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.
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.” 
6 comments:
Damn, dude. I thought LastP was talking about your prior AI post - that's what I responded to over at my site.
I do, in fact, tackle FG%. I just did it in the comments below my post with "ChrisH"... that post was written latey late, after my B. Bonds Part 1 post, so I was very burnt but wanted to throw out something because I didn't hear Marv Albert and Steve Kerr salivating over AI's stellar performance last night as they would with a similar performance from Nash. This post is also part of a basic outline for a mush more in-depth Nash vs.... comparison post I embarked on a week ago. Hopefully I'll have time to work on it soon.
You gotta read my comments in full before you attack the post.... do that & get back to me, ai-ight?
As far as LastP goes, take yourself over to my place and drop him a knock.
-peace
postscript: I must have really misconstrued your last post on AI, because I felt that, taken in its entirety, you were defending Iverson... hmmm. I think I need some prolonged sleep if I missed the mark that badly (and see the comments on my AI post for my defense of "The Exaggeration").
Not attacking your post, d-wil, just quibbling with it. Bottom line is, Iverson's game, like his image, is exaggerated. I'd take Nash before AI every day of the week. But I'd take Kidd before the both of them.
Hmmm, I'd take Shaun Livingston over all of them, but as I said over at my place, like Zen Jackson, I like big PGs. I'd take Shaun for the future, Nash right now and the pre-microfracture J-Kidd. Now that's if we're playing Dan Tone's steezo. But what if we're trying to Van Gundy and limit possessions? I feel you almost have to have a Chauncey B.-type big durable guard who can grind. But for a combo guard I'd take AI.
Trag, AI is a hybrid, which is why I said the perfect Iverson-from-Philly trade would have been AI to Phoenix so he and Stevie Wonderful could run together.
Of course I'm biased because a Nash and Suns fan... but I take Nash. Nash has had better teammates his whole career. He played on some bad Dallas teams but as a true point guard he's had the great fortune to play with good scorers (Dirk, Finley, STAT, Marion) in their prime. He develops chemistry with everyone he plays with and he has to be one of the best teammates ever. In Phoenix, his game has moved to the elite level and his teammates have become greater weapons.
The point of what I'm saying is that a culture of winning makes a huge difference. AI is an elite player but he's rarely been on an elite team (elite: NBA Final Four). AI had teams built around his abilities but all of those teams were basically the 'Pips' or the other guys in 'No Doubt.' The results were mixed with only one solid playoff run. AI is an amazing scorer and fun to watch. I think we'll finally see what he's capable of in Denver now that he's a weapon a good team, rather than the sun everything revolves around.
Nash is the guy you can build around because he'll bring out the best in your great players and your good players. Who throws an oop on a pick n' roll down 2 in the final minute. Nash does and it's an excellent play.
Nick....
Who's that cute blond on the bottom of the post. Naomi?
that chest makes me pretty certain it's rosie perez from do the right thing and white men can't jump.
Post a Comment