Forum commentary I did from March 2008 through July 2008, when I didn't have time to do the detailed and extensive reports that I like to do, is being posted in early October, 2008. The primary themes are how the Nuggets are blowing a great (and expensive!) opportunity to play the game of basketball in such a way that respects the sport and that takes as much advantage as possible of who they have on the roster. The 2006-09 Nuggets have turned out to be an excellent case study of how not to run a basketball team; many things you should not do if you are a basketball manager or coach can be identified from what the Nuggets actually did during these years.
In these comments, do not look for the usual huge amount of detail and proof that you see in the ordinary releases here at Nuggets 1. Some of this is more like everyday conversation than like top quality sports writing. On the other hand, some of the comments do include some detailed reasoning and proof that I pride myself on in the primary reports I release.
______________________________________
LATE MARCH 2008 FORUM COMMENTARY ON THE NUGGETS, ESPECIALLY ABOUT THEIR MISTAKES
I will use this thread to report the descovery of more and more evidence that the Nuggets more or less failed this year, at least in the relative sense, because the coaching staff played an inferior backcourt. All they needed was to get the backcourt right and they could have done as well as everyone expected, but they couldn't do it right.
The first entry for here is what you find when you take a look at the plus-minuses for all possible 2-player combinations:
Proof the Nuggets Blew It
Starting from the top, you can look for the first combination you find which is two guards. The first one, sure enoiugh, is the Allen Iverson / J.R. Smith combination. There have been 1,671 points scored and 1,535 points given up with this lineup on the court. So the +/- is +136.
Near the bottom of this first page of 2-player combinations, you come to the Anthony Carter / Allen Iverson combination. While those two players have been on the court, the Nuggets have scored 3,180 points and given up 3,148 points, so the +/- is +32.
Now look at the per time plus minuses. The Allen Iverson / J.R. Smith combination, for every minute it is on the court has on average given the Nuggets an advantage of .159 points. So for every 10 minutes, the Nuggets have outscored their opponents by 1.59 points with the Iverson / Smith combination. For every 30 minutes, the Nuggets outscore their opponents by 4.77 points with the Iverson / Smith combination.
For the Anthony Carter / Allen Iverson combination, for every minute it is on the court the Nuggets outscore their opponents by .022. So for every 10 minutes, the Nuggets have outscored their opponents by 0.22 points with the Carter / Iverson combination. For every 30 minutes, the Nuggets outscore their opponents by 0.66 points with the Carter / Iverson combination, about 2/3 of a point.
The bottom line is that for every 30 minutes, the Nuggets have the following fates, on average:
Allen Iverson / J.R. Smith in the backcourt 30 minutes: Denver outscores it's opponent by 4.77 points.
Anthony Carter / Allen Iverson in the backcourt 30 minutes: Denver outscores it's opponents by 0.66 points.
The Iverson / Smith combination gives the Nuggets a little more than 4 more points of advantage over the opponents than does the Carter / Iverson combination. The Carter / Iverson combination gives the Nuggets only a very weak advantage, on average, over opponents.
So you obviously want a lot more minutes of the Iverson / Smith combination, and a lot fewer minutes of the Carter / Iversion combination. Let's check to see how many minutes have actually been given to these combinations:
Iverson / Smith: 800 minutes
Carter / Iverson: 1414 minutes
Ouch, it's roughly backwards from what it's supposed to be.
______________________________________________
You didn't really make a point. Are you claiming that high school and college coaches can often not judge what positions their players should play? That's ridiculous, I would think. I don't care how many players are playing the wrong position, especially in football. I know for a fact that only a few players in the NBA are playing the wrong position, Iverson being one of them.
If a coach repeatedly puts players in the wrong position, he is going to get fired. it's that simple. It's not as if that incompetence could be kept a secret. On the other hand, most high school and college coaches who lose a few more games than expected do not get fired, whereas that can happen in professional sports.
High school and college coaches are judged first and foremost by how successful they are in getting their players to the next level, in both the athletic and institutional senses. If you go to Mike Bailey's site, the dominant thing on Mike Bailey's page is a description of all the players who went on to various successful college and pro careers after he coached them. How many wins he got is shown, but is in no way highlighted on the page. Just as Bailey's camp draws business more by advertising player success stories than by advertising Bailey's win-loss record, high schools and colleges draw talented recruits by emphasizing their player success stories first; the winning percentage is not as important as these success stories. But for the record, Bailey was massively successful in terms of wins and losses.
I have to keep guessing at what you are arguing. I am going to guess that you are saying that there are X's, O's, winning and losing, public relations, political agendas (office politics) with the front office and the owner, and handling volatile millionaire players involved. How am I doing with your argument?
Even if NBA coaches are automatically better at the things that don't apply in high school and college, how would it follow that they are more qualified to determine what position a player plays? If you had to bet, you would bet that the NBA coaches would be less qualified to judge what position a player should play, since they can't get a head coaching position unless they can do all the non-basketball stuff well.
_______________________________________
Random chance is a major factor in determining which of thousands of possible coaches end up as the 30 NBA coaches. There is simple mathematics involved.
______________________________________
Well at least you have said something half way concrete, I think. So apparently, you think that Larry Brown and George Karl are more competent than Mike Bailey and John Thompson, due to the level difference, and maybe also more competent than Jim O' Brian. Actually, you still technically did not make the argument; it had to be deduced. Maybe you are worried about getting sued so you could not state it directly, ha ha.
In any event, you next have to present evidence as to why Brown and Karl are more competent than Bailey, Thompson, and O'Brian, that would pertain to choosing which player on the team should be the starting point guard.
Note: this is the last time I am going to try to flesh out skeleton and vague arguments just to make a response. It's a little too much like arguing with myself. And I am beginning to think that I am being made a fool of for responding to these types of arguments, and that in order to look good on the forum, I am supposed to not respond to these. How do I know you actually believe what you are implying? In order for me to respond, I need complete, direct, logical arguments, with evidence if at all possible. I don't think I should be responding any more to statements that require a lot of deduction to figure out what is really being claimed. I think what I am supposed to do is ignore any argument that is too vague or too indirectly stated, with no evidence to boot.
___________________________________________
I don't care how many play one positon in high school and another position in pro. I already said that I am aware that pro coaches can change positions if they think it is the correct thing to do. The question for me is whether it was correct for Larry Brown to do that for his team. And the other question for me is whether George Karl, faced with the loss of his starting point guard for most of the season, made the correct decision for the Nuggets when he refused to start AI at the point.
I'm also not trying to prove that AI's career would have been better if he had stayed at PG. I think that is true, and I would like to prove it, but I have doubt that I can prove something like that beyond a shadow of a doubt.. (At least I don't think I will be able to at this time.} I can make that seem very plausible, which is what I am going to be doing.
What I am in the process of proving beyond a shadow of a doubt is that AI would have been of more value to his teams had he always played the PG position. Originally, I intended to just prove that the Nuggets would have been much better off if AI had been the PG starter, but then I realized the parallels between the Nuggets and the 76'ers are so obvious that I should see if I can prove it for the 76'ers historically as well.
______________________________________________
If true, that's relevant only if the high school and/or the college coaches, in your view, were generally in the wrong, and should have been playing the player at the position they would have in the pros. For example, was Gilbert Arenas' coach dumb for not playing him at PG at Arizona, and is this a typical dumb mistake that a college coach makes? Is that what you are saying, that many more player position mistakes are made by high school and college coaches than are made by pro coaches?
But I think you are saying something different: you are saying that the situations are so radically different that it is normal for players to play different positions from high school/college to the pros. I don't know what the actual, real number of position changes from high school/college to pro is, but I'm going to assume for the hell of it that it is a substantial number like you think.
If that is so, then I can't use the coach counts to prove that Iverson was moved to the wrong position, but neither can you use the coach counts to disprove the theory that Iverson should not have been moved. Because if the situational differences overwhelm the position assignment, then you can't prove or disprove whether Iverson was moved to the wrong positon by number of coaches and/or the levels of those coaches. (Because the situations dictated the position decisions.)
But I never intended to rely on the count of coaches as a huge part of my argument. I knew I had to point out that many other coaches have differred with Brown and Karl, or else hardly anyone was going to carefully consider the rest of the evidence. When I investigated the coaches, I knew that my best case scenario would be that there would have been very slightly more coaches who played AI at the point than at the 2-guard. The best case scenario is what played out, which gives me the green light to continue to make the project bigger rather than smaller, and I am going to continue to give this project the great attention that it deserves in the weeks and even the months ahead.
I am going to have dozens of reasons when I am through, and relatively few of them will be slam dunk, but all of them will help my side. If it were true that all or most of AI's coaches have played him at the point, I would never get a lot of people to agree that it was a mistake, regardless of how much evidence and how many arguments I had. This coach count is a preliminary argument, which gets my foot in the door. This was like a preliminary hearing in a court of law.
Unless there are fair and objective ways to compare Mike Bailey, John Thompson, Johnny Davis, and Jim O'Brien to Larry Brown and George Karl, the basic coach count may be all that anyone can do on the general coach comparison front. From here on out, the coaches will be compared with respect to the actual situations they faced at the times they made their point guard decisions, and whether their decsions were correct, incorrect, or ambiguous.
But I have succeeded in my objective on coach count and coaches in general already; all I had to do was show that there have been a substantial number of coaches who thought AI should play the point. It wasn't just the high school and the college coaches. Johnny Davis, Jim O'Brien, and Maurice Cheeks to some extent are 3 NBA coaches who exclusively or extensively started AI at PG.
_____________________________________________
The school boards, the high school administrators, and the college administrators, as evaluation criteria #1, use how successful a coach is in developing his players, and how successful he is in inducing colleges and pro teams to recruit and draft those players up to the next level when they evaluate the value of that coach to the institution. The coach's employer, who obviously decides whether the coach will ever be fired or not, does NOT use wins and losses as the number one criteria at the high school and college levels. A possible exception to this would be a handful of college basketball and college football teams which are known to be the best teams in the land. This exception would be only a very small percentage of all college teams.
Of course, everyone other than the administrators of the schools uses wins and losses to evaluate the coach. But the smart coaches worry more about developing their players, especially their better players, and making sure those players get recruited or drafted to an impressive target school or team.
_____________________________________________
Just as Bailey's camp draws business more by advertising player success stories than by advertising Bailey's win-loss record, high schools and colleges draw talented recruits by emphasizing their player success stories first; the winning percentage is not as important as these success stories except in a very small percentage of cases.
___________________________________________
See the above explanation. I agree that the general public does not care very much about who a coach has helped promote upward. As I explained, my point was that the employers of the coaches care about that even more than they care about winning and losing. Because if a school has a coach who can not develop players and make them attractive to recruiters and teams, because he assigns alot of players to the wrong positon for example, the school is going to have big problems recruiting new quality student-athletes to come to their school. Because the student athletes themselves and their parents are more concerned about where they will be able to go after they leave the high school or the college than they are about the win-loss record. So the student athletes and their parents have to see success stories to be induced to choose the particular school in question.
