Will the Pistons, a Top Tier Franchise, finally return Iverson to his original (high school, college, rookie of the year) position, and prove all the Iverson at PG haters wrong? The hordes of them? God I hope so. And how sweet the victory will be for the Pistons, for Iverson, and for yours truly. Assuming Iverson to Pistons, I'm postponing indefinitely my plans to cover the Raptors along with the Nuggets. This is so I have plenty of time to cover the whys and the aftermaths, for both Detroit and Denver, of this historic trade, if it is true. First reaction to the Nuggets maneuverings: I credit them for a massive attempt to climb out of a very deep hole that Karl and an over reliance on expensive veterans got them in. But I discredit them for having failed to make any truly effective use of Iverson while he was on the team. What was the point of paying mega bucks to Iverson, but then allowing their Karl worship to blind them to Karl's failure to change even one slight thing in Iverson's games compared with Philadelphia? And then only to announce less than 2 years later that it was all a stupid mistake. Why do the second tier franchises have to play the fool all the time? Later.
I guess he'd have to play it...unless they were going to do try and play rip at the 3 and prince at the 4 and move Stuckey into the starting lineup.
This is so sweet for me that I'm drowning in sweetness. I win almost any possible way it plays out. Here are many of the possibilities and how much of a "victory" for me each one would be: Pistons leave Iverson at SG but play him for less minutes in back of Hamilton and get him to shoot a little less and pass a little more while he's out there: >>> A small 6 point win for yours truly over the Iverson can't play the point haters. Pistons officially call Iverson a 2-guard but often leave him out there with Hamilton and with no point guard (unlike the Nuggets, who felt it was their religious duty to keep a scrub point guard out there with Iverson most of the time). >>> A 13 point win for me over the Iverson can't play the point haters. Pistons call Iverson a point guard but really use him at both positions; he shares with Stuckey about 50/50. When he is in there though, he passes more and shoots less. >>> A 20 point win Pistons call Iverson a point guard, he starts at PG, plays full time, he passes more and shoots less. but the Pistons get bounced in the semifinals. >>> A 27 point win Pistons call Iverson a point guard, he starts at PG, plays full time, Iverson passes more and shoots less, and the Pistons don't get bounced until the East Championship >>> A 33 point win Pistons call Iverson a point guard, he starts at PG, plays full time, passes more, shoots less, and the Pistons make it to the NBA Championship >>> A 40 point win for me over the Iverson can't play the point haters. The only way I don't win by something is if the Pistons continue to use Iverson in the same old way that Larry "I'm the only Coach who could not win the Olympics" Brown and George "I will never know how to win in the playoffs" Karl used him: as a "pure 2-guard," laugh out loud. Don't see much of a chance of that happening right now.
Hollinger on chat: "I imagine Stuckey and AI will share the position, with each taking turns initiating the offense." After this I don't think I will ever get pissed off at haters who think I "don't have any credibility" I'll just say "Oh, you will get yours son" and not waste any time arguing with them. Just have to wait a while and in most cases if you come correct you will eventually be proven correct. It's party time. How about the George Karl/Denver Nuggets theme song: <object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/GP_hT4bpjSE&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/GP_hT4bpjSE&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
You should be stoked for this deal Tremaine. Now they need to replace the head coach. I'm interested to see JR Smith develops with Billups in the backcourt.
I'm not sure about the rest of my side of the never ending Iverson debate, which is the side that does not make sweeping declarations that "Iverson can not play PG" or "Iverson hurts his team at SG" or "Iverson hurts his team regardless of position." But all I, as someone who goes wherever the evidence leads but who avoids getting carried away, ever wanted was for the Nuggets to try to see if they would have an efficient offense if they stopped thinking of him as a 2 and started to think of him as a PG. In other words, we wanted a big reduction in what I called the two point guard offense (Iverson and Carter). Others called that the "midget offense" because of it's really bad effect on perimeter defending. Even George Karl agreed that that lineup was not very useful in the playoffs. To be very clear in case someone tries to confuse or twist things: We wanted a lot fewer minutes with Iverson and a point guard (specifically and especially Carter) out there at the same time. And we never got it. Karl and the Nuggets refused to ever even try it let alone fully adopt it. Which was definitely asinine and a huge waste of money and even a big hit on the Nuggets franchise over the next 5-6 years or so. Well guess what folks. Our side finally gets what it wanted. We had to see Iverson removed from the overly conservative, stubborn and cynical (or do they just not think very well) Nuggets to get it, but it looks like we finally have what we wanted now. We are going to see Iverson for more minutes without a traditional PG at the same time than with one. So now we get to see if Iverson is worse for his team while being designated as the PG compared to while being designated SG, as many on this particular forum have claimed will be true. We get to find out. We get a hearing so to speak. So I, for one, am going into my 2nd straight day of celebration. We have Iverson at the one: http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/depth
Plus Karl has been forced by management to start J.R. Smith, something he fiercely hoped he would never have to do. He may have thought that Smith would eventually start, but he sure as hell wanted to prevent that from happening until after he retires, which could easily be next Spring. Karl's two favorite players, Iverson and Camby, are gone, which obviously strongly suggests that management has realized that Karl apparently doesn't know what he is doing. Plus we get to see if the classic Carmelo Anthony comes back to some extent, the one we had before Karl and the Iverson botch up had any influence. All of this is almost too much good news to take at one time.
