The Miller Time Podcast on 8 Points, 9 Seconds:
Subscribe via iTunes
I like Granger too. Being very good would be nice, but it doesn't make him a HOFer , one of the all time greatest scorers, a league MVP, an almost guaranteed 30 ppg 7-8 assists per night, 3 to 4 great years left. That's a big enough window for me.
I think we're over estimating Granger and under valuing what Iverson can do right now. AI did not have anyone as good as JO when he took Philly to the finals. We have plenty of depth so we can still field a good team around JO and AI. Depth is way over rated anyway, we can give up just about any 3 guys to get AI and still have a solid contending rotation.
"Just look at the flowers ........ BANG"
Philly doesn't want shop and neither do we.. so Jack won't go. Tinsley and Foster have been included with Daniels who is availible Friday to be traded. I haven't heard AL mentioned, but he falls under the Daniels category and maybe that's why Iverson hasn't been traded (doubt it though). My guess is sixers want Granger and that's not going to happen
I just saw on NBA TV, Peter talked 10 mins about which teams are today IN the "AI hunt", he said that Billy King is looking at his offers tonight and maybe will do something tonight... He said that the 76ers want mostly Draft Picks / Young Players, they want to clear out salary space after Chris Webbers contract is up.
He said pretty many teams that are still "in it" and are still interested today:
Warriors: Will not trade Andres Pietrus, which is the guy the 76ers want, so there is nothing much going for them.
Clippers: Will not trade Shawn Livingston, which is the guy the 76ers want, so there is nothing much going for them either.
Bobcats: Will not give up Felton or May or Gerald Wallace, so they are probably out of the race...
Boston: Are very agressive and the most agressive, he thinks that AI might end up there since AI wants to play there and since the Celtics are willing to give ANYTHING for him... except maybe Paul Pierce.
Miami Heat: Are also very agressive, 76ers wants also to trade him to a powerfull team with a powerfull Coach like Riley who can handle AI very good.. they want to give Jason Williams and many other players.
Minnesota Timberwolves: Are not in it anymore at all....
He ended with the words "There is NO other teams", he didnt even mention the Pacers or any other team, he is 90% sure that AI will end up in Boston....
yeah im about 90% sure that Indiana is indeed out of the running for AI
[/center]If you havin' depth problems, I feel bad for you son; I got 99 problems but a bench ain't one! - Hicks
This makes me mad. Not that we are out of it but that Miami is still in it. AMAZING. How is this possible. They have basically nothing! Jason Williams?! Really? Christ! If Iverson goes to Miami then I will be convinced that there is some conspiracy at work here.
I doubt it. How does it help their case?It still could be misinformation, but it would sound like to me , that it would be misinformation purposely being leaked from the TPTB.
How it helps Philly to leak Indy's name - increase feeling that it's a seller's market and that competition to get AI is fierce. Leaking fake deals is the same as a salesman saying "someone was just here and is planning on coming back to make a bid, it might not be here if you don't buy it now" vs "honestly, no one has been interested in this yet and I haven't had a single person look at it in days"
How it helps AI to leak deals - again, generate buzz with other teams. AI wants out and that means he needs there to be interest in him.
Also it helps to leak names of teams AI is interested in going to in order to get their phones ringing. DW hears the rumor (which he knows if false) followed by the alleged reaction that AI would like to be moved to Indy and that Indy has pieces that Philly wants and Walsh decides to make a phone call to find out.
Meanwhile the Pacers have been infamous for not leaking info as much as possible.
Wow, what a fan. The 2 options are get AI or give up on the year? Something about that sounds wrong to me.Maybe AI is too old, but the only other option would be to tank the season and draft Durant.
You mean miss a bunch of 3s every game, turn the ball over 4-5 times and take 15 more shots. Not sure if "value" is the word I would associate with that. And I bet if we asked Danny nicely he'd be willing to do that.I think we're over estimating Granger and under valuing what Iverson can do right now
Iverson is shooting 3.5 attempts PER GAME from 3 at a disgusting, horrifying TWENTY-THREE PERCENT. 23%. Read it over and over.
