Statistical Analysis. Humor. Knicks.

Thursday, November 27, 2014

For Jersey J and Pals

Enjoy!

176 comments on “For Jersey J and Pals

  1. ScottD

    I’m all for it, as long as he can unite all parties and win the war!!!
    But wait a minute,I guess this means that you don’t have to be 35 to run for the oval? Rectangular office.
    If he can’t win the presidentcy,perhaps he could be nominated for the supreme court!

  2. ben B

    hell ya i am. lee is a better team player by far. if i was makin a team i’d pick him. randolph has lots of good features but i think the knicks should trade him.

  3. xduckshoex

    The Blazers would rather trade for Francis and eat his contract than keep Randolph around for another year.

    He might work out well for NY, but you have to remember that he was given away for a reason.

  4. thefatkid

    The Blazers would also rather eat Francis’ contract into order to sign Steve Blake. Something tells me neither basketball skills nor statistics are involved in their decision-making process.

    Anyway, the facts for the Lee v. Randolph debate:

    http://www.basketball-reference.com/fc/pcm.cgi?req=1&cum=0&p1=leeda02&y1=2007&p2=randoza01&y2=2007

    Randolph absolutely destroys Lee in every offensive category. Lee is a marginally better rebounder and commits fewer turnovers but that hardly compensates for losing all the offensive statistics by nearly 100%.

  5. xduckshoex

    Eating Francis’ contract had nothing to do with signing Blake, those two moves were not dependent on each other at all. The contract they gave Blake would still have been possible even with Francis on the roster, and considering their different styles of play I don’t think having Francis around would have made them want Blake any less.

    It was a good move for them, Blake played very well the last time he was in Portland.

    Randolph destroys Lee in every offensive category? Only if the only offensive category you are looking at is points. Field goal percentage? Advantage Lee. Offensive rebounds? Advantage Lee. Assists? Advantage Lee. In all three categories, he’s actually significantly better.

  6. thefatkid

    You?re right that the Blazers could have kept Francis and still signed Blake. But given that Francis is better than Blake at virtually every aspect of the game of basketball, why would you? If you weren?t interested in winning basketball games but you were primary interested in a group of nice guys who happened to play basketball, you might do such a thing. But no team interested in winning basketball games would have done that.

    Offensive categories are those that result in the scoring of points. Rebounding isn?t an offensive category. Lee has the advantage in field goal percentage. Randolph has the advantage in three-point shooting, free-throw shooting, FGAs, FTAs, PPG, PPM, FTAPM, and FGAPM. And even assists, both APG and APM, go to Randolph. Where did you get the assists thing from? Did you even look at the numbers?

    And I?m going to suggest that the 13.3% difference in FG% doesn?t matter much in light of the 120.6% difference in PPG, the 136.7% difference in FTAPG, the 84.9% difference in PPM, and the 91.9% difference in FTAPM. I?d say those differences are enough to render the comparison absurd.

  7. xduckshoex

    How can Randolph have the advantage in assists? Per 40 minutes they are even, with Lee committing fewer turnovers. Lee generates assists at the same per-minute rate despite using fewer possessions and turns over the ball at a much lower rate…how can that lead one to believe that Randolph is the better passer?

    And I can’t believe you’re actually considering field goal attempts as an offensive category used to place one player above another. The better player is the one who shoots more, regardless of how many he makes?

    What all of this comes down to is “Randolph takes more shots”. His advantage in scoring is not because he shoots better, but because he shoots more. His advantage in free throw attempts is a result of him shooting the ball more and using more possessions, as Lee draws fouls on more of his shots than Randolph does.

    So you’ve established that Randolph takes more shots than Lee. Are you really going say that makes him the far superior offensive player?

  8. Neil

    “Randolph destroys Lee in every offensive category? Only if the only offensive category you are looking at is points. Field goal percentage? Advantage Lee. Offensive rebounds? Advantage Lee. Assists? Advantage Lee. In all three categories, he?s actually significantly better.”

    Just what are you looking at? You should check the numbers. They’ll tell you that Randolph averaged more assists than Lee and that the offensive rebounding numbers aren’t significantly different. Sure Randolph played more minutes but to say that Lee is significantly better is just absurd.

