") is only one of those ways.

But if your overall accuracy is hovering in the .423 range, which is Iverson's career percentage, the only way that you add to your team value is either by drawing lots of foul shots, shooting lots of 3-pointers, or having lots of assists. Iverson at his best does all three of these, which is why when he's on his game, he's a hell of a valuable player, one of the best in the game.

But the question with AI is his consistency. When he's off his game and keeps throwing them up anyway, which he also has done on all too many an occasion, his total points at the end of the game don't really add up to much more than a meaningless personal statistic, often gained at the expense of not involving his teammates in the flow of the game. Throw in his questionable defensive skills and he can become a downright impediment to his team's chances of winning.

I'm not saying that he's not a great talent, and I'm certainly not denigrating his heart or his determination. I'm only saying that unlike with true superstars, with Iverson you're often not sure what you're going to get, come the tipoff.

But if your overall accuracy is hovering in the .423 range, which is Iverson's career percentage, the only way that you add to your team value is either by drawing lots of foul shots, shooting lots of 3-pointers, or having lots of assists. Iverson at his best does all three of these, which is why when he's on his game, he's a hell of a valuable player, one of the best in the game.

But the question with AI is his consistency. When he's off his game and keeps throwing them up anyway, which he also has done on all too many an occasion, his total points at the end of the game don't really add up to much more than a meaningless personal statistic, often gained at the expense of not involving his teammates in the flow of the game. Throw in his questionable defensive skills and he can become a downright impediment to his team's chances of winning.



Well, I was specifically addressing the issue of Iverson's ability to score, which he's proven throughout his career. Like you note, you can do it many different ways - getting to the FT line (ex. Wade is a great scorer but not a great shooter) or 3 pters (Peja Prime was a great scorer this way.)

As for Iverson taking too many shots - that's a debate that's raged on for years now. It's difficult to extract outside of the context - that Iverson's often been the best scoring option on his teams and that the offense has often been designed around his creativity. Many of the issues have been brought up in this thread.

The more Kevin talks about basketball, the more he reveals that his knowledge in that area approaches that of his knowledge of physiology, physics, or the Yankees.

No, I didn't know that. If I were the other team, I'd just let him keep jacking them up. that would be the most effective defense.

Yet nobody in any league does that against Iverson, so either everyone's a moron, or kevin's a moron.

Defense is almost ignored. Iverson gets crushed there.

Ask Tony Parker (52% shooter in the regular season, 41.8% in the first round against Iverson) about how much Iverson's defense sucks. Iverson has his defensive issues, but there's no way someone who averages over two steals per in the NBA (lead the league three times) "gets crushed" on defense.

Build a case that Iverson is a great scorer.

Iverson's lead the league is scoring four times. That's pretty great.

Oden will be a Top 5-10 center, IMO, though he won't be a Duncan-type player.

I think Top 5-10 is the low end projection for Oden. Unless his age turns out to be untrue, what he did as a 1st year in college was extremely impressive, matched pretty much only by future perennial All-Stars. And he did it with an injury.

Players who put up the numbers that Oden did at Ohio State - and who exhibit the tools that Oden has - they rarely don't become superstars.

But in my view, Durant and Oden are substantially better prospects than the rest of this field; you obviously disagree. They don't dominate the way Duncan did his year,

I'm not so sure. Duncan obviously was a fantastic pro and his year didn't have the depth of this year. But Durant put up one of the great freshman years in recent basketball history. So while the level of the pack is higher than Duncan's year, I would say that Durant may be just as superior relative to the field.

There's so much uncertainty, there's no point in getting worked up over players you can't have.


That's all fine and good. And if you really were sincere with such humility, then we wouldn't be finding such comedy in your indefensible stances. And I wouldn't delight in pointing out such contradictions.

The problem is your arrogance - combined with the complete contradiction with your earlier views. Pull up the Robbie Cano thread and read your own commentary about Oden and Durant. The amazing thing is how quick you can develop myopia about your own views on these two players.

I haven't read the entire thread but I think is going to be a really interesting one with respect to how Iverson is viewed. The Nuggets finished the season strong, going 15-6 down the stretch. They played the Spurs pretty tough in the first round as well. I personally think Iverson is a great player that has been forced to do too much offensively of the lack of talent that has surrounded him. That said, if Iverson can't make the Nuggets a serious contender for a title next season despite the talent the Nuggets have, I think I will have to change my view of him. I know the Nuggets struggled a little but after the trade but they looked much better after being given some time to gel.

