Return of Nuggets 1: Forum #2 Comments From April, 2008, Part 4
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.
______________________________________________
APRIL 2008 FORUM COMMENTARY ON THE NUGGETS, ESPECIALLY ABOUT THEIR MISTAKES
The following comments were being made while the Nuggets were being blown out by the Lakers 4 games to zero in the 2008 playoffs.
______________________________________________
You see, most of what he (George Karl) says is funny if you think about it. The man has just been totally destroyed defensively after he makes a controversial move and he says it was "75% worth it." Then he says he will probably keep doing it. If he is not incompetent, then why does he talk and stubbornly persist with mistakes as if he is incompetent all the time?
______________________________________________
Najera played extremely well defensively and Martin played well defensively, fine. But the Nuggets as a whole were a total disaster defensively and the main reason was that K-Mart was too often out in god's creation guarding Kobe Bryant. When the cat is away, the mice will play, my friend.
I used to wonder about why Nuggets fans trash Camby every time he has an off game as if he was worthless. Now I think I know the answer. Camby is expected to totally lock down the paint practically by himself while all the Nuggets forwards are rotating out to the perimeter all the time to make up for weak guard defending and weak transition defending. That is the underlying explanation for why Nuggets fans regularly trash the defensive player of the year.
It's sort of the defensive other side of the coin of how too many think of Iverson's roll. Iverson is expected to be almost perfect, to do almost everything on offense well, and to play two positions at once. Similarly, Camby is expected to be just about perfect, to do almost everything on defense well, and to play two positions at once on defense. At the root of all of this is the difficulty too many people have understanding that since basketball is a team game, you can not expect one player to meet that set of expectations regularly no matter who they are.
_____________________________________________
The "Obstinate and Annoying One" was both moving in my direction and seemingly confused at the same time:
During the regular season, because AI plays 40+ MPG, he has to have minutes where he isn't the PG. AI is not an effective NBA player when he forced to play PG all of his minutes and that is proven over his career.
My response was:
This can be interpreted as you largely agreeing with me, because you are admitting that Iverson does play PG and you are not saying how limited this is. No one on our side is insisting that Iverson be the PG for ALL of the time he is out there. So your statement could be interpreted as being on our side. Don't make a statement open to two interpretations and then claim someone doesn't understand your position. Of course they don't understand your position, you didn't state it with enough detail.
If you are claiming that Iverson should be the PG only for limited minutes. during when it makes no sense to have another PG (mostly Carter) out there, than that is what you should state. About all you have ever stated besides the relatively vague statement just quoted is that "Iverson can not play PG", another statement open to varying interpretations. You have never explained why Iverson can not be an effective PG without using the illogical approach of describing how he plays SG. And as indicated, you have left conflicting statements as to whether you think Iverson can be an effective PG or not. Your position is still not clear and, quite honestly, I don't think it ever will be clear.
_____________________________________________
More from "Obstinate and Annoying":
During the regular season, AI can't play PG more than half of his minutes on the court.
Me:
Well, this one even more strongly implies you have rethought your idea that Iverson can not play PG well at all, and that therefore he should not play the position.
_____________________________________________
The other guy, "The Mouse":
Dude, you are so twisted on this subject. I'm sure that makes sense in your world, but it is really a completely meaningless statement.
Me, "The Cat":
In my world, I don't make logically fallacious arguments. You make an illogical argument to me and I will catch it every time.
Those who claim that AI can not run the point well need to come up with other arguments other than using how he plays the SG position. Otherwise, it is their statements that are meaningless, not mine. Just to make absolutely sure you understand, arguing that AI can not play PG well based on how he plays SG is like arguing that someone who lives in Florida would go beserk from the cold and snow if he were forced to live in Northern Minnesota. You don't know how that person would react to living in Northern Minnesota based on his living in Florida. He might love Northern Minnesota.
____________________________________________
On the Subject of J.R. Smith "The Mouse" said:
You are vastly overrating JR Smith. It isn't just about points per minute, which of course are pace inflated on the Nuggets, but it is about maturity and decision making. JR still has his good JR and bad JR moments on the court. The bad JR is very bad for the Nuggets chances of winning. Once JR was given and settled into the role of 6th man, the bad JR rarely shows up.
"The Cat" (Me) said:
Don't make it sound like all immature players are forbidden from starting until they become mature. In fact, the relevant question is: why do some immature players with inconsistent decision making but a lot of raw skills get to start no questions asked while others are discriminated against viciously? Although I already had some answers for this in the special report series 'The J.R. Smith Fiasco," I will have more to say on this subject during the coming months in the special report series "Allen Iverson: What Could Have Been."
Also, if you do not start Smitty you don't find out for sure whether you are dealing with the good JR or the bad JR until deep into the second half, when it can be too late if you have the bad JR to take him out of the game and recover from the damage he has caused. Trying to depend on the bad JR to help you win in the 4th quarter is almost as asinine as not starting him.
_____________________________________________
"The Mouse":
All we agree on is that Anthony Carter shouldn't be playing more than a handful of minutes against the Lakers.
"The Cat":
Well, that's better than nothing. Seriously though, we definitely agree on more than just that, because I have caught you agreeing that AI can run the point without it being a disaster for the Nuggets offensively, and we both agree that Camby needs help of some kind in the paint or you can have a defensive disaster. Furthermore, you never ever said anything at all positive about JR Smith until now.
