Who Would You Rather Have This Year?

[jhay610]

No one here has argued the facts, AI had better numbers and was on a much better team.

Denver = Swept by Lakers.

Atl = Lost in seven to Celts

Celts = beat Lakers in 6

if A=B and B=C.....

[ATLien_]

Looking back I would have rather had AI. Joe was MIA for way too many games last year.

That's just talking about last year, though.

JJ was still recovering from the injury the first half of last year. I don't believe he was dogging it; he was out of shape from not being able to do his normal offseason workout. Of course he got no help from Woody playing him 43 minutes a game coming off of a leg injury.

Edited July 31, 2008 by ATLien_

[EazyRoc]

Hah, Georgians were also convinced that Max Cleland wasn't a patriot.

No one here has argued the facts, AI had better numbers and was on a much better team.

"numbers" only tell half of the story. A.I. wasn't the sole and primary focuses of defenses night in/night out.

[mudderfudder77]

Statistically it's Iverson and it isn't very close.

Iverson:

FG% .458

P/40 25.3

R/40 2.8

A/40 6.8

TS% .567

Ast 21.4

TO 8.9

Usg 25.4

PER: 20.92

Johnson

FG% .432

P/40 21.3

R/40 4.4

A/40 5.7

TS% .535

Ast 20.1

TO 9.4

Usg 24.8

PER: 17.34

[mudderfudder77]

Denver = Swept by Lakers.

Atl = Lost in seven to Celts

Celts = beat Lakers in 6

if A=B and B=C.....

If only NBA math worked like that. Utah lost to the Lakers and so did the Spurs - so Atlanta is better than both of them? And the Lakers?

[crimedog]

mudderfudder, you are using stats, facts, and common sense.

Obviously you are wrong.

Why would the more proven guy on the better team with better numbers EVER be considered a better player?

[EazyRoc]

"better numbers" aren't everything. There's something stats don't show. Stats are just stats, but they don't necessarily prove that a certain player is better than another. Also, being on the better team means nothing either. In fact, being on a better team more than often means better stats. It doesn't mean that player is a better player. A.I. is not "the man" in Denver and he's got more help around him than Joe. So, as far as I'm concerned, his stats don't mean much to me at all. It's cool though, you can keep avoiding that fact and only use those which help your argument. The overwhelming majority already knows who the better player is..

Edited July 31, 2008 by EazyRoc

[EazyRoc]

If only NBA math worked like that. Utah lost to the Lakers and so did the Spurs - so Atlanta is better than both of them? And the Lakers?

We are tied in the season series with Utah and Denver. However, we played both games with Denver before Mike Bibby. How are they better than us ?

Edited July 31, 2008 by EazyRoc

[crimedog]

We are tied in the season series with Utah and Denver. However, we played both games with Denver before Mike Bibby. So, How are they a better team then us ?

They won more games?

By your logic aren't we also better than the Spurs?

[EazyRoc]

Not against us.

No, because the Spurs beat us every time we played.

[crimedog]

"better numbers" aren't everything. There's something stats don't show. Stats are just stats, but they don't necessarily prove that a certain player is better than another. Also, being on the better team means nothing either. In fact, being on a better team more than often means better stats. It doesn't mean that player is a better player. A.I. is not "the man" in Denver and he's got more help around him than Joe. So, as far as I'm concerned, his stats don't mean much to me at all. It's cool though, you can keep avoiding that fact and only use those which help your argument. The overwhelming majority already knows who the better player is..

What facts am I avoiding?

Your argument is that since Joe has worse stats on a worse team, he is a better player? Btw, if our team was better than theirs, we would have won more games since that is the point of playing the game.

The "stats don't matter" argument works for a dude like Unseld or Bill Russell because they won a lot. Joe, to my knowledge, has never been the best player on a .500 team so its hard to say that his impact transcends stats. He also isn't some Moncrief/Pippen like defender who has as big an impact on D as on offense.

[EazyRoc]

More avoidance.

