A.I. officially retires

#51
#51
BadJerry20 said:
Cause you said Raja shut him down, he didn't. I think you said Raja cause of their match ups in Phoenix. Basically I'm not sure you know what you are talking about in regards to this series. The stifled Lakers offense had 94 at the end of regulation btw.
Click to expand...

94 is average, and the Lakers were a top scoring team, not to mention scoring totals are about pace and efficiency, not just efficiency.
 
#52
#52
BadJerry20 said:
And who's to say if he wasn't there they wouldn't have just overpaid someone else and been worse off? Maybe they get Kidd but maybe they reach for someone far worse.
Click to expand...

Then they're in the same boat. They don't win a championship. They let a dominant defensive and rebounding team waste because their top paid player wasn't very good at the one thing they needed him to do.

You could have had 2 good guards for the price of Iverson.
 
#54
#54
Iverson in 2001 ECF

13 for 35
5 for 26
10 for 32
5 for 27
14 for 33
17 for 33

This is the guy who gets credited with carrying his team to the finals. I'm sure they couldn't have found somebody else to miss 19 shots per game!
 
#55
#55
BadJerry20 said:
I know everyone wants to get on A.I. for fg%. Finals FG% Snow .407, McKie .354, Hill .394, Lynch .333, MacCullough .417. A.I. shot .441 btw.
Click to expand...


Nope but I found 5 of your solid guys that shot worse than him in the finals, 6 when you throw in the guy that shut down Kobe. Maybe they.should have played Dik and Kukoc together more.
 
#56
#56
BadJerry20 said:
Nope but I found 5 of your solid guys that shot worse than him in the finals, 6 when you throw in the guy that shut down Kobe. Maybe they.should have played Dik and Kukoc together more.
Click to expand...

I see this as a white flag. This has nothing to do with the debate of whether or not Iverson carried a mediocre team to the finals.

The 2001 ECF was about as bad as Iverson ever played and his team still won. That's how good his team was. It's nonsense to think his team was mediocre when they won the ECF despite his horrible play. Guess what? He was pretty bad in the eastern semifinals against Toronto too with only 2 games shooting over 33%...

11 for 34
21 for 39
7 for 22
10 for 30
21 for 32
6 for 24
8 for 27
 
#57
#57
Again, Games played...Snow 50, Dik 26, Kukoc 48, Geiger 35, Jones 65, MacCullough 63. So explain to me with all those games missed how Geiger, Jones, MacCullough, Snow, Kukoc, and Dik carried them with their defense and rebounding.

No white flag, I just feel like this is you worst argument to date. You flipped when I made a hyperbolic statement, and yet have been flat out wrong a couple times. It seems like a waste of my time at this point.
 
#58
#58
I don't understand your argument at all. They were 4th best rebounding team and the 5th best defensive team during the regular season. Whoever was playing was playing well to accomplish those rankings. They were great in those areas, and then added Dik for the playoff run.

The argument is whether or not Iverson carried them to the finals, is it not? Can you honestly look at those shooting %s in the playoffs and credit him with carrying the team?
 
#59
#59
Cause you just name guys, guys that didn't play many minutes or many games. You're throwing numbers up without knowing who really did what.

Stop acting like A.I. was the only guy to shoot poorly in the playoffs.

ECF Hill 37.5 McKie 38.5 Snow 39.1 Jones 41.3 your boys Geiger and Mac combined for a whopping 16 rebs granted they didn't play much, but it sure as hell wasn't them getting them to the finals.

Oh game 7 Hill, McKie, Snow and Jones combined 14-34

A.I. 44 pts on 51.5% shooting, 66.7 fts 7 asts, 6 rebs 2 stls. He definitely didn't carry them in the game that got them to the finals.
 
#60
#60
Btw they were 6-5 without him and 50-21 with him. Guess they needed his scoring as that defense and rebounding couldn't get it done without him.
 
#62
#62
BadJerry20 said:
Cause you just name guys, guys that didn't play many minutes or many games. You're throwing numbers up without knowing who really did what.

Stop acting like A.I. was the only guy to shoot poorly in the playoffs.