    As for the better field goal percentage, your comparing two different animals. Lee scores most of his points putting back offensive rebounds and from set ups close to the hoop by teammates. He doesn’t create his own offense. Randolph does and that’s a huge, huge difference. You can’t just build your offense around missing shots and dishing passes close to the basket all the time. You need guys who can go out and get their own points first. Come on, the Lee hyperbole is getting ridiculous.

  9. xduckshoex

    “Just what are you looking at? You should check the numbers. They?ll tell you that Randolph averaged more assists than Lee and that the offensive rebounding numbers aren?t significantly different. Sure Randolph played more minutes but to say that Lee is significantly better is just absurd.”

    So getting 0.5 more offensive rebounds despite playing fewer minutes is no big deal…but getting an extra 0.4 assists in more minutes is noteworthy? That makes no sense. If you are going to argue that Randolph is a better passer(which is absurd once you factor in turnovers) then you have to admit that Lee is a much better offensive rebounder.

    “As for the better field goal percentage, your comparing two different animals. Lee scores most of his points putting back offensive rebounds and from set ups close to the hoop by teammates. He doesn?t create his own offense. Randolph does and that?s a huge, huge difference.”

    If Randolph’s constant attempts to create his own offense are hurting his effectiveness, maybe he should be doing it less?

    And who said anything about building an offense around Lee? Is the fact that Randolph had one of the worst offenses in the League built around him somehow supposed to work in his favour? I’d say his decreased effectiveness and the overall crappiness of the Blazers offense would indicate that Randolph is not a suitable player to build an offense around either.

  10. Owen

    Zach Randolph – TS% – 53.7
    David Lee – TS% – 65.2

    This is the crucial statistic, for the fifth time.

    Randolph’s career TS% is probably not much higher than the Knicks’s team TS% was last year. Sure he can score points, but if he can’t score points more efficiently than the team does as a whole, what value is that prolific scoring?

    And it’s not like the Knicks need more scorers. We already have tons Marbury, Crawford, Robinson, and Curry.

    Lee is better than Randolph in every category other than personal fouls and points scored. A three rebound difference per 48 is a big edge. So is the turnover difference.

    Honestly, your way of looking at stats is absurd.

  11. Ted Nelson

    “You can?t just build your offense around missing shots and dishing passes close to the basket all the time. You need guys who can go out and get their own points first.”

    Funny a lot of very successful basketball teams have built their offenses around passing and getting the ball to the open man, rather than running isolation plays while 4 other guys stand around (or guys getting their points first as you refer to it). Byron Scott’s Nets and the Suns last few teams come to mind as obvious recent examples. Jason Kidd and Steve Nash aren’t really guys I would say get their own points first, and Martin, RJ, Marion, and Amare hardly fall into what I would assume is your definition of “creating their own shots.” Those two teams ran and had amazing PGs, but slower teams like Detroit and SA also base their offenses around players and the ball moving and playing 5 on 5 rather than 1 on 1. Both teams certainly have players who could say fuck it I’m going to go 1 on 1 all night and score 40 points, but they wouldn’t get to score 40 because they’d be on the bench.

    “Is the fact that Randolph had one of the worst offenses in the League built around him somehow supposed to work in his favour? I?d say his decreased effectiveness and the overall crappiness of the Blazers offense would indicate that Randolph is not a suitable player to build an offense around either.”

    Good point.

    “Offensive categories are those that result in the scoring of points. Rebounding isn?t an offensive category.”

    You seem to have contradicted yourself again. If you get an offensive rebound, go back up with it or kick it out and points are scored than that rebound did “result in the scoring of points.” For that matter, a defensive rebound gets your team possession and can “result in the scoring of points.”

    “If you weren?t interested in winning basketball games but you were primary interested in a group of nice guys who happened to play basketball, you might do such a thing. But no team interested in winning basketball games would have done that.”

    Not saying Steve Blake is God’s gift to basketball, but when has Steve Francis ever won games in the NBA??? If he’s not getting 20 shots in 40 minutes a night he whines and bitches and goes home to his mommy for vacation. The Blazers have a strong young backcourt in Jack, Roy, and Rodriquez. I would agrue that it makes more sense to get an intelligent veteran willing to play a smaller role than a 30 year old teenager who has thus far proven incapable of not trying to hijack an offense by dribbling all over the place and forcing lots of bad shots.

    The Blazers also have what it probably the most promising young core in the NBA, they clearly don’t want them getting infected by the likes of Randolph and Francis. The Blazers have apparently already reported to start working together, all of them except Raef and someone else I think. Were Randolph and Francis really going to buy into that kind of organization?