Russlan, part of the problem with judging Iverson now is that he's past his prime. He can still carry a team occasionally, but to judge Iverson's greatness based on his time post-Philly would be like judging Barkley post-Philly.

Wait...did someone just get called shitferbrains?

Rask, you are right that Iverson is past his prime but I think he's still got enough that what he does next season can be an accurate approximation of what he would have done in his prime with better teammates.

I've bookmarked this thread and will never let it die until A) somebody gets the Lewis Scott reference B) Acknowledges that it's endlessly hilarious as a reference to kevin.

It's must be when Celtics fans Ray Stantz and the Home Alone "Wet Bandit" kidnap Damon Wayans of the Utah Jazz during the NBA finals. That was a pretty silly movie.

Against the top competition in the world, AI has over 20000 career points and a 27ppg average. I'm sorry, but that's all the argument I need to support the claim "He's a great scorer." And Andy, what Raskolnikov said is the proper reply: Ray Allen is a great shooter; Dell Curry was a great shooter; Chuck Person was a great shooter; Allen Houston was a great shooter. NONE of them is a great scorer.

I have never maintained AI was w/o flaws. He has flaws; see PJ Martinez's comments.

And Kevin, don't lecture me in how to argue. Seriously, this "argument" with you has led me to a conclusion and a hypothesis: the hypothesis is that you're a computer program designed to spew out different variations of non-arguments to exemplify for us humans what bad arguments look like; the conclusion is that I must rethink all areas of our prior agreement, as if you're this bad in this context, there's no reason to assume you're better in others. IOW, perhaps Barry Bonds didn't use PEDs.

You forgot "John Starks was a great shooter and a great scorer."

I'm well aware you are uncomfortable around other males who display self-confidence and mastery of subject matter, Raskolnikov, and that they are foreign concepts to you. But that's just something you are going to have to get used to.

This is LOL inane. You've had your ass kicked all over this thread and you speak of your "mastery of subject matter?" That's not self-confidence, that's self-delusion. Much the same as when your "self-confidence" led you to challenge me in b-ball up until you pulled your left eyebrow or whatever the injury was.

Word around IRC was JC begged out first, claiming a nasty paper cut from an issue of The Economist.

You forgot "John Starks was a great shooter and a great scorer."

And apparently fluent in 6 languages, including Syriac.

Your avatar gives me the willies, PV.

"Like you note, you can do it many different ways - getting to the FT line (ex. Wade is a great scorer but not a great shooter)"

Wade shoots about 49% from the field for his career; I don't know if you mean that like he isnt a great 3 point shooter, but he isnt a bad shooter in the same vein Iverson is; he is a much more efficient offensive player.

Gee, searching thru this, trying to see what others thought of A-Rod's slide...

GUYS, MAYBE THERE'S A BASKETBALL THREAD SOMEWHERE YOU CAN USE

. Because claiming false bias sure ain't gettin' it done.

Actually, in your case it is. You're the "googleboy" of pubmeb. You've bent more evidence to fit your case than Colin Powell.

Let me draw your argument out to it's logical conclusion. You would be blown away by Iverson if he took every shot in every game he played and averaged 60 points. You would be impressed by that, by an NBA team averaging 60 points a game.

Computer program or deranged human? "Logical conclusion" of my argument? Please, Kevin-bot, write out the syllogism you think that leads to the logical conclusion you've drawn for us. No, wait, ignore that question too as you've ignored the questions I put to you above. Which ones? You know, the one's where you claimed I "BSed".

What was that shooting % of Iverson again, JC?

Kevin-bot strikes again. Do you think you score a point with that? What do you think I claimed? I know what he shot this year: better than Pierce.

Don't forget when looking at those shooting percentages, when he was healthy, Pierce was actively tanking games in pursuit of the 1st pick. He'd have shot much better if he hadn't been instructed to lose. Another nail in your coffin JC!

Against the top competition in the world, AI has over 20000 career points and a 27ppg average. I'm sorry, but that's all the argument I need to support the claim "He's a great scorer." And Andy, what Raskolnikov said is the proper reply: Ray Allen is a great shooter; Dell Curry was a great shooter; Chuck Person was a great shooter; Allen Houston was a great shooter. NONE of them is a great scorer.

