Allen Iverson Age 20 vs. Stephen Curry Age 20
by Atma Brother ONE on Jul 3, 2009 9:00 AM PDT
in Science
51 comments
It's time to go dig deep into the basketball reference books like a hoops historian and compare Golden State Warrior rookie Stephen Curry to the all-time great balla extraordinaire Allen Iverson- at age 20 in college that is.
Hoyas jersys circa 1995 are still some of the illest hoops threads even stitched. [via photos.syracuse.com]
Why this comparison? It's quite simple actually. Masala is The Answer! J-U-M-P.
Okay, okay the real reason for this comparison is it's the offseason and your friend is simply Piled Higher and Deeper.
Allen Iverson Age 20
Sophomore Year @ Georgetown University
LEGENDARY. [via thesituationist.files.wordpress.com]
Stephen Curry Age 20
Junior Year @ Davidson College (?)
I really lucked into a Stephen Curry Davidson vs. G-Town pic for this piece. [via statsheet.com]
INSIDE THE NUMBERS
|
Allen Iverson @ 20
|
Stephen Curry @ 20
|
|
| Minutes |
32.8 mpg
|
33.7 mpg
|
| Points |
25.0 ppg
|
28.6 ppg
|
| - FG % |
48.0%
|
45.4%
|
| - 3pt % |
36.6%
|
38.7%
|
| - FT % |
67.8%
|
87.6%
|
| Assists |
4.7 apg
|
5.6 apg
|
| Turnovers |
3.8 to
|
3.7 to
|
| Rebounds |
3.8 rpg
|
4.4 rpg
|
| Steals |
3.4 stl
|
2.5 stl
|
See Allen Iverson College Statistics on Basketball Reference and don't sleep on the nonstop Hoya-ness.
A Few Important Notes...
Competition Factor: It must- let me stress that again, MUST be noted that on Georgetown AI played against far superior competiton than Curry did at Davidson. Don't believe me?
Quick! Name what conference Davidson plays in. Shoot, Google probably doesn't even know. Advantage- The Answer
Size Difference: Believe it or not, but "small" Curry is listed as being 3 inches taller than AI. He should naturally fill out and increase that weight slim disparity too.
- Allen Iverson (now): 6-0, 180 lbs
- Stephen Curry (now): 6-3, 185 lbs
The Bright Side of the Sun is that they've actually made the playoffs more than once in 15 years.
0 recs |
51 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
Only time will tell
how good Curry will be. Even if he doesn’t pan out to be that great of a player, he’s still a good pick in this draft for us IMO.
by Captain Jack on Jul 3, 2009 9:22 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I should've voted Option 3
I don’t get how people chose Curry over Iverson. Curry’s Wildcats were not a good team at all, they didn’t even get to the Big Dance last year. Iverson was in a better conference while facing greater competition and statistically other than FT% he wasn’t far behind Curry. Also, when Curry faced BCS teams, his FG% almost dropped 10% in addition to his other stats dropping. Not only that, if I remember correctly AI was a pretty damn good defensive player back then. Shouldn’t even be a question imo.
Welcome to the Warriors, Stephen Curry, the 2009 NBA Rookie of the Year.
Conductor of the "We're Back!" Bandwagon!
by ejdacanay on Jul 3, 2009 9:36 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I don’t disagree with the premise of your thinking, I just want to point out that Davidson DID make the Elite 8 the year before last, so if we’re going to mention his team not making it this year, I think we should at least credit what they accomplished the year before.
by Missing Barry on Jul 3, 2009 9:50 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Curry’s Wildcats were not a good team at all, they didn’t even get to the Big Dance last year.
Curry’s team was a rather good team in a lesser conference. They made the NCAAs in his first two years. Saying the “were not a good team at all” isn’t close to true for those years and isn’t really true last year either. They were 26-7 on the season, and easily won their conference’s regular season. They were upset in their conference tournament and like many ‘mid majors’ the automatic qualifier is the only team that gets to go in most year. They weren’t a great team by any stretch, but “weren not a good team at all” sounds like they struggled and lost a bunch. They didn’t.
by jae on Jul 3, 2009 11:10 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm sure the Curry-voters are just rampant homers.
And as one of the leading anti-Iverson voices on the board, let me just add that I’ve never doubted his talent.
It’s always, with Iverson, been about what he did with his talent. If he played within the flow of the game, didn’t dominate the ball, and didn’t force the issue so often, I strongly suspect he’s have earned the accolodates people want to give him.
