Things to do in Denver When Your Stars Are Overrated

A question for Bill Simmons:

Can someone tell me why the Nuggets stink so bad? Two superstars - check. Great rebounder/shot blocker - check. Solid role players - check. Fat ugly coach - check.

The obvious answer would be that, as some people have been saying for a long time, their "superstars" aren't really that great. Instead, Simmons offers:

Come on, the Nuggets had no heart all season. None of this was a surprise. When the going gets tough, they get going. In their defense, it's tough to get motivated to win a title when you've already broken the "Most tattooes on one team" record. How do you dip into the well and get fired up after that?

You would really think that the experience of the Iverson trade would have caused a few people to reconsider this stuff. Before the trade, Philadelphia was a pretty bad team and Denver was a decent one. Then Allen Iverson was swapped for Andre Miller in a move that was widely expected to help Denver and hurt Philly in the short-run. But that hasn't been the outcome. The obvious conclusion is that the Iverson-skeptics were right all along and he's just not that good. Denver fans should be asking themselves how good their team might have been if they'd been able to execute the reverse deal -- something like Carmelo Anthony for Andre Iguodala, Samuel Dalembert, and a draft pick.

Comments

You blame Iverson, but forget that he single handedly took a team to the finals. The more likely culprit of being overrated is Anthony. He can do some nice things, but he just didn't develop into the unstoppable player that LeBron and Wade did. He's more like a Chris Bosh, except for the fact he is a questionable character guy. So maybe he is worse to have than Bosh.

And it's a stretch to say that Philly is a quality team at this point. I know they finished strong and have won a couple against Boston, but it's a mystery how because they look completely disorganized on the court. Add in that Iguodala has really only started to come into his own the past 2 years and it's hard for me to see that Iverson was the problem in Philly.

Posted by lfv | May 1, 2008 4:41 PM

While its hard to argue with the results, there has to be more to it. Iverson took a completely awful team to the finals and actually took it to 5(!) games. That team was worse than Lebron's team from last year. Also, I think Iverson was so ingrained with a certain style that it didn't exactly fit in Denver. He was so used to having to carry his team, that he didn't adjust. He's still a Hall of Famer and one of the top three small guys ever. 6'1" and under.

Posted by Stacy | May 1, 2008 4:47 PM

Yeah, I think that Iverson would be great on a team that relies on him (and practically him alone) for scoring, with a bunch of role players who can knock down open shots and defend/board. In fact, he was great on that one Philly team.
His problem is, he's not so great on a team that has a bunch of other people who think they should be the main scorer (Kleiza, Smith, Anthony) and Iverson doesn't really work well as a role player.

Posted by jamie | May 1, 2008 4:51 PM

I agree that Carmelo's the one who's overrated. He's basically a one-dimensional scorer, without doing any of the things that can enable a one-dimensional scorer to carry a team: shoot from long range, dominate the inside, get to the rim at will. Instead he hits lots of mid-range jumpers. Whoop-de-damn do.

Denver is just a poorly constructed team. It's like the Knicks trying to build around 5 ball hogs. The Nuggets' stars don't meld well together.

Damn, if the Warriors didn't choke at the end of the year, they would have given the Lakers a much harder time in the first round.

Posted by too many steves | May 1, 2008 4:54 PM

Before the trade, Philadelphia was a pretty bad team and Denver was a decent one.

Both things are still true, despite (a) Philadelphia having several key young players (Iguodala, Dalembert, Thaddeus Young) who are getting better with time, and (b) Denver having several key old players (Camby, K Martin, yes Iverson too) whose skills are deteriorating. I don't see how you can separate these variables apart and make a strong claim about how good Iverson is.

I'd also note that Andre Miller has been a very good, underrated PG for basically his entire career, with the exception of his year in LA.

Posted by right | May 1, 2008 4:56 PM

Too Many,
I think you nailed it about Carmelo. For starters, his game is surprisingly below the rim. He seemed MUCH more athletic coming into the league. And for a guy who doesn't rely on getting to the rim to get his points, he is not a great 3 point shooter. Its funny to look back at people debating who was better- Lebron, Carmelo, or Dwyane Wade.

Posted by Stacy | May 1, 2008 4:58 PM

I heard an interview with a Denver sportswriter who complained that Iverson was the most coachable player they have. That's gotta really suck.

I don't think Iverson's talent is overrated. I think the importance of playing as a team is underrated.

Posted by Njorl | May 1, 2008 4:58 PM

I cannot find any respectable sportswriter who is an "Allen Iverson Skeptic". I think such a person is a myth. Allen Iverson best short player in the history of the game, there are plenty of people who argue that one though. . .

Posted by Wilson | May 1, 2008 5:02 PM

Several commenters seem to be confusing a couple of things.

That is, no doubt that AI has loads of talent & skill at the game of basketball (and that he had even more so 7 years ago, when he took Philly to the Finals). But the question is whether Denver got hosed in trading for him; i.e., is AI really a player around whom a championship team can be built?

The aftermath of the trade suggests "no" to that question.

I find it particularly odd that this thread contains numerous references to AI & his play for the 2001 Philly team compared to the 2006-07 Cleveland LeBrons. What does AI's performance in 2001 really have to do with evaluating the wisdom of trading him several years later? Sure, the 2001 AI has relevance to the question "is/was AI a good individual basketball player," but the post seemed really to be asking "did Denver get hosed in trading for AI when they did?"

Posted by Reader | May 1, 2008 5:04 PM

I count ten games between AI's team and Miller's team. AI's team looks about five games better that it was before in an increasingly tough conference, and Philly has stayed static.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | May 1, 2008 5:04 PM

Also, let's be honest-I know the Nuggets just got swept, and the 76ers are still in it, but in a 7 game series, Denver would squash Philly like a bug. The West is that much better this year.