Tuesday, October 7, 2008
Return of Nuggets 1: Forum #2 Comments From Late March 2008, Part 3
Forum commentary I did from March 2008 through July 2008, when I didn't have time to do the detailed and extensive reports that I like to do, is being posted in early October, 2008. The primary themes are how the Nuggets are blowing a great (and expensive!) opportunity to play the game of basketball in such a way that respects the sport and that takes as much advantage as possible of who they have on the roster. The 2006-09 Nuggets have turned out to be an excellent case study of how not to run a basketball team; many things you should not do if you are a basketball manager or coach can be identified from what the Nuggets actually did during these years.
In these comments, do not look for the usual huge amount of detail and proof that you see in the ordinary releases here at Nuggets 1. Some of this is more like everyday conversation than like top quality sports writing. On the other hand, some of the comments do include some detailed reasoning and proof that I pride myself on in the primary reports I release.
______________________________________
LATE MARCH 2008 FORUM COMMENTARY ON THE NUGGETS, ESPECIALLY ABOUT THEIR MISTAKES
Along with the multitudes who want a new coaching staff for the Nuggets, I hope the Nets win this game. Denver can't win a playoff series even if they make the playoffs, so the #1 objective has to be to get the coaches to retire/be fired. Or at the very least, at least make the owner look bad if he won't spring for a new staff, and at least give the front office some leverage they can use to help manage the team next year.
Devin Harris vs Anthony Carter???
Iverson playing both guard postions???
Camby making a lot of assists and few layups and dunks???
Laugh out loud at the whole Nuggets mess.
________________________________________
Damn. Just when you have a game where if the Nuggets lose the odds that Karl will retire go up nicely, Linas Kleiza always seems to be there to go off for about half a dozen threes.
Should have doubled Kleiza Nets, I guess, even though that sounds funny.
________________________________________
So the complete count is:
4 1/2 coaches have designated A.I. as the point guard
3 1/2 coaches have designated A.I. as the shooting guard.
Brown and Karl end up in the minority, and only 1 1/2 coaches other than Brown and Karl have thought of A.I as a shooting guard. I am reporting this in detail in the next report.
_________________________________________
Well if he’s too short to play the SG position in the all-star game, then he is definitely too short to play the SG position in ordinary games. One or the other is wrong; either the NBA front office is wrong for listing him as a PG for all-star voting, or Larry Brown and George Karl are wrong for designating him as a SG.
________________________________________
I stand corrected on the voting but since AI actually started at PG for at least 7 straight all star games, I am still correct with respect to the overall point; if AI is a poor point guard but a good shooting guard, then why did he almost or actually never start at SG in the all-star game? You suggest that it was due to the fact that mostly SGs were selected to the all-star game, so it was by default. I bet I will be able to disprove that when i check it out within the next week.
_________________________________________
I'm checking these details out this week when I get a chance. I think my point will be strenghthened if I do that, because I will see who Iverson was chosen to be PG over. I know there are more than 2 guards on the all-star team, but if the guard starters are automatically determined by the voting regardless of exact position, my point still stands. Consider the possibilities. If the starting lineups are determined by votes and votes alone, either there were two point guards and Iverson was chosen as the best or real point guard between the two, or there was one of each position and the positions were reversed for the all-star game; Iverson was moved to PG and a PG from the regular season was moved to SG, or there were two SGs and Iverson was chosen as the one as more appropriate to be the PG. In any of these three possibilities, my point still stands. No matter what, the League front office and/or the coach of the all star team was saying over and over that Iverson is a PG.
_________________________________________
True, the all-star game is different, but how and why should how the game differs from an ordinary game affect who plays point guard? And how many other players have started at a different position at the all-star game compared with their usual positions, as A.I. has about 7 times? Is that due to the top vote getters being mandated to start? If so, then fine, but my point still stands, because A.I. was chosen to be the point guard 7 straight all star games among 2 point guards to choose from, among a point guard and a shooting guard to choose from, or among two shooting guards to choose from. I have no evidence yet that he was EVER chosen to start at SG in any all-star game.
________________________________________
The high school and the college coach should count at least equal to the NBA coaches, because they had Iverson first and could judge what he was intrinsically. And unlike NBA coaches, they have no political agendas other than doing what is best for their players. A college or a high school coach could theoretically be in danger of being fired if he repeatedly played players at the wrong positon, because they are responsible for preparing players for the next level without making any gross errors. But NBA coaches can change any player's position whenever they want, and justify it by saying they are trying to win more games, which is what their primary responsibility is. Precisely because they are not as on the hook for winning as NBA coaches are, college and high school coach decisions on what position a player is best for must be respected and counted.
If you are saying that the 30 NBA coaches are all vastly more intelligent basketball wise than the thousands of high school and college coaches are, I disagree. Just like in any profession, it is largely random chance that determines which coaches rise up into the limelight. Not to mention that there are thousands of coaches of all different capabilities who would not want to coach in the NBA even if they were offerred the opportunity.
What you need to do to make your point is explain why John Thompson and Mike Bailey were/are incompetent coaches, at least with respect to the PG position.
_______________________________________
Here is the coach you need to prove is incompetent if you want me to not count him. Good luck.
Mike Bailey
_________________________________________
It's so simple to defeat the Nuggets with their dumb offense. All you have to do is disrupt Iverson, mostly by doubling him as necessary. You don't have to worry about Carter much, and how many teams has Carmelo Anthony beaten on his own this year? Maybe 5.
There is no Plan B for the Nuggets; the coaches have put it all on Iverson and will blame everything on Iverson if the Nuggets fail. If Iverson is shut down then there is nothing left for the Denver offense but the sound of crickets chirping.
In these comments, do not look for the usual huge amount of detail and proof that you see in the ordinary releases here at Nuggets 1. Some of this is more like everyday conversation than like top quality sports writing. On the other hand, some of the comments do include some detailed reasoning and proof that I pride myself on in the primary reports I release.
______________________________________
LATE MARCH 2008 FORUM COMMENTARY ON THE NUGGETS, ESPECIALLY ABOUT THEIR MISTAKES
Along with the multitudes who want a new coaching staff for the Nuggets, I hope the Nets win this game. Denver can't win a playoff series even if they make the playoffs, so the #1 objective has to be to get the coaches to retire/be fired. Or at the very least, at least make the owner look bad if he won't spring for a new staff, and at least give the front office some leverage they can use to help manage the team next year.
Devin Harris vs Anthony Carter???
Iverson playing both guard postions???
Camby making a lot of assists and few layups and dunks???
Laugh out loud at the whole Nuggets mess.
________________________________________
Damn. Just when you have a game where if the Nuggets lose the odds that Karl will retire go up nicely, Linas Kleiza always seems to be there to go off for about half a dozen threes.
Should have doubled Kleiza Nets, I guess, even though that sounds funny.
________________________________________
So the complete count is:
4 1/2 coaches have designated A.I. as the point guard
3 1/2 coaches have designated A.I. as the shooting guard.
Brown and Karl end up in the minority, and only 1 1/2 coaches other than Brown and Karl have thought of A.I as a shooting guard. I am reporting this in detail in the next report.
_________________________________________
Well if he’s too short to play the SG position in the all-star game, then he is definitely too short to play the SG position in ordinary games. One or the other is wrong; either the NBA front office is wrong for listing him as a PG for all-star voting, or Larry Brown and George Karl are wrong for designating him as a SG.
________________________________________
I stand corrected on the voting but since AI actually started at PG for at least 7 straight all star games, I am still correct with respect to the overall point; if AI is a poor point guard but a good shooting guard, then why did he almost or actually never start at SG in the all-star game? You suggest that it was due to the fact that mostly SGs were selected to the all-star game, so it was by default. I bet I will be able to disprove that when i check it out within the next week.
_________________________________________
I'm checking these details out this week when I get a chance. I think my point will be strenghthened if I do that, because I will see who Iverson was chosen to be PG over. I know there are more than 2 guards on the all-star team, but if the guard starters are automatically determined by the voting regardless of exact position, my point still stands. Consider the possibilities. If the starting lineups are determined by votes and votes alone, either there were two point guards and Iverson was chosen as the best or real point guard between the two, or there was one of each position and the positions were reversed for the all-star game; Iverson was moved to PG and a PG from the regular season was moved to SG, or there were two SGs and Iverson was chosen as the one as more appropriate to be the PG. In any of these three possibilities, my point still stands. No matter what, the League front office and/or the coach of the all star team was saying over and over that Iverson is a PG.
_________________________________________
True, the all-star game is different, but how and why should how the game differs from an ordinary game affect who plays point guard? And how many other players have started at a different position at the all-star game compared with their usual positions, as A.I. has about 7 times? Is that due to the top vote getters being mandated to start? If so, then fine, but my point still stands, because A.I. was chosen to be the point guard 7 straight all star games among 2 point guards to choose from, among a point guard and a shooting guard to choose from, or among two shooting guards to choose from. I have no evidence yet that he was EVER chosen to start at SG in any all-star game.
________________________________________
The high school and the college coach should count at least equal to the NBA coaches, because they had Iverson first and could judge what he was intrinsically. And unlike NBA coaches, they have no political agendas other than doing what is best for their players. A college or a high school coach could theoretically be in danger of being fired if he repeatedly played players at the wrong positon, because they are responsible for preparing players for the next level without making any gross errors. But NBA coaches can change any player's position whenever they want, and justify it by saying they are trying to win more games, which is what their primary responsibility is. Precisely because they are not as on the hook for winning as NBA coaches are, college and high school coach decisions on what position a player is best for must be respected and counted.
If you are saying that the 30 NBA coaches are all vastly more intelligent basketball wise than the thousands of high school and college coaches are, I disagree. Just like in any profession, it is largely random chance that determines which coaches rise up into the limelight. Not to mention that there are thousands of coaches of all different capabilities who would not want to coach in the NBA even if they were offerred the opportunity.
What you need to do to make your point is explain why John Thompson and Mike Bailey were/are incompetent coaches, at least with respect to the PG position.
_______________________________________
Here is the coach you need to prove is incompetent if you want me to not count him. Good luck.
Mike Bailey
_________________________________________
It's so simple to defeat the Nuggets with their dumb offense. All you have to do is disrupt Iverson, mostly by doubling him as necessary. You don't have to worry about Carter much, and how many teams has Carmelo Anthony beaten on his own this year? Maybe 5.
There is no Plan B for the Nuggets; the coaches have put it all on Iverson and will blame everything on Iverson if the Nuggets fail. If Iverson is shut down then there is nothing left for the Denver offense but the sound of crickets chirping.
Return of Nuggets 1: Forum #2 Comments From Late March 2008, Part 2
Forum commentary I did from March 2008 through July 2008, when I didn't have time to do the detailed and extensive reports that I like to do, is being posted in early October, 2008. The primary themes are how the Nuggets are blowing a great (and expensive!) opportunity to play the game of basketball in such a way that respects the sport and that takes as much advantage as possible of who they have on the roster. The 2006-09 Nuggets have turned out to be an excellent case study of how not to run a basketball team; many things you should not do if you are a basketball manager or coach can be identified from what the Nuggets actually did during these years.