I think Iverson still needs to play the 2 quite a bit for this team to be successful. Imagine the half court offense they could run with Iverson iso-ing and getting shots. Or running both AI and Rip off pin downs to get open. There are so many possibilities in Detroit both on offense and defense. Iverson could lead the league in steals and in scoring this year.
This Iverson thing was a classic logical trap that the Nuggets fell into and hurt themselves with. If you have a player who clearly plays both guard positions at once at all times, due to starting out for years as a 1 and then having the PG designation taken away, where do you place such a person in your lineup? If and only if you have a playoff caliber PG on your team is it safe to keep him at 2-guard. Otherwise, it's far more logical to put him back at 1-guard because (and these are just the main reasons; there are other, smaller reasons): 1. You absolutely must have the best guard on your team who can make plays be the point guard; and do not get hung up on style or personality or things like that. Don't even get hung up on turnovers. Get hung up on assists and passing, but don't worry much about a 18-20 ppg combo guard. More than 18-20 ppg? Start to worry and get him to change. 2. You must avoid having two guards being point guards out there at the same time. You want 4 players who are not the point guard out there most or all of the time. 3. You absolutely must avoid having a stupidly short back court, which will hose up your defense. The Nuggets did all three of the "absolutely must avoids". And now we await the verdict on their franchise: how far are they going to drop and how fast? They are continuing to refuse to start J.R. Smith even now! And who knows, you get what you are worrying about in life sometimes. J.R. Smith may be doubting himself just enough now that he no longer would be such a great starter. Honestly, I am starting to seriously think that the Nuggets might only win 30-35 games this year.
The first step in getting Iverson to pass more and dominate the ball less is for him to say he will do so if asked. Step one is accomplished: Source Does the "Iverson can't do this" and "Iverson can't do that" and "Iverson hurts the team either way, but especially at PG" crowd (which is really big on this website) think that Iverson can actually really make changes? Of course not, that is really their point when all is said is done. Whether Karl / Nuggets management were in the Iverson will not change crowd is unclear, since it is plausible that they thought that although Iverson would change if asked, Karl insisted that it would not help the Nuggets if he did go for the open man more often. What we do know is that Karl directly ordered Iverson to shoot about as much as he wanted from the day Iverson arrived, which must rank as one of the most boneheaded instructions a coach has made to a star player in the NBA in years. Step two is for the Pistons to NOT to be in the "Iverson can't play PG crowd" so that they have Stuckey and Iverson out there a lot. That is all but accomplished already as well. We will be watching for steps 3, 4 and so forth.
Here's a statistic made just for Iverson and any other PG/SGs: Points per assists. If you have a combo guide where you have no choice but to designate him PG, you need to monitor and manage the Ppa or Points per assists. Because you don't want him to cheat the point guard position just to be able to score more. Consider the Iverson points per assists over the years: ALLEN IVERSON POINTS PER ASSIST 96-97 3.13 97-98 3.55 98-99 5.83 99-00 6.04 00-01 6.76 01-02 5.71 02-03 5.02 03-04 3.88 04-05 3.89 05-06 4.46 06-07 4.27 Sixers 06-07 3.44 Nuggets 07-08 3.72 One of many important things you can conclude from this is that a natural combo guard (like Dwyane Wade) or a point guard who became a combo guard because of some bonehead coach, who is returned to the point guard position (that's you AI) should be asked to get enough assists so that his points per assists ratio is 3.00. or less. The speed limit for Allen Iverson on the Pistons should be 3 points per assist. The real dream among the Iverson at PG group is to get it down to 2.00, such as 20 points per game and 10 assists per game. All I am saying right at this moment is that whether you can or want to get it down to 2.00, you definitely need to get it down to 3.00 or less. Just getting it to 3.00 is something that the anti-Iverson crowd thinks can not be achieved. Notice that after Larry Brown moved him away from point guard, his points per assist went sky high. After Brown left, his ppa went down sharply, but it never went down to what it was in his rookie of the year at point guard year, which was 3.13, just about at the 3.00 I am talking about. Notice that Iverson's ppa went down more after he moved from the Sixers to the Nuggets. But most and maybe all of that is due to Carmelo Anthony being such a volume scorer for the Nuggets. That did not happen due to Iverson passing a lot more and shooting a lot less. Iverson did modify in that direction, but he was pulled in the other, wrong direction by George Karl. Karl ordered him to continue to try to score as much as he did in Philadelphia. Now in the case of the Pistons, you have a team that has several great scorers, but no super high volume scorers. So since the 3 high scoring Pistons roughly equal Carmelo Anthony in "scoring tendency," if Iverson were told to not change anything, you could expect his points per assists to remain in the 3.50 to 3.75 range, as it was at Denver. Now we know from Denver that 3.50 to 3.75, although much lower than the far out Brown years, is still not low enough as long as you are not a 20-62 team which needs Iverson to get the bulk of your points. You want a reduction in that. A reduction to 3.00 (and preferably even a little lower) is what everyone involved (except for the "Iverson can't..." crowd, and the Nuggets) should be looking for in the weeks ahead here. I will of course keep you posted. I'll be posting Iverson's ppa as his most important statistic.