I wonder if at Georgetown was the last time he had a coach who would stand up to him. He certainly never did in the pros.
by Ronaldinho on Jul 3, 2009 9:47 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I don’t know how college stats (especially at Davidson) translate to the NBA, but Curry shot an encouraging 61.5% TS% last season.
Thing C
by markdash on Jul 3, 2009 9:48 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Yup
I would guess Iverson’s was pretty good too, given how good he’s always been at getting himself to the FT stripe, but I’m too lazy to track it down or calculate it. For the record, his career TS% in the NBA is a decent but unspectacular 52% (compare to Kobe 54% or Jordan 57%).
Not to be a stat nerd, Atma Bro, but is there anyway to include TS% — or at least FTA per game — in the comparison? Without that key piece of info, it’s hard to make a fair comparison.
Also, a more general question: is there a reference like B-Ref that gives historical stats for NCAA teams? It always seems like such a pain in the butt to track down a player’s college numbers.
Thing 1
by Sleepy Freud on Jul 3, 2009 11:41 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Not to be a stat nerd, Atma Bro, but is there anyway to include TS% — or at least FTA per game — in the comparison? Without that key piece of info, it’s hard to make a fair comparison.
Let me try to dig that up when I get a chance, but honestly this whole piece was a bit of sattire and pure amusement. AI was a great college force (on both sides of the ball- a true ball hawk) and is a sure-fire NBA Hall of Famer. Curry had a very nice and eye popping college career, but he wasn’t as dominant as AI on both sides of the ball. He has yet to play an NBA game, but don’t tell our friends in Phoenix that.
Also, a more general question: is there a reference like B-Ref that gives historical stats for NCAA teams? It always seems like such a pain in the butt to track down a player’s college numbers.
I couldn’t find one unfortunately and I looked for awhile. Definitely let me know if you ever come across something like a College Basketball Reference.com.
by Atma Brother ONE on Jul 3, 2009 11:59 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Found it
Silly me, I just realized the basketball ref link you provided for Iverson included his college numbers. (Is that a new feature? They don’t have that info for everyone, do they?)
FTA/36 min
Curry 7.9
Iverson 9.4
So actually, if you want to make the case that Iverson’s age 20 season was more impressive, it helps to have that number. Otherwise, looking at the numbers only and ignoring strength of conference, I’d give the slight edge to Curry.
Thing 1
by Sleepy Freud on Jul 3, 2009 12:33 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
AI was a great college force (on both sides of the ball- a true ball hawk) and is a sure-fire NBA Hall of Famer.
That’s what I thought but some on here keep saying he was worse than the collection of Philly scrubs he carried all those years? stats don’t kill, statisticians do ?
Now wheres the rubbers? Whose got the rubbers?
I noticed there's so many of them
and there's really not that many of us.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Jul 3, 2009 8:59 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Fact is that Curry was double and triple teamed most of the year. He had zero supporting cast, while AI had a good supporting cast around him. Time will tell how this pans out but it appears that Curry is a better passer and could have a more complete package.
by Crab Ddribble Cocktail on Jul 3, 2009 9:58 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
No contest
To answer the exact question who is was better at 20 yrs, it is Iverson, no doubt. More athetic, better all around scorer, way better defender. Iverson picked 1st in a loaded draft, Curry 7th in a weak one.
Now, I do think in ten years no one will question that they would rather have Curry on their team than Iverson at 30 yrs old. Curry blends into a team better, better attitude and better vision. Curry will win much much more when all is over.
But Iverson was a freak coming out of G Town and Curry just isn’t viewed the same way.
by markdavisbodyslam on Jul 3, 2009 11:21 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
The Iverson draft was loaded! Can you believe that Fuller lasted until the 11th pick? Man, what a deep draft.
by jae on Jul 3, 2009 11:30 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
On the other hand, Kobe was there at #13 and Nash at #15…
Thing 1
by Sleepy Freud on Jul 3, 2009 11:45 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I was talking about draft depth, not the ball hog hyped scrubs that teams were resigned to take after we lucked into the TF-dynamo
by jae on Jul 3, 2009 12:16 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
You can’t give Iverson the nod for his draft being loaded based on the perception that this draft class was weak. That is a very poor argument. If we look back a few years down the line and realize that there were not many players selected that became impact players, then you can make an appropriate conclusion. Until then, the only thing that makes it weak is people saying it is weak.
Last year, people were saying that Jason Thompson was a terrible pick at #12. Doesn’t mean they will turn out to be right. I wouldn’t include that in a comparison because it relies way too much on “common sense,” which is just flat out wrong sometimes.
by belilaugh on Jul 3, 2009 11:49 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Very true
People were ripping that 2006 draft class at the time and it turned out okay. That could be the same case for the 2k9 class.