In these comments, do not look for the usual huge amount of detail and proof that you see in the ordinary releases here at Nuggets 1. Some of this is more like everyday conversation than like top quality sports writing. On the other hand, some of the comments do include some detailed reasoning and proof that I pride myself on in the primary reports I release.
______________________________________
LATE MARCH 2008 FORUM COMMENTARY ON THE NUGGETS, ESPECIALLY ABOUT THEIR MISTAKES
With the following commentary, you can see the early discoveries that gave birth to the Special Report: "Allen Iverson: What Could Have Been," a report which due to time constraints is still months away from completion. But three parts of the roughly eight-ten parts there will be have been published already.
___________________________________________________
Larry Brown had a CP3 (Chris Paul) type of player and he moved him to the wrong position.
And then after Iverson was back at PG for 3 1/3 years after Brown was gone in Philadelphia, George Karl jerks him back to SG again. Karl has jerked Iverson around as much as he has jerked JR Smith around if the truth were told. Iverson has been jerked around with respect to his role, and J.R. Smith has been jerked around with respect to his minutes.
Maybe someday there will be a player's union rule allowing a player and/or his agent to veto a position change, because there sure as hell should be one.
____________________________________________
Iverson should have been and could have been molded to be an even better NBA point guard then he was in his rookie year, and obviously he would have gotten better with experience. But how could he have become an even better PG than he was in his rookie year when he no longer played the position starting with his sophmore year?
If any player is moved from one position to another, then obviously, you will be able to criticise his ability to play the position he was moved from as the years go by, because he has different priorities at the new position. It's sort of an optical illusion. From a coaching perspective, it's kind of a self-fulfulling prophesy. Once Iverson was moved to SG, and he was more selfish, Larry Brown and others could look out on the court and say, "See, Iverson is too selfish to play PG." But that is an invalid observation because Iverson had different priorities after his position was changed.
____________________________________________
Iverson made 19.8 field goal attempts per game in his rookie year as a PG, 19% more than Chris Paul this year. I'll admit that is significant. But the question remains: at the beginning of the 2nd year, which was 1997-98, was the correct course of action to encourage more passing and a little less shooting, or to encourage still more shooting and less passing, as Larry Brown chose. I am sure that Brown made the wrong decision both for Iverson and for his team. To the extent that the 76er's were successful, it was mostly with Iverson playing both positions at once well, similar to what the Nuggets situation is today.
____________________________________________
So Iverson was the PG but he wasn't held to much of anything in terms of PG duties? I think you are right on that. But Thompson knew that Iverson transcended position to some extent, and he knew he never had and would never have again a player of his caliber, and it was only college and not pro, so probably for all of those reasons he didn't care too much if Iverson made the SG almost irrelevant sometimes.
____________________________________________
So Larry Brown did not immediatley, from day 1, move AI to the 2-spot? The question remains, why did he do it at all?
Since no one can know exactly what would have happened had AI remained at the PG position, you have to use logic and reasoning to make your best educated guess as to whether it would have been better or worse for the 76'ers if AI had remained at the position he was most experienced at. It's the same type of judgment that is needed now with the Nuggets.
I would like to ask, who are some guards who were PGs in college and who started out as PGs in the NBA, but were considered failures as PGs in a short time in the League, so that they were then moved out of the position over to the SG position? I am looking for players who started at PG one year and then either started or came off the bench for SG in subsequent years.
Are there any true comparatives to AI? In other words, to the extent there are examples of starting point guards losing their jobs, do any of these guards come close to how good AI was in 1996-97?
Wasn't this move by Larry Brown of one of the top players in the NBA away from the point guard position that he had played in college and as a rookie relatively unprecedented in the history of the NBA?
I would not even rule out the possibility that it was done to generate extra excitement, ticket sales, and merchandise sales for the then struggling 76'ers franchise. You could showcase A.I. much better at the 2-guard than at the 1-guard.
_____________________________________________
The Sixers sucked period in Iverson's rookie year. That's why they got Iverson, they had the first pick in the draft that year. They were going to get better in the next years whether Iverson's position was changed or not.
_____________________________________________
No, they can be like CP3, or like AI would have been if he had kept the position and had been molded a little. There is no law against having a PG who is an aggressive scorer while getting his PG duties down at the same time.
_____________________________________________
CP3 is a "Do whatever makes more sense in the situation PG, without tilting too far in either the scoring or the passing dimensions overall." That is what AI could have been to a large extent if work had gone into it. Instead, Brown waived the white flag with regard to molding AI at his position, and then tried to take the easy way out in the task of managing him. As we know, Brown, ironically, did not in the least escape problems and difficulties by doing it his way.
_____________________________________________
I agree with alot of what you are saying, your post is very well written too. Based on what actually happened over the years, of course AI became an excellent SG. What I am saying is that the PG position is usually the more important guard position and, if you go back to 1997 or earlier, AI was a PG, and could have and should have remained as one, because that would have maximized his value to his teams. He should have been molded into being one of the best 3-4 PGs in the League, which could have been done with the right effort. But was he one of the all time best SG guards ever the way history actually played out? Of course.
But history could have played out differently, and that would not have changed much how famous or great AI is considered to be, but most likely would have made his teams better. Ask yourself this: if only 4-man teams were allowed, and you could only have 1 guard on the floor at once, how many teams would choose their PG and how many teams would choose their SG? The great majority of teams would have to choose their PG, because that position, is the most fundamental position; you can't really play basketball and call it basketball without a PG, but you could in theory play basketball without a SG. If AI had stayed at PG, it would have been less exciting to watch him, but he would have been even more important and valuable to his teams than he was.
And you and I are completely on the same page regarding the Nuggets, especially that they are truly in grave danger of not even making the playoffs. This is not a drill, this is a real fire. I also agree that AI would be better off on certain other teams. I am saying that the situation that the Nuggets have fallen into with the AI at SG lineup is bad enough that I have concluded that playing AI at the point was a mandatory thing for the Nuggets to do and not an optional thing, despite the fact that AI has played SG (by mistake, in my opinion) for many years. I think the Nuggets have played their best offense in games when Iverson was obviously and extensively playing both guard positions at once.
Had the Nuggets played AI at PG all season long, I am convinced they would have made the playoffs without a lot of trouble. They would have won 4-6 additional games, and would have finished between 3rd and 5th in the West at the least. Whether it would have worked in the playoffs would have depended on who the Nuggets played, the matchups, whether they had home court, whether players stepped up, and so forth. It sure as heck would have been worth a try.
Oh, and playoff success would depend on Melo stepping up his defending, point taken.
______________________________________________
Someone asked:
My response was:
Read my post I just made for my answer to this. In one sentence, it's because PG is the more important position and Iverson can help his team more and be molded to near perfection more easily at that position. Read my previous post for more detail.
______________________________________________
AI was going to be famous and have a great career whichever position he was designated to. I just said above: "But was he one of the all time best SG guards ever the way history actually played out? Of course. "
And those players you mentioned did not start out at PG, did they?
I'm still waiting for an example of a player even 2/3 as good as AI who played PG in college, failied at that as a starter in the NBA in his 1st or 2nd year, and played SG after that. Obviously that would be rare. My question is whether anyone knows of that ever happening. I never heard of it, but I am no basketball historian.
_______________________________________________
Yeah, the one thing that has been a constant throughout all the years is that AI is always asked to do too much. The 76'ers over relied on one player for scoring, and George Karl has repeated this strategy lock, stock, and barrel. But basketball is a team sport, Michael Jordan needed Scottie Pippen, and so on and so forth. Coaches have been saying througout the years, starting with John Thompson, "I'll make it easy on myself by letting AI do it." So he has been playing both guard positions interchangeably throughout the years and, of course, he often ends up playing both positions at once, which a good amount of the time is a net negative for the team.
If you and I could go through life twice, and in one life AI was the SG and in the other life AI was the PG, he would be one of the best at that position in either life. But as the PG, he would have been more valuable to his team under most circumstances. The current Nuggets circumstances are no exception to this.
Most of the teams that are ahead of the Nuggets right now are ahead largely or substantially because of their point guards: the Hornets, the Warriors, the Jazz. the Suns, arguably the Spurs. And what about all the drama about whether the Mavericks were going to get Jason Kidd or not? Would there have been all that drama if Kidd was a SG?
The shooting guards of all of those teams are less important than their point guards; those teams would not work without their great PGs.
Everyone dreams of getting a great PG for the Nuggets, but the Nuggets have already busted through the payroll limit already, so they should have made do with what was right under their nose.
________________________________________
Strictly speaking I'm looking for players who were moved because it was claimed that they were a failure at PG, because that is what most of the other side keeps claiming happened regarding A.I..
However, I am secondarily looking for a correlation assuming that the player moved was NOT considered to be a failure at the position. So if Wade was a PG in college and as a rookie in the NBA, that would be a direct correlation with AI, so then what happened to AI would at least not be unprecedented.
So now I'll have to find out if Wade was a PG in college.
________________________________________
Fortunately AI's gangsta was mostly an act, or else he would have ended up behind bars and I never would have been able to write about how he should have played the crucial PG position for the Nuggets.
He made a rap album once, but was forced to not release it.
In these comments, do not look for the usual huge amount of detail and proof that you see in the ordinary releases here at Nuggets 1. Some of this is more like everyday conversation than like top quality sports writing. On the other hand, some of the comments do include some detailed reasoning and proof that I pride myself on in the primary reports I release.
______________________________________
LATE MARCH 2008 FORUM COMMENTARY ON THE NUGGETS, ESPECIALLY ABOUT THEIR MISTAKES
With the following commentary, you can see the early discoveries that gave birth to the Special Report: "Allen Iverson: What Could Have Been," a report which due to time constraints is still months away from completion. But three parts of the roughly eight-ten parts there will be have been published already.
___________________________________________________
Larry Brown had a CP3 (Chris Paul) type of player and he moved him to the wrong position.
And then after Iverson was back at PG for 3 1/3 years after Brown was gone in Philadelphia, George Karl jerks him back to SG again. Karl has jerked Iverson around as much as he has jerked JR Smith around if the truth were told. Iverson has been jerked around with respect to his role, and J.R. Smith has been jerked around with respect to his minutes.
Maybe someday there will be a player's union rule allowing a player and/or his agent to veto a position change, because there sure as hell should be one.
____________________________________________
Iverson should have been and could have been molded to be an even better NBA point guard then he was in his rookie year, and obviously he would have gotten better with experience. But how could he have become an even better PG than he was in his rookie year when he no longer played the position starting with his sophmore year?
If any player is moved from one position to another, then obviously, you will be able to criticise his ability to play the position he was moved from as the years go by, because he has different priorities at the new position. It's sort of an optical illusion. From a coaching perspective, it's kind of a self-fulfulling prophesy. Once Iverson was moved to SG, and he was more selfish, Larry Brown and others could look out on the court and say, "See, Iverson is too selfish to play PG." But that is an invalid observation because Iverson had different priorities after his position was changed.