Well, if you plan your offense so that Ray Allen takes five or six extra shots a game, he'd be a great scorer, too, since his PPG would then be right up there with Iverson's, and with fewer misses to boot. But would that make him a better player? That's the only important question here.

Did I ever say that Iverson wasn't a great scorer? No. Just as you never said that he was a great shooter.

All I'm saying is that to be a consistently effective great scorer (which is the bottom line for me, since individual PPG averages are contextual), a FG% of .423 is putting you on the margins at best, and on the nights that this percentage dips below .400, you run a huge risk of shooting your team right out of the game.

And the question about Iverson isn't whether he's a "great scorer"---anyone who looks at his PPG average can see that---but whether or not he's done his team much good on those nights when he was shooting in the .350 range but still firing away no matter what.

While that question is itself contextual---how good were the alternatives?---it still has to be raised, since a player's raw PPG average is only the tip of the iceberg in evaluating his value to his team.

And while Iverson's overall value has been great because of his other skills, his tendency to gun means that on nights when he's "off," the harm to his team is compounded by the sheer number of misses, and the fact that this style of play often takes the rest of his team out of the game. I know that this is hardly an original comment, but it's not rebutted by merely pointing to those 27.9 PPG.

It's very simple. You're impressed by ballhogs who selfishly who hurt their team by taking too many shots, pumping their own cumulative statistics at the expense of their teammates.

Brilliant: this is neither a syllogism, nor does it lead to the conclusion you thought! I'm impressed by the depth of the program.

Don't forget when looking at those shooting percentages, when he was healthy, Pierce was actively tanking games in pursuit of the 1st pick. He'd have shot much better if he hadn't been instructed to lose. Another nail in your coffin JC!

Good point, but don't forget the deception: he was instructed to lose so Boston could look like they wanted the first pick, thus feeding the assumption that Oden is better than Hibbert or Jianlian (who will play C in Kevin-bot's world, as Kevin subscribes to Chinese League b-ball and has seen things in his game others have not).

And the question about Iverson isn't whether he's a "great scorer

Actually, it is the question. It's the question b/c Kevin denies it. I would have no problem discussing AI's value with you, Andy, but I will not indulge Kevin's argumentative bait and switches by moving from one claim to another to another. I claimed he was a great scorer, which he is, as you acknowledge. Kevin switched that at least twice to the claim he was a great shooter, which I didn't claim. He's done this repeatedly. It's simply dishonest and I have no interest in carrying on a related conversation that in a sense enables his dishonesty. You see a version of his dishonesty in post 340, where a question about AI's "shooting percentage" (which this year was better than Pierce's and which we had discussed earlier as FG%) morphed into "shooting percentages" and TS%. It's a child's game I don't wish to play.

Please note also that he is also assiduously avoiding replying to my invitation to drive down to Richmond to play.

You two can meet me here in the neutral territory of Rockville for a three way ring game of nine ball if you want. We can use our official Barry Bonds dartboard as a tiebreaker.

Please note also that he is also assiduously avoiding replying to my invitation to drive down to Richmond to play.

LOL. I'm not ignoring it; it's nonsense.

The Facts:

You challenged me to a game. I set up a game at my kids's school gym upon your visit for business in Bethesda. You backed out b/c of "injury." Above you claimed something like the hardship of making a drive all the way up here to play bball. It was scheduled to coincide with your visit. Now, you invite me to come play, after you've already backed out once.

(1) You're not reliable;
(2) I have 5 small children;
(3) You come here fairly regularly;

If you really want to play, tell me when you'll be here next, and Andy, you, and I can head to the gym. Andy will ref. My Army buddy will keep score. My kids will cheer you up after the game.

You two can meet me here in the neutral territory of Rockville for a three way ring game of nine ball if you want. We can use our official Barry Bonds dartboard as a tiebreaker.

I'm up for that any time, Andy. I don't know how to play nine ball and would be interested to learn.

And the question about Iverson isn't whether he's a "great scorer

Actually, it is the question.

All I meant by my reply, JC, is that it's not "the question" for me, any more than a player's raw PPG total is "the answer" (no pun intended) to the question of a player's overall value to his team, which is the only interesting question to be asked about any basketball player as far as I'm concerned. I wasn't trying to get into anything else.

Please note also that he is also assiduously avoiding replying to my invitation to drive down to Richmond to play.

Cause, you know, that would tell you who was a better basketball analyst.