I doubt the 2009 draft class is going to be as good as the 1996 one though. See Slammin’ from 1996 to 1984
That was truly legendary:
Pre-Fuller
1- Allen Iverson
2- Marcus Camby
3- Shareef Abdur-Rahim
4- Stephon Marbury
5- Ray Allen
6- Antoine Walker
8- Kerry Kittles
10- Erick Dampier
Post-Fuller
13- Kobe Bryant
14- Peja Stojakovic
15- Steve Nash
16- Tony Delk
17- Jermaine O’Neal
20- Zyndrunas Ilgauskas
24- Derek Fisher
To beat that or even come close to that would be pretty remarkable.
by Atma Brother ONE on Jul 3, 2009 11:54 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
1996 is up there with 2003 and 1984 as far as the best draft classes go.
The Ultimate Opportunist
by Rated-R Superstar on Jul 3, 2009 12:53 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don’t really see how 1996 and 2003 can be mentioned in the same breath as 1984. I mean, if your criteria is “total number of decent NBA players,” maybe, but not if your criteria is something like overall greatness. Assuming “great player” to mean a guy who can be the unquestioned best player on a perennial championship contender … 2003 has one or two of those guys (Wade’s borderline, imo), and 1996 has one at most (Kobe’s still borderline, imo). 1984 has three or four, including the best player ever, the second-best PG ever, arguably the best center ever (hard to compare eras, but Hakeem at his peak is still the best I’ve seen), and one of the 4-5 best power forwards ever.
Looked at another way, if you could construct a starting 5 from any draft, would any other year even come close to this?
PG Stockton
SG Jordan
SF My Grandmother (OK … say Jerome Kersey)
PF Barkley
C Olajuwon
Thing 1
by Sleepy Freud on Jul 3, 2009 8:28 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
That sounds fun...
1996
PG: Nash
SG: Kobe
SF: Peja
PF: Jermaine O’Neal
C: Camby
Bench: AI, Ray Allen, ’Reef, Big Z
2003:
PG: LeBron ; )
SG: D Wade
SF: Carmelo
PF: Bosh
C: Kaman
Yeah, I’ll definitely take ’84.
Thing 2
by olympicmike on Jul 3, 2009 9:18 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
2003 draft class
A look back at some of the notable players that were drafted that year
1- Lebron James
3- Carmelo Anthony
4- Chris Bosh
5- Dwyane Wade
6- Chris Kaman
7- Kirk Hinrich
8- T.J. Ford
11-Mickael Pietrus, lol
18- David West
21- Boris Diaw
23- Travis Outlaw
27- Kendrick Perkins
28- Leandro Barbosa
29- Josh Howard
2nd Round
31- Jason Kapono
32- Luke Walton
38- Steve Blake
47- Mo Williams
It is the shoes!!!
by LighTz707OuT on Jul 3, 2009 1:20 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
2003 draft class
Yeah, I think Wade, Carmelo, Lebron, Bosh,and West could take Stockton,Jordon,Sleepy’s grandma,barkley, and olajuwon? The level of play and player conditioning is higher today than it was 25 years ago.
Now wheres the rubbers? Whose got the rubbers?
I noticed there's so many of them
and there's really not that many of us.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Jul 3, 2009 8:53 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
“The level of play and player conditioning is higher today than it was 25 years ago.”
Honestly, I don’t know how much it’s changed since the early-to-mid ’90’s, when those guys were tearing it up. I’m not sure I buy that there’s a significant difference.
by Missing Barry on Jul 6, 2009 8:25 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don’t think it will get there either, based on the number of international players selected in the late rounds that seem more like money-saving moves then attempting to find talent. So there will probably be less second round surprises. But all of this is just speculation, even if you want to call it informed speculation. The 1996 class is a great one, but we don’t judge it based off the college/high school stats of the players selected. They judge it based off the NBA careers of the players selected. It would only be fair to do the same thing for the 2009 class before jumping to any conclusions.
There is a difference between extremely unlikely and impossible. I know you understand that, but some people on GSoM definitely do not.
by belilaugh on Jul 3, 2009 6:30 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
20 yea old iverson reminds me of a poor man jennings hahaha but who knows what jennings will do on the bucks
by Fi7ipin0ch3f on Jul 3, 2009 12:06 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
20 yea old iverson reminds me of a poor man jennings
Was that a joke?
Thing A
by sam23 on Jul 3, 2009 1:31 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I hope you mean Jennings remins you of a poor man's Iverson.