____________________________________________
Iverson made 19.8 field goal attempts per game in his rookie year as a PG, 19% more than Chris Paul this year. I'll admit that is significant. But the question remains: at the beginning of the 2nd year, which was 1997-98, was the correct course of action to encourage more passing and a little less shooting, or to encourage still more shooting and less passing, as Larry Brown chose. I am sure that Brown made the wrong decision both for Iverson and for his team. To the extent that the 76er's were successful, it was mostly with Iverson playing both positions at once well, similar to what the Nuggets situation is today.
____________________________________________
So Iverson was the PG but he wasn't held to much of anything in terms of PG duties? I think you are right on that. But Thompson knew that Iverson transcended position to some extent, and he knew he never had and would never have again a player of his caliber, and it was only college and not pro, so probably for all of those reasons he didn't care too much if Iverson made the SG almost irrelevant sometimes.
____________________________________________
So Larry Brown did not immediatley, from day 1, move AI to the 2-spot? The question remains, why did he do it at all?
Since no one can know exactly what would have happened had AI remained at the PG position, you have to use logic and reasoning to make your best educated guess as to whether it would have been better or worse for the 76'ers if AI had remained at the position he was most experienced at. It's the same type of judgment that is needed now with the Nuggets.
I would like to ask, who are some guards who were PGs in college and who started out as PGs in the NBA, but were considered failures as PGs in a short time in the League, so that they were then moved out of the position over to the SG position? I am looking for players who started at PG one year and then either started or came off the bench for SG in subsequent years.
Are there any true comparatives to AI? In other words, to the extent there are examples of starting point guards losing their jobs, do any of these guards come close to how good AI was in 1996-97?
Wasn't this move by Larry Brown of one of the top players in the NBA away from the point guard position that he had played in college and as a rookie relatively unprecedented in the history of the NBA?
I would not even rule out the possibility that it was done to generate extra excitement, ticket sales, and merchandise sales for the then struggling 76'ers franchise. You could showcase A.I. much better at the 2-guard than at the 1-guard.
_____________________________________________
The Sixers sucked period in Iverson's rookie year. That's why they got Iverson, they had the first pick in the draft that year. They were going to get better in the next years whether Iverson's position was changed or not.
_____________________________________________
No, they can be like CP3, or like AI would have been if he had kept the position and had been molded a little. There is no law against having a PG who is an aggressive scorer while getting his PG duties down at the same time.
_____________________________________________
CP3 is a "Do whatever makes more sense in the situation PG, without tilting too far in either the scoring or the passing dimensions overall." That is what AI could have been to a large extent if work had gone into it. Instead, Brown waived the white flag with regard to molding AI at his position, and then tried to take the easy way out in the task of managing him. As we know, Brown, ironically, did not in the least escape problems and difficulties by doing it his way.
_____________________________________________
I agree with alot of what you are saying, your post is very well written too. Based on what actually happened over the years, of course AI became an excellent SG. What I am saying is that the PG position is usually the more important guard position and, if you go back to 1997 or earlier, AI was a PG, and could have and should have remained as one, because that would have maximized his value to his teams. He should have been molded into being one of the best 3-4 PGs in the League, which could have been done with the right effort. But was he one of the all time best SG guards ever the way history actually played out? Of course.
But history could have played out differently, and that would not have changed much how famous or great AI is considered to be, but most likely would have made his teams better. Ask yourself this: if only 4-man teams were allowed, and you could only have 1 guard on the floor at once, how many teams would choose their PG and how many teams would choose their SG? The great majority of teams would have to choose their PG, because that position, is the most fundamental position; you can't really play basketball and call it basketball without a PG, but you could in theory play basketball without a SG. If AI had stayed at PG, it would have been less exciting to watch him, but he would have been even more important and valuable to his teams than he was.
And you and I are completely on the same page regarding the Nuggets, especially that they are truly in grave danger of not even making the playoffs. This is not a drill, this is a real fire. I also agree that AI would be better off on certain other teams. I am saying that the situation that the Nuggets have fallen into with the AI at SG lineup is bad enough that I have concluded that playing AI at the point was a mandatory thing for the Nuggets to do and not an optional thing, despite the fact that AI has played SG (by mistake, in my opinion) for many years. I think the Nuggets have played their best offense in games when Iverson was obviously and extensively playing both guard positions at once.
Had the Nuggets played AI at PG all season long, I am convinced they would have made the playoffs without a lot of trouble. They would have won 4-6 additional games, and would have finished between 3rd and 5th in the West at the least. Whether it would have worked in the playoffs would have depended on who the Nuggets played, the matchups, whether they had home court, whether players stepped up, and so forth. It sure as heck would have been worth a try.
Oh, and playoff success would depend on Melo stepping up his defending, point taken.
______________________________________________
Someone asked:
So are you trying to say that because Iverson "lost his starting PG job" that he hasnt developed into the player he could have been?
Iverson dominates the ball no matter what, so why not have him run off screens to get open and give him the advantage over the defender as soon as he touches the ball? Why make him set up the offense, when everyone know he is the offense?
My response was:
Read my post I just made for my answer to this. In one sentence, it's because PG is the more important position and Iverson can help his team more and be molded to near perfection more easily at that position. Read my previous post for more detail.
______________________________________________
AI was going to be famous and have a great career whichever position he was designated to. I just said above: "But was he one of the all time best SG guards ever the way history actually played out? Of course. "
And those players you mentioned did not start out at PG, did they?
I'm still waiting for an example of a player even 2/3 as good as AI who played PG in college, failied at that as a starter in the NBA in his 1st or 2nd year, and played SG after that. Obviously that would be rare. My question is whether anyone knows of that ever happening. I never heard of it, but I am no basketball historian.
_______________________________________________
Yeah, the one thing that has been a constant throughout all the years is that AI is always asked to do too much. The 76'ers over relied on one player for scoring, and George Karl has repeated this strategy lock, stock, and barrel. But basketball is a team sport, Michael Jordan needed Scottie Pippen, and so on and so forth. Coaches have been saying througout the years, starting with John Thompson, "I'll make it easy on myself by letting AI do it." So he has been playing both guard positions interchangeably throughout the years and, of course, he often ends up playing both positions at once, which a good amount of the time is a net negative for the team.
If you and I could go through life twice, and in one life AI was the SG and in the other life AI was the PG, he would be one of the best at that position in either life. But as the PG, he would have been more valuable to his team under most circumstances. The current Nuggets circumstances are no exception to this.
Most of the teams that are ahead of the Nuggets right now are ahead largely or substantially because of their point guards: the Hornets, the Warriors, the Jazz. the Suns, arguably the Spurs. And what about all the drama about whether the Mavericks were going to get Jason Kidd or not? Would there have been all that drama if Kidd was a SG?
The shooting guards of all of those teams are less important than their point guards; those teams would not work without their great PGs.
Everyone dreams of getting a great PG for the Nuggets, but the Nuggets have already busted through the payroll limit already, so they should have made do with what was right under their nose.
________________________________________
Strictly speaking I'm looking for players who were moved because it was claimed that they were a failure at PG, because that is what most of the other side keeps claiming happened regarding A.I..
However, I am secondarily looking for a correlation assuming that the player moved was NOT considered to be a failure at the position. So if Wade was a PG in college and as a rookie in the NBA, that would be a direct correlation with AI, so then what happened to AI would at least not be unprecedented.
So now I'll have to find out if Wade was a PG in college.
________________________________________
Fortunately AI's gangsta was mostly an act, or else he would have ended up behind bars and I never would have been able to write about how he should have played the crucial PG position for the Nuggets.
He made a rap album once, but was forced to not release it.
Return of Nuggets 1: Forum #2 Comments From Late March 2008, Part 1
Forum commentary I did from March 2008 through July 2008, when I didn't have time to do the detailed and extensive reports that I like to do, is being posted in early October, 2008. The primary themes are how the Nuggets are blowing a great (and expensive!) opportunity to play the game of basketball in such a way that respects the sport and that takes as much advantage as possible of who they have on the roster. The 2006-09 Nuggets have turned out to be an excellent case study of how not to run a basketball team; many things you should not do if you are a basketball manager or coach can be identified from what the Nuggets actually did during these years.
In these comments, do not look for the usual huge amount of detail and proof that you see in the ordinary releases here at Nuggets 1. Some of this is more like everyday conversation than like top quality sports writing. On the other hand, some of the comments do include some detailed reasoning and proof that I pride myself on in the primary reports I release.
______________________________________
LATE MARCH 2008 FORUM COMMENTARY ON THE NUGGETS, ESPECIALLY ABOUT THEIR MISTAKES
With the following commentary, you can see the early discoveries that gave birth to the Special Report: "Allen Iverson: What Could Have Been," a report which due to time constraints is still months away from completion. But three parts of the roughly eight-ten parts there will be have been published already.
_______________________________________________
Tomorrow's game is huge, the Nuggets can win it and need to win it. Wednesday is a back to back road game in Philadelphia, one of the hottest teams in the League right now, so that will probably be a loss.
The two Warriors games are huge too, March 29 and April 10.
Every time I see CP3 win a game it reminds me that A.I. could be the CP3 for the Nuggets if the coaches would just stop playing stupid games with the lineup, and stop trying to make A.I. play both guard postions at once all the time. Just because he can play both guard positions at once doesn't mean that it is smart for the team that he does.
_________________________________________
It's most likely a loss unless Chucky Atkins and Allen Iverson get at least a dozen assists. You can't run a wide open pick-up game type of offense against the Pistons, this is a serious defensive team. You have to have playmakers who can break down the defense to some extent. I don't really care how many assists Carter gets, because he just can't compete with Atkins, Iverson, or J.R. Smith as a scorer. Carter belongs on a losing team, not on the Denver Nuggets who are on the verge of being America's chump team.
___________________________________________
Playing the way he has, Anthony Carter could get at least as many minutes on many other teams and hardly anyone would complain. For the Nuggets, you have to complain about it, because the position is too important and the Nuggets have too much offensive talent to settle for Carter as a PG starter and 20+mpg player.
The recent 3 straight routs by the Nuggets reminds us that the Nuggets can't be "settling" for things when there are better options available. They have no business being in 9th place, in great danger of missing the playoffs. So criticisms that might seem kind of tough have to be made, because I want this team to get where it is supposed to be.
____________________________________________
From Wikipedia:
"Despite these criticisms, Iverson is still generally regarded as one of the best guards to ever play the game, as evidenced by his being named the starting point guard for the Eastern Conference in the NBA All-Star Game for the past seven consecutive seasons. He was voted to seven All-NBA Teams. He also took the league and All-Star MVP and led the Sixers to the Finals in 2001."
____________________________________________
THANK YOU VERY MUCH. You have helped me with one of my biggest discoveries of the year, probably the biggest. This is huge, because this proves that AI at the 2-guard is a Larry Brown-George Karl thing and that's about it. George Karl refuses to do what the majority of other coaches have done, which is start AI at PG. Since it is well known that Brown and Karl are close friends and associates, it would be nearly impossible for Karl to play AI at PG, because this would go against one of his best friends and his mentor.
