Is Kyrie a modern day Iverson?

[Moranis]

Obviously, Irving is a much better shooter than Iverson, which is only natural for this day and age, but I think there are a lot of similarities between them.  They are both incredible shot creators with the ball in their hand.  No one could stop them from getting to the rim and getting any shot they want.  Iverson thrived more off of contact and got to the line at a much greater rate, but both are fearless going to hole.  While both of them have great passing skills, neither one is a great assist generator.  They are both excellent rebounders for their position (3.5 or so a game).  Iverson did a better job at generating steals, though both are below average defenders. 

They have nearly identical TRB%, AST%, TOV%, etc.  Excluding AI's last couple of seasons, their PER's are nearly identical, as are their WS/48 and BPM. 

So is Boston looking at a Philly type run with Irving as its best player, or is Irving less like Iverson than I think (or maybe Irving is like Iverson, but Iverson never had a Hayward next to him so it doesn't matter). 

So am I off base here (and again I know Irving is a much better shooter than Iverson, but that isn't the point I'm making).

[moiso]

I thought IT last year was a modern day Iverson.  Irving and Iverson are fairly similar (just not astheticaly.  The biggest difference is Iverson’s game long aggressiveness vs Kyrie’s shooting.  I think I’d go with Kyrie and his shooting.  I think Kyrie is the better defender and Iverson was a better passer.  I think irving’s passing is pretty bad for point guard.

[PhoSita]

No.  Iverson was never anywhere near as efficient as Kyrie.

[Donoghus]

Eh, kinda.

I see it with the handle and finishing at the rim.  However, they vary a lot with other aspects of their game.

[Boris Badenov]

For all his flaws, Iverson was such an inspirational player. He was incredibly tough and competitive, and I think that was a kind of leadership that really carried his team to overachieve.

Not seeing that from Irving. I think that if we end up getting to the finals or winning it all, we will do so with another guy as our emotional leader.

[moiso]

When I watched Iverson one of my main thoughts was “ball hog”.  It would drive me nuts if Irving jacked up so many shots with such inefficiency.  If anything Irving could be more aggressive at times.  The guy could easily score 32ppg or something along those lines if he were more selfish.

[Jamilmac99]

I think they're actually different types of players. Kyrie is a better pure shooter and certainly much better range from three. I think Iverson in his prime was the quickest in the NBA and also one of the most ferocious competitors of all time. If you look at his minutes per game average for his career of 41.1 it's pretty ridiculous. Overall I would put Iverson far ahead of Irving defensively leading the league in steals for three straight years and opening his career with 9 straight years of 2 or more steals per game. Iverson also was far more effective throughout his career in getting other teammates involved and his assist numbers support that. Kyrie is a great, great player but a long way to go to match the overall career of Iverson in my mind.

[Roy H.]

Iverson was a better defender, and was much more aggressive defensively.   AI also routinely shot 10+ FTA per game, while Kyrie has never averaged half that.

At the same time, Iverson was a terrible shooter. He shot less than 30% on jump shots during his MVP season.

Ultimately, despite both being volume scorers with great handles, their games weren’t super similar.

[Ilikesports17]

Kyrie Irving could literally be Allen Iverson and it wouldn't mean we were in for a "philly type run". Teams are made up of more than one person.

[droopdog7]

I'm still hanging on the idea that AI is not considered modern day I guess. 

[ThePaintedArea]

So am I off base here (and again I know Irving is a much better shooter than Iverson, but that isn't the point I'm making).

Kyrie Irving could literally be Allen Iverson and it wouldn't mean we were in for a "philly type run". Teams are made up of more than one person.

The year that they went to the Finals, a couple of interesting things happened:

1) Iverson led the league in usage;

2) The Sixers were second in offensive rebound %.

They didn't have any kind of great offense, but Iverson's horrible shooting %s were somewhat compensated by how the team was put together and how Brown had them playing. AI didn't make a lot of shots, but he broke down the defense and created a lot of shots - a lot of which then got cleaned up by their bigs, who took advantage of the defense trying to keep Iverson away from the rim.

They also got to the line a lot - Iverson himself, and the bigs who were crashing the boards.

Like Kyrie, Iverson was a low-turnover player, a skill that seldom gets mentioned on fan-sites like this one - but which coaches are extremely sensitive to.

I'm still hanging on the idea that AI is not considered modern day I guess.

I'd agree.

What I was just describing is an antiquated way to play - instead of clearing out the lane, spreading the floor to open up drives, they had bigs fighting for position to get second shots and free throws.

Boston is a good case in point: even by today's watered-down standards, today's Celtics are a bottom-third offensive rebounding team.

[Ilikesports17]

I'm still hanging on the idea that AI is not considered modern day I guess.

Poster seems to be referring to AIs finals run which was 17 years ago.

Think it's fair to seperate that from modern day

[Moranis]

I'm still hanging on the idea that AI is not considered modern day I guess.

Poster seems to be referring to AIs finals run which was 17 years ago.

Think it's fair to seperate that from modern day

I was referring much more to the style of play.  Even in Iverson's time, traditional bigs that didn't spread the floor were the norm and teams by and large didn't shoot that many three's, so while the %'s were similar 35.7% in the 01 season to 36.1% today, the average team only shot 13.7 3's a game (the Celtics led the league at 19.9, thanks Toine), while today the average team shoots 28.8 (the Nets are the lowest at 24.9 with the Cavs at 32.3 leading the way).  So while it wasn't that long ago, it was a completely different stylistic game being played.

[green_bballers13]

Iverson was a better defender, and was much more aggressive defensively.   AI also routinely shot 10+ FTA per game, while Kyrie has never averaged half that.

At the same time, Iverson was a terrible shooter. He shot less than 30% on jump shots during his MVP season.

Ultimately, despite both being volume scorers with great handles, their games weren’t super similar.

I think that is enough to create a decent comparison. I don't think that we're going to get clones of Iverson (or Irving) as both are special players.

They're both very good iso scorers with the best handle of their generation. While Iverson's shooting #s aren't great, I always thought he was dangerous when jacking up a shot late. Same with Irving. They're both gamers who want the ball at the end. Unfortunately, Allen never had a championship caliber team around him. Hopefully they give Kyrie a couple more pieces to work with- namely an offensively talented big man.

From a defensive and attitude standpoint, they're different. Offensively, they're both deadly.

[droopdog7]

I'm still hanging on the idea that AI is not considered modern day I guess.

Poster seems to be referring to AIs finals run which was 17 years ago.

Think it's fair to seperate that from modern day

Hey, let's face it, I'm just old.  But in terms of evolution of the game, it has clearly evolved since AI's heyday.  But at least culturally, AI could be seen as the beginning of modern day basketball.