Posted by jamie | May 1, 2008 5:05 PM

I think you're overlooking what is to me the most obvious explanation: Iverson is a great player, but Denver was terrible situation for him. Which, if you go back to your old posts, I was saying then. I don't see the wisdom in pairing two shoot-first, volume scoring perimeter players together.

Posted by Freddie | May 1, 2008 5:05 PM

Being a big Mizzou fan, this pains me to say, but Kleiza is an incredibly frustrating player to watch. His offensive game is very good, and he definitely has a knack for scoring, but he is a selfish player. He doesn't do any of the small things that you need a guy like that to do. He's a fun guy to watch, but he's constantly calling for the ball. Its kind of sad.

Posted by Craigory | May 1, 2008 5:06 PM

The worst thing that Denver did is bring Kenyon Martin in at the same time as drafting Carmelo and then letting the two of them hang out together. That was and remains a recipe for disaster. It would have been interesting to see if Carmelo could have succeeded in an environment that required accountability.

Give me Bosh ahead of Carmelo any day of the week.

I haven't seen adjusted +/- numbers for the 2008 season, but it was amazing how bad Anthony's were for the 2007 season anyway.

too many steves pretty much nailed it.

Posted by Curtis | May 1, 2008 5:06 PM

is AI really a player around whom a championship team can be built?

The aftermath of the trade suggests "no" to that question.

I think it suggests "no" in that Denver is not the right team for AI's skills, and that in acquiring them they gave up more than they appeared to at the time.

Sure, the 2001 AI has relevance to the question "is/was AI a good individual basketball player," but the post seemed really to be asking "did Denver get hosed in trading for AI when they did?"

I don't think so. Matt's post title implies Iverson is "overrated", and he says "The obvious conclusion is that the Iverson-skeptics were right all along" (my emphasis). This is why people are pointing to 2001.

Posted by right | May 1, 2008 5:09 PM

Reader; the post pretty clearly calls Allen Iverson "Overrated" and "not that good". It actually says Iverson is "not that good" twice.

Posted by wilson | May 1, 2008 5:09 PM

Oh, I forgot to add, only a racist trust-fund scumbag would say Iverson is overrated.

And Freddie is right, let's not get carried away. Denver is still way better than Philly. Denver seems to be slightly better with AI than with Miller, and Philly is better now than they were with AI, but that's because they had given up on trying to build a good team around AI.

Posted by too many steves | May 1, 2008 5:11 PM

Not to slurp up to anyone here, but can anyone explain why Yglesias' site consistently has the best basketball discussions on the internet? I'm kind of new around here, but is this common knowledge around these parts?

Posted by Roger | May 1, 2008 5:16 PM

Watched every minute of the Denver - LA series. There is plenty of blame to go around for Nuggets fans.

First, and foremost, has to be George Karl. I am starting to feel that the media is going to crucify the tatoo-ed players for being "uncoachable" and resisting the good coaching of Karl. Sorry, but, that team has amazing offensive and defensive talent. The coach failed to forge all of that talent into a TEAM that could win by playing TEAM oriented ball on both ends of the floor. No doubt that Carmelo is hard to coach, mainly because he reliably will shoot a long range shot, or force his way to the rim against a double team. If he learned to pass the ball, as he did a few times (literally 3 times) during the series, it would have devastated the Lakers defense. AI also passed a few times, usually to cutters like Kleiza and Kenyon Martin, that usually resulted in dunks. But, there was no structured offensive system for those players to channel their offensive talents. It was all iso one on one play. No doubt that is what Melo and AI are great at, and it would be difficult to make them do otherwise, but that is the coaches job.

On the defensive end, Kenyon Martin did about as good a job of guarding Kobe as Ive ever seen (maybe second to Tayshaun Prince in the 2004 finals). Yet, Kobe demonstrated his total mastery of the triangle team oriented offense demanded by Phil Jackson, and carved up the Denver defense. Unfortunately for Nuggets fans, the Denver defense, just like its offense, is reliant on one on one athleticism, rather than a cohesive defensive system and philosophy. It is amazing to me that two of the worst small forward defenders in the NBA (Vlad Rad and Luke Walton) were able to somewhat neutralize Melo.

Of course, I am not defending AI and Melo. They both, and the entire team, played incredibly stupid ball. Mentally unstable team that unravelled at crucial junctures. But to my mind, that is the coaches job. A difficult one, no doubt.

AI and Melo's problems are mostly on the defensive end. There is no excuse for Melo to be as bad a defender as he is. That is a coaches job (witness Mike Brown's influence on LeBron). AI will never win a championship because he is one of the smallest Shooting Guards ever. He is not a PG. He can only succeed when playing witha PG that can defend the opponents SG, and when the team around him plays amazing defense (the Sixers made the finals because of their defensive play, period).

Posted by ValisJason | May 1, 2008 5:16 PM

As others have suggested, it's not as simple as whether a player is or is not "that good." (What does "that good" or "not that good" even mean?) It's about chemistry, and the Nuggets don't have it. They have two extremely talented scorers who need the ball to be effective and who don't make their teammates better. This, as either (I think) Reggie Miller or Barkley said, leaves the other players, particularly the bigs, confused about their roles, disaffected and disengaged. Anyone who has played ball (even pick-up) with a talented, ball hogging scorer knows this feeling. And it kills motivation.

Posted by Skyhook | May 1, 2008 5:17 PM

I think you're overlooking what is to me the most obvious explanation: Iverson is a great player, but Denver was terrible situation for him. Which, if you go back to your old posts, I was saying then. I don't see the wisdom in pairing two shoot-first, volume scoring perimeter players together.