AI at the 2-guard, but playing PG to one extent or another at the same time, is a huge reason why the Nuggets' offense has been incomprehensible, probably the #1 reason. And this is why it is so easy for good defensive teams to partly or totally shut down the Nuggets' offense. And the offensive inconsistency is the number one reason why the Nuggets are in 9th in the West right now instead of in the top 4. So this will be the #1 reason why the Nuggets miss the playoffs if they do miss the playoffs, or the #1 reason why they lose in the playoffs quickly.
Thanks again.
________________________________________
Allen Iverson played for two years in college, for the Georgetown University Hoyas, in 1994-95 and in 1995-96. According to CBS Sportsline, his assists per game were 4.5 and 4.7 per game for those two years.
________________________________________
"You can't use a 15 year-old's logic and expect it to apply to real life" is an ad hominen attack. When you get one of those, you know you are on the right track.
1. Those who disagree with me are now in two contradictory camps. One camp says that AI can't play the PG positon well, that he is a SG in a PG's body, and so forth. The other camp, the one you described, says that AI can play both positons and what matters is who the SG would be if AI is at PG or who the PG would be if AI is at SG. Which is it? I recommend that the other side get organized, because your side looks kind of weak when you have contradictory reasons flying around.
2. The styles of Brown and Karl don't matter to this controversy. And I'm not "anyone." I probably spend more time determining why the Nuggets win and why they lose than anyone, and I have reached the point where I can easily explain every loss and every win. I'm obviously not saying that Karl has followed Brown's wrong choice for Iverson knowing in advance it will fail, because obviously no one can know for sure in advance whether a strategy will succeed or fail. I am saying that it is a known fact that Brown was a mentor to Karl, and that it is rare for anyone to go on a completely different track from their mentor, on one of the most important decisions that mentor ever made. I am also saying that it is a well known fact that Karl detests the personality and style of J.R. Smith, and that most of his decisions regarding the guards of the Denver Nuggets have the common denominator result of keeping Smith on the bench more rather than less.
The fact that their chosen strategy has failed means that the probability that I am right and that they are wrong has shot up to a very high percentage, which means, like it or not, I have to complete this investigation and report.
3. I'm not through studying the Philly record, but that is a relatively minor issue, because my side and half of your side agrees that Iverson can play either position well. The reason this is important for the Nuggets is because the Nuggets would not be in the mess they are in if they had 5-6 more wins and, if I'm right, as seems increasinly obvious, the Nuggets would have those wins and maybe more.
4. Nene: any good coaching staff should be able to handle the loss of 1 player at Nene's level, so if you think I am going to say "Well, we would have made the playoffs if Nene played" and be done with it, sorry, I'm not going there. In point of fact, in any event, you don't see me saying the staff mishandled the loss of Nene. But they did screw up the loss of Atkins, and it looks like they are going to screw up the return of Atkins. Kenyon Martin was integrated easily and quickly thanks to sports medicine and thanks to Nene not being available. The Nuggets may have lost 1-2 games due to that. One of my jobs is to determine why the Nuggets are not fully competive with the "ultracompetitive West." If you want to say everything would be fine if Denver was in the East, fine, go ahead and say it. I won't be impressed with that. The Nuggets are one of the best 6 teams in the NBA; they should be between 3rd and 5th in the West at a minimum. Anything less than that and they have no chance in the playoffs, so what is the point?
The Nuggets do not have an underachieving bench, they have coaches who overestimate the differences between starters and non-starters, and who are among the stingiest in the NBA in the amount of playing time given to non-starters. Obviously, the bench is going to be underachieving to some extent if their playing times are less than the playing times of non-starters on other teams. That is precisely the point I have been making for many moons. Lack of significant roster improvements? Ha ha, they need to improve more than they already have, with no money left to do that? Try another reason. "Opponents adapting to the Iverson trade"? Careful, you are very close to making an argument in favor of AI at PG, because keying in on Iverson all the time won't work as well if Iverson is at least as responsible for passing and assists as he is for scoring.
I am afraid that I have stumbled on something that is bigger than I ever thought it would be. In every controversy like this, some people are going to get upset, because assumptions they have had for years and years are being questioned. Anyone who wants to stay believing that AI's career could not have worked out better had Larry Brown not removed him from the position that the majority of coaches thought he should play is welcome to do so.
Many on the Iverson can't play the PG side are going to be folks who don't really give a damn whether Iverson ever makes it to the NBA finals again or not. Anyone who does care would be more open to the possiblity that Brown and Karl have been wrong, because it never worked out their way except in that one wonder year when Iverson was by far the best guard on the planet. Do you continue on with the same strategy when it fails year after year after year? Well if you don't give a damn about Iverson, sure you do.
You don't have to explain the failure of the Nuggets, but I do, and I will.
_____________________________________________
t should be in the College Basketball General Forum, because those who know the answer are not going to be limited to just those who are interested in the Big East.
But whatever, it doesn't matter, because I pretty much found what I was looking for. The answer is obvious from the Hoya stats I have just discovered. These stats are at the Georgetown Basketball History Project, and they show that Iverson was overwhelmingly dominant in assisting; details later.
_____________________________________________
Oh great, now Iverson was a complete failure as a PG even though he was moved to a different position after just his rookie season. And even though there are only 7 players in the NBA who get more assists per game right now, I might add.
_____________________________________________
No, Iverson was not remotely a failure as a PG either at Georgetown or in his rookie year for the 76'ers:
Iverson's Rookie Year NBA Leaders
STATISTICS FROM IVERSON'S ROOKIE YEAR, 1996-97, FOR THE 76'ERS UNDER COACH JOHNNY DAVIS
# of Field Goals: 14th best in the NBA
# of 3-Point Field Goals: 17th best in the NBA
# of Free Throws: 15th best in the NBA
# of Free Throw Attempts: 10th in the NBA
# of Assists: 11th best in the NBA
# of Steals: 10th best in the NBA
# of Points: 8th best in the NBA
Minutes per Game: 8th highest in the NBA
Points Per Game: 6th highest in the NBA
Assists Per Game: 11th highest in the NBA
Steals Per Game: 7th highest in the NBA
Assist %: 17th highest in the NBA
Usage %: 6th highest in the NBA
To say that Iverson was a failure at the PG position in his rookie year, when he was the designated PG, so that it was a smart thing to move him over to SG is nuts, pure and simple. I can now prove that both Larry Brown and George Karl were both total jerks with respect to handling Allen Iverson.
And all those whiney complaints about how Iverson doesn't pass enough because Iverson is selfish are garbage, because Brown and Karl have told him to pass less and score more.
_____________________________________________
Commentary focused on Allen Iverson continues with the Posting titled "Return of Nuggets 1: Forum #2 Comments From Late March 2008, Part 2."
In these comments, do not look for the usual huge amount of detail and proof that you see in the ordinary releases here at Nuggets 1. Some of this is more like everyday conversation than like top quality sports writing. On the other hand, some of the comments do include some detailed reasoning and proof that I pride myself on in the primary reports I release.
______________________________________
LATE MARCH 2008 FORUM COMMENTARY ON THE NUGGETS, ESPECIALLY ABOUT THEIR MISTAKES
With the following commentary, you can see the early discoveries that gave birth to the Special Report: "Allen Iverson: What Could Have Been," a report which due to time constraints is still months away from completion. But three parts of the roughly eight-ten parts there will be have been published already.
_______________________________________________
Tomorrow's game is huge, the Nuggets can win it and need to win it. Wednesday is a back to back road game in Philadelphia, one of the hottest teams in the League right now, so that will probably be a loss.
The two Warriors games are huge too, March 29 and April 10.
Every time I see CP3 win a game it reminds me that A.I. could be the CP3 for the Nuggets if the coaches would just stop playing stupid games with the lineup, and stop trying to make A.I. play both guard postions at once all the time. Just because he can play both guard positions at once doesn't mean that it is smart for the team that he does.
_________________________________________
It's most likely a loss unless Chucky Atkins and Allen Iverson get at least a dozen assists. You can't run a wide open pick-up game type of offense against the Pistons, this is a serious defensive team. You have to have playmakers who can break down the defense to some extent. I don't really care how many assists Carter gets, because he just can't compete with Atkins, Iverson, or J.R. Smith as a scorer. Carter belongs on a losing team, not on the Denver Nuggets who are on the verge of being America's chump team.
___________________________________________
Playing the way he has, Anthony Carter could get at least as many minutes on many other teams and hardly anyone would complain. For the Nuggets, you have to complain about it, because the position is too important and the Nuggets have too much offensive talent to settle for Carter as a PG starter and 20+mpg player.
The recent 3 straight routs by the Nuggets reminds us that the Nuggets can't be "settling" for things when there are better options available. They have no business being in 9th place, in great danger of missing the playoffs. So criticisms that might seem kind of tough have to be made, because I want this team to get where it is supposed to be.
____________________________________________
From Wikipedia:
"Despite these criticisms, Iverson is still generally regarded as one of the best guards to ever play the game, as evidenced by his being named the starting point guard for the Eastern Conference in the NBA All-Star Game for the past seven consecutive seasons. He was voted to seven All-NBA Teams. He also took the league and All-Star MVP and led the Sixers to the Finals in 2001."
____________________________________________
THANK YOU VERY MUCH. You have helped me with one of my biggest discoveries of the year, probably the biggest. This is huge, because this proves that AI at the 2-guard is a Larry Brown-George Karl thing and that's about it. George Karl refuses to do what the majority of other coaches have done, which is start AI at PG. Since it is well known that Brown and Karl are close friends and associates, it would be nearly impossible for Karl to play AI at PG, because this would go against one of his best friends and his mentor.
AI at the 2-guard, but playing PG to one extent or another at the same time, is a huge reason why the Nuggets' offense has been incomprehensible, probably the #1 reason. And this is why it is so easy for good defensive teams to partly or totally shut down the Nuggets' offense. And the offensive inconsistency is the number one reason why the Nuggets are in 9th in the West right now instead of in the top 4. So this will be the #1 reason why the Nuggets miss the playoffs if they do miss the playoffs, or the #1 reason why they lose in the playoffs quickly.
Thanks again.
________________________________________
Allen Iverson played for two years in college, for the Georgetown University Hoyas, in 1994-95 and in 1995-96. According to CBS Sportsline, his assists per game were 4.5 and 4.7 per game for those two years.
________________________________________
"You can't use a 15 year-old's logic and expect it to apply to real life" is an ad hominen attack. When you get one of those, you know you are on the right track.
1. Those who disagree with me are now in two contradictory camps. One camp says that AI can't play the PG positon well, that he is a SG in a PG's body, and so forth. The other camp, the one you described, says that AI can play both positons and what matters is who the SG would be if AI is at PG or who the PG would be if AI is at SG. Which is it? I recommend that the other side get organized, because your side looks kind of weak when you have contradictory reasons flying around.
