Statistical Analysis. Humor. Knicks.

Sunday, November 23, 2014

A ‘D’ (or 100) for ‘Drea

I asked our friendly neighborhood Jim Cavan if I could write a piece on how terribly Bargs played in the first half. My two points were supposed to be:

1. Bargs…

2. It’s the first preseason game so EVERYBODY PANIC AS LOUDLY AS POSSIBLE! (But seriously, please don’t. It’s the first preseason game.)

Anyway, this was his response:

Screen Shot 2013-10-09 at 9.46.58 PM

So I thought, why the hell not?

‘Drea’s dominant days disappeared. Duly, David dreams ‘Drea disappears definitively. Droves decided ‘Drea’s deal dared disastrous days. Dolan, damningly, deemed ‘Drea demonstrably deft. ‘Drea deal doubters draw disrespect David dismisses disgustingly.

Dunderhead ‘Drea done duffed despite despicable draft-destined dregs. ‘Drea didn’t deliver destructive dunks! ‘Drea didn’t dismantle defenses! ‘Drea did diddly doo! Demonstrably, ‘dis ‘Drea dude dreadful! ‘Drea didn’t distribute! ‘Drea didn’t defend! ‘Drea did dip downwards, displacing defenders — didn’t defeat defenders, doe. ‘Dray deemed disturbing, disappointing, disadvantageous.

Damned ‘Drea destroyed David’s dreams. Dumb ‘Drea done David dirty. ‘Drea didn’t demonstrate desirable deeds. ‘Drea doesn’t demand doubles. ‘Drea doesn’t deserve devotion; ‘Drea deserves demotion! ‘Drea’s dexterity duplicates deliberate doo-doo drifting down dirty drains.

David doesn’t despise ‘Drea. David done did demanded discourse — drastically demeaning, definitely — delightfully. David doesn’t deserve death; David done devastated! Dasvidaniya, dorks.

92 comments on “A ‘D’ (or 100) for ‘Drea

  1. Mike Kurylo

    Clyde should reinvent himself and by only using one letter of the alphabet, switching after every possession. A good play from Olynyk might go: “‘Zaga zygote zooms zippity. ‘Zoundingly!”

  2. Z-man

    So let’s see, Bargnani has 12 points on 8 shots and 3 rebounds in 19 minutes (despite going 0-3 from 3) and this is what passes for objective, insightful analysis on KB.

    Here’s a stat for you: Game thread comment count

    P&T: 1204
    TKB: 701
    KB: 44

  3. Jim Cavan

    Z-man: So let’s see, Bargnani has 12 points on 8 shots and 3 rebounds in 19 minutes (despite going 0-3 from 3) and this is what passes for objective, insightful analysis on KB.

    No, that would be what Bob churned out last night. Which was excellent. I’m sorry you missed it.

    Also, if you read the top of this post, it was made clear that the reaction was to Bargs’ first half play.

  4. Z-man

    Jim, no shit. The point is, why is an author feel compelled to trash a player based on his first 10 minutes of preseason play, even after he had finished the game strongly and had a decent game overall? Why does the KB senior staff continue to condone that kind of rank amateurish trolling? Great, David knows lots of words that begin with D, wow, how clever!

    Maybe it doesn’t matter to you or Mike whether the preseason opening night game thread gets 44 or 4,444 comments. But some of what passes for authorship here really puzzles me.

  5. SeeWhyDee77

    I didn’t get to watch the game last nite so all I have is the box score. At first glance it looks like TH2 and Shump shined..Melo took it easy..Felton played par for the course..an Bargnani missed shots. How bad did he look? Or was last nite more of a case of everybody feeling each other out? And why did Chris Smith get burn before Murry? How did MWP and Tyson look?

  6. thenamestsam

    I find this article interesting as an exercise. It’s strange how difficult it is to read – my brain finds it really difficult to parse the words with one letter repeated so much. It’s a writing class exercise more than an actual piece on the Knicks, but I found it pretty funny anyways. If you’ve got a bee in your bonnet over it you’re probably taking it a bit too seriously. I mean there’s a disclaimer right at the top that shows the author knows making any sort of judgement on half a preseason game is crazy.

  7. Jim Cavan

    thenamestsam:
    I find this article interesting as an exercise. It’s strange how difficult it is to read – my brain finds it really difficult to parse the words with one letter repeated so much. It’s a writing class exercise more than an actual piece on the Knicks, but I found it pretty funny anyways. If you’ve got a bee in your bonnet over it you’re probably taking it a bit too seriously. I mean there’s a disclaimer right at the top that shows the author knows making any sort of judgement on half a preseason game is crazy.

    THANK YOU!

  8. johnno

    SeeWhyDee77: an Bargnani missed shots. How bad did he look?

    That’s one way of reading the box score. Another way of reading it is that he scored 12 points on 8 shots, which is pretty efficient scoring — which is what happens when a guy shoots 3-5 on 2 point shots and 6-6 from the foul line. Overall, I thought that, despite missing all three of his three pointers, he looked pretty good. I also think that he and Melo make an interesting combination. I think that we’re spending too much time debating who should play the 3 and who should play the 4. When AB and Melo are on the floor together, they are both kind of playing the 3-1/2. What I mean by that is that they are both capable of hitting outside shots and they are both capable of posting guys up. As a result, when Melo is close to the basket, Bargnani can move out to the perimeter and when Melo is on the perimeter, Bargnani can establish position down low. It could work out very well offensively. The jury will probably be out for awhile on how it will work defensively.

  9. Mike Kurylo

    Z-man, I really don’t want to argue publicly whether or not this piece is worthy of KB. I would like to point out that:

    1. This is only one article out of like 5 that we’ve done in the last 2 days. Not everyone is going to like every article. It’s not like it’s the only thing we’ve put out recently. Not every piece is going to be like Kevin Udwary’s three point analysis.

    2. If the # of comments is your barometer, then you should be on TKB. Heck here is the first pearl of wisdom from yesterday’s game “I think Bargs and Melo really compliment each other on the offensive game.” That is some excellent analysis here. Maybe that isn’t the level of discourse I should be aiming for. Although obviously it fits your criteria of only saying positive things about the Knicks.

    3. And really is that the criteria? Haven’t you read this blog before? I’ve been critical of the team, where I see fit, since day 1. I started this blog because of the rah-rah attitude on most blogs/forums at the time. If the facts lead me somewhere my homerism doesn’t want to go, I’m dragging it with me.

    For all the talk of us being “thin-skinned” I think the same applies here. We didn’t take his first 10 minutes and compare it to the first 10 minutes of every player on a new team over the last 10 years, then ran a regression to decide that Bargnani was garbage. This was something light and fun, and should have been taken that way.

  10. David Vertsberger Post author

    Sean Highkin posted an NBA jersey buying guide on USA Today Sports. Zach Lowe ranked team names at Grantland. But it’s the preseason, so obviously poking some fun at Bargs’ LOL-palooza in the first half while noting the ridiculousness of judging any player on 15 minutes of game time is a no-no. Guess it’s time to retire.