Posted by Freddie | May 1, 2008 5:17 PM

Denver wins 50 games in whats being called the most competitive conference ever and the 76ers finish 2 games under .500...and yet you conclude Matt that Denver got the worse deal?

The problem is that yes, Denver got swept in the first round...but they got swept by the team most people think will reach the Western Finals, if not win the whole thing. Denver didn't play particularly well but, as mentioned above, Denver vs. 76ers in 7 games wouldn't be pretty either, in Denver's favor.

Posted by Jake | May 1, 2008 5:17 PM

right, you still don't make any sense.

AI in 2005 or 2006 (or whenever this trade happened) was *not* the AI of 2001. AI could have been legitimately a bigtime superstar in 2001, but not four or five years later (his game does depend on explosiveness & energy and, uh, those things *do* tend to disappear with age).

Also, MY's claim that AI trade skeptics were "right all along" *still* gives you no reason to discuss 2001. It has been a couple years or so now since the trade, and that seems to be the time period for "all along." And AI's performance in 2001 really has very, very little to do with the wisdom of trading for him in 2005/06.

Posted by Reader | May 1, 2008 5:17 PM

As others have suggested, it's not as simple as whether a player is or is not "that good." (What does "that good" or "not that good" even mean?) It's about chemistry, and the Nuggets don't have it. They have two extremely talented scorers who need the ball to be effective and who don't make their teammates better. This, as either (I think) Reggie Miller or Barkley said, leaves the other players, particularly the bigs, confused about their roles, disaffected and disengaged. Anyone who has played ball (even pick-up) with a talented, ball hogging scorer knows this feeling. And it kills motivation.

Posted by Skyhook | May 1, 2008 5:21 PM

By the way, the best Nuggets player in the series was JR Smith. Consistently able to get to the rim through mutliple defenders and make a tough shot (unlike Melo or AI, who got to the rim at will, but couldnt convert), and whose outside shot is positively scary. His defense is not good, but its not horrid either. His main problem was that he had to guard Kobe, he is not mentally tough yet, and that he is not utilized correctly in a team oriented offense.

Posted by ValisJason | May 1, 2008 5:22 PM

Oh, Internal Service Errors, how you mock us.

Posted by Freddie | May 1, 2008 5:23 PM

Jesus, Reader, 2001 was simply brought up to discuss the overall level of Iverson's play. I didn't see anyone state that AI's performance in 2001 should be used as a barometer of whether or not this trade made sense for Philly or Denver.

"Its pronounced thermometer."

Posted by Stacy | May 1, 2008 5:24 PM

To say Denver made a mistake in trading for Iverson is a little silly in my opinion. If there were better trades out there they could have made at the time, that would be the case, but barring that it is only a mistake if they would have been advancing in the playoffs with Miller instead of AI. Which they wouldn't, because they hadn't. It's the same trap lots of people get into calling the Shaq or the Kidd trade mistakes because both teams lost handily in the first round. Were those teams really going to beat SA or NO if they hadn't made those trades? Not likely. The problem isn't that these trades were bad, it's that they weren't good enough to get the teams over the hump of the elite teams. Maybe you make a case the Kidd trade was a mistake because of Harris' age. But Marion/Miller are both older players.

Posted by lfv | May 1, 2008 5:26 PM

By the way, if the title of this post is a reference to the Zevon song, and not the movie, then Matt gets mad, mad props.

Posted by too many steves | May 1, 2008 5:29 PM

AI in 2005 or 2006 (or whenever this trade happened) was *not* the AI of 2001.

The trade happened in December 2006. I don't think anyone would dispute that he is no longer the player he was in 2001.

Also, MY's claim that AI trade skeptics were "right all along" *still* gives you no reason to discuss 2001. It has been a couple years or so now since the trade, and that seems to be the time period for "all along."

I disagree. Matt's reference to "Iverson-skeptics" was directed towards the likes of Dave Berri and John Hollinger who, using various statistical analysis, have consistently claimed that Iverson has been overrated throughout his entire career. Matt has referenced this ongoing debate many times before (here, for example), and many people, myself included, believe the 2001 76ers provide sufficient evidence to render the entire claim fairly ridiculous.

Do a search for "Iverson" on this site to see the number of times this subject has been addressed.

PS - I'm surprised Petey hasn't shown up yet...

Posted by right | May 1, 2008 5:29 PM

Outside of hockey, Denver has made bad trades in every sport. Except for stealing John Elway from Baltimore, of course. Look at the 'great' pitchers the Rockies have sold their soul for. We can pick a bust better then anyone. In the early years of the Avalanche, it looked like we were finally breaking that tradition with snags like Patrick Roy, Joe Sakic, and Peter Forsberg. But the Avalanche is being brought in line, as their impending loss to the Redwings will attest.

Posted by fostert | May 1, 2008 5:30 PM

Yeah, say what you want about the Shaq trade, but that Kidd trade was terrible. I thought it was bad before I realized that Dallas was also giving up two first rounders. I could be wrong. Maybe it was just one.

Posted by Stacy | May 1, 2008 5:30 PM

As a Laker fan who bore witness to Iverson single-handedly taking us down in Game 1 of the 2001 Finals, I have to object to this "Iverson is just not that good" line. I mean, we know what he's capable of, and he still averaged 26 pts/7 assists for the season. Those are things only very good players do.

It has to be a chemistry thing. I mean, hasn't the story with the Nuggets all season long been about what a wild and uncoachable bunch they are, even despite all the talent? I don't think you can just heap all the blame on Iverson.

And also: if a lot of your basis for this is their playoff performance, I think we should wait and see just how good this Laker squad is. If they end up dominating, the Nuggets might not look so bad in retrospect.