You know what, though? If you are a really, really serious basketball person, you need to look at the cousin of points per assist, which is shots per assist. Since Iverson was much more controlled and accurate by the time he was in his 11th and 12th years in the League, his shooting percentage went up: IVERSON SHOOTING % 96-97 0.416 97-98 0.461 98-99 0.412 99-00 0.421 00-01 0.420 01-02 0.398 02-03 0.414 03-04 0.387 04-05 0.424 05-06 0.447 06-07 0.413 Sixers 06-07 0.454 Nuggets 07-08 0.458 Now go on to: IVERSON SHOTS PER ASSIST 96-97 2.65 97-98 2.85 98-99 4.74 99-00 5.28 00-01 5.58 01-02 5.04 02-03 4.27 03-04 3.47 04-05 3.05 05-06 3.42 06-07 3.36 Sixers 06-07 2.64 Nuggets 07-08 2.66 Now the plot has thickened and yours truly has to think things out yet again and make a modification or two. What happened when Iverson went to Denver is that although the Nuggets did not tell Iverson to change anything, he did in fact change some things: 1 He was a much more accurate shooter than he was in Philadelphia. Whether he was a more what's best for the team as a whole shooter, though, is a separate question and is what is really the issue behind the Nuggets mess. 2. He did in fact return all the way back to his rookie year when he was still a point guard, in terms of shots per assist. He reduced his shots per assist very substantially as soon as he arrived in Denver, and by a greater amount than can be explained only by the Carmelo Anthony factor. The only reason points per assist, from the previous post, were still higher than they were when he was a point guard in Philadelphia in 1996-97, was that he was making more shots in Denver! 3. Although Iverson was not told to reduce shooting in favor of assisting, he did so anyway, but only to a limited extent, once the fact that the Sixers had no one remotely like Carmelo Anthony on their team is taken into account. So he did it voluntarily, and only when he was in the mood. Apparently he thought it might be the right thing to do, but since no one told him to do it, he only did it when he was in the mood to do it, which was not all the time. So (and I am being too honest if anything here) I must confess that I was slightly misleading in the previous post about points per assist; slightly unfair to Iverson. To be fair to me, the mistake was only that in working to get that already important post out quickly, I made a too quick generalization. Everybody does that by the way. In my own reports I have for some games described Iverson as modifying his game some from Philadelphia, but only when he was in the mood. (Now I know exactly why I was saying that all those times, laugh out loud.) So getting back to the Pistons, what does the Pistons' objective have to be? I'd say they need to set the objective at 2.35 shots per assist or lower, because: 1. This is the Pistons we are talking about, not some scrub team. 2. This is a much older Allen Iverson we are talking about, not some 21 year old who has been scoring most of the points on his teams lately. 3. Denver did not get their offensive efficiency up to as high as they needed to get it with Iverson's shots per assist at 2.65, so you need to be 10-15% or more less than that or you will be too much like Denver and, trust me, you do not want to ever be too much like Denver. And, as already stated, you set the points per assist objective at 3.00 or lower. You need to achieve both. If Iverson's shooting percentage goes down again, you can allow the shots per assist target to go up again; I would not under any circumstances raise it above 2.60. Bottom line: 1. Pistons want an Iverson shots per assist number of 2.35 or less, unless his shooting percentage goes way down from .455, to about .415, in which case they might get away with, at most, 2.60. 2. Pistons want an Iverson points per assist number of 3.00 or less. If his shooting percentage goes way down from .455 to about .415, you would reduce that to as low as 2.50. We will be watching and seeing if the "Iverson can't..." crowd can be proven wrong once and for all.
Actually the "Iverson can't..." crowd has already been proven wrong to a limited extent, and by sheer accident. I just discovered that Iverson already reduced his shots per assist for the Nuggets, even though management didn't tell him to do that no less. Kind of goes against all the raving and ranting about "Iverson has to get his," or "Iverson is a shooter and scorer and not much else," and "Iverson does not have the mentality of a point guard," don't you think? I ask the "Iverson can't..." crowd, why would a maniac like that cut back on his shooting when he was not even asked? But that's small potatoes compared with the proof that will be coming my way from the Pistons, with any luck at all.
The gold standard for shots per assist for high scoring point guards: CHRIS PAUL SHOTS PER ASSIST: 05-06 1.55 06-07 1.53 07-08 1.40 But do you absolutely have to have your PG at about 1.50? Obviously not. Depending on the turnovers and the shooting percentage of your scoring-minded point guard, you are usually going to be safe up to around 2.50, and in some cases you will be safe up to about 2.75. Just don't call Iverson a point guard but then allow his shots per assist to be up close to or more than 3.00, because then you are cheating the position and your entire offense is going to begin to go to hell. So far it looks like the Pistons know what I am talking about here, but we will have to see, won't we.