    As far as “nice guys” and such, the Bobcats might be one example, but I’ll bet you they’re trying to base their model on SA’s.

  12. Ben R

    A couple of important points.

    First I am totally on the Lee side of the debate but Lee was actually more turnover prone than Randolph. Per possession used, Lee was more likely to turn the ball over, Lee had a turnover rate of 13.7 turnovers per 100 possessions used while Randolph had 11.6 turnovers per 100 possessions used.

    With that in mind though Lee was a much better passer getting 15.5 assists per 100 possessions used while Randolph had 7.9 assists per 100 possessions used.

    It is imoportant to look at turnover and assist rate rather than assists or turnovers per minute. Since Randolph is using more possessions he has more opportunities to score, get assists and turn the ball over. People seem to look at the scoring rate but often fail to look at the turnover and assist rate. Using raw turnover’s or assists per minute without looking at possessions used is no different than looking at scoring per minute without taking into account possessions used.

  13. Ted Nelson

    Good point Ben. The problem is that thefatkid doesn’t acknowledge that possessions or touches are important. Whether you touch the ball 100 times/ use 100 possessions in the game and only turn it over once or touch it 1 time/ use 1 possession and turn it over once, I guess he would consider you just as turnover prone.

    I guess TOs and assists are a much better way to prove that possessions are important than scoring and rebounding, which I was beating my head against the wall trying to use.

  14. Caleb

    Some people have mentioned that the Knicks were unlucky last year, in close games and injuries, and therefor we “really” were better than a 33-49 team.

    The Knicks record in games decided by 3 points or less:
    11-9

    Knicks record in games decided by 5 points or less:
    14-11

    Knicks record in overtime games:
    6-2

    If anything, it looks as though we were lucky to win so many. Our point differential was -2.8. That’s 21st in the league. Our 33-49 record was tied for 21st.

    Does anyone know where to find an accurate tally of games missed to injury, to see where we stand compared to other teams? I had to do an abridged version on my own. Despite a rash of bad luck at the end, our injury burden was probably average, or slightly worse than average. Our usual finishing lineup:
    Marbury/Crawford/Richardson/Lee/Curry missed a total of 89 games. The backups, except Jeffries, were almost totally injury-free.

    By comparison, in our division, I counted New Jersey’s starters as missing 87 games, Toronto, 57 games and Boston 71 games.

    I also checked Atlanta, my current hometown, whose starters missed 101 games.

    The numbers are rough — I only counted games played — but none of the starters on these teams were racking up DNP-CDs, so I’m pretty confident that games missed were due to injury.

  15. thefatkid

    Owen, if TS% is the only important offensive stat, how do you account for volume? If volume is unimportant and simply a by-product, what is your plan to improve the Knicks? offense? Instead of bringing in a scorer, just dial up the volume knob on David Lee? After all TS% is static and doesn?t change with shooting volume, right?

    I?m not sure you understand offensive basketball. If the Knicks had an entire team of David Lee-like players, they?d be scoring 86 PPG with remarkable efficiency. Somehow, I think you?re going to need a few slightly more prolific, albeit less efficient, scorers on that squad.

    ?Lee is better than Randolph in every category other than personal fouls and points scored. A three rebound difference per 48 is a big edge. So is the turnover difference.?

    Huh? What happened to PPG, PPM, FTAPG, FTAPM, APG, and APM? Or are those unimportant categories?

    Some might say that eschewing all measures of offensive production in favor of shooting percentage is absurd. According to some, offense is about scoring points.

    ?You seem to have contradicted yourself again. If you get an offensive rebound, go back up with it or kick it out and points are scored than that rebound did ?result in the scoring of points.? For that matter, a defensive rebound gets your team possession and can ?result in the scoring of points.??

    Rebounding has nothing to do with the scoring of points. Rebounding is only possible when a point is not scored. You can rebound all day long and have nothing to do with a single point being scored.

    ?Not saying Steve Blake is God?s gift to basketball, but when has Steve Francis ever won games in the NBA????

    He?s won quite a few more games than Blake has. You forget that Francis? Houston teams were always winners, save for 01-02, when Francis was injured battling Meniere?s disease and missed significant time. Francis is a three-time All-Star and he was a college All-American. The only reason a team would buy out Francis in favor of Blake is if it didn?t care about winning games and was only interested in developing young players.

