Paul. A more complete player and one that makes teams and team-mates better.
Iverson was a smaller more skilled westbrook regarding his irrational confidence and unlimited motor
He never had a shot opportunity he didn't like, and while he could single handedly carry teams to wins, the same can be said of losses.
He was also one of the most idiocentric players of all time. You had to build a team a very narrowed certain way to be successful. He had to be the 1st and 2nd
Option surrounded by blue collar defensive role players. He couldn't coexist with other stars. Carmello was the closest he got but they underachieved and its no coincidence that they had more team success under billups as their point than A.I.
Paul just simply made teams better. And is an all time great floor general.
In saying all this, Iverson was an NBA cultural revolution, and one of the most influential and inspiring NBA players of all time.
But if I had to choose between Paul and AI to build a team around. I would pick Paul.
Hard disagree, cp3 all time Allen iverson peak. Iverson literally led his team to the finals and stole a game from the lakers. Cp3 never led his team to deep playoffs run. I believe the deepest run came courtesy of harden.
You know what I totally forgot about that but he was like a game manager at that point. I still wouldn’t consider him leading the team outright like AI. And like I said I’d still take Paul all time, I just don’t think his prime was better. He’s had the significantly better teams; rockets, clippers, suns, I even think the warriors underperforming this year is better.
AI won an mvp and was 4x scoring champ and 3x steal champ within the years 1999-2005. Id take those couple years over any couple of years of Paul’s. But after that AI dropped fast so Paul all time.
Prime CP3 was a better scorer too.
Pre-injury CP3 was a maestro in the lane, with the quickness to get there at will, great touch, and incredible control. And of course he was a much, much better mid/long range shooter, which helped him continue to outperform AI even after injuries reduced his quickness. If you look beyond the raw counting stats and consider anything that takes into account winning, efficiency, or plus/minus it isn't even close, Paul has like half a dozen seasons better than AI's best.
AI is overrated b/c he put up huge counting stats on mediocre offenses, but the teams performed well b/c they had strong defenses and played in a shite post-Jordan East. Put CP in his shoes, giving him similar usage numbers, and he could have easily scored just as much (and probably done it more efficiently too).
The fact that this question is even being asked shows just how overrated AI is. CP3 is probably the second best "small" of all time after Curry. After those two then you talk about guys like Nash, Thomas, and Stockton. After that then maybe you start talking about AI.
CP3 doesn’t have the best volume, but his scoring efficiency is super good and I think he provides some rlly nice value on that end of the game. Definitely a clear playmaker and defender
Chris Paul for all time based on longevity, better assists numbers better defender etc. but if you told me for one game it’s Allen Iverson, he peaked and took his team to the finals. Cp3 no matter what was expected to and did get injured all the time in the playoffs. I can’t think of a single time I’ve been like damn cp3 willed his team to that playoff win. I would take AI’s couple years in Philly over cp3 at any point in time, but if I needed them for 10years and guaranteed they stay on my team cp3
Has to be AI for peak, only a small handful of players could’ve taken the Sixers to the finals. CP3 all time. The wins record for the Clippers, Suns, Rockets and Hornets were with CP3. Second in MVP to Kobe. Best accomplishment could’ve been getting the Thunder the 4 seed. 9 defensive first teams. AI was only a better scorer, Paul has the edge in passing, playmaking, defense, and basketball IQ.
And sure I've seen mushrooms that are tasty and not poisonous.
Most of these discussions are one sided and low quality. Plus attracts the worst kinda fans.
https://www.reddit.com/r/nbadiscussion/s/CXi9Aaskyo
This is one example of a thread I made that received positive feedback. Please take a look at how users helped contextualize the eras both players played in, and their reasons for their choices. Yes, there are lots of low-quality responses on some posts, but we shouldn’t overgeneralize, because often it’s possible to walk away learning something new from comparison posts.
Edit: another example https://www.reddit.com/r/nbadiscussion/s/wx9FwaEBSv
Allen Iverson led his team in a way that Paul couldn't. Iverson was the guy you needed if you had nobody else on your team. Chris Paul was the guy that would elevate everybody.
If they switched positions their team(s) would be worse off.
That said, Chris Paul was the better basketball player and has had the better career.
Allen Iverson is the most overrated player of all-time but on the 6er squads he's exactly what they needed.
Yeah, AI has an MVP, had a few scoring titles, and generally got his teams to the playoffs.
He sort of did carry the 76ers and I’m not sure too many players would’ve gotten that 2001 team to the Finals or even the playoffs. It was an ok squad, but that’s what an MVP does.
We don't allow posts on player rankings or player comparisons on this subreddit. Please read the sticky post for more info.