The fact that Joe Johnson was the primary and sole focus of defenses night in and night out. Something that Allen Iverson isn't. The fact that Joe Johnson consistently faced double teams and A.I. didn't. Yeah, those facts. The ones that I have repeated over and over and you completely avoided.

You say Denver is much better, but if that were the case then they would have swept us like the Spurs did. I'm sure you are going to avoid that fact too, because it isn't "convenient" for you.

Edited July 31, 2008 by EazyRoc

[jhay610]

If only NBA math worked like that. Utah lost to the Lakers and so did the Spurs - so Atlanta is better than both of them? And the Lakers?

I believe Atlanta could have found a way to not be completely dominated in every game. Also, give JJ a legitimate top 10 scorer in the league and watch him destroy single coverage.

You saw how much he improved just by having a decent shooter on the floor (Bib). Do you think AI could still take over a playoff game the way JJ did against Boston in Game 4? If so, why didnt he in the LAL series?

Edited July 31, 2008 by jhay610

[crimedog]

I believe Atlanta could have found a way to not be completely dominated in every game. Also, give JJ a legitimate top 10 scorer in the league and watch him destroy single coverage.

You saw how much he improved just by having a decent shooter on the floor (Bib). Do you think AI could still take over a playoff game the way JJ did against Boston in Game 4? If so, why didnt he in the LAL series?

Thats the thing, if we were talking about Kevin Martin or something I'd agree with you but AI has been doing his thing for 12 years now. AI isn't any worse now than he was in the early 00's when he single handedly dragged his team to the finals. He has proven that he is able to be, not just the prime offensive player, but literally the only offensive player on his team every night.

Easyroc, let me understand something. You think that a team is better than another team based on head-to-head matchups and that record means nothing?

[HawkItus]

I voted Joe because of what he does for this team with:

1) a clearly lesser complimentary scorer

2) a clearly worse offensive system

3) a clearly worse coach

[EazyRoc]

First off, AI is not as good as he used to be. 12 years have passed and you still think A.I is the A.I. of old ? If that's the case, I agree that A.I. in his prime was better than Joe. BUT He's not in his prime anymore, and he's not the same player he was when he took Philly to the playoffs. If he was, then this wouldn't even be worth discussing. He hasn't proven anything since he came to Denver other than the fact that he still can't play PG and that he can't defend SG consistently. He's been second fiddle to Carmelo Anthony and they can't manage to get out of the first round. How in the hell is he the only offensive player with one of the league's best scorers playing next to him every night ?

To answer your question, no it's not that simple. However, Atlanta beat Denver and lost to Denver without Mike Bibby. If we had Mike Bibby, I think we easily could have swept them this year. Unless there are drastic differences between team's record (15 games+), then I look at head-to-head matchups.

[mudderfudder77]

First off, AI is not as good as he used to be. 12 years have passed and you still think A.I is the A.I. of old ? If that's the case, I agree that A.I. in his prime was better than Joe. BUT He's not in his prime anymore, and he's not the same player he was when he took Philly to the playoffs. If he was, then this wouldn't even be worth discussing. He hasn't proven anything since he came to Denver other than the fact that he still can't play PG and that he can't defend SG consistently. He's been second fiddle to Carmelo Anthony and they can't manage to get out of the first round. How in the hell is he the only offensive player with one of the league's best scorers playing next to him every night ?

To answer your question, no it's not that simple. However, Atlanta beat Denver and lost to Denver without Mike Bibby. If we had Mike Bibby, I think we easily could have swept them this year. Unless there are drastic differences between team's record (15 games+), then I look at head-to-head matchups.

And completely ignore the fact that they play in the Western Conference?

It was a 13 game difference - Denver was a 50 win team - in the Western Conference. The records aren't even comparable.

Oh, and Atlanta went, what, 15-18 with Bibby?

[EazyRoc]

50 wins is 50 wins. Just like 37 is 37.

15-18 doesn't change the fact that our play improved with Bibby's addition or are you trying to say we didn't improve as a team with Bibby ?

Edited July 31, 2008 by EazyRoc