    ?With that in mind though Lee was a much better passer getting 15.5 assists per 100 possessions used while Randolph had 7.9 assists per 100 possessions used.?

    I wouldn?t say that indicates Lee was a better passer. Lee was simply passing more often on his possessions than Randolph was. Given their respective offensive skills and roles, wouldn?t you expect Lee to be passing the ball a greater percentage of the time?

    ?The problem is that thefatkid doesn?t acknowledge that possessions or touches are important.?
    You guessed it. Why would the number of times a player touches the ball have any importance? Some guys could touch the ball five times in one possession while holding onto the ball for less than seven seconds total. Those touches could result in nothing more than another man touching the ball. Why is the fact that the player touched the ball of any importance?

    Caleb, you forgot that Steve Francis missed almost half the season with injuries. And Frye missed ten games.

  16. xduckshoex

    “I?m not sure you understand offensive basketball. If the Knicks had an entire team of David Lee-like players, they?d be scoring 86 PPG with remarkable efficiency. Somehow, I think you?re going to need a few slightly more prolific, albeit less efficient, scorers on that squad.”

    That doesn’t make sense. If they are scoring with remarkable efficiency they are guaranteed to outscore their opponents because they will get just as many possessions as their opponent, so why would “prolific” scorers be necessary?

    Unless, of course, their opponents have remarkable efficiency as well, but very few teams manage to have remarkable efficiency.

  17. Owen

    Caleb – I don’t think we were lucky last year, I think we actually hit our expected win-loss exactly at 33 games. And in games decided by two points or less we were 9-9 I believe.

    One more thought. The Knicks had a ts% last year of 53.94%.

    PTS / (FGA + FTAx0.44) / 2 =

    7994 / (6356 + 2396×0.44) / 2 = 53.94%

    The Trailblazers were at

    7717/ (6392 + 2006 x 0.44) / 2 = 53.04 ts%

    If you take Randolph’s numbers out of that

    6109/ (5106 + 1525 x 0.44) / 2 = 52.85

    So….

    2006-7 Ts%

    NY Knicks 53.94
    Knicks w/0 Lee52.89
    Zach Randolph 53.7
    Trailblazers 53.04
    TB w/o Zach 52.85

    It doesn’t seem that being in a crappy offense hurt ZR. That was his second best TS% for his career. And he definitely helped that team on offense, as their +4 with him on the court indicates. He did shoot better than the team average.

    However if he performs like he did last year for us, it’s very difficult to see how he can help the Knicks offensively. He will be scoring points at a much lower efficiency than Lee and Curry and taking shots from Curry and minutes from Lee.

    Also, just as an add-on, I ran the Knicks TS% backing out Lee’s contributions. Without Lee’s production, it seems the Knicks team TS% would have dropped nearly 1%. Is that right? Interesting to see how much more of a boost he gave them than Randolph did the Trailblazers, despite taking so few shots.

    Not suer I have that right, does that check out Caleb?

  18. Owen

    “If volume is unimportant and simply a by-product, what is your plan to improve the Knicks? offense? Instead of bringing in a scorer, just dial up the volume knob on David Lee? After all TS% is static and doesn?t change with shooting volume, right?”

    The Knicks as a team shot better than Randolph did last year. So, it’s difficult to see what he and his high volume scoring really offer. A high volume scorer is valuable only if he can take shots and score at a higher efficiency that his teammates could otherwise manage.

    Unfortunately, a very plausible scenario is that Randolph hurts this team. He takes shots from Curry, who is a much better scorer, and he takes minutes and shots from Lee, who is a much more efficient scorer and much better rebounder.

    As for how would I improve the Knicks offense:

    Commit fewer turnovers.
    Play our best players. (i.e. not Crawford)
    Find better players (i.e. better than Curry)

  19. Mike K. (KnickerBlogger)

    Rebounding has nothing to do with the scoring of points. Rebounding is only possible when a point is not scored. You can rebound all day long and have nothing to do with a single point being scored.

    TFK – you’ve made a lot of dumb points, but this takes the cake. Let’s just pretend there is a team that hits half of their shots (all two pointers for argument sake), but doesn’t rebound any of their misses. Give them 100 possessions, and you’d expect them to score 100 points. Take that same team and allow them to rebound 40% of their missed shots, and all of a sudden they’ll score 140 points in those same 100 possessions.