Posted by David Morris | May 1, 2008 5:36 PM

The Shaq trade was bad because Shaq cant defend the pick and roll. But, I have to admit that it did raise the ceiling of how competitive the Suns could have been. No, the reason the Suns are losing is because of terrible ownership decisions to give away draft picks and young players. I saw a list of the players the Suns could have drafted with the draft picks they owned, and it was astounding. If I were a Suns fan, I would be protesting at Sarver's house nightly.

The Kidd trade was horrible. Not only because they gave up a very good young PG, but also because they gave up their defensive anchor in Diop. Oh, and the draft picks. For an almost done Kidd. Horrid trade.

Posted by ValisJason | May 1, 2008 5:38 PM

Nobody can watch AI and say the guy doesn't have heart. He may no longer be as effective as he once was (and so, he may not even be good), but don't let the tattoos and braids fool you - the guy is a lion, and for someone to say otherwise certainly makes me question their racial sensitivity, shall we say...

Posted by McKingford | May 1, 2008 5:43 PM

For the record, I don't think anyone has questioned AI's heart or desire to win.

Posted by Roger | May 1, 2008 5:45 PM

I've always thought that high-energy scorers are severely underrated in Dave Berri's analysis (the basis of Matt's arguments). His system simply does not account for dynamics, how the other team has to adjust to react to said player.

My guess is that Iverson has been breaking down defenses longer than Berri has been watching basketball, in the end making his teammates more effective players by drawing their defenders away.

Posted by Dan | May 1, 2008 5:49 PM

I think that both iverson and melo co exsist just fine, the west is just to dominate this year, 50 wins has never been considered a horrible year, or a horrible team. They need a break

Posted by nick | May 1, 2008 5:51 PM

I think that both iverson and melo co exsist just fine, the west is just to dominate this year, 50 wins has never been considered a horrible year, or a horrible team. They need a break

Posted by nick | May 1, 2008 5:51 PM

I think that both iverson and melo co exsist just fine, the west is just to dominate this year, 50 wins has never been considered a horrible year, or a horrible team. They need a break

Posted by nick | May 1, 2008 5:52 PM

I do have to defend the Sixers at this point. I think they are showing against the Pistons that they CAN play against good teams, and I think they would be better than most think in a series against the Nuggets. Denver would be prone to same laissez-faire attitude as the Pistons, but don't have the defensive chops to recover if they got punched in the mouth.

Moreover, I think the Sixers show that having a 'team' concept instead of a 'stars' concept can be very effective in the NBA (as the Hawks have sort have shown, and the Jazz and Spurs repeatedly show). Having great individual players in the NBA is seductive (hello Knicks) but unless they play well together, you are just spinning your wheels. The Sixers have guys who fill roles and work for the best shot (most of the time) whereas watching the Nuggets it seems like they are just taking turns playing 1 on 5.

Posted by Civilized Crank | May 1, 2008 5:57 PM

Nick:

Disagree. With how much they are paying in salary, to barely make it to the playoffs, and then get swept ... not good. Yes, they are a good team relative to some others, but that doesn't count for anything.

If Im the Nuggets, I trade carmelo for a PG (preferably a potential all star PG, but not sure those are available ... maybe Memphis considers trading a Derrick Rose pick to the Nuggs?). You need to let AI walk when his contract is up (dont know when that is).

They need to start JR Smith and a (hopefully) healthy Nene. Run the offense through Nene. Keep Kenyon Martin coming off the bench for defensive and energy help. Kleiza off the bench for instant offense.

Maybe use the MLE on a solid SF like Pietrus.

Posted by ValisJason | May 1, 2008 5:57 PM

Really, we're supposed to see getting shut out in 4 by the historically talented lakers as somehow making the 50 wins in a better conference nuggets as a less successful team than the young upstart Sixers? Hell, I picked the Sixers as a potential upset pick, but I'm pretty sure that you can't argue that somehow AI wouldn't make that team better, or that Andre Miller would somehow make the Nuggets better when their biggest problem was a lack of D.

Posted by JoeF | May 1, 2008 6:00 PM

Wow, reading the thread, it is clear that a lot of people will never be able to look at Iverson objectively. Matthew is exactly right.

Look, before the trade last year, Denver was 14-9, which is a pace to win 50 games. They only won 45. Philly was 5-19, or a pace to win 17 games. They won 35.

This year, Denver won 50 games - the same number they were on a pace to win before the AI trade last year. So they demonstratively have NOT improved from the trade. Philly, OTOH, won 40 games, with basically the same core as last year (Iguodala, Dalembert, Green) plus Miller instead of Iverson. That's a vast improvement.

I love Iverson - have ever since I first watched him play in person when he was at Georgetown when I was living in DC. But he must be serving kool-aid, because a hell of a lot of people have been drinking it and insisting that he's a great player these days even though the record shows that simply isn't the case.

Posted by Al | May 1, 2008 6:04 PM

Civilized,
Uh, I don't think I agree with your "team" v. "stars" point. The Spurs don't have stars in the sense that people outside of basketball know them, but Duncan and Ginobli were two of the top 12 players in the league this year. Ginobli was probably in the top 7. And Tony Parker is very good as well, and has been an absolute beast in the playoffs. So yeah, they definitely have stars. And the Jazz have four All-Stars on their team. Now granted, Okur and AK haven't been that type of player anymore, but Williams and Boozer are "stars" in a different market.

Posted by Stacy | May 1, 2008 6:04 PM

Al,
I see your point, but in all fairness, he did average 26 and 7 this year. I do think him leaving Philly allowed the other AI to come into his own, but that doesn't mean that Philly is better without him. Regardless of their '07 records, and their "projected" win-loss after 23 games.