Danny in contrast has shot 3.9 per game at a 42% rate. Nearly DOUBLE AI's 3P%.
And it's not like AI doesn't have options. Korver is at 48% from 3 this season taking 3.5 per game himself. Maybe Philly would win more if AI dropped his 3PAs back to 1 and gave Korver those extra 2.5 attempts instead.
JACKSON is shooting the 3 BETTER than AI right now (think about that) AND Jack has a BETTER A/TO ratio than AI right now.
People keep saying "but it's more than numbers". No, it's not. They don't make the numbers up, those are just someone adding up the stuff a guy does. AI misses a lot of shots, he controls the ball most of the time on offense, and he turns it over a lot per game, especially compared to how many assists he gets.
You ignore stats in the face of "intangibles", as in good chemistry guy, good character guy, or perhaps a role player who does all the little things that don't get totaled in the box score.
What AI does usually is in the box score, because most of his success is based on how many points he scores. But that comes with how many shots he takes and it's always a TON, even when he has other quality options on the court with him.
Who here would like to see Jackson SHOOT MORE, turn the ball over more and refuse to pass to Granger when he's open? That's what AI is doing in Philly right now except sub Korver for Granger.
That's results, not pretend numbers someone made up.
Derrick McKey. Iverson is no McKey, but it is more than numbers.
(in my opinion) Iverson's intensity affects the game more than McKey's intangibles, and that's just his intensity. That doesn't include dribble penetration and the amount of defensive attention that other teams have to pay him, which creates easier shots AND more second chance opportunities by getting the defensive out of position for rebounds.
I can't statistically measure Iverson's intensity and his other intangibles, but I can look at the consistently low level of talent he's been surrounded by, look at his team's inflated results, and assume that he's the reason his teams have overachieved.
Seth, I was only commenting on the Pacers' options to get that one transcendent wing/guard that most championship teams seem to have. I want the Pacers to win every game. I really like the current mix of players. I am a Tinsley fan. I even like Jack. I love JO and I would be really upset if the Pacers traded him for anyone. However, I would like us to have that superstar that can take over a game from the perimeter.
I have been arguing against tanking the season all year. I got into an argument with Since86 about the draft where I posited that Al was a better bet than any draft pick in any draft. However, I have had the feeling that we have had a long succession of role players since I have been a fan of this team and I had a hope for a superstar. Just for once, I want the other team to stay up late trying to figure out a way to stop our guy.
Here are some stats from http://basketball-reference.com
There is a ratio that calculates a team's offensive rebounds against their opponents defensive rebounds. Here are the 76ers league ranks:
Recently they haven't been that good, but they improved dramatically in Iverson's first year. (95/96 was the year before Iverson).
I argue that using this year's numbers from 15 games that he has played mostly while frustrated and not wanting to be there as a case against Iverson's game is a very flawed and disingenuous argument.
You clearly don't like how the guy plays the game. And that's fine. I disagree, but I understand your argument. I just don't think using this year's stats to make your points is at all valid.
Last year, Iverson took fewer threes (3.1 per at 32%), had fewer TOs (3.4 instead of 4.4) and shot much better (44.7% instead of 41.3%). These were all close to career bests, so I imagine you don't believe they'll hold up, but when you look at the year before last, the numbers began trended that way. It started happening right as he was turning 29 and 30 years old, which is the exact time most players hit their playing prime and their mental and physical games both are at their peak.
15 frustrated games is not a proper sample size to use.