  11. Z-man

    To clarify, my concern is that KB writers are going to continually bash Bargnani to justify their mutually held opinion that it was a horrible decision to trade for him. Why else would a writer ask permission to wax poetically on a particular player’s first 12 pre-season minutes.

    Read: “I asked our friendly neighborhood Jim Cavan if I could write a piece on how terribly Bargs played in the first half.”

    The same writer who recently wrote this: “As for the power forward spot, I really couldn’t care less who plays more minutes off the bench between Stoudemire and Bargnani – so long as neither plays more than 15 a night.”

    My guess is that Jim instinctively knew it probably wasn’t a good idea, but didn’t want to shut the kid down, so he gave him a restriction that would hide the underlying biased tedium under a cloak of clever alliteration.

  12. David Vertsberger Post author

    Z-man:
    My guess is that Jim instinctively knew it probably wasn’t a good idea, but didn’t want to shut the kid down, so he gave him a restriction that would hide the underlying biased tedium under a cloak of clever alliteration.

    This is so cute.

  13. Z-man

    Mike, I’ve been around here a long time, and you know I don’t expect rah-rah stuff and always appreciate the insightful analysis and clever humor all of you are known for, even when I vehemently disagree with your premises. There is only one writer whose work I have repeatedly criticized on its face. If you and the KB team all feel that my criticism is unjustified, we’ll just have to agree to disagree. To me, it comes off as the same kind of homerism that you find objectionable.

  14. KnickfaninNJ

    I sort of thought of this post as poking fun at the inclination to bash Bargnani and the trade without thinking by making an obviously ridiculous analysis that his first few minutes on the floor will tell the whole story. It’s much better than writing that anyone who thinks Bargnani might be worth it is dumb. I didn’t mind it at all.

  15. MJG1789

    Careful,Z-Man. Saying negative stuff about the Knicks is tolerated all day long, but being negative about the writers might get you banned…

    Yeah, it’s only one preseason game, but Bargs looks like he can help us. The guy has some obvious skills. Here’s hoping.

  16. SeeWhyDee77

    I thought this was a clever jab at expectations at this point in the preseason since the Bargnani trade is such a polarizing topic. I never took this as a serious attempt to figure out his worth. But by all accounts Bargnani wasn’t as bad as most people thought he was going to be. There is a time for seriously analyzing the play, but this is clearly not the best time. Now two games from now? We can start teeing off. But as far as right now..I think things look fine.

    johnno: That’s one way of reading the box score. Another way of reading it is that he scored 12 points on 8 shots, which is pretty efficient scoring — which is what happens when a guy shoots 3-5 on 2 point shots and 6-6 from the foul line. Overall, I thought that, despite missing all three of his three pointers, he looked pretty good. I also think that he and Melo make an interesting combination. I think that we’re spending too much time debating who should play the 3 and who should play the 4. When AB and Melo are on the floor together, they are both kind of playing the 3-1/2. What I mean by that is that they are both capable of hitting outside shots and they are both capable of posting guys up. As a result, when Melo is close to the basket, Bargnani can move out to the perimeter and when Melo is on the perimeter, Bargnani can establish position down low. It could work out very well offensively. The jury will probably be out for awhile on how it will work defensively.

    Thanks.

  17. Hubert

    Jim Cavan:
    I think you’re taking this way too seriously.

    Seconded.

    By the way, I checked out some of those 1,204 comments on P&T. They included such meaningful snippets of analysis as:

    “Please don’t get traded Shump
    like word is bond I would be in pieces if you were”

  18. Keniman Shumpwalker

    Jim Cavan: THANK YOU!

    I don’t post here very often, certainly not in the last few months, but I follow the blog religiously and love both the writing (even when I disagree with the premises/opinions espoused) and the comments of the posters. I’m posting now to say that I really wish we could get away from the constant bickering between writers, mods, and posters and get back to exchanging witty banter (and occasional acid-toungued vitriol) about our beloved Knicks. I hate to come off all wishywashy, as this is not usually my style, but I think we’re burying the essence of this community under an avalanche of sniping and pissing contests. Cavan, Verstberger, Mike K, and all the other contributors….keep up the good work. I’m grateful for the site you’ve created and continue to run with no financial gain. Posters, you do the same. Let’s just extricate ourselves from the flaming vortex of personal beefing and get back to the lecture at hand.

    Now, along those lines…I was actually pleasantly surprised by how Bargs played yesterday. I really liked how he worked with Melo in the 2-man game and think the PnP option that Bargs opens up for us will prove very useful. When we run those high double screens that Woody is fond of, it will be really nice to have Bargs popping out while Tyson dives with Shump or Metta waiting in the corner for a kick out. Obviously, Bargs looked completely lost on D, no clue where to rotate, and that afforded Sullinger some open looks at the top of the key. But this was expected. I know it’s just one shitty pre-season game against a shitty pre-season opponent, but color me encouraged.

  19. Hubert

    Keniman Shumpwalker: Obviously, Bargs looked completely lost on D, no clue where to rotate, and that afforded Sullinger some open looks at the top of the key. But this was expected.

    As an aside, how is that possible? I mean, how do some people not know how to rotate? This is going to frustrate the hell out of me all year. Just drill it into him!

  20. Keniman Shumpwalker

    Hubert: As an aside, how is that possible?I mean, how do some people not know how to rotate?This is going to frustrate the hell out of me all year.Just drill it into him!

    I know. It seems crazy, right? I have guys on my rec league team who never played high school basketball who posses a better understanding of defensive rotations than Bargs seemingly does. It’s going to frustrate me as well. To be fair, Woody’s switch-heavy scheme isn’t exactly child’s play, and it seems a bit counter-intuitive at times so I guess I’ll cut him a nanometer of slack.

  21. Kevin Udwary

    Hubert: As an aside, how is that possible?I mean, how do some people not know how to rotate?This is going to frustrate the hell out of me all year.Just drill it into him!

    How can a 7-footer not rebound? I think that’s why it’s so easy to pick on the guy. All of his deficiencies (poor rebounding, poor defense, poor shot selection) come from lack of effort or “basketball IQ” or whatever you want to call it. He really is a pretty unique talent with a ton of mostly wasted potential.

  22. DRed

    Kevin Udwary: How can a 7-footer not rebound? I think that’s why it’s so easy to pick on the guy. All of his deficiencies (poor rebounding, poor defense, poor shot selection) come from lack of effort or “basketball IQ” or whatever you want to call it. He really is a pretty unique talent with a ton of mostly wasted potential.

    It is weird. He’s a good athlete, he’s big, and he’s not a disgusting fatbody (Eddy Curry, I’m looking at you) so you’d think he could at least be an average rebounder. But yeah, he’s not.