Posted by Roger | May 1, 2008 6:08 PM

Iverson led his team to the Finals in '01. During his run with Philly, his teams were consistently playoff teams.

Miller is the same age as Iverson. People act as though he has led countless teams out of the first round of the playoffs.

Has he?

The premise of this article is ridiculous. The arguments are lame. The conclusion is laughable.

John Stockon, Karl Malone, Charles Barkley, Patrick Ewing, Jason Kidd, Steve Nash.

A list of players who never won a ring. Just like AI.

Maybe they were also "just not that good".

Or, perhaps...the reverse is true. Namely, that as a thinker and writer, the person who posted this is "just not that good".

Posted by Mike | May 1, 2008 6:11 PM

I basically agree with the consensus here (AI not overrated, Anthony is, plus bad fit). I'd like to add one small piece to the argument, though.

In comparing Anthony and AI, one thing that doesn't show up in their stats is that AI, while not a great defensive player by any means, does have some defensive value.

Anthony doesn't.

And for what it's worth, Iverson's PER is a lot better than Anthony's (though in fairness, if you go by PER, you probably would conclude that Iverson is (a little) overrated, while Anthony is a lot overrated).

Posted by LarryM | May 1, 2008 6:22 PM

"So they demonstratively have NOT improved from the trade."

Its probably true that they haven't improved, but let's not be careless. "This year, Denver won 50 games - the same number they were on a pace to win before the AI trade last year." Using a speculated outcome ("they were on pace to win [50 games]") as a basis for comparison ("This year, Denver won 50-the same number...") does not a demonstration make.

Unless barring trades, every NBA team always ends up with the exact win-loss record that after 23 games they're paced to have.

Posted by Mark | May 1, 2008 6:34 PM

Look, before the trade last year, Denver was 14-9, which is a pace to win 50 games. They only won 45.

So you're hoping that we forget that Carmelo was suspended for a big chunk of that time because of the fight with the Knicks, right?

Posted by Davis | May 1, 2008 6:48 PM

Besides Davis point, winning 50 games in the West this year has to be considered a lot tougher than winning 50 last year. When Portland in 10th place was 41-41 it puts how tough the west was in perspective.

People are starting to say Dallas, PHO and Denver aren't that good which is simply not the case, they would all easily be top 4 seeds in the east, they simply got beaten by even better teams.

To put it in perspective I'd say GS or Portland would be easy top 4 seeds playing in the east, remember if they move East they may need to play Boston, Detroit and Orlando 2 more times each, but they play LA, SA, PHO, DA, HOU, UT, DEN and NO twice less each. I think the depth in the west is historic, there has been unbalance before but not at this insane level.

Posted by Eric k | May 1, 2008 7:06 PM

Dude,

While I agree that Simmons off-the-cuff answer to the chat room question was uncharacteristically weak and I am receptive to your assertion that Iverson (particularly at this point in his career) is not as super a superstar as many fans/pundits (yes, I am looking at you Stephen A. Smith) believe, I think the most overrated of the two Nugget "superstars" is really Carmelo. I would point you to another Simmons article where he addresses a, in my view, more intriguing potential shake up to the Nuggets line up this season than your Carmelo for Iguadola/Dalembert/draft pick nonsense(see the Bernard King Award section).

Also, I would like to point out a flaw in your analysis of the Iverson trade: the Nuggets did not make the playoffs in a loaded Western Conference last year (when they only had Iverson for part of the year) and they did this year; the Sixers, while obviously improved this year, only managed to finish 7th in a less stout Eastern Conference.

To my mind, the larger implication of the Iverson trade should be don't try to recreate the JailBlazers circa 2002-2003. Common, Iverson, Melo, JR Smith on the same team obviously could not work from the beginning. Great on paper, but too many tattoos, cornrows, and, especially, posses to work out. See: Stoudemire, Rasheed Wallace, Bonzi Wells, et al.

Btw, I cannot believe I just wasted my time responding to a progressive blogger's post on a question/response from a Bill Simmons' chat: what has become of my life? I had big plans you know? Hopefully this was the nadir of my life. What could be worse? Perhaps actually calling in to a sports talk radio show? Dear God no; let my fortunes never sink that low. I pray for us all (particularly me). Go Cavs.

Btw Matt, in case you haven't already, you should check out Snoop Jackson's Page 2 article today on the scary place the Lebron/DeShawn fued has headed and worse, has the potential of heading. Fascinating. Scary. I would love to read your response.

Posted by Andy | May 1, 2008 7:08 PM

Why isn't Carmelo improving. He's so young - he really shouldn't be the player he was two years ago, but he is.

Posted by The Animal | May 1, 2008 7:12 PM

I join others in wondering how a 50-win season has come to mean "stink so bad."

Posted by Trieu | May 1, 2008 7:21 PM

This is just further proof that team play wins championships. San Antonio plays great team office and team defense. Denver plays every-man-for-himself offense and little or no defense. San Antonio wins championships. Case closed.

Posted by Greenjeans | May 1, 2008 7:29 PM

So you're hoping that we forget that Carmelo was suspended for a big chunk of that time because of the fight with the Knicks, right?

As long as we are remembering things let's recall that, at least in Carmelo's case, fight actually means slap like a little girl and then sprint towards the locker room. I like remembering that when I watch 'Mello suck.

This is much the same as remembering Chris Paul is a nut puncher, but just a little different b/c Paul doesn't stink. Still when they give him the MVP Trophy for the playoffs the first question he should be asked by reporters is, "How does it feel to be the first confirmed nut puncher to win this prestigious award?"

