The Denver Nuggets Lose in Philadelphia to the 76'ers 115-113 and Allen Iverson: What Could Have Bee

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (tremaine @ Mar 24 2008, 12:53 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>You didn't need to add context to it because 1) I fully understood what you typed</div>

No, you misunderstood, and it is partly my fault. </div>

No, I didn't misunderstand you at all.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>2) it is still flat out completely wrong. Schools care first, second and third about winning.</div>

Wrong, schools are heavily damaged financially if the coach can not get players recruited up to the next level, so they can not care about winning first. This is a money based society, not a socialist society. In the Soviet Union, your opinion carried the day. </div>

How are schools heavily damaged financially if a coach can't get players to the next level? There is no financial incentive for public high schools and for private high schools, athletes make up a very small percentage of the student population, that there is no impact on tuition dollars.

For colleges, the money is made through alumni donations and ticket sales. Both of those are driven by wins.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>You continue to demonstrate a lack of understanding of the world that you are attempting to describe.</div>

Ad hominem junk, but the first one in a while though. </div>

No, it isn't an ad hominem attack. I'm not making that statement as an attempt to discredit you. Rather, it is an analysis of the words you have typed.

I'll state it very simply again, you don't understand what you are talking about.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>Additionally, you continue to talk about players being in the "wrong" position when I've already demonstrated that it is a completely ridiculous concept</div>.

Read more carefully, I am not talking about anyone being in the wrong position except Allen Iverson on the Denver Nuggets, and maybe on the 76'ers if data availability permits. If you think you have demonstrated that players are never in the wrong position, I feel sorry for you.
</div>

Wow, you've completely missed the point. You've spent hundreds of words, including in the post I'm responding to, stating that HS and college coaches wouldn't play players in the wrong position. That is the ridiculous concept.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>One of the many fundamental problems with how you are attempting to prove this is by linking Karl and Brown's decisions. You lose all credibility when you do that.</div>

They were the exact same decisions. They both went against the majority of coaches who thought Iverson should be PG. The rest of the investigation is to try to find out what the exact circumstances were in Philadelphia in 1997. I am reasonably sure that Brown had more justification than Karl does, but did Brown have enough justification or not?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>Another fundamental problem that ruins your credibility is this discussion about what his HS and college coaches did with AI. What AI did in HS and college have zero impact on what he does in the NBA. The NBA game is a different animal from both HS and college and the position anyone plays at that level means nothing in regards to NBA success or failure.</div>

I already explained that the coach counts were a preliminary or introductory evidence. And basketball is basketball, and you have exactly the same positions in high school and college as you have in the NBA, so to say that you can't use what happened in high school or college at all is going way, way too far.


<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>You are building volumes of circumstantial "evidence" that doesn't have any value and is all easily and quickly refuted. While you obviously believe it helps build your case, the reality is that it ruins your credibility.</div>

It's preliminary evidence, it allows me to proceed with the project and to justify working to get the heavy duty evidence.

I don't have to have only slam dunk evidence. I am no longer trying to prove something that the majority automatically scoff at. Keep in mind that among some of the best fans of the Nuggets, fans who take the time to read Nuggets forums, you have the following:

1. % of Fans Who Think Iverson Should be the Point Guard: 50-70%
2. % of Fans Who Think the Iverson PG / Smith SG backcourt is better than the Carter PG / Iverson SG backcourt: 55-75%
3. % of Fans Who Think Karl should retire or be fired for his mistakes: 65-85%

These are conservative estimates. These percentages have been rising steadily over the course of this season.

If time permits, I am going to be setting up polls on various forums to confirm these estimates, which are based on extensive reading of relevant topics on various forums.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (tremaine @ Mar 24 2008, 01:20 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>One of the many fundamental problems with how you are attempting to prove this is by linking Karl and Brown's decisions. You lose all credibility when you do that.</div>

They were the exact same decisions. They both went against the majority of coaches who thought Iverson should be PG. The rest of the investigation is to try to find out what the exact circumstances were in Philadelphia in 1997. I am reasonably sure that Brown has more justification than Karl does, but did Brown have enough justification or not? </div>