  23. johnno

    Kevin Udwary: How can a 7-footer not rebound? I think that’s why it’s so easy to pick on the guy

    I don’t know, how can a slightly shorter Italian guy who everyone on this site apparently loved when he was on the Knicks not rebound? I think a lot of people harp on guys’ weaknesses and ignore their strengths. Perfect example — everyone trashes Brook Lopez because he’s a bad rebounder, to the point that they ignore what he is — i.e., by far the best and most polished offensive center in the league. I have a question — of the people on this site who consistently trash Bargnani, how many of you have actually seen him play more than two or three times a year over the last 8 years? If you are anything like me, you only saw him play against the Knicks because his team was hardly ever on national TV and, when they were, you had better things to do with your life than watch a crappy NBA team get blown out by a good NBA team.

  24. thenamestsam

    To be fair NBA level rotations are really hard, probably much harder than in anyone’s rec league (apologies to anyone who plays in a really, really, really good rec league). I would be extremely surprised if Bargnani can’t point to a paused video screen and show where he’s supposed to go. Unfortunately the NBA game moves lightning fast and is incredibly unforgiving – you’re a lot more likely to notice missed rotations when they tend to lead to thunderous dunks than you might be in your rec league (which if its anything like the games I play in probably 50% of the time the guy with the ball fails to notice the missed rotation until its too late and the pass never arrives, another 25% the pass arrives only the open player boinks it, and the final 25% of the time it ends with a tastefully made lay-up, not a backboard breaker). Basically playing NBA defense is hard and being bad at it doesn’t make a player dumb or lazy or whatever necessarily.

    Also a +1 to the first paragraph of @28. Very well said. One of my favorite things about this site is that (for the most part) it’s pretty damn civil. Especially by the dire standards of today’s internet culture, but even by less lenient standards most posters here are able to passionately discuss a topic we all care way, way (waywaywayway) too much about without being cruel to each other in a way that is the baseline expectation on so many other parts of this strange internet. The more we keep it that way the better. I will now hum kumbaya at my desk.

  25. massive

    I’m of the opinion that we could have done without this article. I think it’s a poor attempt at humor, but I (sorta) get the point. No reason to make snap judgments, but was there really any point to giving that tidbit of information to this group of readers? I just don’t see how speaking on the 1st half of a game that’s been over for 12+ hours does anyone any justice. In fairness, you could have done the same for his more impressive second half in the opposite direction over exaggerating how good he played.

    I’d much rather talk about a possible logjam and trade we have at the 2. Shump, JR, and TH2 all seem like players worth significant rotation time. There is no way all three are on this team for more than 1 1/2 seasons. I’m hoping JR or Lil Tim gets the boot because Shump looked like a shorter Paul George last night. If Bargs and TH2 look good for an extended period of time (like a season), I could see a decent trade package for a significant player somewhere down the road.

  26. DRed

    johnno: I don’t know, how can a slightly shorter Italian guy who everyone on this site apparently loved when he was on the Knicks not rebound?I think a lot of people harp on guys’ weaknesses and ignore their strengths.Perfect example — everyone trashes Brook Lopez because he’s a bad rebounder, to the point that they ignore what he is — i.e., by far the best and most polished offensive center in the league.I have a question — of the people on this site who consistently trash Bargnani, how many of you have actually seen him play more than two or three times a year over the last 8 years?If you are anything like me, you only saw him play against the Knicks because his team was hardly ever on national TV and, when they were, you had better things to do with your life than watch a crappy NBA team get blown out by a good NBA team.

    Gallo is a slightly below average rebounding small forward. Bargnani is the worst rebounding PF/C in the NBA. There’s a difference. Why do I need to see Bargnani to know he’s horrible at rebounding the basketball?

  27. Kevin Udwary

    johnno: I don’t know, how can a slightly shorter Italian guy who everyone on this site apparently loved when he was on the Knicks not rebound?I think a lot of people harp on guys’ weaknesses and ignore their strengths.

    The bottom line is a majority of fans want to see players care about the game as much as they do. When a player’s weaknesses are perceived to be caused by a lack of effort, he is going to be criticized heavily for it, even if he is still a solid contributor. It’s the same way a very limited roleplayer (see Ronny Turiaf or Timofey Mozgov) can become a fan favorite by playing with a ton of energy whenever he sees playing time, despite lacking significant talent and skill.

  28. DRed

    massive:
    I’m of the opinion that we could have done without this article. I think it’s a poor attempt at humor, but I (sorta) get the point. No reason to make snap judgments, but was there really any point to giving that tidbit of information to this group of readers? I just don’t see how speaking on the 1st half of a game that’s been over for 12+ hours does anyone any justice. In fairness, you could have done the same for his more impressive second half in the opposite direction over exaggerating how good he played.

    I’d much rather talk about a possible logjam and trade we have at the 2. Shump, JR, and TH2 all seem like players worth significant rotation time. There is no way all three are on this team for more than 1 1/2 seasons. I’m hoping JR or Lil Tim gets the boot because Shump looked like a shorter Paul George last night. If Bargs and TH2 look good for an extended period of time (like a season), I could see a decent trade package for a significant player somewhere down the road.

    I think it’s way too soon to be thinking about giving TH2 significant minutes. If Shump can bring efficient scoring to the table this year than he should be getting the most minutes at the 2, and I’d also like to see the return of the 2 PG sets that worked so well for us last year with Prigs playing the 2. Shump can get minutes at the 2, the 3 and maybe a few minutes a game playing PG.

  29. massive

    I think the point is somewhere along the lines of “if Gallo was on the team right now instead of Bargnani, the would essentially be playing the same role and doing the same things next to the same players. Except everyone would love Gallo and hate Il Mago because Il Mago is a few inches taller and labeled a 4/5 while Gallo is labeled a 3/4.”

    DRed: Gallo is a slightly below average rebounding small forward.Bargnani is the worst rebounding PF/C in the NBA.There’s a difference.Why do I need to see Bargnani to know he’s horrible at rebounding the basketball?

  30. Z-man

    David Vertsberger: SARCASM FIGHT.

    Drat, don’t dare digress, dismissive diaper-donning dilettante. Desist deeming Dolan dreamboat detritus decrying diminuitively demigame data dubiously.

  31. massive

    Yeah, I’m just speaking of the possible conundrum we have on our hands. We will probably have three rotation level players at the 2 somewhere down the line. And Woody is without a doubt going to run 2 PG sets, which means we have 5 players vying for minutes at the 2. That’s an average of 9.6 minutes per player.

    DRed: I think it’s way too soon to be thinking about giving TH2 significant minutes.If Shump can bring efficient scoring to the table this year than he should be getting the most minutes at the 2, and I’d also like to see the return of the 2 PG sets that worked so well for us last year with Prigs playing the 2.Shump can get minutes at the 2, the 3 and maybe a few minutes a game playing PG.

  32. thenamestsam

    DRed: I think it’s way too soon to be thinking about giving TH2 significant minutes.If Shump can bring efficient scoring to the table this year than he should be getting the most minutes at the 2, and I’d also like to see the return of the 2 PG sets that worked so well for us last year with Prigs playing the 2.Shump can get minutes at the 2, the 3 and maybe a few minutes a game playing PG.