Posted by keatssycamore | May 1, 2008 7:54 PM

Andy: Sorry, the Nuggets did make the playoffs last year. And they lost in the first round, to the Spurs, 4-1. And the year before that they lost to the Clippers, 4-1, in the first round. So, they definitely have bad luck when it comes to first round matchups, but they should be winning more than 2 playoff games in three years.

Posted by ValisJason | May 1, 2008 9:18 PM

I think Matt is completely off base about AI being not that good. The Sixers would not have even made the playoffs had they been in the Western Conference. Conversely, the Nuggets would have had home court advantage in the first round of the playoffs had they been in the Eastern Conference. And no, AI has not lost a step as he still has the ability to break down the initial defender and get to the rim. He was number three in the entire NBA in free throws attempted per game, third in scoring while taking 1.6 less shots than Kobe, and almost three shots less than Lebron. Before the trade to Denver he was averaging 31 a game for Philly. He has made an effort to play more of a team game. The bulk of the blame rests on Carmelo's shoulders. The guy is to big, strong, and athletic to be a worthless defender who has become a perimeter offensive player.

Posted by Southerndemocrat | May 1, 2008 9:35 PM

Matt, you post some crazy shit at times. I love Andre Miller (and yes, he has been underrated his entire career). But he is not as good as AI.

Iverson is one of the all time greats and is still among to the top players in the NBA.

But basketball is about chemistry as much as it is about putting great players on the floor together (chemistry is the right combination of coach, team, and system). No matter how good something looks on paper, you just never know how a combination of players will work out until you try it.

And good teams lose in the playoffs. You just need a bad call here, bad shooting night there, some unknown bench player gets hot against you, etc and bam, you're out. E.g., every Spurs championship run was done by the skin of their teeth.

Posted by duffy | May 1, 2008 10:29 PM

People that are saying Carmelo hasn't improved.....he shot over 49% from the field this year, FG% has increased almost every year, and has become a competent 3 pt. shooter. Rebounds were also way up this year even with Camby clearing their boards. I won't try to comment on his defense, but he's an efficient scorer who is a pretty difficult guy for any one defender to stop.

And while I defend Iverson from the wagesofwins crowd, he's certainly not the player some here make him out to be. Wins Produced has flaws but its still pretty damn good, and crushes AI's game.

Posted by Dan | May 1, 2008 11:09 PM

"PS - I'm surprised Petey hasn't shown up yet..."

I understand that Matthew is upset at the Obama collapse and needs a way to lash out at me.

This seems a bizarre way to do it, but much of Matthew's "commentary" for the past few months has seemed pretty bizarre.

If his opinions aren't offered honesty, there's little fun in picking them apart. Why waste my time? It's actually kinda sad to watch him turn into Andrew Sullivan.

Posted by Petey | May 1, 2008 11:24 PM

I understand that Matthew is upset at the Obama collapse and needs a way to lash out at me.

Did you see that footage of Clinton looking bewildered by the coffee machine and gas pump? I'm sure the revelation that she hasn't pumped her own gas in over a decade gives her real street cred with those working class whites. Ha! Gotta be frustrating that even with 24/7 Wright coverage, her Gallup number won't crack 50% among Democrats. I know you're waiting for it. How many days has she been above 50 this year? 3?

Over/under on the next time Obama cracks 50 is next Weds.

Posted by Just Karl | May 1, 2008 11:41 PM

Oops. Sorry to be OT. I thought the title was a reference to Hillary at the Convention.

Posted by Just Karl | May 1, 2008 11:44 PM

I think Allen Iverson had his game changed by the NBA rule changes that allow less contact and zone defense. He used to have such a massive speed advantage that he was one of only a handful of players who could escape contact and gain an advatage with the dribble. With no zone defense if you beat your man, you beat the defense unless you were doubled. The new defensive rules brought more speed into the league (reducing his relative advantage) and zone defense exposes his relatively mediocre 3-pt shooting. So two aspects of his game were limited changes in the rules, not his performance. And he's not 25 years old anymore.

#1-seed LA played solid defense on Denver and Denver plays it's weakest defense on SG and PF. LA just happens to have Kobe Bryant and Pau Gasol at those positions. It was the worst possible matchup for Denver and it showed. Camby and Iverson are both excellent competitors who led less than spectacular teams to the NBA finals. I'm not sure what "heart" has to do with tattoos but I'd say Denver wasn't the better team any night they stepped on the court against LA. When that happens, you lose 4-0.

"Heart" had nothing to do with it.

Posted by joejoejoe | May 2, 2008 12:06 AM

Iverson, yes, but Carmelo is unstoppable. The Lakers had nobody who could stop him. And yet they pretty much crushed the Nuggets. That leads me to believe that George Karl is the problem. That and the fact the he doesn't seem to actually talk to his players during timeouts.

Posted by Rm | May 2, 2008 12:13 AM

"Iverson, yes, but Carmelo is unstoppable. The Lakers had nobody who could stop him".

Are you visually impaired?
Seriously, were we watching the same series or are you referring to the Bizzaro-land Nuggets-Lakers series that took place in some alternate universe?

Melo was HORRIFIC in that series. He shot 5-22 in one game. He shot 36% for the entire series. Other than that, yeah, he was pretty unstoppable.

