Return of Nuggets 1: Forum #2 Comments From Late March 2008, Part 5
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
PG's don't sit around thinking about what to do like writers sit around thinking about what to write. They just do it, like in the Nike add. The "making correct decisions" idea is overrated, because there are many possible offensive styles and many possible point guard styles that can be successful. Successful point guards who have different sytles are by definition making different decisions. With AI, you don't have to worry much about his decision making, his style, whether he is a "floor general" or not, or anything else that is subjective. This is by far the most important thing you need to focus on:
(1) AI at PG for the Nuggets: All Benefits - All Costs = ???
(2) AI at SG for the Nuggets: All Benefits - All Costs = ???
You have to estimate 1 and 2, and figure out which is the bigger. I am already overloaded with evidence that Karl picked 2 when the correct answer is 1. I am going to go back in time and see if data on the internet permits me to figure out whether Larry Brown made the wrong decision in 1997.
But I mostly agree with you as usual but there is a big problem for the Nuggets: the Nuggets are tapped out financially. The only way they could get a dream PG would be to gut the front court with a big trade, and the overall result would probably be that the costs would exceed the benefits. What I am saying is that a coach must make the best decision he can make in the circumstances that exist in a point in time. If the coach has a tough situation to deal with, then the only solution may be to make a decsion that is slightly controversial and/or unusually creative.
NBA coaches who only try to be traditional, cautious and conservative lose out in the end.
__________________________________________
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.
__________________________________________
Someone launched a possibly valid criticism:
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.
Never let them see you sweat! My response was:
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?
___________________________________________
And another attack on my preliminary evidence about Iverson being mis-coached:
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.
My response:
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.
__________________________________________
This guy will argue with anyone all night. He continues on with a possibly valid criticism that had to be shot down:
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.
It was shot down thusly:
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.
____________________________________________
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.
___________________________________________
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. (laugh out loud)
But why didn't you just come out and say that. If that's what you think, say it. You 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. (Laugh out loud.)
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.
________________________________________
This poll, on the question that most impacted the Nuggets tn 2007-08, is being posted on approximately 20 Nuggets forums. Combined results will be reported here sometime in April.
________________________________________
DO NOT FAIL TO VOTE BECAUSE OF THE CURRENT VOTE TOTAL. Any of the choices can still win. These results are extremely early, the vote will be held open for at least 3 weeks, and the objective is to get at least 200 votes from the best and most informed Nuggets fans.
After 6-9 hours of voting on various forums, the combined vote as of now is:
Anthony Carter PG Allen Iverson SG........ 12 Votes
Allen Iverson PG J.R. Smith SG.............. 29 Votes
Allen Iverson PG Yakhouba Diawara SG........6 Votes
