Corned Beef Nash

My man D-Wil picks up the leftovers of the Iverson talk over at Sports on my Mind. The latest seitan (i.e., vegetarian for "beef") has Iverson more deserving of back-to-back MVP awards than Nash. D-Wil rates their averages in assists, rebounds, and points from the two relevant seasons. He winds up with this: “In my estimation there is no comparison between Nash and Iverson. AI played on worse teams and had better overall stats than Nash.”

How can I best deliver my discontent? Perhaps as the Palm Beach mah-jongg crowd might put it, “Feh!”

There are two issues at stake here, and we’d do better to parse them. The first concerns whether Nash deserved the two awards he won (fyi: I’m not convinced). At this point, that conversation is growing mold in the dustbins of history. We’ll shake it off and wipe it clean, I’m sure, when Nash is up for a third next May.

Out of curiosity, I wonder if Iverson will still be playing then?

As for the second issue—is Iverson better than Nash (or, more exactly, are Iverson’s numbers better than Nash’s?)? I’ve made my feelings about Iverson public. So has everyone else with a laptop and some courage. BTW, I suppose we’re left to assume The Last Poet lacks the latter, considering he leaves the crumbs of his beef with my opinions on AI buried in the comments section of another person’s blog (see them here). Hey D., can you tell the cowardly lion to click his ruby slippers on over to my corner of Oz? Come directly to the Wizard when you have something to cluck about, LP. If you only had a brain…

Anyway, back to the question, and the Answer, at hand. D-Wil doesn’t consider two crucial statistical categories in the AI-Nash debate: field goal percentage and TOs. In the ’04-’05 campaign, Iverson shot a paltry 42% from the floor while Nash cashed in on 50% of his attempts. True, Nash took fewer than half as many shots. However, Iverson’s surplus 13 shots only resulted in 4.5 more makes, which is only one bucket more than Nash dished to his teammates. That is to say, Nash handed out 3.5 more assists per game than Iverson (11.5 to AI’s 8), and he did it with 1.3 fewer turnovers (3.3 to 4.6).

Because Iverson’s team scored 11 fewer points per game than Nash’s, each Sixer possession was more significant for the nightly fate of the club. Iverson’s ghastly 4.6 TOs and poor shooting therefore impact his squad more dramatically than the numbers initially let on. If we were to subtract from Iverson’s 30.7 ppg the number of points each turnover and missed shot tallies for the opposition, what would the number look like? What if we added Nash’s 3.5 extra assists to his 15.5 and somehow developed a ratio to account for turnovers and their relative impact on the team’s nightly point production? It sounds complicated, but gauging the (positive and negative) contributions of Nash and Iverson requires a more complete analysis than a simple comparison of points, rebounds, and assists allots.

Iverson’s a better player only if the game is one-on-one.