No Subject

[Peter Delevett <pdelevett@sjbj.com>]

>Subject: No to Geiger!

>I agree with going after Ike Austin instead of Geiger.  What we need is a
>force in the middle.  Geiger doesn't intimidate anyone.  Adding Geiger to the C's would
>just stockpile another McIlvaine or Knight.  Why should you go after someone
>who will not help your team?  Forget Geiger.  He's not
>consistent. I'd stick with Knight if we can't get Austin. All we need is Ike.    Gene

OK, Gene, let's take a look at your argument:

A.  Ike Austin's numbers:

97: 78 g, 29 mpg, 46.6% fg, 67% FT, .7 bpg, .8 spg, 2.6 TO, 3 PF; 13.5 ppg, 7.1 rpg (2.6 orb), 2.2 apg
career: 251 g, 19 mpg, 47.7 fg%, 66.3% ft%, .5 bpg, .5 spg, 1.7 to, 2.3 pf; 8.4 ppg, 4.9 rpg (1.6 orb), 1.2 apg

If you want to really be fair, you can look only at the 96 & 97 seasons, prior to which he really got very little PT. 1996: 82 g, 22.9 mpg, 50% fg, 66.4% ft, .5 bpg, .5 spg, 2 TO, 1.7 pf; 9.7 ppg, 5.8 rpg (1.7 orb), 1.2 apg

And, to really show Ike at his best, look at the latter half of this past season, when he averaged 34 mpg -- the most of his career -- with the clippers:
26 g, 34.4 mpg, 45.4% fg, 65.2% ft, .8 bpg, .7 spg, 3.4 TO (ouch), 2.7 pf; 15.2 ppg, 8.7 rpg (3.1 orb), 3.4 apg (nice). 
(Ike also launched 13 3-pointers last year and missed them all. He has a 0% 3-point % for his career. You'd think he'd quit trying.)

B. If you're still with me here, compare all of the above to Matty G:

1997: 78 g, 23.6 mpg, 50% fg, 71.2% ft, 1.1 bpg, .9 spg, 1.4 to, 2.4 pf; 11.3 ppg, 6.7 rpg (2.5 orb), 1 apg
career: 22 mpg, 52% fg, 71% ft, 26% 3-point %, .7 bpg, .6 spg, 1.3 to, 3 pf; 8.9 ppg, 5.7 rpg (2 orb), .7 apg.

And if we look at 1995-96, when Geiger averaged 30.5 mpg in 77 games:
53.6 % fg, 73% ft, 37.5% 3-point %, .8 bpg, .6 spg, 1.8 TO, 3.8 pf; 11.2 ppg, 8.4 rpg (2.6 orb), .8 apg 
Their lines from last season are *very* similar; and Geiger's career numbers are better in almost every category. Comparing their "best ever" years, their rebounding and shot-blocking numbers are identical, Geiger's percentages are higher, his turnover numbers are better, his assist numbers worse. Austin scored more, but remember too that Geiger was playing on a Charlotte team that at that time included Rice, Larry Johnson, and Kendall Gill/Kenny Anderson (swapped for each other in February); Austin had virtually no other weapons on his team in Clipperland. (and how does he "intimidate" anyone when Geiger's shot blocking numbers are better?)

The bottom line in this comparison, however, is and remains that Austin wants a $50 million deal, over 5 or 6 years. Geiger has said (I believe) that he'd take $7 mil a year, and various sources seem to believe he'd take as little as $4 mil. I simply wanted to illuminate these "Austin is better than Geiger" claims.