Funny Tweets by AI

[moiso]

Lebron's team had far more offensive talent.  AI's sixers team was stacked with great defenders and AI got to take all the shots.

Are you kidding me the only player with offensive talent on the Cavs that year was LEBRON!

Nah, they had a lot of guys who could hit the open shot- Z, DWest, Wally, Gibson, Mo Williams.  Not many of them can play D, however.

[Mike-Dub]

Lebron's team had far more offensive talent.  AI's sixers team was stacked with great defenders and AI got to take all the shots.

Are you kidding me the only player with offensive talent on the Cavs that year was LEBRON!

Nah, they had a lot of guys who could hit the open shot- Z, DWest, Wally, Gibson, Mo Williams.  Not many of them can play D, however.

Hmmm... They gave up 92.9 points per game and the Sixers gave up 90.4 ... A 2 and a 1/2 point differential not a huge difference... And the Sixers scored 94.7 while the Cavs scored 96.8 just a diffence of 1.9... 

Sorry for using numbers as reference and sounding like Hollinger (hate the guy).

The teams were not that far apart in defense and offense though.

[Fafnir]

Again, flawed rationale.

If were going to start making baseless excuses about the talent level of the opposing team when your shot at a ring comes, why doesn't AI's 2001 team get consideration for running into Kobe and shaq lakers under this principle?

and in no way is lebrons 07 team worse than a sixers team who's best player aside from a 5'11 PG was eric snow.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/PHI/2001.html

IT's more impressive to me that a undersized PG led that bunch of role players to the finals than one of the top SF's of all time (and lebron is, even now, on that list somewhere) doing the same.

Philly's team doesn't "look" sexy but they were an amazing defensive team. Every other starter was an above average defender. The stats that year bear it out. They were average on offensive, and great defensively and on the boards.

Iverson carried them offensively, but that's not what got them to the Finals.

[Mike-Dub]

Again, flawed rationale.

If were going to start making baseless excuses about the talent level of the opposing team when your shot at a ring comes, why doesn't AI's 2001 team get consideration for running into Kobe and shaq lakers under this principle?

and in no way is lebrons 07 team worse than a sixers team who's best player aside from a 5'11 PG was eric snow.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/PHI/2001.html

IT's more impressive to me that a undersized PG led that bunch of role players to the finals than one of the top SF's of all time (and lebron is, even now, on that list somewhere) doing the same.

Philly's team doesn't "look" sexy but they were an amazing defensive team. Every other starter was an above average defender. The stats that year bear it out. They were average on offensive, and great defensively and on the boards.

Iverson carried them offensively, but that's not what got them to the Finals.

And LeBron's team was just him... Period!

[Fafnir]

Lebron's team had far more offensive talent.  AI's sixers team was stacked with great defenders and AI got to take all the shots.

Are you kidding me the only player with offensive talent on the Cavs that year was LEBRON!

Nah, they had a lot of guys who could hit the open shot- Z, DWest, Wally, Gibson, Mo Williams.  Not many of them can play D, however.

Hmmm... They gave up 92.9 points per game and the Sixers gave up 90.4 ... A 2 and a 1/2 point differential not a huge difference... And the Sixers scored 94.7 while the Cavs scored 96.8 just a diffence of 1.9... 

Sorry for using numbers as reference and sounding like Hollinger (hate the guy).

The teams were not that far apart in defense and offense though.

2 points per game over the course of an 82 game season is a lot of points. Depending on the pace adjustments could end up being even more notable.

[Fafnir]

Again, flawed rationale.

If were going to start making baseless excuses about the talent level of the opposing team when your shot at a ring comes, why doesn't AI's 2001 team get consideration for running into Kobe and shaq lakers under this principle?

and in no way is lebrons 07 team worse than a sixers team who's best player aside from a 5'11 PG was eric snow.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/PHI/2001.html

IT's more impressive to me that a undersized PG led that bunch of role players to the finals than one of the top SF's of all time (and lebron is, even now, on that list somewhere) doing the same.

Philly's team doesn't "look" sexy but they were an amazing defensive team. Every other starter was an above average defender. The stats that year bear it out. They were average on offensive, and great defensively and on the boards.

Iverson carried them offensively, but that's not what got them to the Finals.