You know, JC, that you are engaging is the same idiotic ######## rhetorical tactics you criticize others for in the steroids threads, resorting to ad hominems and other idiocies when cornered by falsehoods and illogic.

I still find it more risible that you, kevin, are engaging in the same rhetorical tactics that you did in the PEDs threads, and yet JC is willing to call you on them here, but not where it benefited his argument.

You two can meet me here in the neutral territory of Rockville for a three way ring game of nine ball if you want. We can use our official Barry Bonds dartboard as a tiebreaker.

I'm up for that any time, Andy.I don't know how to play nine ball and would be interested to learn.

It's the easiest game on earth. You run the balls in numerical order beginning with the one ball, and you pay the person who sinks the nine. The other six balls aren't part of the game. It's so easy that even a girl can do it. Guys in their nineties like me know better than to try to play basketball with two studs like you and Kevin.

A week ago, this would have been filled with expletives. Stankus' wings have been effectively clipped.

Really?

YOu might want to go back and check. I hardly rant with profanity. I let my arguments stand on their own merits.

I think I did say 's---'.

Andy, you play snooker? I actually prefer that to billiards. It's a lot harder.

I used to play snooker in college down in Durham, where most every pool room had a snooker table up front. But although I completely agree with you that it's a great game (not better or worse than nine ball, just an emphasis on different skills), the closest snooker table I know of to Kensington is way over on Route 2 between Baltimore and Annapolis, and that's a good hour's drive from here.

You mean the bati and switch where you claimed that Iverson shot better thn Pierce this year, even though the facts say differently? You mean that one, JC? Or how about the bait and switch where you claimed that Iverson's 44% was a good shooting percentage, when in fact if was below average on his team? How about that one, JC?

Hey stupid, over here! In the same quotation above you employ the bait and switch. First, you employ the overall shooting percentageS to support your claim, and in the latter you employ the narrower shooting percentage to support some other idiotic point. You and I both know that the shooting percentage to which I referred above (and earlier in the thread) is the latter, and is the one where AI beat Pierce this year, as, again, I said earlier. Your lying knows no bounds.

Dr. Stankus:

I still have no idea why I'm under some obligation to point out everyone's stupid arguments. And ask DMN: I have pointed out stupid arguments made by Kevin in other contexts. I see, for instance, no relationship b/w Bonds's marriage and his use of PEDs.

WTF? You don't even know how to play 9-ball?

You got that on me, Kevin. I don't even know how to play nine ball. Can you believe it?

I still have no idea why I'm under some obligation to point out everyone's stupid arguments. And ask DMN: I have pointed out stupid arguments made by Kevin in other contexts. I see, for instance, no relationship b/w Bonds's marriage and his use of PEDs.

You have been extremely quick to cry foul when those big, bad meanies in your opinion crossed the line into bad arguments and personal attacks on bl and kevin, while ignoring the multiple times that they engaged in such tactics. You took the position that yours was the moral high ground.

Less the stupidity of his arguments (you've made some just as stupid..."psychology of a cheater" to cite one bit of ridiculous moralizing tripe), and more his tactics.

So, I find it amusing that you get the same treatment from kevin here.

You got that on me, Kevin. I don't even know how to play nine ball. Can you believe it?

Don't feel bad. kevin doesn't know how either. Points?

http://www.weblogcartoons.com/cartoons/internet.gif
Cartoon by Dave Walker. Find more cartoons you can freely re-use on your blog at We Blog Cartoons.

cartoon

I play on points, Andy. You get one point for the 3 and the 6 and 3 points for the 9.

Yeah, Kev, that's a variant of paying off on the five and the nine or the eight and the nine. I used to see that version of nine ball a lot more than I do now.

Actually the best pool game I know of is known as Payball, and I haven't seen it played for over 30 years. You rack the six numbered balls (the 2 through the 7) on a snooker table, and then pocket the balls in numerical order, just like in nine ball. But you pay (for example) five dollars on each of the five lower numbered balls, and ten dollars on the seven, with all payoffs doubled if a player clears the table in one turn. (Which is obviously much harder to do on a snooker table.)