Posted by Mike | May 2, 2008 12:35 AM

Weren't the Nuggets the 11th (12th?) best team in the Association this year? Of course it looks like a big waste of time now, and everyone should get un-traded and fired right away. I personally would like to see also-rans like Denver bring in Superstars and Ubercoaches and try to make things happen. Does it ever work? Well, not yet. But not drawing the Lakers in the first round would smooth out the process a little bit, tatoos or not

Posted by Ross | May 2, 2008 1:16 AM

The Nuggets were 50-32 in a very competitive Western conference and were definitely not a terrible team. If they were in the east, they'd probably still be in the playoffs. They're simply demonstrably worse than the Lakers. I don't honestly see them winning that match-up with Andre Miller OR AI. In Simmons' defense, the Nuggets' lack of passion doesn't seem TOTALLY off-base. They were seriously limited by the Lakers' defense, but also sometimes looked like a team that didn't really give a fuck. In any case, I'm fairly agnostic on the trade. I don't see either potential Nuggets teams getting to the finals anytime soon.

Posted by GiantDuck | May 2, 2008 1:50 AM

Matt's actually a great basketball analyst. I thought liberals were reflexively stupid Suns/Gilbert Arenas fans. Anyway, I'm a Sixers fan, I watched the '01 playoffs, Iverson was amazing, but what people forget is that that team was defensively really good. They held teams to 90 a game. All Iverson really did was take them from being the atrocious offensive team they would've been without him to being a mediocre one, which was good enough to win them a ton of games. There are more players in the league than you think who could've done what he did (put up 30 a game on 42% shooting with absolutely no one else on the team who needed the ball).

Posted by Asher | May 2, 2008 2:07 AM

Whoop-de-damn do.

Nice usage of the Derrick Coleman quote to describe his fellow Orangeman.

Well played, sir.

Posted by Thlayli | May 2, 2008 5:18 AM

I seen someone on here say that Iversons skills were "deteriorating", where? I hate when I see people say things like that about a player, but can't back it up. Iverson is 3rd in scoring (probably would be first if he wasn't on a team with Carmelo), he leads the league in minutes played, he is arguably still the fastest player in the league...should I go on? My goodness, AI must have set some pretty high standards if anyone can look at the way he plays today and suggest "he's lost a step". He is now on a team with another dominate scorer, is he still supposed to score 50 pts a night or something?

I can honastly say I have never seen an athlete like him. People said he was supposed to slow down by the age of 27 yrs old, and the guy is still going strong. He is only 32 yrs. old, not 52. Obviously sooner or later players are going to slow down, but at this point I honastly don't know when Iverson will. You can't judge him by the average NBA player, he's of a different breed.

I also agree with everyone that says that Nuggets team doesn't fit Iverson. And I wish he would leave. I don't like their system, everyone looks confused. I have never seen a more heartless team and I think that starts with Carmelo. How does a guy like Iverson, end up on a team with a heartless player like that? Say what you want about Iversons Sixer teams, but at least they all played with heart..because they were molded in Iversons image. Although the Nuggets got swept, that Sixer team is not better then the Nuggets. Sorry. And please stop with the comparisons of Andre Miller. Just the fact that people would compare Andre to Iverson (a future Hall of Fame player) goes to show how silly this all is.

Now that the Sixers got handled by the Pistons, I look at their situation and see that they now have another real point gaurd to control the offensive settings in Andre Miller (something they didn't have since Eric Snow got traded), and their younger players are more developed...but what they are missing is a big time scorer and closer in games like these. You know, a player like Iverson or someone like that, oh wait.....

Posted by Anon02 | May 2, 2008 5:35 AM

Talking about how a player's first or second or third in scoring is like talking about which player in baseball has the most hits. It's meaningless. Points scored, just like hits, are a function of opportunity. That's why lead-off men always lead the league in hits and ball-dominating guards always lead the league in scoring. Now obviously scoring's more meaningful than counting hits, but still.

Posted by Asher | May 2, 2008 5:41 AM

Matt - You are absolutely right. And so is Dave Berri about this. Allen Iverson actually had quite a good season, and CArmelo significantly improved. But neither are first tier NBA stars on the level of a Chris Paul, Dwight Howard, Tim Duncan or Kevin Garnett. They aren't even close. Iverson never has been. CArmelo probably never will be.

It's amazing how people completely forget that Dikembe Mutombo was on that Sixers finals team.

Posted by Flint | May 2, 2008 9:41 AM

So you're hoping that we forget that Carmelo was suspended for a big chunk of that time because of the fight with the Knicks, right?

They were under a 50-win pace for the period after Carmelo came back too.

Let's face it, the Nuggets did not improve one iota from the trade. They had a perfectly accptable backcourt prior to trade with Miller at the point and JR Smith at the 2. Now they got Iverson and Smith both at the 2 and no point guard. And they gave away 2 1st round draft picks in the process. Bad trade.

The Nuggets biggest problem isn't Iverson and Melo, but rather is that they are paying a ton of money for K-Mart and Nene, both of whom have missed more than a season's worth of games in the last two, and neither of whom has played more than mediocre basketball when they are on the court. That's limited their flexibility to actually go out and do something productive to improve the team.

Posted by Al | May 2, 2008 10:23 AM

I don't know how to post links, but look at Carmelo's stats page at 82 games.

http://www.82games.com/0708/07DEN9D.HTM

When Anthony was on the floor, the Nuggets averaged 111.8 points per 100 offensive possessions, while they gave up 108.6 per 100 defensive possessions.

When Anthony was on the bench, the numbers were 110.5 and 103.9.

So they averaged being +3.2 with him on the floor, and +6.6 with him on the bench. The only other highly considered player I found - granted in like 10 minutes of scrolling - with a negative differential in this category was Carloz Boozer.

Posted by Curtis | May 2, 2008 11:08 AM

Look, before the trade last year, Denver was 14-9, which is a pace to win 50 games. They only won 45.

Great. You think the fact that 15 of those 23 games were against the Eastern conference, and 0 of those 23 games were against Utah, Phoenix, San Antonio, Houston, Detroit or Cleveland, might have had just a little bit to do with that 14-9 record?