  20. Ted Nelson

    “He?s won quite a few more games than Blake has. You forget that Francis? Houston teams were always winners, save for 01-02, when Francis was injured battling Meniere?s disease and missed significant time. Francis is a three-time All-Star and he was a college All-American. The only reason a team would buy out Francis in favor of Blake is if it didn?t care about winning games and was only interested in developing young players.”

    You forget that Francis has played a grand total of 5 playoff games in his career. Winning 1. That was his last year in Houston, I believe that was also JVG’s 1st year, Yao’s 2nd, and the beginning of the end for Stevie Franchise and his ball-hogging, isolation, chucking style of play.

    The Knicks really won a ton of games with Francis, right?

    “Rebounding has nothing to do with the scoring of points. Rebounding is only possible when a point is not scored. You can rebound all day long and have nothing to do with a single point being scored.”

    “result in the scoring of points” That’s what you said an offensive category is. If an offensive rebound that is taken straight back up and dunked with 2, or even 3 if there’s a foul, points resulting doesn’t result in the scoring of points, then I guess an assist doesn’t either. So I guess that only shooting stats are offensive stats. Interesting.

    But, wait, efficiency doesn’t matter only the volume. If you score 120 ppg, but you don?t win a single game because your opponents all score 130 ppg, you’re still an amazing offense. I think I’m starting to get it.

    “Why would the number of times a player touches the ball have any importance?”

    If you don’t touch the ball, it’s harder to turn it over. You can still commit an offensive foul that results in a turnover. But, wait, I guess TOs aren’t an important stat, because possessions aren’t important.

    I wouldn’t argue that a “touch” is as important as “using” a possession, meaning that you end the possession with a missed or made shot or a TO. As you say, touching the ball for 2 seconds is probably not as important to the outcome of the game as taking a shot. Yet, you agreed earlier that ideally you would analyze every possession. In doing so it might be important to see whether the team was more or less likely to score if player x touches the ball.
    While the final act of shooting the basketball depends on one person, there may be many actions which put that person in a better or worse position to make that basket. Assists are probably the most important and easily measurable incarnation of this, yet the pick that allowed Rip Hamilton to get a wide open shot or the guy who saw that if he passed to someone he would have a passing lane to get the scorer an easy look also theoretically deserves some credit for the basket.

  21. thefatkid

    ?That doesn?t make sense. If they are scoring with remarkable efficiency they are guaranteed to outscore their opponents because they will get just as many possessions as their opponent, so why would ?prolific? scorers be necessary??

    So do the efficient players stay equally efficient on a significantly increased volume of shooting? I?d say that?s a very generous assumption that doesn?t reflect reality.

    ?NY Knicks 53.94
    Knicks w/0 Lee52.89
    Zach Randolph 53.7
    Trailblazers 53.04
    TB w/o Zach 52.85?

    The numbers should be:

    NYK: 53.9
    Lee: 65.2
    NYK ? Lee: 53.2
    POR: 53.0
    Randolph: 53.7
    POR ? Randolph: 52.9

    Not sure where you got the NYK ? Lee figure from. Either way, it?s hardly an important calculation.

    ?Unfortunately, a very plausible scenario is that Randolph hurts this team. He takes shots from Curry, who is a much better scorer, and he takes minutes and shots from Lee, who is a much more efficient scorer and much better rebounder.?

    I don?t understand. The majority of Randolph?s minutes and shots are going to be taken from Channing Frye. Yes, 46.4% TS Channing Frye. That seems like a pretty big improvement to me, even in your terms.

    ?Commit fewer turnovers.?

    Likely to happen since the offense now has two reliable scorers and they don?t have to force the ball to Curry every trip.

    ?Play our best players. (i.e. not Crawford)?

    Best players being Lee, Balkman, and who else? And of those guys, who is taking the shots? Are more shots for Lee and Balkman really a good idea?

    ?Find better players (i.e. better than Curry)?

    Wait, you think Randolph is taking away from Curry so you don?t want Randolph, but you don?t want Curry either? Who do you want? Sam Dalembert?

    And in case you?re wondering, virtually all of Randolph?s teammates performed better with him on the court. This would indicate that having a dominant player on the court makes things easier for everyone else, something widely known and agreed upon.

    ?TFK – you?ve made a lot of dumb points, but this takes the cake. Let?s just pretend there is a team that hits half of their shots (all two pointers for argument sake), but doesn?t rebound any of their misses. Give them 100 possessions, and you?d expect them to score 100 points. Take that same team and allow them to rebound 40% of their missed shots, and all of a sudden they?ll score 140 points in those same 100 possessions.?

