Is this the Answer to our problems?
So Allen Iverson was waived by the Grizzlies yesterday and almost immediately the conversation here turned to whether the Knicks should bring him in to help the New York back court. There are many opinions about what Iverson can do for the Knicks. Some think he adds something we need.
at least he makes his shots. He also attacks the basket, something no one does right now. His passing numbers have gotten better with age. What’s the downside? -Zulu.
Others think he would only be a hindrance.
He is not the future and in the present I simply don’t want to watch him play. He is the epitome of the scoring is greatness philosophy that got us where we are today. -Owen
I think Ted Nelson said it best.
I understand the general aversion to AI, but I think we should at least have a constructive discussion on the pros and cons (what the Daily News article says Walsh is doing). I don’t think it’s wise to just dismiss the possibility off-hand, given how bad the Knicks are and that they don’t have their first rounder. I would be interested to hear the reasoning behind the strong responses against AI. -Ted Nelson
I agree Ted. And I think the best way to have this discussion—being that this is a site dedicated to advanced stats—is to look at Iverson’s advanced stats and see if he adds something the Knicks need.
At first blush I see why some people want Iverson on the Knicks. He is putting up better numbers in terms of pts/36, eFG%, TS%, and PER than any other Knick guard, and far superior to Duhon’s. So in the “pro” column Iverson gets a check for scoring and shooting.
Alternatively, Iverson’s PPR, and TO-r are not good at all. He is a far less effective distributor than Duhon. I think Iverson’s issues with distribution and turnovers adds to the lack of ball movement on this team. Then add his high USG-r, which exceeds both Douglas and Robinson, and you can argue that he can’t help the team where it is needed most–executing the half court offense through effective ball movement. Yes, Iverson can get whatever shot he wants but so does Harrington, look where that got us. So I am calling this a “con.”
Now, I’m not a stat guy so I don’t have a clue how to run a similarity score, but it seems to me that we already have a player on the team somewhat similar to the current (I said current) Iverson. I would say that player is Douglas. Douglas is similar in scoring per 36 minutes, PER, and shooting (I’m throwing out 3ps as the sample size for Iverson–he took 1– is far too small). Douglas has a higher reb-r, and a lower TO-r. Right now, what Toney Douglas do is much like what Allen Iverson do (excepting ast-r). So for failing to add something new to the mix, Iverson gets a “con.”
Finally, I think we must consider the impact Iverson will have on the development of the players who are likely to be on this team next year such as Douglas, Hill, and Gallanari. I think Iverson’s addition will impact Douglas more than any other player. To keep Iverson happy, he’ll need close to 30 minutes a game (he was not happy with 22 a game in Memphis). That takes too many minutes from Douglas (29 mins per over the last 3 games) when he needs minutes to develop. So that is a “con.”
I think the addition of Iverson will hurt Douglas’ development, and in the end Iverson won’t be enough to turn this team around. I don’t think his numbers warrant bringing him to New York. For those reasons, I vote “No” on A.I.
Now that you have the numbers, what do you think?
@Don't bother; I don't tweet