    Agreed. He looked good last night but he also shared the majority of his time on the floor with other fringe roster guys. Phil Pressey, Marshon Brooks, these guys are barely NBA players. Looking solid against them is all well and good but I don’t think it moves the needle much in terms of being a factor in the rotation. THJ still has a ways to go in that regard.

  33. johnno

    Kevin Udwary: The bottom line is a majority of fans want to see players care about the game as much as they do

    And my question was, how many people have seen Bargnani play enough to make a judgment as to whether he plays like he cares? The few times I saw him play against the Knicks, he looked like he played pretty hard and pretty well. Maybe he’s a lazy bum and maybe he’s not. I’d like to watch him play a few more times before I reach any conclusions.

  34. DRed

    massive:
    I think the point is somewhere along the lines of “if Gallo was on the team right now instead of Bargnani, the would essentially be playing the same role and doing the same things next to the same players. Except everyone would love Gallo and hate Il Mago because Il Mago is a few inches taller and labeled a 4/5 while Gallo is labeled a 3/4.”

    They would be doing the same things except that Gallo would be getting more rebounds. Bargnani hauled in a ridiculously pathetic 5.5 rebounds per 48 minutes playing PF last year. Gallo pulled in 8.7. Bargs is historically terrible at rebounding. Really, really bad. It’s crazy to have to argue this. He’s fucking awful at rebounding.

  35. johnno

    DRed: Gallo is a slightly below average rebounding small forward. Bargnani is the worst rebounding PF/C in the NBA. There’s a difference. Why do I need to see Bargnani to know he’s horrible at rebounding the basketball?

    Bargnani and Gallo are pretty much the exact same player. Bargnani is only slightly bigger than Gallo and, I don’t care what position they supposedly play, their offensive games are almost identical — they both play mostly far from the basket, they shoot a lot of outside shots, they like to do that pumpfake thing and then put the ball on the floor and drive awkwardly but effectively to the basket, etc., etc. They look a little alike and, when they talk, they even sound similar. If you look at their career numbers, Bargnani is slightly better in every single statistical category. Yet, people on this site pine away for the good old days of Gallo and kill Bargnani even though, like you, they’ve never seen him play. I’m not saying that you need to see him play to know that he’s a bad rebounder. I get it. He’s a bad rebounder. However, it would be nice if you watched him play before you conclude that he’s (a) a complete stiff and (b) a lazy player who doesn’t give a damn.

  36. johnno

    DRed: Bargnani hauled in a ridiculously pathetic 5.5 rebounds per 48 minutes playing PF last year. Gallo pulled in 8.7.

    Your math for last year is wrong but, even if it weren’t, check their career numbers. For their careers, Bargnani has averaged slightly more rebounds per 48 than Gallo.

  37. DRed

    johnno: Bargnani and Gallo are pretty much the exact same player.Bargnani is only slightly bigger than Gallo and, I don’t care what position they supposedly play, their offensive games are almost identical — they both play mostly far from the basket, they shoot a lot of outside shots, they like to do that pumpfake thing and then put the ball on the floor and drive awkwardly but effectively to the basket, etc., etc.They look a little alike and, when they talk, they even sound similar.If you look at their career numbers, Bargnani is slightly better in every single statistical category.Yet, people on this site pine away for the good old days of Gallo and kill Bargnani even though, like you, they’ve never seen him play.I’m not saying that you need to see him play to know that he’s a bad rebounder.I get it.He’s a bad rebounder.However, it would be nice if you watched him play before you conclude that he’s (a) a complete stiff and (b) a lazy player who doesn’t give a damn.

    I have no idea how hard working he is. I’d like him to be hardworking and morally upright, but what I’d like even more is if he could go get rebounds when playing basketball for the Knicks. His career indicates he sucks at that. And if you think that “Bargnani is slightly better in every single statistical category” you need to try harder, because that’s just straight up false. Gallo is better at Bargs in career TS%, eFG%, Assists, Assist%, 3pt %, steals, steal %, turnover % and a bunch of other stuff I’m too lazy to type. He’s also a significantly better rebounder, because as I may have mentioned, Bargnani is the worst when it comes to rebounding.

  38. johnno

    DRed: Bargs is historically terrible at rebounding. Really, really bad. It’s crazy to have to argue this.

    By the way, who was arguing this point? Neither I nor anyone else on this site have argued that he was even a decent rebounder. I was simply pointing out that, like Gallo, he has other skills that could make him a potentially valuable contributor.

  39. DRed

    johnno: Your math for last year is wrong but, even if it weren’t, check their career numbers.For their careers, Bargnani has averaged slightly more rebounds per 48 than Gallo.

    He should. He’s spent most of his career being the worst rebounding center in basketball.

  40. danvt

    I get what Z-man is saying. It’s like we finally get to watch this guy and he plays pretty well but still we get this trip like, “really smart people know that he’s really bad, especially at rebounding. If you think he’ll be good for NYK, you obviously don’t know what you’re talking about. Quit believing your eyes or the box score and devote yourself to these particular metrics or your posts don’t mean shit.”

    I mean, the first sentence of the article says it all. “I asked our friendly neighborhood Jim Cavan if I could write a piece on how terribly Bargs played in the first half.” With this particular author it’s particularly galling as well because he’s not old enough to remember anything before Ewing. Plus, somehow he’s employed by ESPN, and get’s paid for his arrogant pronouncements there if not here. Then when a poster is annoyed by this he’s accused of having thin skin.

    I think Z- man or some other posters here deserve a shot to write an article. It’d be more entertaining and informative than his negative, glib BS.

  41. Unreason

    massive: And Woody is without a doubt going to run 2 PG sets, which means we have 5 players vying for minutes at the 2. That’s an average of 9.6 minutes per player.

    Yes, but really is it a conundrum or great set up? Obviously, it’s not just the 2. Bargnani and Amare will be vying for minutes at the 4 (when they’re healthy, I know); Artest will be wanting to prove he’s not over the hill and earn as much time as he can get at the 3 – saving Melo some wear and tear in the process; Likewise for K-Mart and Chandler; Beno and Pablo will be dukeing it out for time at the back-up 1 slot. It is a golden god damn opportunity for Woodson to aggressively manage minutes while stoking friendly competitive fires. I hope he grabs it with both hands and teeth.

  42. Unreason

    danvt: more entertaining and informative than his negative, glib BS.

    FWIW, I think several posters who are normally very bright are completely whiffing with their oddly serious responses to this gag article. Everyone’s entitled to their opinion and all that. But other sites are already established havens for those with a passion for humorless griping. Let’s let them carry that banner.

  43. Kevin Udwary

    danvt:

    I think Z- man or some other posters here deserve a shot to write an article.It’d be more entertaining and informative than his negative, glib BS.

    A few weeks back Mike K. posted in comments that anyone wanting to write a post just needs to contact him. That’s what I did and Jim and Mike were very welcoming.