But AI has ALWAYS been a 40-42% type of shooter and ALWAYS been a 3 times a game 30% 3 ball shooter. It's not just this year while frustrated. Even you admit it withfor 44% shooting. BEST. ONLY 3.4 TOs.These were all close to career bests
In his MVP season he shot 42%, 32% from 3 (306 attempts/4.3 3PA per game), 3.8 reb, and 4.6 assists, 3.3 TOs. Look long and hard at those numbers. Now pretend those are Jackson's numbers, or Tinsley's. Acceptable?
Last year Jackson was 41%, 34.5% (4.2 per), 3.9 reb, 2.8 assists, 2.5 TO. So the worse 3pt shooting and the extra 2 assists made AI an MVP and Jackson a worthless bum? I'll admit that the extra 1.5 steals was an impact, but he also gave the ball up 1 time less per game.
He's been spun into folk lore at this point. I watch him play, he is able to burn guys all night long, but his SHOT SELECTION SUCKS. With his talent he should be able to score as efficiently as Ray Ray, Redd, Payton in his prime, etc. But he doesn't and hasn't.
Compare his MVP season with Gary Payton THE SAME YEAR
45.6%, 37.5% from 3 (3.4 per), 4.6 reb, 8.1 ast, 1.6 stl, 2.65 TOs
Until last season Payton had shot UNDER 44.8% 1 freaking time. Iverson has only gone OVER 44.8 1 time, and that was only 46%. His 2nd best year was the 44% last year and other than that it's ALL 42% or worse.
And you pair his outbursts with his on-court results. He fueded with Brown but that was the only coach to get him to the Finals. He rants and complains and refuses to practice or follow lots of team directives, and pairs this with a history of criminal activity that excedes Jack.
Look, I'm not totally anti-AI. I understand the desire. But I also have to listen to the day to day complaining about Tinsley, Jackson and JO. The REASONS that people don't like those players also apply to what AI does.
Could I get people to buy into Jack having intangibles that don't show up on the court? How about Tinsley? Nope, only when it's AI. Yeah, that doesn't sound reasonable to me.
The grass isn't greener. We've measured it. And the response to that shouldn't be "you can't trust the numbers, you just have to realize that it has some undefinable greeness to it". That is not rational thought. That's the kind of thinking that scam artists use.
As for the offensive rebounding with AI joining the team...you think that had to do with him (especially all his missed shots) OR with all-star caliber rebounders like Ratliff, Mutumbo, Coleman (still pulling down 9 a night when he got to Philly), and Webber (also consistantly a 9-10 rpg guy even away from AI)?
Coleman was injured the year before AI joined, but came back to put up a 10.1 that was in-line (slightly worse than) his NJ numbers.
Weatherspoon also pulled down 8.3 a night in AI's first year. That's actually 2 rebounds WORSE once AI joined the team.
Ratliff joined these 2 the next season and grabbed 7.3, again directly in line with his entire career.
Coleman and W'spoon left and Geiger came in and pulled 7.2, similar to what he'd been doing in Charlotte.
Tyrone Hill also was brought in and pulled 7.3, down for him. He had 10 rebound seasons before and after playing with AI, but only a pair of 9's to go with that first year 7.3.
George Lynch also joined the team around then and saw his rebounding rate go down, but he still was getting 6.5-7.5 a night.
Mutumbo joined these guys (Ratliff out) and saw his 2nd worst rebounding rate year ever in his 1 full season with AI, and even in the trade season his rate dropped from 22 to 20 (17 the next year) after he got to Philly.
What does this mean? AI has had TONS of established, quality rebounders, some of them specialists even, his entire career. None of them suddenly got better playing with him, most were the same or slightly worse. The team made a point to be a rebounding roster, that's the type of player they brought in.
Why would Philly need all those rebounders? My guess, 42% 25 times a night.
At best....Tinsley and SJax were 2nd, 3rd but rarely ( only when the rest of the team gets a hangnail ) the 1st option on the team. Iverson is the #1 scoring option on the team with more FGA, more opportunities to score, gets double teamed and played comprable minutes ( to SJax ) and more minutes then Tinsley.
