[jericho]

Iverson is a very special player and I really doubt Paul will ever sniff an MVP award. But I'd still take Paul today and for tomorrow. Neither guy is the type of player who typically shoulders a team and carries them to a title, but it's much easier to imagine building a championship team around a top-drawer playmaker like Paul than a small combo guard (however uniquely talented) with an enormous usage rate.

[jericho]

It's all contextual, though. Put either one with Shaq in his prime and they'd be a threat to rack up several championships.

[andalusian]

Originally Posted by Sliccat

Ehh, its much easier to build a team around paul... and the sixers never did a really good job of building around Iverson anyways, so I'll be Paul has more success.

Assuming he stays resilient through his career. Smaller guys that penetrate as much as these guys do take a lot of pounding. AI, for all of his faults, is a rare specimen for being able to go through the pounding and keep on playing. I wish CP3 the same kind of resiliency, if he does, he has a chance of surpassing Iverson - but it will be hard to do.

[IceMan23and3]

Originally Posted by David_Ortiz

Paul at age 28 > Iverson at age 28

End this thread! He has been to the future and has made the comparison. We cannot continue this argument because Paul is too good in the future. Ortiz has seen it!

At the same age:
AI: 26ppg 4.9rpg 4.7apg 2.3spg
CP: 21ppg 4.0rpg 10.2apg 2.9spg *

Clearly Paul wins. Or maybe it's just that AI's assists are low because his second option was Matt Geiger while Paul has guys like West, Peja, Chandler and Peterson.
Anyways, we can't declare one better than the other because they're both stars but play completely differently.

*only 30 games

[Ballscientist]

You are basically comparing the kock (first k=c) to the hen.

[Mateo]

Chris Paul is better right now than Iverson was at any point in his career. Iverson was great at one thing, Paul is great in several. In particular passing; Paul simply blows Iverson out of the water. Consider this: Iverson's career usage rating (an estimate of the number of possessions a player uses) is 31. Which for those not familiar with this stat, is very high. Despite having the ball almost all the time, Iverson only averages 6 assists per 40 minutes his career. Paul's career usage rating is 23. His career assists/40 is 9. If you adjust for ball usage, and Paul is almost doubling Iverson in assists.

This would be like comparing Reggie Evans and Mark Blount in rebounding. That's how much better of a passer Paul is than Iverson.

[NewAgeBaller]

Originally Posted by Ballscientist

You are basically comparing the kock (first k=c) to the hen.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.

[Ballscientist]

another name comparison:

Kenyon Lee Martin = K-Mart

Ben Martin Wallace = Wal-Mart

[adam]

Originally Posted by Ballscientist

You are basically comparing the kock (first k=c) to the hen.

Originally Posted by Ballscientist

another name comparison:

Kenyon Lee Martin = K-Mart

Ben Martin Wallace = Wal-Mart

[NewAgeBaller]

Originally Posted by Ballscientist

another name comparison:

Kenyon Lee Martin = K-Mart

Ben Martin Wallace = Wal-Mart

ok wtf.. what this have to do with anything?