Otherwise that;s the stupidest thing I’ve heard in my life.
by ZaMzAm FiRe on Jul 3, 2009 2:22 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
If Combine Curry's scoring with Jenning's quickness & ball handling.......
…….something close to Iverson
by Only In Fairfax on Jul 3, 2009 4:17 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Sorry GSoM Moderators!
masala haha
wuts wrong with just calling him Curry? but yeah thanks for the warning
by 3Kings650 on Jul 3, 2009 4:23 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
ATB1 is Indian
that’s why he’s trying to make masala catch on.
by saintdee on Jul 3, 2009 8:52 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
i've never even heard of masala
besides, i’d wait until we see Curry’s game. Then we can pick a nickname that fits him.
by IQofaWarrior on Jul 3, 2009 9:12 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
i’d wait until we see Curry’s game. Then we can pick a nickname that fits him.
yeah, he might be out now buying a moped so we’d be wasting all this time.
Now wheres the rubbers? Whose got the rubbers?
I noticed there's so many of them
and there's really not that many of us.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Jul 3, 2009 9:16 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I still like Golden Curry
You know, as long as he’s on OUR team.
There's a party in my mind.
And I wish that I was there.
by qin on Jul 3, 2009 10:30 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Blurry is better
than freakin Masala. Masala lol: is a term used in South Asian cuisines (including Indian, Bangladeshi and Pakistani cuisines) to describe a mixture of spices. A masala can either be a combination of dried (and usually dry-roasted) spices, or a paste (such as vindaloo masala) made from a mixture of spices and other ingredients—often garlic, ginger and onions. It is known for its smell, and is used extensively in Indian cooking to add spice and flavor.
That is not a cool nickname. “Hey dude, because you’re a pro ball player and your name is Curry, and I’m Indian, I’m gonna name you after another Indian dish which has absolutely no relevance to you whatsoever. You’re named after a smelly pasty Indian dish.”
Wonder what Option Zero's new screen name is....
by danielholl on Jul 3, 2009 10:30 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I hope and pray
That Stephen Curry is the hope for us Warriors fans, and meet all our expectation, Jamal Crawford is a proven scorer, good three pointer and a great ball handler but we still need to trade him. He never work on Warriors chemistry stand point according to Don Nelson. Monta and Crawford is like oil and water.
by mykelala01 on Jul 4, 2009 9:06 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Crawford was a three point shooter. He was not a good three point shooter, else he’d have made more than the average rate on three point shots.
by jae on Jul 4, 2009 9:50 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Masala won't catch on.
Stop forcing the issue.
"Monta is the MAN." -Bob Fitzgerald
by WarriorForLife on Jul 4, 2009 4:39 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Iverson vs. Curry
Two totally different players. Curry is a way better shooter outside at this stage in his career. Iverson took everything to the basket, his outside game was not yet evident at 20.
by anhdazman on Jul 4, 2009 7:16 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Curry is a way better shooter outside at this stage in his career. Iverson took everything to the basket, his outside game was not yet evident at 20.
In reality it don’t matter how they compare as college players, the only thing I’m interested in is how they will compare after Curr-bury has played 10 seasons and then only if he’s still a Warrior. If he’s got as gooda stats as Iverson after 10 years then we might have a couple of playoff appearances by then?
Now wheres the rubbers? Whose got the rubbers?
I noticed there's so many of them
and there's really not that many of us.
by Skeptic con Urquell on Jul 4, 2009 9:43 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Just silly
Not taking anything away from Curry, but Iverson is one of the best pure athletes of his generation, speed kills and Iverson was always the fastest guy on the court.
by Johnnysixnut on Jul 5, 2009 6:23 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
ehhhh
i guess u can compare the numbers..curry is not that quick…but out of this draft i think brandon jennings is the closest to iverson….im lookin forawrd to him competing with Sessions for the starting job, i like both pgs
by GSWeri on Jul 5, 2009 9:05 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I've always thought....
…that Monta is a carbon copy of Iverson in the early days. Zipping around, little guy elevating over everybody, hanging, fading, hittin’ jumpers. Everything except the crossover.
by hallonius on Jul 6, 2009 11:01 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I don't buy that comparison one bit
Age 21
- Allen Iverson: 23.5 ppg, 7.5 apg, 4.1 rpg, 2.1 steals
- Monta Ellis: 16.5 ppg, 4.1 apg, 3.2 rpg, 1.7 steals
Age 22
- Allen Iverson: 22.0 ppg, 6.2 apg, 3.7 rpg, 2.2 steals
- Monta Ellis: 20.2 ppg, 3.9 apg, 5.0 rpg, 1.5 steals
Age 23
- Allen Iverson: 26.8 ppg, 4.6 apg, 4.9 rpg, 2.3 steals
- Monta Ellis: 19.0 ppg, 3.7 apg, 4.3 rpg, 1.6 steals
They’re very different players. AI was a superior passer and defender at Monta’s age, plus a whole lot better in general. If a young Iverson was playing alongside an in-his-prime Boom Dizzle, I’m sure he could cherry pick his way into a gaudy field goal percentage in Nellieball as well.