  44. nicos

    Unreason: FWIW, I think several posters who are normally very bright are completely whiffing with their oddly serious responses to this gag article. Everyone’s entitled to their opinion and all that. But other sites are already established havens for those with a passion for humorless griping. Let’s let them carry that banner.

    I don’t know- we finally get to see Bargnani in action and he has a perfectly acceptable game showing signs that he might actually be a really good fit in the starting lineup (offensively anyway) but rather than talking about that we get more of the Bargnani sux! stuff that we’ve been hearing since the trade. While this is obviously tongue in cheek the Knickerblogger writers have been pretty much unanimous in their distain for AB so this comes off as more of the same just disguised as satire. It just seemed unnecessary when we finally have an actual game (and one in which Bargnani didn’t suck) to talk about.

  45. Unreason

    Et tu Nicos?

    Isn’t it obviously a self-aware gag poking fun at the KB readership’s hypersensitivity to everything AB? It clearly is. It’s explicitly and pointedly not a real or veiled or half-serious condemnation of him. It’s a light-hearted parody of our collective tendencies to go all apoplectic when there’s nothing of substance to react to. As such, if anything it’s a way to promote awareness of that tendency, not an unthinking example of it.

    So, since I know from being a long time reader that you, danvt, z-man, massive, etc. are all more than smart enough to get the joke, I don’t see how it ends up getting responded to with resentment because “we get more of Bargnani sux”. But in any event, why not just start or respond to something of interest instead? That’s easy enough, right?

  46. danvt

    Right, maybe I should have left it alone, but Silverman is laugh out loud funny and this wasn’t. Plus, it was an unfair shot at Bargs, gag or not.

    Unreason: FWIW, I think several posters who are normally very bright are completely whiffing with their oddly serious responses to this gag article.

  47. danvt

    Kevin Udwary: A few weeks back Mike K. posted in comments that anyone wanting to write a post just needs to contact him. That’s what I did and Jim and Mike were very welcoming.

    Interesting, thanks for that.

  48. Unreason

    As far as the game goes: it’s the first preseason game. There’s nothing to analyze yet. I loved it. But mostly because I love the fact that the season is starting. I also loved seeing Shump kill it. I liked seeing that Melo and Bargnani are going to try to develop a 2-man game. I liked seeing THJ look poised under pressure and shoot with good form. I liked seeing a few minutes of good team D in the third quarter even if it was fleeting and against a crappy team. But mostly I’m just excited that the season is starting and the Knicks seem likely to be competitive and play well.

    What else is there to analyze at this point. If Bargnani had been unstoppable it wouldn’t have meant anything. If he’d been awful it wouldn’t have meant anything. It’s too soon for anything to mean anything, right? It’s catnip. It just gets us excited for no reason, which is nice.

  49. danvt

    OK, I didn’t get it that way but maybe that was the intent. As a teacher, my words get misinterpreted a lot, and usually I realize that I could have found a better way to say it, when they do.

    Unreason: It’s a light-hearted parody of our collective tendencies to go all apoplectic when there’s nothing of substance to react to. As such, if anything it’s a way to promote awareness of that tendency, not an unthinking example of it.

  50. DRed

    Unreason:
    As far as the game goes: it’s the first preseason game. There’s nothing to analyze yet. I loved it. But mostly because I love the fact that the season is starting. I also loved seeing Shump kill it. I liked seeing that Melo and Bargnani are going to try to develop a 2-man game. I liked seeing THJ look poised under pressure and shoot with good form. I liked seeing a few minutes of good team D in the third quarter even if it was fleeting and against a crappy team. But mostly I’m just excited that the season is starting and the Knicks seem likely to be competitive and play well.

    What else is there to analyze at this point. If Bargnani had been unstoppable it wouldn’t have meant anything. If he’d been awful it wouldn’t have meant anything. It’s too soon for anything to mean anything, right? It’s catnip. It just gets us excited for no reason, which is nice.

    You’re really way too reasonable for your name.

  51. dtrickey

    thenamestsam:
    I find this article interesting as an exercise. It’s strange how difficult it is to read – my brain finds it really difficult to parse the words with one letter repeated so much. It’s a writing class exercise more than an actual piece on the Knicks, but I found it pretty funny anyways. If you’ve got a bee in your bonnet over it you’re probably taking it a bit too seriously. I mean there’s a disclaimer right at the top that shows the author knows making any sort of judgement on half a preseason game is crazy.

    Agreed! I read the first part, then realised I would need my morning coffee before I read the rest.

    I didn’t get a chance to watch the game (unfortunately due to the different timezones, all games are on while I am slaving away at work), but judging from the highlights the Melo/AB front court could be very interesting to watch this year. Looking at the play-by-play and box scores it seemed like he didn’t hit his straps until the second half, but his numbers were good for a first hit-out in the pre-season considering he was slightly limited in teh Summer. I think what you might find is that whilst he may not ever become a stellar defensive player, what you might find is that once he finds his groove in with Melo and Chandler, he won’t miss all those obvious rotations. D is as much about effort, so don’t be surprised if Woody and a few other vets put a firecracker under his arse and get him playing some half decent D.

  52. Z-man

    Unreason:
    Et tu Nicos?

    Isn’t it obviously a self-aware gag poking fun at the KB readership’s hypersensitivity to everything AB? It clearly is. It’s explicitly and pointedly not a real or veiled or half-serious condemnation of him. It’s a light-hearted parody of our collective tendencies to go all apoplectic when there’s nothing of substance to react to. As such, if anything it’s a way to promote awareness of that tendency, not an unthinking example of it.

    So, since I know from being a long time reader that you, danvt, z-man, massive, etc. are all more than smart enough to get the joke, I don’t see how it ends up getting responded to with resentment because “we get more of Bargnani sux”. But in any event, why not just start or respond to something of interest instead? That’s easy enough, right?

    Thanks danvt and nicos.

    Unreason, sorry, I didn’t see it that way. Yes, it was tongue-in-cheek. But yes, it was also trolling. If David and the writers see it differently, fine, let them. If it passes your own smell test, good for you.

    While you are admonishing me to ignore posts I don’t like, well, tell me then, why don’t you tell the writers to just ignore my comment @3 if they didn’t like it? Doesn’t it go both ways?

    Remember, this kid went on record saying that anyone who liked the Bargnani trade was dumb, and that comment had to be (reluctantly) edited by the senior staff. Then 3 days ago he said that it would be best for the team if Bagnani never played more than 15mpg. I apologize that it’s hard for me to ignore that context.

  53. Jim Cavan

    danvt: Plus, somehow he’s employed by ESPN, and get’s paid for his arrogant pronouncements there if not here. Then when a poster is annoyed by this he’s accused of having thin skin.

    I think Z- man or some other posters here deserve a shot to write an article. It’d be more entertaining and informative than his negative, glib BS.

    With all due respect, this is just wrong. We are not “employed by” ESPN. Most people here are doing all of their writing — here and elsewhere — entirely for free.

    As for giving other posters a shot to write an article, Mike has made this offer MANY times. The results have been mixed, to say the least — either piece-by-piece, or because a potentially good writer only submits one post and is never heard from again.