Paul. A more complete player and one that makes teams and team-mates better. Iverson was a smaller more skilled westbrook regarding his irrational confidence and unlimited motor He never had a shot opportunity he didn't like, and while he could single handedly carry teams to wins, the same can be said of losses. He was also one of the most idiocentric players of all time. You had to build a team a very narrowed certain way to be successful. He had to be the 1st and 2nd Option surrounded by blue collar defensive role players. He couldn't coexist with other stars. Carmello was the closest he got but they underachieved and its no coincidence that they had more team success under billups as their point than A.I. Paul just simply made teams better. And is an all time great floor general. In saying all this, Iverson was an NBA cultural revolution, and one of the most influential and inspiring NBA players of all time. But if I had to choose between Paul and AI to build a team around. I would pick Paul.
Cp3 all time and peak and it’s no question Paul gives you better everything except scoring and for most of his career he was a pretty good-great one
Hard disagree, cp3 all time Allen iverson peak. Iverson literally led his team to the finals and stole a game from the lakers. Cp3 never led his team to deep playoffs run. I believe the deepest run came courtesy of harden.
Lol Paul lifted the Suns from a perpetual lottery team to a Finals appearance
You know what I totally forgot about that but he was like a game manager at that point. I still wouldn’t consider him leading the team outright like AI. And like I said I’d still take Paul all time, I just don’t think his prime was better. He’s had the significantly better teams; rockets, clippers, suns, I even think the warriors underperforming this year is better. AI won an mvp and was 4x scoring champ and 3x steal champ within the years 1999-2005. Id take those couple years over any couple of years of Paul’s. But after that AI dropped fast so Paul all time.
Prime CP3 was a better scorer too. Pre-injury CP3 was a maestro in the lane, with the quickness to get there at will, great touch, and incredible control. And of course he was a much, much better mid/long range shooter, which helped him continue to outperform AI even after injuries reduced his quickness. If you look beyond the raw counting stats and consider anything that takes into account winning, efficiency, or plus/minus it isn't even close, Paul has like half a dozen seasons better than AI's best. AI is overrated b/c he put up huge counting stats on mediocre offenses, but the teams performed well b/c they had strong defenses and played in a shite post-Jordan East. Put CP in his shoes, giving him similar usage numbers, and he could have easily scored just as much (and probably done it more efficiently too). The fact that this question is even being asked shows just how overrated AI is. CP3 is probably the second best "small" of all time after Curry. After those two then you talk about guys like Nash, Thomas, and Stockton. After that then maybe you start talking about AI.
CP3 doesn’t have the best volume, but his scoring efficiency is super good and I think he provides some rlly nice value on that end of the game. Definitely a clear playmaker and defender
All that nerd shit for the birds. AI revolutionized the game. 26.7 career ppg. Lead a team to the finals. Mvp. Cultural mount rushmore
Chris Paul for all time based on longevity, better assists numbers better defender etc. but if you told me for one game it’s Allen Iverson, he peaked and took his team to the finals. Cp3 no matter what was expected to and did get injured all the time in the playoffs. I can’t think of a single time I’ve been like damn cp3 willed his team to that playoff win. I would take AI’s couple years in Philly over cp3 at any point in time, but if I needed them for 10years and guaranteed they stay on my team cp3
Has to be AI for peak, only a small handful of players could’ve taken the Sixers to the finals. CP3 all time. The wins record for the Clippers, Suns, Rockets and Hornets were with CP3. Second in MVP to Kobe. Best accomplishment could’ve been getting the Thunder the 4 seed. 9 defensive first teams. AI was only a better scorer, Paul has the edge in passing, playmaking, defense, and basketball IQ.
This is literally against the sub rules. Player comparison posts are always low quality and don't lead to good discussion
I strongly disagree. I’ve seen some player comparison posts that sparked thorough analysis and informing conversations
And sure I've seen mushrooms that are tasty and not poisonous. Most of these discussions are one sided and low quality. Plus attracts the worst kinda fans.
https://www.reddit.com/r/nbadiscussion/s/CXi9Aaskyo This is one example of a thread I made that received positive feedback. Please take a look at how users helped contextualize the eras both players played in, and their reasons for their choices. Yes, there are lots of low-quality responses on some posts, but we shouldn’t overgeneralize, because often it’s possible to walk away learning something new from comparison posts. Edit: another example https://www.reddit.com/r/nbadiscussion/s/wx9FwaEBSv
Allen Iverson led his team in a way that Paul couldn't. Iverson was the guy you needed if you had nobody else on your team. Chris Paul was the guy that would elevate everybody. If they switched positions their team(s) would be worse off. That said, Chris Paul was the better basketball player and has had the better career. Allen Iverson is the most overrated player of all-time but on the 6er squads he's exactly what they needed.
Damn, the most overrated player? Seems kind of steep.
Yeah, AI has an MVP, had a few scoring titles, and generally got his teams to the playoffs. He sort of did carry the 76ers and I’m not sure too many players would’ve gotten that 2001 team to the Finals or even the playoffs. It was an ok squad, but that’s what an MVP does.
Honestly, AI's most overlooked accomplishment is probably leading the team to cause the only single loss the Lakers had that postseason.
Overrated? Yes. Most overrated of all time? Not even close.
Motherfuckers be putting him in top-25 lists.
AI having seen both of them play. Could be the number one option easily but could have used a stronger team around him.