That same tournament in Dayton I mentioned to you a few days ago, the one where Marvin Barnes made an appearance, had a side action game of Payball with seven players, and with the payoff set at $50 and $100 instead of the $5 and $10 I mentioned above. Literally every great player in the country took part in that game, including all the top players in the tournament, and one guy, Denny Searcy, wound up winning all the money. One time I ducked into the bathroom to change water, and in the two minutes I was gone he'd broke and run two straight racks, and taken down $8400. Let's just say I was very, very glad I was a spectator. The best player I ever knew in DC, Steve Gumphries, lasted about half an hour and never even got a clear shot at a ball. This guy Searcy, who was totally undercover most of his life, had to be seen to be believed. It was if a beer league softball player (and that's what he looked like) walked into Fenway Park and went 4-for-4 against Dice-K.

Stankus retreats into posting bizarre links to Christian websites that have nothing to do with the discussion. I suppose he's hoping for some divine intervention.

Christian?

That cartoon has everything to do with every argument that has ever been posted to this site.

ah, that original code had a link to some other site of his.

The second link...spot on.

You use billiard balls on a snooker table, Andy? That's a new one on me.

No, you use the six numbered balls used in snooker, which is why you begin with the two ball, as there's no one ball in snooker. You can use a red ball as a one ball as an alternative.

Denny Searcy

Ahh, he's nothing compared to Grady Seasons.

"It's like a nightmare, isn't it? And it just keeps getting worse." Greatest line ever spoken in a pool movie.

"Grady Seasons" was the movie name for the guy who played the role---Keith McCready, who until a little over a year ago used to play nearly every week in the same Wednesday night Rockville tournament I play in. Keith is one of the top 10 characters ever to grace the pool world with his alcoholic presence, along with a nose that could spot W.C. Fields the eight ball. And he and Searcy were just about a dead even matchup, based on everything I've heard.

You ever see Searcy again after that, Andy?

Sounds like the type of guy who has a pool table in his basement and plays 8 hours a day by himself, so much so he can probably make most shots blindfolded.

The truth is that if he'd ever owned a pool table, I'd be surprised. (He died in 2005.) I'd almost be surprised if he'd owned a house. I actually matched up with him twice at the old Palace Billiards on Market Street in San Francisco. He wiped the table with me the first time, but the second time I got him to give me the break on a ten foot table and managed to break even. Of course he was totally on the stall and trying to get me to raise the bet every ten minutes, so the fact that I came out even meant absolutely nothing. In real life I would have needed about the six and the break. He was truly a monster.

I never saw Searcy in person after Dayton, but his reputation among players was pretty much (in payball, anyway) up there with the better known players like Buddy Hall and Mike Siegel. Those guys can play better with their opposite hand than 99.9999% of the rest of us mortals can play with our normal hand.

I would rather have Hanley Ramirez without giving it a second thought.

Right now, it looks like the Sox are losing that trade but not by a dramatic amount. Beckett is a big part of why the Sox jumped out to that large lead, and their offense overall isn't a problem. Teams that are in contention sometimes need to trade prospects for quality players.

I don't think Ramirez will maintain a .344 BA either.

In the 2007 playoffs, Beckett figures to be a larger factor than Ramirez would be on the Sox. I think that makes it a very defensible trade even with the benefit of hindsight.

It's the easiest game on earth. You run the balls in numerical order beginning with the one ball, and you pay the person who sinks the nine.

It's been a while, but IIRC, you can combo the 9 for the win even with the other balls on the table. In case my terminology is off, I mean strike the lowest ball on the table first so that it causes the 9 ball to go in. I don't remember if something like hitting the 1 into the 3 and sinking only the 3 passes your turn or if you continue. I play mostly 8 ball and cutthroat.

I've never heard of the other balls mattering at all for payout purposes but I have zero experience with gambling for more than cost of the next game and the right to stay on the table at a bar.

Of course I deny it. By "great", I interpret that to mean that his scoring ability helps his team win. Since Iversons scoring ability doesn't help his team win, then he isn't great.

This is just stupid. The 76ers were a basketcase before he was drafted (18 wins). In Iverson's 10 years there, they went to the playoffs six times, often with nobody else on the team averaging 15 ppg. (Pierce, by comparison, has only been to the playoffs four times in nine seasons.) By design, the Sixers became a better team when they allowed Iverson to dominate the ball in their slow-down scheme. By design, he was taking the vast majority of shots (many with the clock running down). It's Iverson's incredible ability to create a shot whenever he wants and get to the line as often as he does that made Philly's success possible. He's also averaged over six dimes per in his career, so it's not like he's the selfish dog kevin makes him out to be. And for the good five year run they had, Iverson logged the most minutes on one of the best defensive teams in the league. The guy's a great player.