    That being said, the offer still — and pretty much always — stands. Not everything we do here is going to please everyone. When your job entails writing so much serious content all the time (as many of ours do) sometimes we like to let off a little steam and have fun. This piece in particular was ANNOUNCED as parody. Just because we’re all serious fans doesn’t have to mean we take things so seriously all the time. If we did, we’d all be dead by 40.

  54. Kevin Udwary

    Jim Cavan: With all due respect, this is just wrong. We are not “employed by” ESPN. Most people here are doing all of their writing — here and elsewhere — entirely for free.

    Damn! I don’t get paid? I new I shouldn’t have bought that boat…

  55. Jim Cavan

    Kevin Udwary: Damn! I don’t get paid? I new I shouldn’t have bought that boat…

    Oh no no no, I meant you don’t get paid, like, right away. You get a $1 million check at the end of your first calendar year.

  56. Robert Silverman

    Kevin Udwary: Damn! I don’t get paid? I new I shouldn’t have bought that boat…

    Because of the shutdown, we’re printing our own money at KnickerBlogger. Prigs’ face is on the $9 bill. Kevin, you get one Prigioni per article. It’s all clearly delineated in your contract.

  57. Unreason

    Z-man:
    Yes, it was tongue-in-cheek. But yes, it was also trolling.

    Sorry for admonishing. I get the context, but I think we should just agree to disagree on trolling intent. It’s no biggie either way IMO and I don’t think I can carry this forward anyhow. The abstractness of meta-meta-meta commentary is drifting toward an infinite regress and giving me vertigo. :)

  58. Kevin Udwary

    Robert Silverman: Because of the shutdown, we’re printing our own money at KnickerBlogger. Prigs’ face is on the $9 bill. Kevin, you get one Prigioni per article. It’s all clearly delineated in your contract.

    This is acceptable.

  59. danvt

    Much respect Jim Cavan. I love your contributions here and didn’t mean to offend. However, I never meant to imply that all writers here are employed by ESPN. Just that, I think, I’ve seen Vertsberger’s stuff there, and so he has a reputation as a “writer” while many who put their all into responses here, and who’ve been watching the Knicks since the Nixon administration, don’t have the same credibility. So, some of us got our back up a little. That can happen when a joke doesn’t work. Even when you know it’s only a joke.

    As to the offer of authorship, that I did not know until earlier. Maybe I’ll ask to try one sometime and then I’ll get my comeuppance.

    Jim Cavan: With all due respect, this is just wrong. We are not “employed by” ESPN. Most people here are doing all of their writing — here and elsewhere — entirely for free.
    As for giving other posters a shot to write an article, Mike has made this offer MANY times. The results have been mixed, to say the least — either piece-by-piece, or because a potentially good writer only submits one post and is never heard from again.
    That being said, the offer still — and pretty much always — stands. Not everything we do here is going to please everyone. When your job entails writing so much serious content all the time (as many of ours do) sometimes we like to let off a little steam and have fun. This piece in particular was ANNOUNCED as parody. Just because we’re all serious fans doesn’t have to mean we take things so seriously all the time. If we did, we’d all be dead by 40.

  60. Jim Cavan

    danvt:
    Much respect Jim Cavan.I love your contributions here and didn’t mean to offend.However, I never meant to imply that all writers here are employed by ESPN.Just that, I think, I’ve seen Vertsberger’s stuff there, and so he has a reputation as a “writer” while many who put their all into responses here, and who’ve been watching the Knicks since the Nixon administration, don’t have the same credibility.So, some of us got our back up a little.That can happen when a joke doesn’t work.Even when you know it’s only a joke.

    As to the offer of authorship, that I did not know until earlier.Maybe I’ll ask to try one sometime and then I’ll get my comeuppance.

    Fair enough. But you know as well as I do that there are commenters on blogs all over the country that have as much “credibility” as even the most well-paid, nationally known writers. To the extent that they have a better grasp of facts, etc. One just happens to do it for a living. Or for free.

    We realize not all of our attempts at humor will go over. At the same time, even if it doesn’t, it’s not productive to automatically chalk it up to some nefarious intent. In fact, that’s rarely the case. Sometimes we’re just trying to be funny — to lighten the mood a bit, because we’re as guilty as anyone of falling victim to taking this stuff too seriously.

    And honestly, if you ever want to pitch an idea, please feel free.

  61. KnicksFix

    This is poetic. Also, this is my first comment. Prepare yourselves for numerous emotions. Hi, JP. -@EminemAndMnMs. Looks like an educated reader base you got over here.

  62. danvt

    Jim Cavan: Fair enough. But you know as well as I do that there are commenters on blogs all over the country that have as much “credibility” as even the most well-paid, nationally known writers. To the extent that they have a better grasp of facts, etc. One just happens to do it for a living. Or for free.

    I think what’s true is that when I want to read something real about NYK I come here and second best isn’t close. That’s true of the staff writers and poster’s alike. Even obnoxious posters who contradict what some others say in a negative way are far from being trolls.

    Jim Cavan: We realize not all of our attempts at humor will go over. At the same time, even if it doesn’t, it’s not productive to automatically chalk it up to some nefarious intent. In fact, that’s rarely the case. Sometimes we’re just trying to be funny — to lighten the mood a bit, because we’re as guilty as anyone of falling victim to taking this stuff too seriously.

    Right, it’s really biting the hand that feeds to get to worked up about an article here. Especially considering the thoughtless recycled drivel emanating from espnny and the like. So, maybe I was overly critical of this article. I’m tired of the Bargs bashing, but perhaps this wasn’t a case in point.

    Nice to see the staff writers interacting with the posters. Thanks for that Jim, Mike and Robert. And really amazing the offer of an article. I need to keep it all in mind when I’m feeling vitriolic. But, hey, after a long day of teaching kids it’s a reasonable way to blow off steam, so I’ll reserve the right to blow hard, and then maybe think better of it.

  63. ruruland

    DRed: He should.He’s spent most of his career being the worst rebounding center in basketball.

    But he’s not going to play center and he’s a better rebounder than Gallo, who also played the 4 throughout his career.

  64. ruruland

    johnno: Bargnani and Gallo are pretty much the exact same player.Bargnani is only slightly bigger than Gallo and, I don’t care what position they supposedly play, their offensive games are almost identical — they both play mostly far from the basket, they shoot a lot of outside shots, they like to do that pumpfake thing and then put the ball on the floor and drive awkwardly but effectively to the basket, etc., etc.They look a little alike and, when they talk, they even sound similar.If you look at their career numbers, Bargnani is slightly better in every single statistical category.Yet, people on this site pine away for the good old days of Gallo and kill Bargnani even though, like you, they’ve never seen him play.I’m not saying that you need to see him play to know that he’s a bad rebounder.I get it.He’s a bad rebounder.However, it would be nice if you watched him play before you conclude that he’s (a) a complete stiff and (b) a lazy player who doesn’t give a damn.

