MVP - Page 2 - Dallas-Mavs.com Forums

scooterj5 · 05-12-2001, 06:44 PM

You can't say that murph because the percentages dwindle as you take more (and therefore harder) shots.

Murphy3 · 05-13-2001, 08:26 AM

ok, so a good shooter goes from 48% to 44%.
that is still alot better than iverson's percentage, and that's using your logic.

alot of players can create.
basically, you're giving iverson credit for taking alot of shots that will hurt his shooting percentage. in effect, you're giving iverson credit for taking alot of low percentage shots that hurt the team alot of times. this is of course, using your logic.
so either way, using my logic or yours. i'm right

TheKid · 05-14-2001, 08:47 AM

MFFL, Wilkens shot a MUCH better percentage than Iverson did.

Murph, you're "theory" that a lot of players would average 30 points if they took that many shots is just that a theory. I'm talking FACT, and we can speculate all we want. Put it this way, Vince Carter shoots the ball ALL TIME, he can get his shot off anytime he wants. They both shoot the ball ALOT, they were in the top in the NBA of shots per game. What's the explanation of why they can't average 30 points???

Iverson didn't even lead the NBA in field goal attempts this year. Stackhouse did by more than 100 attempts. He averaged one more shot a game than Stackhouse, he averaged three more shots a game than McGrady, Carter and Antoine Walker. Stackhouse is the ONLY one who almost averaged 30 out of that group. These are players who all average more than 20 shots a game and if you're saying simply shooting a lot should allow a player to score 30 points a game, what is the reason Walker, McGrady and Jamison didn't average 30 a game?

Could it be simply because it's not a feet that's easy to do? To add to that I will just say this, Iverson's team had the best record in the entire conference. So you're constant comment about he's hurting his team is skewed. He takes bad shots, yes! There are instances if he makes a better decision his team could have been put in a better position, agreed! However, he has helped his team WAY more than he has hurt his team, so saying he's hurting his team is pretty ludicrous. Now if he was scoring a lot of points and his team was going no where (Stackhouse) then you're point would be very valid! However Stackhouse isn't up for any MVP award either is he?

Murphy3 · 05-14-2001, 09:50 AM

ok, you're getting away from the point.
my point wasn't about scoring 30, it's about shooting as much as allen iverson and scoring as much as he does.
i'm sure several players in the league would average more points per game if they shot the ball as much as he did.

And yes, a player CAN hurt his team at times by taking poor shots. you cannot tell me that that isn't true. Yes, i know that philadelphia is a better team with iverson than without him. I NEVER said that they would be better without him. All i said is that Yes, he does sometimes hurt the team with poor shot selection. And that's the truth, there's no way around it. a guy shoots 40%, then he's either not a good shooter or he has poor shot selection, or both.

TheKid · 05-14-2001, 10:15 AM

And I said, yes at times he does hurt the team, but I said he does more good for the team than he does hurt them, easily. Therefore in his case you HAVE to accept the poor shots because he'll do a hell of a lot more good for the team than bad...

TheKid · 05-14-2001, 10:40 AM

Also, you can throw out the poor shooter because of the low percentage. Let's put it this way, NO ONE is going to leave Iverson open for an uncontested shot. I don't care if he shot 2%, his low percentage is a combination of his shooting so frequently and difficulty level.

Murphy3 · 05-14-2001, 10:51 AM

wow, really?, he does more good for the team than bad?
hmm, i never could have figured that one out.
i said either poor shot selection or a bad shooter, if you say he's a good shooter and he only shoots 40%, then it must be poor shot selection. thank you for making my point for me.

TheKid · 05-14-2001, 12:32 PM

I agreed with you earlier when you said that. He definately has poor shot selection, I never disagreed with that, I was disputing that I still think he's the MVP, despite the poor shot selection.

Mavinator · 05-14-2001, 12:59 PM

The thing with Iverson is that while he takes low percentage shots a lot of the time, he also consistently draws double- and triple-teams that free up his teammates for good looks at the basket. Iverson creates the Sixer offense just by being there. That team is nothing without him.

But Shaq is still a much better player.

Fidel · 05-14-2001, 01:15 PM

Well said Mavinator.
That just about sums it all up.