ECF Hill 37.5 McKie 38.5 Snow 39.1 Jones 41.3 your boys Geiger and Mac combined for a whopping 16 rebs granted they didn't play much, but it sure as hell wasn't them getting them to the finals.

Oh game 7 Hill, McKie, Snow and Jones combined 14-34

A.I. 44 pts on 51.5% shooting, 66.7 fts 7 asts, 6 rebs 2 stls. He definitely didn't carry them in the game that got them to the finals.
Click to expand...

Am I acting like that, or am I saying defense and rebounding saved the day? I'm pretty sure I haven't said anything positive about them offensively.

The point has always been that collectively as a team they were good at D and at rebounding. Whether Geiger and McCullough got 10 minutes or 40 minutes, it doesn't matter to me. They had a constant rotation of solid bigs and the result is that they were a great defensive and rebounding team.
 
Last edited:
#63
#63
BadJerry20 said:
Btw they were 6-5 without him and 50-21 with him. Guess they needed his scoring as that defense and rebounding couldn't get it done without him.
Click to expand...

Take just about any team and remove the guy who has the ball the most and there are going to be growing pains. I'm not saying they were better without Iverson I am saying they could have spent their money a lot better and 6-5 is a playoff team.
 
#64
#64
n_huffhines said:
Am I acting like that, or am I saying defense and rebounding saved the day? I'm pretty sure I haven't said anything positive about them offensively.

The point has always been that collectively as a team they were good at D and at rebounding. Whether Geiger and McCullough got 10 minutes or 40 minutes, it doesn't matter to me. They had a constant rotation of solid bigs and the result is that they were a great defensive and rebounding team.
Click to expand...

So defense and rebounding saved game 7 of the ECF? Not A.I.s ridiculous game? Lol

CONSTANT (not sure you wanna use that word here) solid rotation of bigs? Their 3 bigs off the bench...played 63, 35, and 30 games. How on any planet does that equate to a solid CONSTANT rotation of bigs?
 
#65
#65
n_huffhines said:
Take just about any team and remove the guy who has the ball the most and there are going to be growing pains. I'm not saying they were better without Iverson I am saying they could have spent their money a lot better and 6-5 is a playoff team.
Click to expand...

But d and rebounding saved the day, so they should still have been able to do that without A.I.
 
#66
#66
Without A.I. the Sixers gave up 87.7 ppg with him they gave up 90.8, the weird thing is they gave up 44.6% shooting without A.I. but only 42.6% with him. Conversely their offense without A.I. 88.8ppg to 95.62 which is to be expected. However their % without A.I. was 43.3%, with A.I. the rest of the lineup goes to 46.3%

So with A.I. def % goes up 2%pts, and offensively the rest of the team jumps 3%pts. So not only does he improve the offense by getting those guys easier shots hence the better %. But he also improves the defense % wise. Hmmm
 
#67
#67
BadJerry20 said:
So defense and rebounding saved game 7 of the ECF? Not A.I.s ridiculous game? Lol

CONSTANT (not sure you wanna use that word here) solid rotation of bigs? Their 3 bigs off the bench...played 63, 35, and 30 games. How on any planet does that equate to a solid CONSTANT rotation of bigs?
Click to expand...

I'm talking about the playoffs. Aren't we talking about how they got to the finals?
 
#68
#68
BadJerry20 said:
So defense and rebounding saved game 7 of the ECF? Not A.I.s ridiculous game? Lol

CONSTANT (not sure you wanna use that word here) solid rotation of bigs? Their 3 bigs off the bench...played 63, 35, and 30 games. How on any planet does that equate to a solid CONSTANT rotation of bigs?
Click to expand...

Iverson had a very good game but so did McKie, Mutumbo, and Hill. They outrebounded Milwaukee by 9 and were +10 in turnovers. The credit goes all around for that one.

How did it get to game 7?
 