    Thanks for the jab, Mike. Regardless of whatever possession-based theories you hold dear, rebounding isn?t related to points being scored. Shooting percentages, free throws, assists, and shots are related to the scoring of points. There is no link between rebounding and points. This confusion is part of the reason why Dennis Rodman is the greatest player of all time or one of them according to possession theory.

    Ted, compare the NBA winning percentages of Francis? teams to Blake?s teams. Even that argument falls on its face. The only reason you cut Francis in favor of Blake is if you don?t care about losing games and just want to develop young players.

    ?That?s what you said an offensive category is. If an offensive rebound that is taken straight back up and dunked with 2, or even 3 if there?s a foul, points resulting doesn?t result in the scoring of points, then I guess an assist doesn?t either. So I guess that only shooting stats are offensive stats. Interesting.?

    If an offensive rebound is dunked, the dunk scored the points, not the rebound. An assist is only recorded when points are scored. You follow?

    ?If you score 120 ppg, but you don?t win a single game because your opponents all score 130 ppg, you?re still an amazing offense.?

    You?re probably losing games because of terrible defense, not a failing of the offense. But it?s readily apparent you still don?t understand my basic premise. You can?t look at single statistic and use that to determine all of the facts. TS% isn?t the only important offensive stat and Team PPG isn?t the only important metric when evaluating an offense. My whole criticism of the APBRmetrics movement is that it?s attempted to simply things, rather than utilizing more information to make more informed conclusions.

    ?But, wait, I guess TOs aren?t an important stat, because possessions aren?t important.?

    Have I ever made any reference to turnovers not being important?

    ?I wouldn?t argue that a ?touch? is as important as ?using? a possession, meaning that you end the possession with a missed or made shot or a TO.?

    If Zach Randolph misses a shot but someone else gets the offensive rebound, he hasn?t used a possession. Do you understand the negative implications on possession theory?

    ?While the final act of shooting the basketball depends on one person, there may be many actions which put that person in a better or worse position to make that basket. Assists are probably the most important and easily measurable incarnation of this, yet the pick that allowed Rip Hamilton to get a wide open shot or the guy who saw that if he passed to someone he would have a passing lane to get the scorer an easy look also theoretically deserves some credit for the basket.?

    And this is the essential problem with the current state of basketball stats. We need more information.

  22. Owen

    Addendum – Actually, I shouldn’t be so pessimistic about Randolph. Channing Frye was awful last year. His TS% was a truly startlingly bad 46.4%. While he was closer to the team average ts% than Lee, he also took 289 more shots than lee, 65 less free throws, and only managed to score 63 more points. He was horrible.

    Randolph will definitely help the Knicks relative to Frye. Thats a boost, assuming he plays like he did last year. But given how much Frye declined with Curry’s emergence, I am uneasy with that assumption.

    Bottom line, basketball is very dynamic. Switching Randolph in for Frye will provide a boost, but Randolph taking shots from more efficient scorers like Curry and Lee, probably will blunt that impact. I don’t really know what is going to happen, but there is definitely a range of probable outcomes taht seems very likely. And the Knicks having a top ten offense isn’t one of them.

  23. xduckshoex

    “So do the efficient players stay equally efficient on a significantly increased volume of shooting? I?d say that?s a very generous assumption that doesn?t reflect reality.”

    Well now you’re contradicting yourself, because it was your very generous assumption to begin with. I didn’t say they would be remarkably efficient, those were your words.

    “Regardless of whatever possession-based theories you hold dear, rebounding isn?t related to points being scored. Shooting percentages, free throws, assists, and shots are related to the scoring of points. There is no link between rebounding and points. This confusion is part of the reason why Dennis Rodman is the greatest player of all time or one of them according to possession theory.”

    Instead of just saying that he’s wrong, why not explain how? What he said made a lot of sense. Offensive rebounds lead to more opportunities to score points and as a result lead to more points being scored. Wouldn’t that be a link between rebounding and points? If not, explain why.

  24. Owen

    And you were right TFK –

    Knicks without Lee

    7373 / (6934.12) / 2 = 53.16

    So, Randolph, taking 800 more shots, incraased his team’s ts% by what? six hundredths of a percent more than Lee.