I'm not saying that you're right or wrong.....but its difficult to compare stat when it comes to AI / Tinsley / SJax.
Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.
I understand that feeling, I just don't think it matters whether the other team worries about stopping your star or not, as long as the team wins.
Besides we've seen plenty of success from teams that don't have a "the guy" on the roster, like Detroit or this season both Utah and Orlando.
And last I checked JO was a pretty solid all-star level player. Fans are just USED TO HIM. If the Pacers offered JO straight up for AI Philly fans would punch us in the face and grab JO before we could think twice about going back on the deal.
Teams do have to double him, and they have to watch Al and Danny from the 3, and they have to watch Tinsley getting his shots in the mid-lane or from the post, and so on. The team has a pretty good mix of weapons. Why consolidate that into one guy who can be tripled-teamed till he passes the ball (or chucks it anyway)?
BTW, I've actually become less of an AI fan the more I've looked into his history and numbers. Plenty of this stuff I didn't used to realize, at least at this level.
I will agree that the Pacers have needed a tie game, time to take over player. JO is good late, but not really at the very end of games. But is that part of AI's history, getting and making good shots at the ends of games for the win? Honestly I don't recall one way or the other.
If you want "drive past guy and then clank the ball off the iron" you can just have Tinsley run a PnR at the end. At this point I'd actually feel more comfortable with that than AI just going ISO.
Seth, out of curiosity. Where would you rank AI as a player in the NBA last year?
That would be one reason I'd like this potential trade. I'm not sure where the Pacers go in crunch time. Either a last second shot or last 3 minutes type situation. JO is very good, but post players are rarely the offensive focus late in close games. The team needs a dominant wing or PG that can get into the lane. Tinsley is showing flashes, but historically he is not a good finisher or shooter. Jax seems like our only option and that scares most people. Jax has skill, but I don't get the feeling fans and some players feel comfortable with Jax as our late game option. Too much has happened with him. RC has shown he trusts Jax but we'll see how this last incident impacts that.
AI might not be the only guy we can get, but he would fill the need for a late game scorer.
Who was the #1 option over Jack for half of January? Um, no one. Certainly not Fred, AC, AJ, Saras, and Granger (what was the defense of AI by Simmons, that he had no supporting cast).
The other 8 games he had JO, so he was the #2 guy. Same for most of December where it was just he and JO.
I don't see how it actually is that difficult to compare because a big portion of the point is that Iverson CHOOSES to have it this way. He doesn't actually have to shoot that much. Am I to believe that every coach he's had schemed games the same way, for AI to shoot everything and everyone else to go get the rebound?
It just makes my point stronger because as I said I've heard the complaints about Tins, Jackson AND JO...the knock on JO? Star, can't lead his team to a title, takes too many shots.
You know that's the truth, that's been an on-going local rant on JO. I don't really agree with it, but my point is that the people mad about how things are now are going to be even madder once they spend a few seasons with Philly 02-03 or something.
Watch AI turn JO into Coleman or Webber, Jackson into McKie, Harrington into Korver, and Tinsley into Snow. Granger will be gone with Foster, so they get turned into empty space.
Yes he GETS OFF SHOTS, but he misses a ton of them. My question then is "what's the point". Miller scored less, shot less, but moved the ball better and still defended, rebounded, etc at a strong level.
Is it any coincidence that the Lakers got better with Odom being more involved in the offense and Kobe shooting a higher FG% this year? I don't think so. Kobe dropped his FGAs to 18 and brought his FG% up from 41-42 to 48%.
So that's where I see AI hurting his team. You can't just take shots, you need to take makable shots. One of Reggie's claims to fame was his LIMITED FGAs. He consistantly got high quality shots and therefore kept his PPS and Adj FG% high. He didn't forced up every touch he got.
AI touches the ball EVERY PLAY and still he's never seen 8 assists per night. How can I see that as more productive than what Nash or even Kidd do?