And LeBron's team was just him... Period!

It really wasn't. People forget that Big Z had an all-star year that year. Drew Gooden is a productive player when given minutes, heck Sasha Pavolvic had a very good year too. And that team was very good defensively at every position.

Same formula as with AI, great defense and an offense that relies on a single star. But LeBron is/was a better player than AI ever was.

[Mike-Dub]

Ilgauskus averaged 11.9 points per game that year and 7.7 rebounds that year... Those aren't all-star numbers.

http://www.nba.com/playerfile/zydrunas_ilgauskas/career_stats.html

[Mike-Dub]

I'll give the LeBron did have one player that helped him a lot in the playoffs and that was Daniel Gibson who had two 30 point games in the conference finals against Detroit that year.

[Fafnir]

Ilgauskus averaged 11.9 points per game that year and 7.7 rebounds that year... Those aren't all-star numbers.

http://www.nba.com/playerfile/zydrunas_ilgauskas/career_stats.html

Oops got his years mixed up. But I don't think there's anything wrong with 12/8 in 27 minutes. Not all-star level though.

[MrTripleDouble10]

Iverson has and always will be about one thing and one thing only: himself.  Was he 'entertaining?' If you enjoy watching one guy completely ignore a team concept and score 30 ppg on 30 shots per game, then yes he was entertaining.

Definitely pound for pound the most prolific scorer in NBA history, but as far as playing team ball, Iverson was not and never will be this.  What he was was a glorified streetball player that undoubtetly played balls to the wall every night, no doubt about that.

But to say that he cared more about his teams' success than his own is laughable.  All the Iverson supporters speak of his glory years in Philly.  Why was he so great then?  Because he never had any real offensive co-teammate to share the spotlight with.

What happens when he goes to Denver to play with another Melo, one of the best scorers in the game?  The overall team gets worse.  They were much better with Andre Miller and are clearly much better with Billups.

Then he goes to what had been one of the epitomes of TEAM basketball in the least 8 years or so, the Pistons, and what does he do?  Whines that he's not starting, getting his touches, getting his run, and refuses to even show up.  Team player?  Please.  A one-of-a-kind singular talent?  Absolutely.

[Fafnir]

I'll give the LeBron did have one player that helped him a lot in the playoffs and that was Daniel Gibson who had two 30 point games in the conference finals against Detroit that year.

Scoring != winning.

He had tons of help from his team's rebounding and defensive prowess.

[Mike-Dub]

I'll give the LeBron did have one player that helped him a lot in the playoffs and that was Daniel Gibson who had two 30 point games in the conference finals against Detroit that year.

Scoring != winning.

He had tons of help from his team's rebounding and defensive prowess.

As a mod here at CelticsBlog and being a die hard Celtics fan Fafnir you should know this...

Scoring ! DOES NOT = winning.
DEFENSE ! = WINNING!

[Fafnir]

I'll give the LeBron did have one player that helped him a lot in the playoffs and that was Daniel Gibson who had two 30 point games in the conference finals against Detroit that year.

Scoring != winning.

He had tons of help from his team's rebounding and defensive prowess.

As a mod here at CelticsBlog and being a die hard Celtics fan Fafnir you should know this...

Scoring ! DOES NOT = winning.
DEFENSE ! = WINNING!

Actually I'm a math geek too. So I use the pogramming operator for "not equal", which is !=. (link so you know I'm not making it up!)

[Mike-Dub]

I'll give the LeBron did have one player that helped him a lot in the playoffs and that was Daniel Gibson who had two 30 point games in the conference finals against Detroit that year.

Scoring != winning.

He had tons of help from his team's rebounding and defensive prowess.

As a mod here at CelticsBlog and being a die hard Celtics fan Fafnir you should know this...

Scoring ! DOES NOT = winning.
DEFENSE ! = WINNING!

Actually I'm a math geek too. So I use the pogramming operator for "not equal", which is !=. (link so you know I'm not making it up!)

I would have believed you with out the link my b... You're totally right then fafnir... sorry about that. Oh and I meant help on the offensive end.

[Fafnir]

No need to apologize, its my own fault. I've confused people about a half-dozen times with it. Math geeks love to abbreviate, even when contextually it doesn't make sense.

iff, s.t., etc.