DFDepressed FanDepressed Fan

All  

Sixers

, all the time

.500 Bottles Of Beer On The Wall...

I'll be at this game tonight and it has let down written all over it, I hate that this terrible knicks team puts a scare in you but after beating up on the Spurs it just seems like it could be one of these games...ill be there sporting my Dawkins jersey!!!!

Hawk/Dawk/Thump and Bump/G-Man/Anderson was my favorite Sixer team... of course 83 has a special place as well.

This is a great team for Brand to return against. He really destroyed NY in the preseason and early season game. He can return with lots of confidence.

I agree that this is a let down type game, but with 500 hanging out there they should be motivated. If they can jump on them it should be another blow out.

It would be fun to see this team drop 130 on them, but I guess we can't get ahead of ourselves.

BTW- also fun to watch Speights go at his fellow Gator Alum Lee. Lee usually out works and outmustles most PF's, but Speights will be fired up and never backs down to anyone (just ask KG if he Speights gets intimidated.)

The Knicks are such a bad team though. They are probably the 2nd worst team in the East. They are fighting Charlotte for that distinction.

Tonight's game is not not on NBA League Pass - it's on NBA TV - which means I should get to watch it - I don't think NBA TV games are available online are they?

Only via more questionable sites that stream games.

user-pic
Joe reply to tk76 on Jan 17 at 15:21
+/-

It was so great last year when league pass was done differently over the internet, so you could just get the mms from someone with league pass and just watch the game in perfect quality. I miss that.

So Toronto is possibly on the verge of bringing in Marion for Jermaine. Marion hasn't been too good this year, but perhaps he was unhappy (or distracted?) in Miami.

user-pic
Joe reply to Tray on Jan 17 at 17:02
+/-

Yeah I read that rumor as well. How exactly does this make any sense for Miami? Do people still think JO can play?

It makes all the sense in the world for Toronto. They get the much, much better basketball player who has been much more productive over his career and has knees. And Calderon is essentially Steve Nash which would bode well for Marion since he has seemed to struggle somewhat since leaving his comfort zone in Phoenix.

Marion could really help them, J.O. has been a disaster. Ultimately, they don't scare me one bit until they have a healthy Calderon. As long as he's out, they're going to continue to suck. Their lack of depth is another issue.

BTW, last nights game is archived online on a Justin.tv site.

The Marion for JO trade only makes sense when you see what else is involved - the secondary pieces - the balancing pieces (according to one thing I read - the numbers don't match up on a straight up trade) - the Heat are a 2010 team - they need to keep wade - and marion is really in the way right now of Beasley. I had marion in a keeper league team i inherited (marion and durant only keepers i had) traded him and mo williams for ben gordon and lamarcus aldridge - marions having a really weird season.

Not sure it helps Toronto - i mean Bargnani is playing well - are they putting Marion on the bench - at the 3?

The closer it gets to Feb 19 the more noise we'll here - but the more noise we'll here :)

user-pic
Tray reply to JohnM on Jan 17 at 19:19
+/-

It makes sense in these respects:

1. Miami will acquire more 2010 cap room.

2. Toronto won't be paying Jermaine $20M to come off the bench (which he would be, the way Bargnani is playing)

3. Marion would play the 3, giving them a pretty loaded (on paper) frontcourt. Marion's surely a major upgrade over Jamario Moon.

John, Tray,

I don't get your arguments. I am heading out the door right now to get home for the game.

Miami guaranteed contracts beyond 2010... Marcus Banks. No other contracts.

It doesn't add cap space unless Banks is involved. If he he involved it is a completely different story because he is a trash contract since he can't play in this league at all.

Sam Dalembert trying to defend David Lee is interesting to watch.

I thought Galinari was a good slasher?

user-pic
Joe reply to Tray on Jan 17 at 20:23
+/-

This is his 1st game since the 2nd game of the year. I think he isn't very good at anything right now.

user-pic
Tray reply to Joe on Jan 17 at 20:48
+/-

Just looked extremely slow, deliberate, and a poor finisher at the moment. He did look like he could shoot, run the floor, and at least make some conscientious efforts to rebound.