#69
#69
BadJerry20 said:
Without A.I. the Sixers gave up 87.7 ppg with him they gave up 90.8, the weird thing is they gave up 44.6% shooting without A.I. but only 42.6% with him. Conversely their offense without A.I. 88.8ppg to 95.62 which is to be expected. However their % without A.I. was 43.3%, with A.I. the rest of the lineup goes to 46.3%

So with A.I. def % goes up 2%pts, and offensively the rest of the team jumps 3%pts. So not only does he improve the offense by getting those guys easier shots hence the better %. But he also improves the defense % wise. Hmmm
Click to expand...

n_huffhines said:
Take just about any team and remove the guy who has the ball the most and there are going to be growing pains. I'm not saying they were better without Iverson I am saying they could have spent their money a lot better and 6-5 is a playoff team.
Click to expand...

I honestly don't know why I even argue with you. I already said of course they were better with Iverson. The argument has always been that they made it to the finals because they were dominant defensively and rebounding. Saying Iverson made them better offensively or defensively does not defeat my argument.
 
#70
#70
n_huffhines said:
I'm talking about the playoffs. Aren't we talking about how they got to the finals?
Click to expand...

Are you fawking kidding?

Their solid rotation of bigs not named Hill and Dik
First round 4 games 29 total minutes 3 dnp

2nd rd 7 games 34 total minutes 3 dnp

ECF 7 games 61 total minutes 7 dnp

Thats is a rock solid rotation of bigs all right, please learn what you are talking about or just stop. So lets hear your next change of direction, better yet let's not, obviously you are talking out your azz here.
 
#72
#72
n_huffhines said:
I honestly don't know why I even argue with you. I already said of course they were better with Iverson. The argument has always been that they made it to the finals because they were dominant defensively and rebounding. Saying Iverson made them better offensively or defensively does not defeat my argument.
Click to expand...

Lol SMH
 
#73
#73
BadJerry20 said:
Are you fawking kidding?

Their solid rotation of bigs not named Hill and Dik
First round 4 games 29 total minutes 3 dnp

2nd rd 7 games 34 total minutes 3 dnp

ECF 7 games 61 total minutes 7 dnp

Thats is a rock solid rotation of bigs all right, please learn what you are talking about or just stop. So lets hear your next change of direction, better yet let's not, obviously you are talking out your azz here.
Click to expand...

Why not include them? The point is they always had good bigs in the game. Why are you excluding Hill and Dik? Argue the point I am making. I never argued that Gieger played 30 mpg. I argued that they always had good bigs in the game.

Why even respond with garbage like "LOL, SMH". This isn't constructive anymore. You build straw man arguments or you are just dismissive.

itsover.jpg
 
#74
#74
n_huffhines said:
Why not include them? The point is they always had good bigs in the game. Why are you excluding Hill and Dik? Argue the point I am making. I never argued that Gieger played 30 mpg. I argued that they always had good bigs in the game.

Why even respond with garbage like "LOL, SMH". This isn't constructive anymore. You build straw man arguments or you are just dismissive.

itsover.jpg
Click to expand...

I respond with lol because your arguments change constantly.

They won game one because Raja shut down Kobe. So I point out their minutes. You come back oh well someone did. They stifled the Lakers offense, sure if 6 pts less than usual is stifling. Guess what its not.

I point out guys fg% in the finals and that 6 of your others shot less than A.I. Oh that don't count.

You call A.I. bad on D yet their defensive % is better with him. Oh there is an adjustment period. On d? Really? Especially when they are missing a guy that you said is bad at d.

They had a quality rotation of bigs, I point out their regular games. Oh I meant the playoffs. So I point out the minutes and dnps of those guys. Now it's well I meant they always have good bigs in the game. 2 starters playing 40+ minutes per game IS NOT A SOLID ROTATION. You see names on a roster and assume, kinda like bringing up Kukoc, let me guess you meant the regular season in that case. Kukoc played with Theo, they got traded for Dik. You're welcome.

I am dismissive because you have done nothing but change directions on multiple untrue statements. You pick and choose what you want to discuss and it's fairly obvious that you have no idea what you are talking about. Hell I've admitted they had a great d, d is a lot about position and desire. You can be lacking in talent and still play d.

Btw I didn't want to have this stupid argument again, but you have some obsession with being right. Even when you are wrong. Hell your whole argument doesn't even fit the initial discussion. You should have brought up teams that were less talented, since that was the thing that triggered this whole Huff knows all argument.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top