2. The styles of Brown and Karl don't matter to this controversy. And I'm not "anyone." I probably spend more time determining why the Nuggets win and why they lose than anyone, and I have reached the point where I can easily explain every loss and every win. I'm obviously not saying that Karl has followed Brown's wrong choice for Iverson knowing in advance it will fail, because obviously no one can know for sure in advance whether a strategy will succeed or fail. I am saying that it is a known fact that Brown was a mentor to Karl, and that it is rare for anyone to go on a completely different track from their mentor, on one of the most important decisions that mentor ever made. I am also saying that it is a well known fact that Karl detests the personality and style of J.R. Smith, and that most of his decisions regarding the guards of the Denver Nuggets have the common denominator result of keeping Smith on the bench more rather than less.
The fact that their chosen strategy has failed means that the probability that I am right and that they are wrong has shot up to a very high percentage, which means, like it or not, I have to complete this investigation and report.
3. I'm not through studying the Philly record, but that is a relatively minor issue, because my side and half of your side agrees that Iverson can play either position well. The reason this is important for the Nuggets is because the Nuggets would not be in the mess they are in if they had 5-6 more wins and, if I'm right, as seems increasinly obvious, the Nuggets would have those wins and maybe more.
4. Nene: any good coaching staff should be able to handle the loss of 1 player at Nene's level, so if you think I am going to say "Well, we would have made the playoffs if Nene played" and be done with it, sorry, I'm not going there. In point of fact, in any event, you don't see me saying the staff mishandled the loss of Nene. But they did screw up the loss of Atkins, and it looks like they are going to screw up the return of Atkins. Kenyon Martin was integrated easily and quickly thanks to sports medicine and thanks to Nene not being available. The Nuggets may have lost 1-2 games due to that. One of my jobs is to determine why the Nuggets are not fully competive with the "ultracompetitive West." If you want to say everything would be fine if Denver was in the East, fine, go ahead and say it. I won't be impressed with that. The Nuggets are one of the best 6 teams in the NBA; they should be between 3rd and 5th in the West at a minimum. Anything less than that and they have no chance in the playoffs, so what is the point?
The Nuggets do not have an underachieving bench, they have coaches who overestimate the differences between starters and non-starters, and who are among the stingiest in the NBA in the amount of playing time given to non-starters. Obviously, the bench is going to be underachieving to some extent if their playing times are less than the playing times of non-starters on other teams. That is precisely the point I have been making for many moons. Lack of significant roster improvements? Ha ha, they need to improve more than they already have, with no money left to do that? Try another reason. "Opponents adapting to the Iverson trade"? Careful, you are very close to making an argument in favor of AI at PG, because keying in on Iverson all the time won't work as well if Iverson is at least as responsible for passing and assists as he is for scoring.
I am afraid that I have stumbled on something that is bigger than I ever thought it would be. In every controversy like this, some people are going to get upset, because assumptions they have had for years and years are being questioned. Anyone who wants to stay believing that AI's career could not have worked out better had Larry Brown not removed him from the position that the majority of coaches thought he should play is welcome to do so.
Many on the Iverson can't play the PG side are going to be folks who don't really give a damn whether Iverson ever makes it to the NBA finals again or not. Anyone who does care would be more open to the possiblity that Brown and Karl have been wrong, because it never worked out their way except in that one wonder year when Iverson was by far the best guard on the planet. Do you continue on with the same strategy when it fails year after year after year? Well if you don't give a damn about Iverson, sure you do.
You don't have to explain the failure of the Nuggets, but I do, and I will.
_____________________________________________
t should be in the College Basketball General Forum, because those who know the answer are not going to be limited to just those who are interested in the Big East.
But whatever, it doesn't matter, because I pretty much found what I was looking for. The answer is obvious from the Hoya stats I have just discovered. These stats are at the Georgetown Basketball History Project, and they show that Iverson was overwhelmingly dominant in assisting; details later.
_____________________________________________
Oh great, now Iverson was a complete failure as a PG even though he was moved to a different position after just his rookie season. And even though there are only 7 players in the NBA who get more assists per game right now, I might add.
_____________________________________________
No, Iverson was not remotely a failure as a PG either at Georgetown or in his rookie year for the 76'ers:
Iverson's Rookie Year NBA Leaders
STATISTICS FROM IVERSON'S ROOKIE YEAR, 1996-97, FOR THE 76'ERS UNDER COACH JOHNNY DAVIS
# of Field Goals: 14th best in the NBA
# of 3-Point Field Goals: 17th best in the NBA
# of Free Throws: 15th best in the NBA
# of Free Throw Attempts: 10th in the NBA
# of Assists: 11th best in the NBA
# of Steals: 10th best in the NBA
# of Points: 8th best in the NBA
Minutes per Game: 8th highest in the NBA
Points Per Game: 6th highest in the NBA
Assists Per Game: 11th highest in the NBA
Steals Per Game: 7th highest in the NBA
Assist %: 17th highest in the NBA
Usage %: 6th highest in the NBA
To say that Iverson was a failure at the PG position in his rookie year, when he was the designated PG, so that it was a smart thing to move him over to SG is nuts, pure and simple. I can now prove that both Larry Brown and George Karl were both total jerks with respect to handling Allen Iverson.
And all those whiney complaints about how Iverson doesn't pass enough because Iverson is selfish are garbage, because Brown and Karl have told him to pass less and score more.
_____________________________________________
Commentary focused on Allen Iverson continues with the Posting titled "Return of Nuggets 1: Forum #2 Comments From Late March 2008, Part 2."
Thursday, October 2, 2008
Return of Nuggets 1: Forum Comments From Late July, 2008
Forum commentary I did from March 2008 through July 2008, when I didn't have enough time for the detailed and extensive reports I like to do, is being posted in early October, 2008. The primary themes are how the Nuggets are blowing a great (and expensive!) opportunity to play the game of basketball in such a way that respects the sport and that takes as much advantage as possible of who they have on the roster. The 2006-09 Nuggets have turned out to be an excellent case study of how not to run a basketball team; many things you should not do if you are a basketball manager or coach can be identified from what the Nuggets actually did during these years.
In these comments, do not look for the usual huge amount of detail and proof that you see in the ordinary releases here at Nuggets 1. Some of this is more like everyday conversation than like top quality sports writing. On the other hand, some of the comments do include some detailed reasoning and proof that I pride myself on in the primary reports I release.
______________________________________
LATE JULY 2008 FORUM COMMENTARY ON THE NUGGETS, ESPECIALLY ABOUT THEIR MISTAKES
This is more commentary following the Camby giveaway. See also the immediately preceding post, (posted on the same day) titled: "Return of Nuggets 1: Forum Comments From Middle of July, 2008"
Every time I read a Hollinger article all the way through I think he is more of a loony than before. In this gem, he endorses the apparent Nuggets crash and burn plan of going in one year flat from one extreme to the other financially. It's a backhanded compliment, because he says the only way the Camby offloading makes any sense at all is if you realize that the C Anthony-Iverson thing was a horrible mistake. (With compliments like that, who needs criticisms?)
So he talks about the Nuggets possibly going under the cap, and the possibility of their using the trade exception in 2009. He's silent as to the odds of that working out but believe me, he will be the first to criticize if it doesn't work out.
Hollinger also contradicts himself as he often does. First he claims that the Nuggets gain from the offloading of Camby. Then in the last 3 paragraphs, he goes into how the Nuggets are devastated by this move in basketball terms, and are heading for the "second tier" of the Conference.
Which is it Hollinger? He really should make his mind up in advance, so he doesn't write such a mealy mouthed article.
_____________________________________________
Now we know that the Nuggets really were exploring Melo trades, no matter what they say in public, and no matter what they told him and his agent. They had the carving knife out from day one of the off season.
A Melo trade was a serious possibility, as I said before, though at the time I said that I didn't know what I know now, so I wasn't totally sure of it at the time I first said it.
What do you think phil77 you think Melo is going to stay if there are major losing seasons, or will he want to go?
_____________________________________________
If the Nuggets realized that rebuilding is needed after they fell into the trap of using Iverson the same way the 76'ers did, then I give them credit for that at least.
But I can not figure out for the life of me why the Nuggets did not want a draft pick this year if they are truly now in rebuilding
The obvious best guess, as I said, is that Mr. Kroenke is consolidating his finances due to the rough and threatening economy. Maybe even for someone like him, times can be tough?
_____________________________________________
Just about any other way of moving Camby would have been better than this, other than dumping him in a river somewhere.
As just one example, the Nuggets could have traded Camby and their first round draft pick for a higher draft pick, and then use that to draft one of the best centers available in the draft. That deal would be weighted in favor of the other team, but would not be a giveaway. Under this scenario, the Nuggets would get a promising but young replacement for Camby, and get substantial payroll relief at the same time.
The Nuggets saying that they needed to dump Camby because of an immediate need for huge payroll relief is nothing more than meatball surgery.
_______________________________________________
Well, if the Nuggets could not find a team with payroll space, they should have waited until they could. It's not really difficult. Find a team that has cap space, offer them a deal that is lopsided in their favor, and avoid dumping Camby in the river. Get something for him, for gods sakes.
The Nuggets, whether they admit it publicly or not, have gone into rebuilding without exhausting the possibilities with their present high talent roster, though that may sound ironic coming from someone who had lost faith in them ever doing that. But I never asked them to admit they were failures in managing this roster, as they now have.
To me, the front office and the coaches in effect admitting they could not make the 2007-08 roster, one of the NBA's best, work out, before exhausting their efforts, is as bad as them not being able to make the roster work out in the first place! At least try to do it! You might get lucky, for one thing. AI might have decided to pass more on his own for example.
All of this raises the question: why did they in the first place spend the big bucks, including the big luxury tax, if there was a possibility they would short circuit the project and dismantle the team before making certain that the expenditure of all that money was not going to work out? Now the Nuggets have more or less wasted the money they spent on the big salary players and on the luxury tax, by not waiting long enough to get much of a return.
If they had given it one more year, they could have at the very least attracted more big names to be interested in playing in Denver, similar to the way Ron Artest was interested last year. But now that the team is being carved up, which good players are going to be willing to cut the Nuggets a little salary slack in order to be able to play with the mighty Nuggets? No one. To get anyone to play in Denver now, the Nuggets have to pony up and offer an extra several million dollars compared with what it might have been.
In other words, the Nuggets are signaling to the League and all of its players that they are not a truly front line, contending franchise, and those top players and their agents will respond accordingly. The Nuggets are reversing their investment before getting any return on it, with the snubbing of Ron Artest being part of that self destructive process.
But worse still, and this may be the most relevant point at this juncture, the Nuggets are screwing up the rebuilding in its early stages, Getting nothing for Camby (and nothing for Najera) is to say the least not a good start for the rebuilding. Repeatedly getting nothing for something is not going to get you anywhere, no matter how many hypothetical payroll razzmatazz possibilities you want to discuss for the future.
The trade exception is nothing more than an option for a team to acquire a new player and new salary and go over the cap at the same time. It doesn't mean you get the player for free if you use it, which is the way some posters make it sound sometimes. You have to acquire that player somehow, and you have to pay his salary too, the "trade exception" thing is just an NBA payroll accounting rule.