He was 32nd last year in Points per Shot (which includes earning FTs, something his speed and constant shooting should create) among players that took at least 10 FGAs per game. He was 14th amoung players that took at least 15 per (including Mike James having a better PPS).
He was 89th in adjusted FG% (giving credit for making the extra point from a 3). Something like 26th among players taking 15 or more shots per game.
Bear in mind his biggest contribution, the justification for his big paycheck, is SCORING THE BALL.
Breven Knight outdoes AI in terms of assists (by a lot) and steals, and while AI's 7th place finish in steals was strong, some of that was the playing time. He falls back to 17th (only using the top 25 spg players, so no 2 minute wizards with a per48 skew) in the per48 count on steals.
Take away the name and if I gave you all these numbers you wouldn't see it as AI except if I showed you the FGAs per and the PPG.
He's probably got top 10 TALENT, but he doesn't play a smart, unselfish game. Honestly I have to suspect that all that hustle and effort during games is because he gets to touch the ball. Would we see AI going off if he was asked to stand on the weakside and wait for Tins to feed JO in the post without touching the ball at all?
That's why he doesn't like practice. Game time means it's all about him, so he hustles. I'll admit he's been tough too, I just don't see him not throwing a fit if he got asked to stay out of plays for the sake of team play.
If AI's career year of 2005-06 puts him at 25th best in the League in your eyes, I'm really not going to try to debate AI's overall offensive effectiveness with you anymore. Our difference of opinion is obviously just too far apart to really have any meaningful discussion. All due respect.
The last thing I do have to say is that Iverson's historically elite ability to penetrate and either get to the hole or get to the line or dish to a big man on the block or kick to a jump shooter is something that the Indiana Pacers franchise has never had to the degree in which he is able to do so. And it's not close.
Most games that matter (namely, Playoff games between closely matched teams) are decided in the final few possesions. Every possession of a game of course counts for something, but somebody going 3 for 9 in the 2nd Quarter rarely precludes a team from winning a game, if they do in fact have the horses to make a push in the 2nd Half. Allen Iverson gives an offense the opportunity and priviledge of knowing that there is a player to whom they can give the ball at any time and get a shot in late-game situations. When good defenses are really manning up and trying to stop penetration, he can still get to the cup.
That ability supercedes FG%.
Of course, I'm guessing your belief is that those late-game shots will be succesful about 42% of the time. That could be true. I don't know. And honestly, I'm not sure anyone does. Aside from that one Finals run, I don't know if we've seen Allen Iverson in big, late-game situations enough to know the answer (no pun intended).
But I do know that we've never seen him with much talent around him either, nor have we ever seen him playing with a 30-year-old's elevated mental approach to the game.
My belief is that he would make good decisions when it matters. I could care less if he finishes every first half of the season going 5-13 for 14 points. I would still want the ball in his hand when we're down by 1 with 12 seconds left in a Playoff game.
I'm at the point where I feel that we are so mediocre ( good one game....crappy the next game...and not knowing what to expect ) that I wouldn't be surprised if we didn't get Iverson...but also wouldn't object if we did trade for Iverson.
I can hope that he would be a difference maker on the team...most notably a "go-to-guy" at the end of game and be enough of a difference maker to get us into the 2nd round of the playoffs....or worse....become a player that completely dominates the ball and transforms JONeal and the rest of the team into spectators.
But I do know one thing....that it would be a significant change from the "status quo" from the .500 team ( in a very weak Eastern Conf ) that will not likely make it past the 1st round of the playoffs.
Ash from Army of Darkness: Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun.
If you go back and look specifically at offensive rebounds per game you'll see it differently. Total rebounds may have gone down, but offensive rebounds were up for some players compared to their time before and after Philly. Theo Ratliff for example. And on other players like Tyrone Hill, the OR per 40 minutes is higher, even though the actual numbers our down. Total rebounds is misleading since he isn't affecting defensive rebounds.