It's the easiest game on earth. You run the balls in numerical order beginning with the one ball, and you pay the person who sinks the nine.

It's been a while, but IIRC, you can combo the 9 for the win even with the other balls on the table. In case my terminology is off, I mean strike the lowest ball on the table first so that it causes the 9 ball to go in. I don't remember if something like hitting the 1 into the 3 and sinking only the 3 passes your turn or if you continue. I play mostly 8 ball and cutthroat.

As long as the cue ball first hits the lowest numbered ball on the table, everything that goes in counts, either from a combination or a kiss shot, AKA a "billiard" shot. But if you hit another ball first, nothing counts, you lose your shot, and your opponent has cue ball in hand to begin his next turn.

And of course if you're up against a player who consistently leaves you snookered behind a higher numbered ball, that last rule can be deadly, since cue ball in hand on an open table is almost always a guaranteed runout for a good player.

This is just stupid. The 76ers were a basketcase before he was drafted (18 wins). In Iverson's 10 years there, they went to the playoffs six times, often with nobody else on the team averaging 15 ppg. (Pierce, by comparison, has only been to the playoffs four times in nine seasons.) By design, the Sixers became a better team when they allowed Iverson to dominate the ball in their slow-down scheme. By design, he was taking the vast majority of shots (many with the clock running down). It's Iverson's incredible ability to create a shot whenever he wants and get to the line as often as he does that made Philly's success possible. He's also averaged over six dimes per in his career, so it's not like he's the selfish dog kevin makes him out to be. And for the good five year run they had, Iverson logged the most minutes on one of the best defensive teams in the league. The guy's a great player.

I've never argued that Iverson isn't a great player, but you have to place those playoff appearances (with mostly limited advancement) in the context of a very weak Eastern Conference. What he accomplished during that five year run was impressive enough without having to make it seem more than it actually was. During that five year run, the Sixers made it past the second round exactly once. And perhaps not so coincidently, that run began in the first year that the Bulls fell off the cliff without Jordan.

And perhaps not so coincidently, that run began in the first year that the Bulls fell off the cliff without Jordan.

Everyone's run began post Jordan. That's no argument against AI.

I know it's off-topic, but can someone post the link to the college article about a guy whose "statistically-based system" predicted that both the Yankees and Red Sox would win over 100 games this year? Many thanks in advance...

The thing about AI...Larry Brown and George Karl are pretty damn good coaches and I don't think Larry Brown would build an offense around AI and then let him heave shots at will if he didn't think it was making the Sixers better. NBA stats are hard to get a grasp on and while I like to look at them, I often defer to the wisdom of people whose basketball IQ I trust. Larry Brown and George Karl are two of the guys I trust. There's no way Larry Brown even touches that job if AI isn't on the team and that's a pretty strong endorsement. And no way Karl gives the ok to trade for AI if he doesn't think AI is going to make the Nuggets better. That they lost to the Spurs in 5 games is moot. You can be the second best team in the NBA this year and lose to the Spurs. And the Nuggets were 10 and 1 in their last eleven games as all their pieces started to gel. They are going to be awfully good next year. And more than that, they're going to be a fun team to watch. The Suns, Nuggets, Bulls and Warriors are making the NBA fun again. The Sonics with Durant will be interesting, too. The Spurs are a great, great team, but they are indescribably boring. No way I spend any time watching a Spurs-Piston final. (Wow, that has turned into a meandering post. Ah well.)

Right now, it looks like the Sox are losing that trade but not by a dramatic amount. Beckett is a big part of why the Sox jumped out to that large lead, and their offense overall isn't a problem. Teams that are in contention sometimes need to trade prospects for quality players.

I don't think Ramirez will maintain a .344 BA either.

In the 2007 playoffs, Beckett figures to be a larger factor than Ramirez would be on the Sox. I think that makes it a very defensible trade even with the benefit of hindsight.

Uh-huh. Beckett figures as likely to be on the DL during the 2007 playoffs as he does to be a big factor.

And even putting that aside, I don't think Beckett will maintain a 1.000 winning percentage or a 165 ERA+, either. Hanley Ramirez has a decent chance to be greatest player traded by the Red Sox since Babe Ruth (including Bagwell). They have already lost that trade, and will end up losing it by a monumental amount. Beckett has just had the best month he's ever going to have in a Sox uni, and it still wasn't as good as the Fish got from Hanley.