Murphy3 · 05-14-2001, 01:48 PM

i completely agree that the sixers suck without iverson.
but i don't think they are title contenders with him either.

i still think that there are a number of players that could play for the sixers and take the same amount of shots that iverson does and score more points than he does, simply because they are smarter players, and more accurate shooters

Murphy3 · 05-14-2001, 01:48 PM

i completely agree that the sixers suck without iverson.
but i don't think they are title contenders with him either.

i still think that there are a number of players that could play for the sixers and take the same amount of shots that iverson does and score more points than he does, simply because they are smarter players, and more accurate shooters

Fidel · 05-14-2001, 02:27 PM

Could be the case Murph.
But Iverson just creates confusion in the other teams defense using his speed and quickness. Of course he is a horrible shooter and other would score more if takin 30 shots a night, and Iverson is clearly not the best player in the NBA (not even top 5). But that one quality he has, like Mavinator said, to draw double and tripple teams, is absolutely vital to the sixers success.
But hell, I was ripping Iverson in this thread, and I stick with that.
He shouldn´t be the MVP, because he´s just not a good enough player to receive this honor.

Murphy3 · 05-14-2001, 02:42 PM

Trust me, i think he's a great player, but i don't think he's an mvp.
not at all.
yes, he is his teams mvp, but he plays in the east, so he shouldn't even be considered for the leagues mvp

TheKid · 05-14-2001, 05:07 PM

Well I've said my peace on the topic. He's not the best player in the NBA, but I think he is more valuable to his team than any other player is to theirs.

MFFL · 05-14-2001, 05:08 PM

good point murph - the east sucks so bad this year, all the players should be graded on a curve. Shaq is the MVP (although Duncan is close behind).

Mavinator · 05-14-2001, 05:48 PM

While I would easily say that Iverson is one of the best in the league at disrupting defensive sets, I would still actually agree with Murphy3 and call Shaq as the MVP... Lakers - Shaq = Pistons. kobe = Stackhouse.

Fidel · 05-14-2001, 07:44 PM

Hey Murph were you responding to me?
That was exactly what I said: Iverson is not the MVP.
Also Mavinator: that was my point not Murphs. (hell that was the purpose of this thread to dispute Iverson being MVP)
I want some credit [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-wink.gif[/img]

MFFL · 05-14-2001, 07:55 PM

You the man Fidel! [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-happy.gif[/img]

Fidel · 05-14-2001, 08:22 PM

Ahhh thats good [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-wink.gif[/img]

Fidel · 05-14-2001, 08:24 PM

Plus Mvinator: I completely disagree with Kobe. With or without Shaq he is a far better player than Brickhouse. He´s at least among Top 10 in the league if not Top 5.

MFFL · 05-14-2001, 08:40 PM

You the man again Fidel! [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-happy.gif[/img]

Fidel · 05-14-2001, 09:00 PM

AAAHHHHH thats so good [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-wink.gif[/img]

djb · 05-15-2001, 01:37 AM

The speculation ends. The NBA will announce on Tuesday that Allen Iverson is the league MVP.

Murphy3 · 05-15-2001, 08:37 AM

oh, i know dj
i know he'll be announced as the mvp, but i don't think he's deserving of it. that's my point.
you don't shoot that poor and win an mvp. well, in this case you do. but it's a poor decision though

MFFL · 05-15-2001, 08:43 AM

I guess different people have different interpetations of what the MVP stands for. My personal belief is that it is the most dominant player in the league. I guess the voters feel that because the Lakers/Spurs would still be playoff teams without Duncan/Shaq those players are not as valuable as Iverson. I don't think Philly makes the playoffs even in the East without Iverson.

MFFL · 05-15-2001, 11:56 AM

Here's the official word.

http://espn.go.com/nba/playoffs2001/...4/1198271.html

TheKid · 05-15-2001, 12:03 PM

You're right MFFL, people have different beliefs on what the MVP is. However I guess I'm not as retarded as I thought I was for thinking that Iverson is the Most valuable player. Atleast I know someone agrees with me.

Murphy3 · 05-15-2001, 12:09 PM

hello dumbass, if you would read what people are saying.
i've said numerous times that i think iverson will win it.
that doesn't mean that i believe he's deserving

TheKid · 05-15-2001, 12:12 PM

Like I said, a two year old calling people names. Did you see me refer anything to you???? NO!!!!! So I don't know who the hell you're calling dumbass????