Sammy earns the extra possession with the jump ball assuming he wins it.

3rd jump ball

Uh-oh, Iguodala just tried to give the one from last night some competition. Sweet.

user-pic
Bryon reply to Bryon on Jan 17 at 21:54
+/-

Dre' Miller serving up that fake, like a waiter.

It wasn't pretty, but mission accomplished. Lovely that we're at .500 already.

user-pic
JohnM reply to Alvin on Jan 18 at 12:04
+/-

"Already" - took half the damn season

Double double for 'double trouble' tonight!

you guys can have AI back... the experiment has been a complete failure.

user-pic
Tray reply to Boney on Jan 17 at 23:32
+/-

I'm really curious about who's going to sign Iverson this offseason. Just don't see how he's an asset to any team at this point in his career.

Any chance Detroit doesn't even make the playoffs?

user-pic
Boney reply to Brian on Jan 19 at 18:50
+/-

Detroit will make the playoffs. I don't have a doubt about it...

it would take 2 injuries to send Detroit to the lottery which, if Tay and/or Sheed got hurt... or if Stuckey got hurt and it forced AI to play point full time?

I could see this team not make the playoffs.

Brian... still no love for Rodney Stuckey?

Looking better, still not sold though.

user-pic
Boney reply to Brian on Jan 21 at 21:24
+/-

the kid can breakdown anyone who is guarding him

he's been doing it since inserted into the starting lineup...

I don't know what else he needs to do

does he need to beat Lou Williams playing 1 on 1 or something?

user-pic
JohnM reply to Boney on Jan 21 at 22:18
+/-

He needs to do it for a long period of time - like more than 20 games - and he needs to do it in the playoffs.

It might help if his team won a game or two with him in the starting lineup, as well.

I guess an ugly win is better than the alternative. Good to see the team is really looking to Thad to score in key moments and on mismatches.

it's just a great sign that they can play somewhat poorly and still win by double digits on the road.

tray, i've been thinking about what team will/can sign iverson this summer, and it's kind of depressing. detroit obviously won't want him back. i just hope he doesn't get stuck with someone like the wolves, clippers, or kings. i still love the guy and do not want to see an ugly end to his career.

I hate talking about Iverson. He is the anti-Iguodala. Everything Iverson does is inefficient, looks good, and doesn't help his team win. Always has been that way.

user-pic
JohnM reply to Joe on Jan 18 at 18:03
+/-

So Allen Iverson has never helped his team win?

user-pic
Joe reply to JohnM on Jan 18 at 20:05
+/-

Per 48 minutes

Adj FG% = (PTs-FTM/FGA)/2
NP = net possessions(REB + STL - TO)

Category: Avg SG ----- Iverson ----- Pierce
Adj FG%: 48.1% ----- 45.3% ----- 49%
FT%: 80% ----- 78% ----- 80%
FGA: 17.5 ----- 26.0 ----- 22.0
FTA: 4.9 ----- 10.7 ----- 10.1
PTs: 20.8 ----- 31.9 ----- 29.6
REBS: 5.6 ----- 4.4 ----- 8.1
STLS: 1.8 ----- 2.6 ----- 2.1
TOS: 2.8 ----- 4.2 ----- 3.9
AST: 4.6 ----- 7.2 ----- 5.0
NP: 4.6 ----- 2.7 ----- 6.2

So, basically if you just had an average SG play Iverson's minutes... you would have about 12 additional possessions to try to score like 10 points. And that is an average SG, not average starter, that is the average production per 48 minutes at the SG position.

If you then start comparing his numbers to very very good players over the last decade you will see he falls EXTREMELY short time and time and time again. Kobe, Pierce, Manu, Billups, Ray Allen(although not as good), Jordan, Wade, etc.