The entire point is that it doesn't matter what the "majority" of coaches thought. Besides that, I'm talking about when you stated that Karl is playing AI at SG because that is what Brown did and Karl wouldn't want to go against Brown.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>Another fundamental problem that ruins your credibility is this discussion about what his HS and college coaches did with AI. What AI did in HS and college have zero impact on what he does in the NBA. The NBA game is a different animal from both HS and college and the position anyone plays at that level means nothing in regards to NBA success or failure.</div>

I already explained that the coach counts were a preliminary or introductory evidence. And basketball is basketball, and you have exactly the same positions in high school and college as you have in the NBA, so to say that you can't use what happened in high school or college at all is going way, way too far. </div>

By your own words, you have already admitted that HS on court basketball is different from college and college on on court basketball is different from the NBA.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>You are building volumes of circumstantial "evidence" that doesn't have any value and is all easily and quickly refuted. While you obviously believe it helps build your case, the reality is that it ruins your credibility.</div>

It's preliminary evidence, it allows me to proceed with the project and to jsutify working to get the heavy duty evidence.

I don't have to have only slam dunk evidence. I am no longer trying to prove something that the majority automatically scoff at. Keep in mind that among some of the best fans of the Nuggets, fans who take the time to read Nuggets forums, you have the following:

1. % of Fans Who Think Iverson Should be the Point Guard: 50-70%
2. % of Fans Who Think the Iverson PG / Smith SG is better than the Carter PG / Iverson SG backcourt: 55-=75%
3. % of Fans Who Think Karl should retire or be fired for his mistakes: 65-85%

These are conservative estimates. These percentages have been rising steadily over the course of this season.

If time permits, I am going to be setting up polls on various forums to confirm these estimates, which are based on extensive reading of relevant topics on various forums.
</div>

The three poll questions are distinctly different questions that don't present any correlation. Besides that, fan polls are nice for discussion, but they are not real evidence.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>The entire point is that it doesn't matter what the "majority" of coaches thought. Besides that, I'm talking about when you stated that Karl is playing AI at SG because that is what Brown did and Karl wouldn't want to go against Brown.</div>

You want to know why I think that Karl simply followed Brown's decision due to Brown being one of his best friends and one of his mentors?

Because Karl never seriously considered playing A.I. at the point when he lost his planned point guard for most of the season, and because Karl has been relying on A.I. for both scoring and playmaking with no concern at all for the style and tactical stuff that all the smartest basketball minds talk about on the internet. In other words, Karl has used Iverson exactly the way Brown used him, in every last detail. There hasn't been the slightest adjustment.

There is something very suspicious about that if you ask me, something that seems to go beyond Karl just not doing the smart thing.

 

Point:
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>There is no designation of PG and SG on all star voting. There are 3 positions on the ballot, Center, Forward and Guard. The two guards with the most votes are the starters for their conference.</div>

Source:
Link

Commentary:
I've got an unwritten rule: that when posters start micromanaging a post by multi-quoting a single entry, no good can come of the thread, and so I usually try and stay out of it. Unfortunately Tremaine, you wasted no time getting to this point, at post 6 :-\

The argument shouldn't have even gone past the point I quoted. Cpaw, before I finished reading your post I thought of the comparison to Duncan, and sure enough you brought him up as well. If the argument is about AI's position, in the context of differences between All Star lineups and NBA lineups, its a moot point. There can really be no debate, when it is determined by facts, which you mentioned, that players are introduced to this concept as general "Guards."

Hell call A.I a combo/swing/point/shooting/small/bench/whatever guard. You can't use the All Star game to judge a position, because no distinct position is given. He can play SG. He can play PG. Who cares.

Thread:
[/thread]

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (tremaine @ Mar 24 2008, 01:51 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>The entire point is that it doesn't matter what the "majority" of coaches thought. Besides that, I'm talking about when you stated that Karl is playing AI at SG because that is what Brown did and Karl wouldn't want to go against Brown.</div>

You want to know why I think that Karl simply followed Brown's decision due to Brown being one of his best friends and one of his mentors?

Because Karl never seriously considered playing A.I. at the point when he lost his planned point guard for most of the season, and because Karl has been relying on A.I. for both scoring and playmaking with no concern at all for the style and tactical stuff that all the smartest basketball minds talk about on the internet. In other words, Karl has used Iverson exactly the way Brown used him, in every last detail. There hasn't been the slightest adjustment.