______________________________________________
Someone really smart and correct made an on point list:
My response was add to an already great commentary:
Excellent list; but now you have to at the least add #9: the Camby dumping.
The JR acquisition for almost nothing and the AI acquisition, and a few other minor positives, are swamped by these negatives. The front office has failed overall.
__________________________________________
Someone made a joke about J.R. Smith:
I added:
Seriously, another risk for him is an injury, for example from a fluke landing on a dunk, from another neck tackle, or from trying to fly like a bird with his vehicle.
__________________________________________
Well it was a glass full or glass half empty situation. On one hand, those who think strategically and who are basketball fanatics could tell that, the way the Nuggets were managing their team, they were never going to succeed, at least insofar as the playoffs. So if you look at it that way, as I usually do, you would say "alright, this is a failure; end it and stop paying the luxury tax for no reason immediately."
On the other hand, you could look at the glass as half full, and if you did, the Nuggets had no right to consider themselves to be at a logical dead end, and to short circuit the Melo/AI/Luxury Tax era. Consider:
1. From a what we officially know perspective, there hasn't been one word, nor one hint of a word, in public, about the Nuggets reaching an end to their project to become a real contender in the West. Quite to the contrary, Nuggets management has been consistent in saying that they are still on course to being a contender. Is this a stealth rebuilding or something?
2. From a basketball strategy perspective, the Nuggets could not possibly be at a logical end unless they actually, really, fully deployed Allen Iverson at the PG position, instead of just inserting him in that slot for the playoffs, for grins only.
3. From a performance measure perspective, you can't possibly say that one of the very most talented teams in the NBA has reached a logical end and has to begin rebuilding. If Camby and Najera were retiring, you could say that maybe, but they were not retiring. Would Boston, Los Angeles, or at least a dozen top NBA franchises be caught dead starting to rebuild while they were still one of the most talented teams in the NBA?
4. From the actual basketball results strategy, the Nuggets won 50 out of 82 games in 2007-08, one of their highest total number of wins ever. Moreover, the gap between their offensive efficiency and defensive efficiency in 2007-08 was substantially up from the year prior, and was one of their most positive gaps ever. You are not at the logical dead end when you have just completed your best season in many, many years.
In short, you have to wait until you are actually at the logical dead end until you take drastic action as a result of being at the logical dead end. The Nuggets are acting as if they are paranoid about finding out whether they were about to reach the logical dead end, which is ridiculous.
This is about like a man, suspecting that he is going to die soon, going to the funeral home, jumping in a casket, and telling the funeral director to bury him now!
I as a critic am entitled to look at the glass as half empty, but the Nuggets as a professional sports organization are supposed to look at the glass as half full, and act accordingly. Moreover, as I said, the Nuggets and any organization anywhere is supposed to continue to manage an investment until there is definitely no chance for a return from it, rather than cutting and running and failing to get a return before the possibilities for a return are exhausted.
Now switching gears, assuming that the Nuggets have gone into rebuilding, the question becomes how are they doing in the early going? And in my view they are doing rotten, and I don't see how that is disputable or complicated. How can you expect to have a successful rebuilding if you decline your one and only draft pick, and opt for dumping both Camby and Najera, with no young players with potential in exchange. I know that Karl is biased against younger players, but this is ridiculous.
To have a successful rebuilding (or a successful team in general, for that matter) it seems to me that you need to be continuously developing your younger players, making them better, and working them into your offensive and defensive strategies and schemes.
For the Nuggets to say: "We'll pick up everyone we need next year, and/or the year after that" is poor management in my book. For one thing, by not getting any young player who will be an important part of the rebuilding now, in particular a center or a point guard, they are totally wasting 2008-09, because obviously you can't be working with a player if he's not on your team.
Furthermore, it sounds like the Nuggets, by doing all the offloading this year and planning all the uploading for next year or two, are creating a very tall order for the front office to accomplish next year. This tall order is supposed to be satisfied in the jungle that is the NBA draft, trading and acquisition world, where any combination among 29 other teams can frustrate your efforts to get what you need, especially if you are in a hurry. Generally, the more you count on acquisitions via trade to make up for the lack of on court development of key players in your system, the more you are dependent on being lucky when you maneuver for position with the other 29 teams. And going from getting 0 players from the draft one year, to 3-4 players from the draft the next year, is another inconsistency that you should avoid if at all possible.
If the Nuggets, in this rebuilding, do in fact finally get some promising younger players in 2009, all at once, then there will be a logjam of younger players, and no coach, least of all Karl, will be able to work all of them in in just one season, so one or more of them will be wasted that season.
If on the other hand, the Nuggets, in this rebuilding, are actually just rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic; if they intend, in other words, to continue to overload with huge money aging veterans, and not worry about developing younger players into their system, then they will fail again with new names.
To be successful, you absolutely must have some kind of a balance between younger, cheaper players, and older, expensive ones. The payroll rules and the salary pattern make that mandatory.
In summary, I don't think rebuilding is something that you can wake up in the morning and say: "Alright, it's time to rebuild, and we're going to do it in 2009, and dump off some players this year to stop paying the luxury tax. To be a successful franchise, you generally are going to have to always be rebuilding to some extent. Every single year, you should be developing players who will in a year or two or three be crucial, as the older players go away. Every single year, you should be on the lookout for mid-level type players, including swingmen and guards who can hit threes, who appear on track to become quality starters.
I agree you need 2 or preferably 3 huge players to succeed, but if you spend most of your time and most of your money looking for and acquiring them, and if you overload with them, then what do you think is going to happen with the rest of the roster? Correct, it's going to rot to one extent or another. And your team overall will be top heavy and will fail in the playoffs.
_____________________________________________
There are ways to criticize Camby's defensive style and choices without making a fool of yourself but this is not one of them.
Also, it's interesting to note that the Clippers are apparently going to start Camby at power forward, which if comments like this are correct, will devastate their defense, while the defense of the Nuggets will be much better without Camby.
This is seriously going to be an interesting test to see whether a defender who makes slightly unusual defensive choices is in fact a player who the mainstream, due to rebounding, blocking, and +/- statistics, thinks is a good defender, but is really a poor defender due to style, including choice of priorities.
As an important side point, obviously, a player's style and priorities depend on that player's real athletic capabilities, which in turn depend to some extent on that player's body and what he can do with it. So what the Camby haters are in effect saying is that no one with Camby's type of body and hand skills should be starting for a pro basketball team.
So we will have to see what happens to the defenses of the Clippers and the Nuggets this year: will they be better or worse than last year, and by how much? If the Clippers improve more than the Nuggets defensively, I for one will continue to never seriously consider that choices a player makes regarding playing style can be a major or a large factor in determining the real value of that player, enough to make all statistics and awards meaningless. Simply put, assuming there are no non-Camby related huge shocks regarding the defenses of either team:
Nuggets defense improves more than does the Clippers defense: Camby's defensive style and priorities did in fact partly or largely offset his raw production of rebounds, blocks, plus/minus, and overall team defensive efficiency.
Clippers defense improves more than does the Nuggets defense: Production is what counts; style and choice of priorities may be the derivative of production, but the derivative only matters much in calculus class.
Note: I have been staying away from NT because I am too negative about the Nuggets now to get any advantage from this board, but in coming here to find a link, I could not resist reading some topics, and then I noticed the quoted comment above, and I just could not stop myself from commenting. The idea that people can be happy that Camby was given away for nothing is so insane to me that I could not resist a comment and a follow up plan. So I will probably not be able to stop myself from coming back late this year to claim victory or admit defeat on this subject.
Remember, it was not Katrina that killed much of New Orleans, it was the fact the levees failed when they were not supposed to. Similarly, it will not be the trading of Camby that kills the Nuggets (assuming it does); it will be the fact that Camby was dumped overboard in a big hurry, without anything being obtained in exchange. Don't get it twisted.
In these comments, do not look for the usual huge amount of detail and proof that you see in the ordinary releases here at Nuggets 1. Some of this is more like everyday conversation than like top quality sports writing. On the other hand, some of the comments do include some detailed reasoning and proof that I pride myself on in the primary reports I release.
______________________________________
LATE JULY 2008 FORUM COMMENTARY ON THE NUGGETS, ESPECIALLY ABOUT THEIR MISTAKES
This is more commentary following the Camby giveaway. See also the immediately preceding post, (posted on the same day) titled: "Return of Nuggets 1: Forum Comments From Middle of July, 2008"
Every time I read a Hollinger article all the way through I think he is more of a loony than before. In this gem, he endorses the apparent Nuggets crash and burn plan of going in one year flat from one extreme to the other financially. It's a backhanded compliment, because he says the only way the Camby offloading makes any sense at all is if you realize that the C Anthony-Iverson thing was a horrible mistake. (With compliments like that, who needs criticisms?)
So he talks about the Nuggets possibly going under the cap, and the possibility of their using the trade exception in 2009. He's silent as to the odds of that working out but believe me, he will be the first to criticize if it doesn't work out.
Hollinger also contradicts himself as he often does. First he claims that the Nuggets gain from the offloading of Camby. Then in the last 3 paragraphs, he goes into how the Nuggets are devastated by this move in basketball terms, and are heading for the "second tier" of the Conference.
Which is it Hollinger? He really should make his mind up in advance, so he doesn't write such a mealy mouthed article.
_____________________________________________
Now we know that the Nuggets really were exploring Melo trades, no matter what they say in public, and no matter what they told him and his agent. They had the carving knife out from day one of the off season.
A Melo trade was a serious possibility, as I said before, though at the time I said that I didn't know what I know now, so I wasn't totally sure of it at the time I first said it.
What do you think phil77 you think Melo is going to stay if there are major losing seasons, or will he want to go?
_____________________________________________
If the Nuggets realized that rebuilding is needed after they fell into the trap of using Iverson the same way the 76'ers did, then I give them credit for that at least.
But I can not figure out for the life of me why the Nuggets did not want a draft pick this year if they are truly now in rebuilding
The obvious best guess, as I said, is that Mr. Kroenke is consolidating his finances due to the rough and threatening economy. Maybe even for someone like him, times can be tough?
_____________________________________________
Just about any other way of moving Camby would have been better than this, other than dumping him in a river somewhere.
As just one example, the Nuggets could have traded Camby and their first round draft pick for a higher draft pick, and then use that to draft one of the best centers available in the draft. That deal would be weighted in favor of the other team, but would not be a giveaway. Under this scenario, the Nuggets would get a promising but young replacement for Camby, and get substantial payroll relief at the same time.
The Nuggets saying that they needed to dump Camby because of an immediate need for huge payroll relief is nothing more than meatball surgery.
_______________________________________________
Well, if the Nuggets could not find a team with payroll space, they should have waited until they could. It's not really difficult. Find a team that has cap space, offer them a deal that is lopsided in their favor, and avoid dumping Camby in the river. Get something for him, for gods sakes.
The Nuggets, whether they admit it publicly or not, have gone into rebuilding without exhausting the possibilities with their present high talent roster, though that may sound ironic coming from someone who had lost faith in them ever doing that. But I never asked them to admit they were failures in managing this roster, as they now have.