    I think they’re very similar offensively and Bargs has a little more versatility but doesn’t run nearly as well as Gallo in terms of getting those breakaway scores.

    Obviously a lot more has been asked of Bargs and he’s at least accepted the role of No.1, while Gallo is very reluctant to take that kind of responsibility.

    While I think Bargs is an underrated defender in certain respects, Gallo is a solid perimeter and team defender.

    In each team’s respective circumstances I can see Bargs having a better year than Gallo.

  65. MarcusRinaldi

    I spend at least a little time each day reading through this site, and I usually bite my tongue and let things go, but this was pretty ridiculous to me. Sure freedom of speech is your right in this country, and it’s fine to speak your opinion about disliking a stance or statement, but you need to take knickerblogger at face value like Jim explained. When the majority of writers are doing this for FREE, to get so upset and call it an outrage, is pretty ridiculous. If Sir Charles Barkley makes a ridiculous comment (as always), or God forbid Skip Bayless says something ridiculous, go ahead be annoyed. When people are doing this for free and putting the time in for everyone else, just relax. When I come on this site I look for the hilarious explanations of post game recaps, or the talk of old crazy eyes… Good old Kurt Thomas… On a positive note, TW JR. plonked better then when at summer camp.. Could carve himself a nice role within the next few years

  66. danvt

    MarcusRinaldi: When the majority of writers are doing this for FREE, to get so upset and call it an outrage, is pretty ridiculous.

    The thing that makes me really unhappy about this site is when people half read posts and then make judgements on them. That makes it not worth posting. I was happy tonight that Jim actually decided to read Z-Man and myself carefully.

  67. Jim Cavan

    danvt: Right, it’s really biting the hand that feeds to get to worked up about an article here. Especially considering the thoughtless recycled drivel emanating from espnny and the like. So, maybe I was overly critical of this article. I’m tired of the Bargs bashing, but perhaps this wasn’t a case in point.

    Nice to see the staff writers interacting with the posters. Thanks for that Jim, Mike and Robert. And really amazing the offer of an article. I need to keep it all in mind when I’m feeling vitriolic. But, hey, after a long day of teaching kids it’s a reasonable way to blow off steam, so I’ll reserve the right to blow hard, and then maybe think better of it.

    I’m guilty as charged for having too much of my board interaction be of this meta-meta critique variety, so that’s something I need to work on. And yeah, after dealing with students all day, I’d probably have little to no patience for anything remotely resembling glib. So that’s understandable.

  68. Hubert

    thenamestsam: To be fair NBA level rotations are really hard, probably much harder than in anyone’s rec league (apologies to anyone who plays in a really, really, really good rec league). I would be extremely surprised if Bargnani can’t point to a paused video screen and show where he’s supposed to go. Unfortunately the NBA game moves lightning fast and is incredibly unforgiving – you’re a lot more likely to notice missed rotations when they tend to lead to thunderous dunks than you might be in your rec league (which if its anything like the games I play in probably 50% of the time the guy with the ball fails to notice the missed rotation until its too late and the pass never arrives, another 25% the pass arrives only the open player boinks it, and the final 25% of the time it ends with a tastefully made lay-up, not a backboard breaker). Basically playing NBA defense is hard and being bad at it doesn’t make a player dumb or lazy or whatever necessarily.

    This is all true. But you should be able to drill your system into anybody. If Tom Thibodeau could make Marco Bellinelli a solid team defender, anything is possible.

    And I didn’t mean to pick on AB. This applies to Amar’e just as much, maybe moreso. And don’t get me started on JR. I can actually let it go that AB isn’t a good rebounder. Rebounding is dirty work and just because a guy is tall doesn’t mean he’s cut out for it. I’m willing to appreciate his game if it doesn’t include rebounding.

    But he’s got to get better at the rotations by the spring. I’m not some crazy fan who thinks he should be good at it by November. But I hope it is just something that needs to be drilled into him because we can’t have another guy play with Amar’e and JR’s attitude towards rotating.

  69. Hubert

    massive:
    I’d much rather talk about a possible logjam and trade we have at the 2. Shump, JR, and TH2 all seem like players worth significant rotation time. There is no way all three are on this team for more than 1 1/2 seasons. I’m hoping JR or Lil Tim gets the boot because Shump looked like a shorter Paul George last night. If Bargs and TH2 look good for an extended period of time (like a season), I could see a decent trade package for a significant player somewhere down the road.

    At one point last year JR looked like he would command a $12 million/year contract and could be a legit #2 option.

    We all know what happened. Maybe it was the knee, but I doubt it.

    If at any point in this season he looks like a player worth $12 million, I would trade him instantly before his value drops.

  70. Z-man

    Jim Cavan: I’m guilty as charged for having too much of my board interaction be of this meta-meta critique variety, so that’s something I need to work on. And yeah, after dealing with students all day, I’d probably have little to no patience for anything remotely resembling glib. So that’s understandable.

    For my part, I will try to lighten up.

    I should mention that while I read and enjoy both P&T and TKB, I have never posted there.

  71. Hubert

    johnno: Bargnani and Gallo are pretty much the exact same player.Bargnani is only slightly bigger than Gallo and, I don’t care what position they supposedly play, their offensive games are almost identical — they both play mostly far from the basket, they shoot a lot of outside shots, they like to do that pumpfake thing and then put the ball on the floor and drive awkwardly but effectively to the basket, etc., etc.They look a little alike and, when they talk, they even sound similar.If you look at their career numbers, Bargnani is slightly better in every single statistical category.Yet, people on this site pine away for the good old days of Gallo and kill Bargnani

    I think there is an illogical reason for this:

    We all loved the way the PA announcer said Gallo’s name.

  72. MarcusRinaldi

    I’m sure it was already said, but the reasoning is simple. Gallo wasn’t the number 1 pick in his draft, Barganani was. A number 1 pick is seen as a franchise changer, someone who is going to turn the team around. I agree this isn’t a fair sentiment to have, and they’re have only been a few number 1 picks who turn out to do this, but I think the feeling is still their. Gallo has never been looked at as the superstar of a team. Even now, with the ACL surgery, I’d argue Ty Lawson is looked at to be the allstar of the team. Also, man do i miss the announcer saying Danilo Gallinari’s name… and threeeeeeeeee pointerrrrrrr Steveeeee Novak!

  73. Mike Kurylo

    danvt: I think Z- man or some other posters here deserve a shot to write an article. It’d be more entertaining and informative than his negative, glib BS.

    Kevin Udwary: A few weeks back Mike K. posted in comments that anyone wanting to write a post just needs to contact him. That’s what I did and Jim and Mike were very welcoming.

    ANYONE WHO WANTS TO WRITE FOR KNICKERBLOGGER, PLEASE CONTACT ME! I’LL TAKE A SINGLE ARTICLE, A REGULAR COLUMN, OR WHATEVER WHENEVER YOU FEEL LIKE IT.