There is something very suspicious about that if you ask me, something that seems to go beyond Karl just not doing the smart thing.
</div>

AI's second game with the Nuggets and first as a starter. http://www.basketball-reference.com/boxsco...0612260DEN.html

In that game, because of suspensions, the Nuggets starting lineup was AI, Yak, DerMarr, Najera and Nene.

AI was Karl's starting PG until the Denver Front Office shipped out Boykins and Blake had a career rebirth with the Nuggets.

So:

1) Karl didn't follow Brown's decision because he played him as the PG from the time he arrived in Denver.
2) Steve Blake played better than JR Smith, Yak and DerMarr and the Nuggets offense flowed better when he was playing with AI and Melo

There is absolutely nothing suspicious about that.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>When you have a transcendent player on your team, you put them in the position that is best for them and build the team around them.</div>

I was going through this thread one more time to see if I missed something that could be useful to me and I found this. Earlier when I read this, I didn't think it was significant, but now I do. So maybe this discussion was definitely worth about 3 hours after all.

Maybe only by accident, and I don't know whether you think that is what Karl has been thinking or not, but I think you may have hit upon the mindset of Brown and Karl. And this is what I was going to have a hell of a hard time to understand, because I don't think like they do. In fairness to me, I probably would have thought of this sooner or later, but it might have been later rather than sooner.

At this time, I think this may be at the root of at least the Karl decision and possibly the Brown decision also. We know that Brown and especially Karl are more concerned with the history, traditions and honor of basketball than they are about the nuts and bolts of winning games. To Karl, only the very best players and teams are really part of the history and traditions of basketball, ordinary players and teams are just along for the ride so to speak.

So it is the best players who will get whatever it is that Karl is willing to give as a gift for becoming history. And it is plausible that Karl decided to give A.I. as a gift the only position that he could give him without disrespecting the history and traditons of basketball, because Iverson is part of that gospel now. Iverson has played SG for so long that it would be violating a tradition of basketball to change it now.

Basketball is sort of like a religion to Karl, and playing A.I. at the point would be like violating one of the ten commandments. Karl may possibly have known that the Nuggets would have been better off with Iverson at PG, but he couldn't do it, because both starting Smith and playing AI at the point both would have violated the history, traditions, and honor of basketball, although for totally different reasons.

I guess it was worth the time after all, just barely though. Thanks.

 

One last, important thought:

I was disturbed by the number of people claiming that "A.I. can't play PG." Now I realize that the real number is less than it appears. Because when some of those who say A.I. can't play PG say that, they mean it in the religious sense, that A.I. playing point would go against doctrine, against the glorious traditions and history of basketball. You can't mess with the legacy of a player like A.I., it violates things that should not be violated.

There had to be some explanation for the surprisingly large minority, of people saying "A.I. can't play PG." Apparently, some of you didn't mean it in the normal literal sense, you meant it in the sense that it would be going against tradition or basketball history or basketball doctrine for him to be assigned those responsibilities.

You meant it in the sense of the Lord of basketball speaking from the mountaintop, bellowing: "A.I. MUST ALWAYS PLAY 2-GUARD IN ACCORDANCE WITH MY REPRESENTATIVE ON EARTH, LARRY BROWN. NEVER ASSIGN AI TO POINT GUARD, MY SONS.

George Karl trembled and obeyed. (lol)

But why didn't you just come out and say that. If that's what you think, say it. Cpawfan finally said it in a very indirect way, and maybe by accident, and he will most likely deny that is what he meant, whether or not that is what he meant. (lol)

I am out and I definitely will have no time to ever come back to this thread again, not even to read it. In fact, the only way I will ever spend this much time on any thread will be if there is a new error affecting the Nuggets this big and this damaging in the future. It may be a very long time before that happens. I did this because the Nuggets paid a huge price over this mistake. It's clear the trade was a mistake now in fact, and that has to be explained to my Nuggets fans readers. So I had to get to the bottom of it, or else I would not have been doing my full duty as a writer.

Today, I do a lot more than just issue "light and fluffy opinions" about what I cover under my own editorial auspices. I started out that way but I have expanded my efforts. As a result, I have dedicated readers around the World, especially in Australia, Germany, France, and of course Colorado.

If you want to agree or disagree further, follow the project as it goes along and post in upcoming Nuggets reports, but I won't have a lot of time to discuss, bui I will have some time here and there.