There. If that doesn't steer this thread back to baseball, nothing will!

Then why did Denver get worse and Philly get better after he was traded for Andre Miller?

I don't agree that Denver was worse when you consider the fact that they finsihed strong, 15-6. You have to give a team some team to adjust and build the proper chemistry on the court. Like I said, I think next season will be telling.

Iverson and Coleman, huh.

Re: Iverson

Most everything has been said. I'll try not to reiterate in what I add. AI is a player that I would love to have on my team. I'm not sure there are as many people as tough with such a strong will to win. Anybody that saw the last USA team saw what Iverson can do for you and what he can't do for you.

IMHO, Iverson is not a great shooter. JC's depiction of a "scorer" is the term I would use. AI does not have great range to the 3 line, his mid-range game is average, and he finishes better than average to the rim. What he can do (as pointed out) is create his own shot about as well as anyone in the NBA. He can also break down a defense, and is an average NBA passer.

The Nuggets should be interesting next year. AI and Melo were adapting. A full year in the same scheme, they should be utilizing each other better. A full season of Nene will make them tough.

Blake has gotten a bad rap in here, but I think the Nuggets look better with Blake and AI in the game. Iverson switching to 2 creates some defensive problems because of his size, but it also creates a decent offensive option. I think AI will drastically reduce his number of shots next year, but I still expect him to be able to break down defenses. That is going to create some space of 'Melo. With AI, Melo can be an MVP. Without AI, 'Melo may have to live with the AI and Kobe tag b/c he would be the only late shot clock option on the team.

And jacking bad shots isn't a crime if its at the end of possessions. You hold the ball or give the opportunity to someone that cannot create their own shot, their is a high likelihood you not only have a failed possession, but you lead to a high percentage possession going the other direction. If you can create a shot, you got the deterioted chance it goes in; you have a small chance at Off. Reb. Its still a better percentage play for Iverson to jack a shot off the dribble than it is for Korver to get stripped by the 2 guard playing him.

EDIT: Put another way, if you are facing Pistons/Spurs defense, there are 4 seconds left on the shot clock, whose hands do you want the ball in. AI is going to be pretty high on that list.

Re: Coleman

I'm somewhat pleased b/c I use to always say that Coleman was bashed too much. He was an All Star for a portion of his career and a useful player toward the end of his career.

Nevertheless, I think SJ went to far in the other direction. First, Coleman had a few too many run-ins with teammates, coaches, and the law to consider him a stable influence. He isn't JR Rider and he never had a Sprewell moment, but he's definately on the wrong side of the line.

Moreover, the issue with Coleman is what he could have been. Barkley talked about him as capable of being the best player in the NBA. When he was at Syracuse, I thought that might be true, too.

This is a guy who should be mentioned with Duncan and Malone. Now, he's mentioned alongside Jayson Williams. That is the issue.

Its not a pure injury bust either. I think of guys like Walton and Sampson in that category. Those that showed you how electric they could be, but got taken out a little too early. Coleman had some early years where he burst out, then plateued, then declined. If he would have improved at the normal rate, he could have been at least one of the two or three best players in the NBA.

How much better would Beckett have to be than Ramirez to cover up the difference between 6 pre-free agency years and 2 pre-free agency years?

How much better would Beckett have to be than Ramirez to cover up the difference between 6 pre-free agency years and 2 pre-free agency years?


1 World Championship better would do the trick.

A WS for Florida no later than the 2011 season? That seems within their normal rebuilding range, and of course that requires the Red Sox winning it all this year.

And perhaps not so coincidently, that run began in the first year that the Bulls fell off the cliff without Jordan.

Everyone's run began post Jordan. That's no argument against AI.

But by the same token those five straight playoff appearances and one finals spot are not as much of an argument for Iverson as it would have been with the Bulls in the mix. Face it, since Jordan left the East as a whole has been pathetic, and merely to reach the playoffs and get knocked off in the first round (twice) or second round (three times) isn't in itself all that great a feat in the context of that watered-down competition.

Again, I still think Iverson's a great player, and one of my personal favorites. I just don't think that he's quite on the level that many of his biggest fans seem to assume he is.

1 World Championship better would do the trick.

Unknowable, anyway. Let's say the Sox win the WS this year. Until we figure out how to peek into the alternative universe in which the Sox kept Hanley and see how many titles they won with him, we can't really know if they were 1 world title to the good with Beckett, or five to the bad without Hanley.