Posted by Kurt | May 2, 2008 11:24 AM

Melo is soft, lazy, self-indulgent and immature. He has lots of (unused) potential.

AI is focused, energetic, (still) explosive and hard-working. He uses every ounce of potential (and height) he has. Not that good??????? WTF.

Denver as a team doesn't work.

Carmelo needs to be traded for the good of the team and for his own development. He's too comfortable in Denver.

BTW, Matt, speaking of being traded for one's own good.... Did you notice Raunch's fluffing of McCain for his "Conservative Maverick" conceit? Or G Spot's takedown of McMegan's economic illiteracy?

Maybe you should consider housing your talents elsewhere. Some tents are so big they just flap in the wind.

Yes, I bought your book (read it too, but you don't seem as concerned with that). You have superstar potential, but you need to be challenged by a better team.

Best regards.

Posted by Adams | May 2, 2008 12:29 PM

"But neither are first tier NBA stars on the level of a Chris Paul, Dwight Howard, Tim Duncan or Kevin Garnett. They aren't even close. Iverson never has been. CArmelo probably never will be".

And what are you basing this on, bud? Your own personal preference? Bias? Aside from Duncan, what exactly separates Iverson from those other guys on your list? Championships?

Try again.

Numbers?

Try again.

AI has been an MVP in the league. He has the 2nd highest playoff scoring average OF ALL TIME. He is third in alltime regular season PPG. I understand that some of you guys just wish he would go away. But facts are facts. Paul needs to have a few more seasons doing what he is doing before he gets more props than AI. Same with Howard, who has accomplished WHAT exactly? I love KG, but again, how many rings does he have? Again, aside from Duncan, how exactly do you substantiate your negative comparison of AI to guys like KG, Paul, Howard, etc...?

??????????

Posted by Mike | May 2, 2008 4:49 PM

Iverson does play with heart, but only on one end, he ignores the defensive end and saves all of his energy for scoring and due to his selfishness also shoots an extremely low percentage during the post season for his career. The problem is that both players play on only one end there is no player in denver to play defence and inspire their teammates to play defence as well. This is why iverson and melo can't get a ring. if both would share and sacrifice scoring to work on the defensive end then they would have a chance.

Posted by kbla | May 3, 2008 12:15 AM

Simmons is both right and wrong. If the team didn't have heart, they would not have made the playoffs. Period. They responded well to adversity a lot this season. Please check both Houston home games and the late win at G state. Then check the Orlando home game after they found out Nene had testicular CANCER. Matter fact just check Nene's effort to even get back on the court after finding that out. The team disappointed a little, but lets not act like they weren't five games from 4th seed.
However, I would concur that when things don't go right, both AI and Melo, tend to try to win games by themselves instead of playing team ball. It works sometimes, but not when your in a shooting slump, as Melo was in the Laker series. I just think the way the teams constructed, leads the two stars to have an attitude like "we both gotta get thirty for the team to be effective". With three non offensive players in the starting line up, sometimes I don't blame them. If I were Denver I'd make a big splash. Trade Camby for a starting point guard, and pray that Nene can be healthy. People who say, Camby's saves this teams defense. I reply: what defense? It's not like he's making that much of an impact when your giving up over 110 points per game in the playoffs.
Two more things, the whole low shooting percentage thing with AI is like five years ago. Dude's consistently been shooting around 45 percent the past 3 yrs, which is TMAC, Kobe, even Ray Allenesque. But people are right when they say, he does need to step it up defensively.. And finally I think it's kinda ridiculous for Simmons to make the tattoo joke which insinuates that tattoos represent whats wrong with the Nuggets.. I know, I should learn how to take a joke.. But that will probably be the same day that I learn to accept stupid stereotypes. Which will probably be never.

Posted by Jeffrey Engmann | May 3, 2008 7:13 PM

Flint said:

"But neither are first tier NBA stars on the level of a Chris Paul, Dwight Howard, Tim Duncan or Kevin Garnett. They aren't even close. Iverson never has been".

^Okay this is just getting ridiculous now. What world do you live in? Other then Tim Duncan (my favorite player by the way), none of those guys can even touch Iversons career...not even KG. I love K.G, but before this season with the Celtics, people were counting him out and done (you were probably one of those people). Now everybody want to jump back on his bandwagon.

And Chris Paul and Dwight have a looooong way to go before they even reach half of what Iverson has done. To put them in the same sentense with Iverson is disrespectful. No offense to those guys, they are good players, but haven't done anything close to what AI has done. Iverson is one of those once in a lifetime players. Compared to Iverson, people that don't watch b-ball don't even know who Chris Paul and Dwight are. Iverson is one of the biggest stars in sports. It kills me how people try to tear down that guy simply because they don't like him. But the facts are there. You have your opinion which is fine, but quit passing it off as fact or logic, because it simply isn't realistic at all.

Posted by Anon02 | May 4, 2008 12:13 AM

Yes, after 11 years, we finally find out that Iverson-skeptics were right afterall! He just isn't as good as people thought he was.

-The multiple 30+ppg seasons were a cruel mirage.
-The 4 scoring titles were nothing short of a fluke.
-The MVP was an elaborate disguise.
-The Finals run was a thin veil of deceit that true basketball enthusiasts can see through.
-The 11 years of sheer will, toughness and skill fooled us longer than it should have.
-The 3rd highest career scoring average of all-time was perhaps the largest hoax of all-time
-The 2nd highest playoff scoring average of all-time was an even bigger one.
-And when his career ultimately draws to a close, the first ballot HOF induction will crown the end of the Allen Iverson Lie.

What utter fools we were.

Posted by tealish | May 9, 2008 12:38 AM