If you look at Pierce... he took 4 less shots, created 2.5 more possessions, and scored just 2 less points. If you subbed in Pierce for Iverson... essentially you would score 2 less points, but have 7.5 more possessions. And I hate Paul Pierce. I realize the whole "he played SF some" so fine take away a board. It still isn't close.

Iverson is an entertainer more than an effective player.

user-pic
Max reply to Joe on Jan 18 at 21:53
+/-

I buy the inefficiency argument...hey, he was fun to watch but in terms of wins and losses he was only effective if you surrounded him with the most lunchpail, efficient, non-ball hogging talent you could find.

My feelings on Iverson as a basketball fan:

Simply put, no other player in the league, not Kobe, not Vince Carter, not LeBron right now, nor Michael Jordan in his prime could've done with that 2001 Sixers' team what Iverson did.

At the same time, that was absolutely the only team he could've ever had that much success with. If he didn't have 11 other guys on the roster who would defend with their lives and cede all offensive responsibility to AI, the team would've never made it to the finals. It's a shame they wasted so much time trying to find a second scorer to play alongside him, because that was never going to work. They should've kept trying to emulate the 2001 roster.

As a Sixers' fan, I'll always have a soft spot for the guy, warts and all. He was horribly inefficient, it was nearly impossible to win with him, but for 48 minutes every night no one has ever played harder than he did for the Sixers. He sacrificed his body, played through injuries, and while the long-term success of the team was never going to come, with him on the team, they had a chance to beat any team on any given day. Every game he started was a potential win, and every minute he played was a treat.

What someone else said above is absolutely true, he had a pretty game that didn't translate into wins, while Iggy's ugly game does. Maybe I've matured enough to appreciate the finer, deeper meaning to statistics, but there's still an emotional aspect of being a fan that Iverson touched nightly. I miss the guy, and hope he lands on his feet (just not in Philly).

user-pic
Joe reply to Brian on Jan 19 at 1:27
+/-

I really think this link tells the story well of the 2001 Sixers personally. Sorry to constantly post from there but I tend to like his stories especially.

I'm not saying Iverson was the worst player ever or a "cancer." I just think that he was a guy who shot a lot and played a lot of minutes so he scored a lot. Fans typically care first and foremost(first and only?) about PPG so his worth has been extremely bloated over the years.

As for Iverson the person. I like Iverson a lot. A whole lot. He gives his all and he doesn't bull shit the fans. He says what he is thinking and he shows what he is feeling. I don't think you could ask for much more. I would love to see him win a championship, but I wouldn't like to see people who see him win a championship if that makes sense. Anyway, I wish him luck with his career, but as Brian said... just not in Philly.

Good article. I actually just bought his book and Basketball On Paper with a gift certificate I got for Christmas, trying to decide which one to read first.

Anyway, back on point. I don't disagree with what he's saying here, and I think, to be honest, he isn't connecting a critical dot.

Yes, the role players produced more wins than Iverson, that's pretty obvious. Here's the thing, though. Because Iverson carried such a high percentage of the scoring load, it allowed the Sixers to get more minutes out of its role players. Iverson also allowed LB to play guys who either couldn't, didn't or shouldn't attempt to be effective scorers, essentially, their scoring abilities would've been a waste of time anyway.

So you've got a dominant offensive force (at least in bulk points scored), and you surround him with a bunch of uber-role players who defend and contribute to wins (and win shares) in every area other than scoring.

I guess my conclusion from these stats would be that Allen Iverson's presence allowed the role players to accumulate those win shares, so he's at least partially responsible for their exceptional play as well, at least in as much as because of him you could put four of them on the court at a time.

Make any sense? I'm a little tired after a long weekend.

user-pic
Joe reply to Brian on Jan 19 at 13:16
+/-

In his book, he discusses Iverson quite extensibly. I read it a few months back. I know he covers the idea that elite players "improve" other players around them.


Expand/Contract all comments

Leave a comment


back-to-story.gif