  74. Hubert

    Unreason:
    Isn’t it obviously a self-aware gag poking fun at the KB readership’s hypersensitivity to everything AB? It clearly is. It’s explicitly and pointedly not a real or veiled or half-serious condemnation of him. It’s a light-hearted parody of our collective tendencies to go all apoplectic when there’s nothing of substance to react to. As such, if anything it’s a way to promote awareness of that tendency, not an unthinking example of it.

    First off, I do think the reaction here was certainly over the top.

    However, I will disagree with you here.

    I think one of the reasons David is getting negative reaction (and I mean this constructively, David, so I hope you don’t take it the wrong way) is that he is writing to the wrong audience. I don’t think KB readership is as hypersensitive as his article implied. And I don’t think we go apoplectic when nothing of substance has happened. We go apoplectic when we needlessly throw a first round draft pick into a trade. We go apoplectic when Woodson gets double-team happy vs players who are posting up 15 feet from the basket. We’re a savvy group (or we’re a group that likes to think we’re a savvy group). I don’t think there was really a need to poke fun at our tendency to overreact because no one was actually going to overreact to the first half performance in a preseason game.

    But yeah, it drew a little overreaction. I think it’s a case of “who moved my cheese?” for some people as the site begins to diversify its content. We should all chill out a bit and let them do their thing.

  75. thenamestsam

    Hubert: This is all true.But you should be able to drill your system into anybody.If Tom Thibodeau could make Marco Bellinelli a solid team defender, anything is possible.

    And I didn’t mean to pick on AB.This applies to Amar’e just as much, maybe moreso.And don’t get me started on JR.I can actually let it go that AB isn’t a good rebounder.Rebounding is dirty work and just because a guy is tall doesn’t mean he’s cut out for it.I’m willing to appreciate his game if it doesn’t include rebounding.

    But he’s got to get better at the rotations by the spring.I’m not some crazy fan who thinks he should be good at it by November.But I hope it is just something that needs to be drilled into him because we can’t have another guy play with Amar’e and JR’s attitude towards rotating.

    Very fair. I personally think Woody’s crazy switching really hurts us here. When I watch Chicago’s defense one thing that’s evident is how much less they scramble then we do. They play things much more straight up. They don’t double much, they don’t switch much, and I think for the bad defenders that makes it easier because the rotations they need to make are much more formulaic. A guy like Bellinelli who clearly isn’t talented defensively can become decent in that scheme through repetition.

    I think it’s much more difficult in our scheme because all the crazy doubling and switching means that our D is scrambling much more. That means that the situations players get thrown in are a lot more varied than they are in a more stationary system. I think that forces our weaker defenders to rely more on their (bad) instincts and less on a well-drilled system of what to do. Just a thought.

  76. johnno

    MarcusRinaldi: I’m sure it was already said, but the reasoning is simple. Gallo wasn’t the number 1 pick in his draft, Barganani was. A number 1 pick is seen as a franchise changer, someone who is going to turn the team around.

    You are probably right, but have you taken a look at who else was in that draft? In retrospect, he shouldn’t have been number one — since LaMarcus Aldridge, Brandon Roy and Rajon Rondo were taken 2, 6 and 21 that year. However, he absolutely should have been taken no worse than #8, since the only other starter caliber guys from that draft were Gay, Redick, Lowry and Millsap — sorry, 8 — Ronnie Brewer. Over 20 of the guys in the first round aren’t even in the NBA anymore. When you look at the rest of the picks, Steve Novak deserved to be a borderline lottery pick that year (he was taken #32). That was a pretty bad draft.

  77. Hubert

    thenamestsam: Very fair. I personally think Woody’s crazy switching really hurts us here. When I watch Chicago’s defense one thing that’s evident is how much less they scramble then we do. They play things much more straight up. They don’t double much, they don’t switch much, and I think for the bad defenders that makes it easier because the rotations they need to make are much more formulaic. A guy like Bellinelli who clearly isn’t talented defensively can become decent in that scheme through repetition.

    I think it’s much more difficult in our scheme because all the crazy doubling and switching means that our D is scrambling much more. That means that the situations players get thrown in are a lot more varied than they are in a more stationary system. I think that forces our weaker defenders to rely more on their (bad) instincts and less on a well-drilled system of what to do. Just a thought.

    I think last year it became evident that it’s not the switching so much as the double teaming. And not just the double teaming but where the double team was sent. I wish I could do a Kirk Goldsberry style breakdown of what spots on the floor the Knicks sent double teams to. I think it would reveal that we sent many of them to some of the most inefficient offensive areas on the court. I know our memories are flawed but I can’t be the only one who remembers Jason Kidd running across the court to double team Joe Johnson 2 feet inside the 3 point circle. How many times in the Indiana series did Roy Hibbert get doubled when he was posting up more than 10 feet away from the basket? Woodson’s system seems to seek to defend certain players (Hibbert is having a good game, ergo double Hibbert, even if he’s not in a threatening position), whereas Vogel and Thibodeau’s systems seek to defend areas of the court. That’s some paint by numbers shit that really…

  78. thenamestsam

    Hubert: I think last year it became evident that it’s not the switching so much as the double teaming.And not just the double teaming but where the double team was sent.I wish I could do a Kirk Goldsberry style breakdown of what spots on the floor the Knicks sent double teams to.I think it would reveal that we sent many of them to some of the most inefficient offensive areas on the court. I know our memories are flawed but I can’t be the only one who remembers Jason Kidd running across the court to double team Joe Johnson 2 feet inside the 3 point circle.How many times in the Indiana series did Roy Hibbert get doubled when he was posting up more than 10 feet away from the basket?Woodson’s system seems to seek to defend certain players (Hibbert is having a good game, ergo double Hibbert, even if he’s not in a threatening position), whereas Vogel and Thibodeau’s systems seek to defend areas of the court.That’s some paint by numbers shit that really…

    You may be right that the doubling has more of an impact than the system. I just think all of that stuff puts players into situations that are harder to drill on. For example probably the most common form of help defense in the NBA is crashing the lane to deter the roll man on a PnR when you’re on the weak side and then recovering to your man. Teams run dozens and dozens of pick and rolls a game and while there’s lots of variations obviously and defenses mix up their looks there’s still a standardized aspect to those. With dedication, focus and practice any player should be able to get their timing down pat on those. But the kinds of rotations that happen after a double team where the ball is whipping around the perimeter are much less standard and much more situation dependent. Those are the kind that bad defenders struggle with the most I think.

  79. David Vertsberger Post author

    At one point or another the gods will make it so that we all run into eachother at a Knick game or something and it turns into a massive group hug. It’ll be weird, but good.

  80. Keniman Shumpwalker

    David Vertsberger:
    At one point or another the gods will make it so that we all run into eachother at a Knick game or something and it turns into a massive group hug. It’ll be weird, but good.

    In advance of that group hug, I should warn you, David, that I have nearly every highly contagious viral infection that exists in this world of ours. Most notably, I am a syphilis infected leper with infinite stomach flu (that’s a thing, I swears it). Group hug at your own risk.

Comments are closed.