by Atma Brother ONE on Jul 6, 2009 11:20 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don’t buy the comparison and agree they’re very different players (with AI being the clearly more talented of the two). However, I dunno if the assist numbers really demonstrate that AI was a better passer necessarily. I think they’re as much an indication of AI’s penchant to dominate the ball as anything else.
by Missing Barry on Jul 7, 2009 5:13 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Using assists as an indicator of ball domination is very, very curious.
Iverson just had/ has superior court vision than Ellis. He’s a far smarter hoops player.
by Atma Brother ONE on Jul 7, 2009 8:48 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I wasn’t trying to use assists as an indication of dominating the ball, rather using my knowledge of Iverson as a player (ball dominator!!!) and giving a plausible explanation of some of the disparity in the numbers. Ellis is not exactly the greatest passer in the world, so it’s quite likely Iverson was a better passer at that point, I just don’t think the difference is as big as the numbers make it look.
by Missing Barry on Jul 7, 2009 9:40 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Iverson was playing the point at that point in his career ...
… while during some of those years, Monta was playing with Baron, which means Monta was playing off the ball.
Of course, Iverson was playing the point because he COULD, and it’s not clear that Monta can play the point.
So comparing assist numbers is a little complicated. That being said, I think the ideal situation for Iverson would be one where he wasn’t the point guard, to control his overshooting tendencies, and make sure the team runs a real offense.
What’s similar about them is that they both have a game that’s best suited to playing 2-guard, but they’re both undersized for that position.
As always, however, when Atma busts out the stats, by comparing per game numbers and ignoring efficiency, he picks the numbers that make Iverson look better.
A look at smarter stats suggests that at age 22, Monta was a better player:
ME AI
FG% .531 .461
Ast/36 4.1 5.4
RB/36 3.2 2.4
AI was a slightly better assist man, Monta was a slightly better rebound man. AI got to the line once more per game, but make hit shots there at a lower clip.
The problem, as always, with Iverson, was the number of shots that he missed. eg, Iverson shot under 30% from the 3-pt-land that year, but still jacked up nearly 3 a game. That’s not helping your team win.
The funny thing is, given how much Atma cares about “excitement” you’d think he’d be a huge Monta fan. Or maybe we’re all just a little down on Monta after ScooterGate.
by Ronaldinho on Jul 7, 2009 10:15 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Of course, Iverson was playing the point because he COULD, and it’s not clear that Monta can play the point.
I think it’s pretty clear Monta Ellis CAN NOT play the point. He didn’t play the point in high school and in spot minutes hasn’t done an impressive job to say the least in the pro’s.
Your “smarter stats” really aren’t that smart if you ignore that Iverson didn’t have the benefit of playing alongside an All-Star level PG or on much better teams than Iverson. Ignoring Monta’s high turnover rates (especially when he hasn’t been the lead PG) is also not very smart. To me that’s a great indicator that he’s just not fit to run the point.
Also, Monta Ellis played ZERO defense in years 3 and 4. Iverson was a great ball hawk back in the day.
To me there’s no question than Iverson was a superior player than Ellis at the same age. Two very different players too.
Also when an older Iverson finally got to play with some offensive firepower in Denver- guess what happened to his field goal %’s?
by Atma Brother ONE on Jul 7, 2009 1:37 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Also when an older Iverson finally got to play with some offensive firepower in Denver- guess what happened to his field goal %’s?
It went down?
Seriously, Iverson’s best year for FG percentage was when he was 22, and it was much worse than Monta’s at the same age.
His three point shooting, is that what you meant? In that case, you’re right, it did get better. But AI has never broken 35% of his threes in his career – and somewhere around 34-35% is probably the mendoza line for three-point shooting.
It’s hard to correlate AI’s 3pt% with the quality of his teammates, however, since aside from his time in Denver, his two best seasons for 3pt shooting are 1999-00, when Philly was pretty good, and 96-97, when they were downright awful. I think you’ll have a hard time making a meaningful correlation there.
by Ronaldinho on Jul 7, 2009 1:59 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Golden State Of Mind
Related FanShots on Golden State Of Mind
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2009 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