To me, the front office and the coaches in effect admitting they could not make the 2007-08 roster, one of the NBA's best, work out, before exhausting their efforts, is as bad as them not being able to make the roster work out in the first place! At least try to do it! You might get lucky, for one thing. AI might have decided to pass more on his own for example.
All of this raises the question: why did they in the first place spend the big bucks, including the big luxury tax, if there was a possibility they would short circuit the project and dismantle the team before making certain that the expenditure of all that money was not going to work out? Now the Nuggets have more or less wasted the money they spent on the big salary players and on the luxury tax, by not waiting long enough to get much of a return.
If they had given it one more year, they could have at the very least attracted more big names to be interested in playing in Denver, similar to the way Ron Artest was interested last year. But now that the team is being carved up, which good players are going to be willing to cut the Nuggets a little salary slack in order to be able to play with the mighty Nuggets? No one. To get anyone to play in Denver now, the Nuggets have to pony up and offer an extra several million dollars compared with what it might have been.
In other words, the Nuggets are signaling to the League and all of its players that they are not a truly front line, contending franchise, and those top players and their agents will respond accordingly. The Nuggets are reversing their investment before getting any return on it, with the snubbing of Ron Artest being part of that self destructive process.
But worse still, and this may be the most relevant point at this juncture, the Nuggets are screwing up the rebuilding in its early stages, Getting nothing for Camby (and nothing for Najera) is to say the least not a good start for the rebuilding. Repeatedly getting nothing for something is not going to get you anywhere, no matter how many hypothetical payroll razzmatazz possibilities you want to discuss for the future.
The trade exception is nothing more than an option for a team to acquire a new player and new salary and go over the cap at the same time. It doesn't mean you get the player for free if you use it, which is the way some posters make it sound sometimes. You have to acquire that player somehow, and you have to pay his salary too, the "trade exception" thing is just an NBA payroll accounting rule.
______________________________________________
Someone really smart and correct made an on point list:
I agree i'm hoping something big is in the works. Because right now this brain trust is just stupid to me.
1.Sign Reggie Evans to more than he was worth, then dump him for a far worse player to save money FROM THEIR SIGNING
2.Sign Nene to $60 million when he hadnt proved anything, and there were no teams with cap space that would have came close to offering it.
3.Trade our PG for AI but instead of making AI a PG who sets up his team they move him to SG but still mandate he controls the ball 20 seconds out of every posession.
4.Not make one dent in the draft, though some of the players we have drafted and traded for other teams have done pretty well.
5.Keep a coach that is not a fit for this team at all
6.Let eddie go because we have no money, then after he signs dump a bunch of salary for absolutely nothing. Not even a second round pick, nothing.
7.Future $7 mil a year deal that JR will get only to sit on the bench while AI/Chucky/Carter run the show
8.Say stupid s**t like "its a chess move". Yeah Memphis was playing Chess when they gave away gasol for nothing too.
I can understand if we said that we needed to clear salary and start over, but the majority of the salary issues we have were created by this front office, Kenyon is the only hold over, the other dumb contracts are on these guys. Wark/Bearup/Chapman clearly do not know what they are doing at this point.
My response was add to an already great commentary:
Excellent list; but now you have to at the least add #9: the Camby dumping.
The JR acquisition for almost nothing and the AI acquisition, and a few other minor positives, are swamped by these negatives. The front office has failed overall.
__________________________________________
Someone made a joke about J.R. Smith:
Sure...he could be worth 10 million next season. or he could run over david stern's granddaughters puppy while smoking a joint and be banished from the nba for life.
I added:
Seriously, another risk for him is an injury, for example from a fluke landing on a dunk, from another neck tackle, or from trying to fly like a bird with his vehicle.
__________________________________________
Well it was a glass full or glass half empty situation. On one hand, those who think strategically and who are basketball fanatics could tell that, the way the Nuggets were managing their team, they were never going to succeed, at least insofar as the playoffs. So if you look at it that way, as I usually do, you would say "alright, this is a failure; end it and stop paying the luxury tax for no reason immediately."
On the other hand, you could look at the glass as half full, and if you did, the Nuggets had no right to consider themselves to be at a logical dead end, and to short circuit the Melo/AI/Luxury Tax era. Consider:
1. From a what we officially know perspective, there hasn't been one word, nor one hint of a word, in public, about the Nuggets reaching an end to their project to become a real contender in the West. Quite to the contrary, Nuggets management has been consistent in saying that they are still on course to being a contender. Is this a stealth rebuilding or something?
2. From a basketball strategy perspective, the Nuggets could not possibly be at a logical end unless they actually, really, fully deployed Allen Iverson at the PG position, instead of just inserting him in that slot for the playoffs, for grins only.
3. From a performance measure perspective, you can't possibly say that one of the very most talented teams in the NBA has reached a logical end and has to begin rebuilding. If Camby and Najera were retiring, you could say that maybe, but they were not retiring. Would Boston, Los Angeles, or at least a dozen top NBA franchises be caught dead starting to rebuild while they were still one of the most talented teams in the NBA?
4. From the actual basketball results strategy, the Nuggets won 50 out of 82 games in 2007-08, one of their highest total number of wins ever. Moreover, the gap between their offensive efficiency and defensive efficiency in 2007-08 was substantially up from the year prior, and was one of their most positive gaps ever. You are not at the logical dead end when you have just completed your best season in many, many years.
In short, you have to wait until you are actually at the logical dead end until you take drastic action as a result of being at the logical dead end. The Nuggets are acting as if they are paranoid about finding out whether they were about to reach the logical dead end, which is ridiculous.
This is about like a man, suspecting that he is going to die soon, going to the funeral home, jumping in a casket, and telling the funeral director to bury him now!
I as a critic am entitled to look at the glass as half empty, but the Nuggets as a professional sports organization are supposed to look at the glass as half full, and act accordingly. Moreover, as I said, the Nuggets and any organization anywhere is supposed to continue to manage an investment until there is definitely no chance for a return from it, rather than cutting and running and failing to get a return before the possibilities for a return are exhausted.
Now switching gears, assuming that the Nuggets have gone into rebuilding, the question becomes how are they doing in the early going? And in my view they are doing rotten, and I don't see how that is disputable or complicated. How can you expect to have a successful rebuilding if you decline your one and only draft pick, and opt for dumping both Camby and Najera, with no young players with potential in exchange. I know that Karl is biased against younger players, but this is ridiculous.
To have a successful rebuilding (or a successful team in general, for that matter) it seems to me that you need to be continuously developing your younger players, making them better, and working them into your offensive and defensive strategies and schemes.
For the Nuggets to say: "We'll pick up everyone we need next year, and/or the year after that" is poor management in my book. For one thing, by not getting any young player who will be an important part of the rebuilding now, in particular a center or a point guard, they are totally wasting 2008-09, because obviously you can't be working with a player if he's not on your team.
Furthermore, it sounds like the Nuggets, by doing all the offloading this year and planning all the uploading for next year or two, are creating a very tall order for the front office to accomplish next year. This tall order is supposed to be satisfied in the jungle that is the NBA draft, trading and acquisition world, where any combination among 29 other teams can frustrate your efforts to get what you need, especially if you are in a hurry. Generally, the more you count on acquisitions via trade to make up for the lack of on court development of key players in your system, the more you are dependent on being lucky when you maneuver for position with the other 29 teams. And going from getting 0 players from the draft one year, to 3-4 players from the draft the next year, is another inconsistency that you should avoid if at all possible.
If the Nuggets, in this rebuilding, do in fact finally get some promising younger players in 2009, all at once, then there will be a logjam of younger players, and no coach, least of all Karl, will be able to work all of them in in just one season, so one or more of them will be wasted that season.
If on the other hand, the Nuggets, in this rebuilding, are actually just rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic; if they intend, in other words, to continue to overload with huge money aging veterans, and not worry about developing younger players into their system, then they will fail again with new names.
To be successful, you absolutely must have some kind of a balance between younger, cheaper players, and older, expensive ones. The payroll rules and the salary pattern make that mandatory.
In summary, I don't think rebuilding is something that you can wake up in the morning and say: "Alright, it's time to rebuild, and we're going to do it in 2009, and dump off some players this year to stop paying the luxury tax. To be a successful franchise, you generally are going to have to always be rebuilding to some extent. Every single year, you should be developing players who will in a year or two or three be crucial, as the older players go away. Every single year, you should be on the lookout for mid-level type players, including swingmen and guards who can hit threes, who appear on track to become quality starters.
I agree you need 2 or preferably 3 huge players to succeed, but if you spend most of your time and most of your money looking for and acquiring them, and if you overload with them, then what do you think is going to happen with the rest of the roster? Correct, it's going to rot to one extent or another. And your team overall will be top heavy and will fail in the playoffs.
_____________________________________________
There are ways to criticize Camby's defensive style and choices without making a fool of yourself but this is not one of them.
Also, it's interesting to note that the Clippers are apparently going to start Camby at power forward, which if comments like this are correct, will devastate their defense, while the defense of the Nuggets will be much better without Camby.
This is seriously going to be an interesting test to see whether a defender who makes slightly unusual defensive choices is in fact a player who the mainstream, due to rebounding, blocking, and +/- statistics, thinks is a good defender, but is really a poor defender due to style, including choice of priorities.
As an important side point, obviously, a player's style and priorities depend on that player's real athletic capabilities, which in turn depend to some extent on that player's body and what he can do with it. So what the Camby haters are in effect saying is that no one with Camby's type of body and hand skills should be starting for a pro basketball team.
So we will have to see what happens to the defenses of the Clippers and the Nuggets this year: will they be better or worse than last year, and by how much? If the Clippers improve more than the Nuggets defensively, I for one will continue to never seriously consider that choices a player makes regarding playing style can be a major or a large factor in determining the real value of that player, enough to make all statistics and awards meaningless. Simply put, assuming there are no non-Camby related huge shocks regarding the defenses of either team:
Nuggets defense improves more than does the Clippers defense: Camby's defensive style and priorities did in fact partly or largely offset his raw production of rebounds, blocks, plus/minus, and overall team defensive efficiency.
Clippers defense improves more than does the Nuggets defense: Production is what counts; style and choice of priorities may be the derivative of production, but the derivative only matters much in calculus class.
Note: I have been staying away from NT because I am too negative about the Nuggets now to get any advantage from this board, but in coming here to find a link, I could not resist reading some topics, and then I noticed the quoted comment above, and I just could not stop myself from commenting. The idea that people can be happy that Camby was given away for nothing is so insane to me that I could not resist a comment and a follow up plan. So I will probably not be able to stop myself from coming back late this year to claim victory or admit defeat on this subject.
Remember, it was not Katrina that killed much of New Orleans, it was the fact the levees failed when they were not supposed to. Similarly, it will not be the trading of Camby that kills the Nuggets (assuming it does); it will be the fact that Camby was dumped overboard in a big hurry, without anything being obtained in exchange. Don't get it twisted.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