_____________________________________________
"The Obstinate and Annoying One," also known as "The Mouse":
Again, the Nuggets were not a total disaster defensively and the score would have been much worse if Kobe was allowed to go off.
"Nuggets 1," also known as "The Cat":
If you don't think 128 points with 60 points in the paint is a defensive disaster, I don't want to think about how bad it would have to be before you thought it was a disaster.
______________________________________________
"The Obstinate and Annoying One," also known as "The Mouse" really hates Marcus Camby:
No, Nuggets fans trash Camby because 1) they understand his weaknesses, 2) he takes games off even when he is playing in them and 3) they know he really isn't a good defender.
People expect Camby to actually guard his man one on one occasionally and for to actually rotate out to open shooters when it is his responsibility. He often fails to do both of those.
"Nuggets 1," also known as "The Cat":
Camby doesn't take games off, but it can seem that way to some degree if the Nuggets' forwards are missing assignments, rotations, or transitions, and it can also seem that way if a coach does something goofy like putting Kenyon Martin on Kobe Bryant. You have a unique talent and a special brand of defense in Camby that was good enough for him to be defensive player of the year. If you spoil that by screwing up the rest of the interior defense you have only yourself to blame. One man can not hold down the paint by himself, least of all Camby. But that doesn't mean Camby is not a valuable defender; he is very valuable in combination with a big man such as Nene or, at a minimum, Kenyon Martin. Take away Martin and what do you have? Swiss cheese.
___________________________________________
"The Obstinate and Annoying One," also known as "The Mouse":
My statement was very clear and not open to any interpretations. It is a comprehension issue on your part.
"Nuggets 1," also known as "The Cat":
\
Your statements are almost never totally clear and are almost always open to various interpretations. I still don't know how much damage you think happens to the Nuggets offense while Iverson is playing PG, which is the heart of one of your arguments with me. You now have said that the Nuggets have been forced to use Iverson at PG, which is not technically so, because Carter has been playing more than 30 minutes a game, and Atkins and Taurean Green have been available for weeks.
But leaving that confusion aside, and assuming you agree that Iverson has in fact been running the point, if you truly believe that Iverson can not run the point effectively, then how in the hell did the Nuggets win 50 games this year? You can NOT possibly win 50 games with no effective point guards.
______________________________________________
"The Obstinate and Annoying One," also known as "The Mouse":
Whatever you want to believe. Please continue on your quest to prove 2+2=5.
"Nuggets 1," also known as "The Cat":
If you want to think of it that way, in the series "Allen Iverson: What Could Have Been," I will be proving that 10-3=7, or something close to that. When you relieve a combo guard of all PG responsibilities, you end up with less of a player than you could have had.
______________________________________________
"The Obstinate and Annoying One," also known as "The Mouse":
No, that is nothing like what has been presented about AI. Again, a complete failure on your part to comprehend.
"Nuggets 1," also known as "The Cat":
Nothing but the illogical stuff has been presented by your side on the AI issue. But hey, you have many moons to "present" why AI can not be an effective PG. All you have to do is avoid what everyone on your side does all the time; you have to avoid broad, sweeping statements that describe how he plays SG. If you can explain, with as much proof as you have, specific skills that Iverson lacks, or specific ways of thinking that Iverson is incapable of, which makes him unqualified to be a PG, then you score points in the argument. Also, is there any history you can point to of Iverson failing while being designated as the PG? But do not, I repeat, make broad, sweeping statements that are merely descriptions of how he plays SG.
__________________________________________
JR has been severely discriminated against due to overreaction to his immaturity.
And under Karl, the Nuggets are not trying to win a Championship, they are just trying to show that the player personalities and the personality of the team as a whole are improving, so that at some unknown time in the future, they might finally have the personalities needed to make a run for the Championship. LoL at the way Karl thinks.
JR Smith is not a "petulant child." He is a very young basketball player who unfortunately needs more experience on and off the court than the average player his age needs to be able to achieve more reliability and consistency. It is the anti-JR Smith crowd, the ones who not long ago were agreeing that Smith should not play at all, who are nothing more than petulant children, who think that every basketball player needs to be totally smooth, sophisticated, and free of any substantial downside, so as to not upset anyone's delicate sensitivities. It was that petulant crowd that was calling for Smith to be traded at all costs not long ago.
_____________________________________________
Lol again, at the idea that someone can think that it is a mistake to start Smith, but not think that it is dangerous to be at the mercy of his inconsistency in a decisive 4th quarter. Please, take one side or another. And if you think that Smith should not start and be pulled out after, say, 6-12 minutes of poor play, then, by all means, say that if that is your position. Although that would be immensely anti-Smith, it would at least be logically consistent. But you can't say that Smith is not good enough to start, but he is good enough to be a reliable crunch time performer.
______________________________________________
"The Mouse" made a really goofy statement:
Camby could run the point for a few minutes a game without it being a disaster for the Nuggets. Lord knows he tries. Of course, the emphasis is on a few minutes.
As far as Camby needing help, it all depends upon match ups. Bad things happen to the Nuggets defense when Camby has to guard a man.
The response of yours truly, "The Cat":
Camby should never be running the point and he should always be getting help from K-Mart in the paint. You can't run the Nuggets as if Nene is playing when he is clearly not playing.