  25. thefatkid

    ?Well now you?re contradicting yourself, because it was your very generous assumption to begin with. I didn?t say they would be remarkably efficient, those were your words.?

    You?re right, sarcasm is lost over the internet. You do you honestly believe that I would support a team full of guys like David Lee? Is this consistent with anything you know about my beliefs?

    Teams need balance, which is why a player like Lee benefits from a player like Crawford and vice versa. Lee is there to rebound Crawford?s shots, get tip-ins, and the like while Crawford sets Lee up for those backdoor plays and allows Lee to operate in the background.
    ?Instead of just saying that he?s wrong, why not explain how? What he said made a lot of sense. Offensive rebounds lead to more opportunities to score points and as a result lead to more points being scored. Wouldn?t that be a link between rebounding and points? If not, explain why.?

    Offensive rebounds are essentially a bail-out for missed shots. If you don?t miss shots, you don?t have much of a use for offensive rebounding. This is why there?s a pretty strong inverse relationship between shooting efficiency and offensive rebounding. Strong offensive rebounding gives second chances to teams that don?t shoot the ball well. If you put a guy like David Lee on the Phoenix Suns, he?d be mostly useless and probably a net negative because his particular skills aren?t needed or useful in that situation.

    Lee is a complementary player because all of his skills are secondary skills. In order for Lee to rebound, other players have to take and miss shots. In order for Lee to score, other players have to put him in a position to score. His skills complement the weaknesses of his teammates, which is why he makes them better.

    Randolph is a different sort of player. His dominance at his position makes all of his teammates better by diverting attention away from them. His mere presence is enough to help out teammates. It doesn?t hurt that he?s also useful as a complementary player, with strong rebounding skills and good passing ability. Basically, Randolph is a complete player while Lee is only strong at specific facets of the game.

  26. Jersey J

    All stop looking at the numbers and lets think basketball for once. I’m talking from a player/coach point of view so to some this may be a little confusing.

    When you see a player with a very high shooting % you have to analyze why. Most of the time the person on the team with the highest % is the one that the defense is would prefer to see shot because they don’t typically have the range to hurt them offensivly.

    Example:

    Marbury brings the ball up the court. Usually the team will try to trap him to get the ball out of his hands. Once the ball leaves his hand the defence will rotate and most of the time they will leave the worst shooter on the team open (LEE).

    This is called a breakdown.

    If you poll all the coaches in the league. NONe will say in order to stop the knicks we must stop LEE.

  27. xduckshoex

    “Offensive rebounds are essentially a bail-out for missed shots. If you don?t miss shots, you don?t have much of a use for offensive rebounding.”

    That’s only a valid point if your team is not going to miss shots, but that never has been and never will be the case. Teams are ALWAYS going to miss shots, and rebounding those missed shots themselves will help them score more points, won’t it?

    Also, Randolph’s “dominating presence” helped the Blazers finish 25th, 30th and 22nd in the League in offense in the last three seasons. I don’t think his presence helped his teammates out very much, which is probably why he was given away at a cost of 30 million dollars to the Blazers.

  28. Ted Nelson

    “Ted, compare the NBA winning percentages of Francis? teams to Blake?s teams. Even that argument falls on its face. The only reason you cut Francis in favor of Blake is if you don?t care about losing games and just want to develop young players.”

    My argument never revolved around Blake. You’re the only one who linked Francis to Blake. In my opinion, the Blazers made the trade knowing full well they would cut Francis. In fact, I read that this was the case before the trade was even finalized. The Blazers were looking to move Randolph by any means, the Knicks deal saved them 2 years of salary and added a young guy in need of a fresh start. In the Blazers mind this was addition by subtraction, as, I guess, was cutting Francis.

    They may never have wanted Francis on their team because as his physical skills have eroded his mental understanding of the game and maturity haven’t developed.

    Blake doesn’t figure to be a star, but he’ll be playing in a backcourt with Jack, Rodriguez, and Roy. Using their careers as evidence, I’d say Blake is better suited for a role as a 4th banana in the backcourt… on a related note, I’m really interested to see how Francis and Mike James coexist in what don’t figure to be huge roles.

    “Offensive rebounds are essentially a bail-out for missed shots. If you don?t miss shots, you don?t have much of a use for offensive rebounding. This is why there?s a pretty strong inverse relationship between shooting efficiency and offensive rebounding. Strong offensive rebounding gives second chances to teams that don?t shoot the ball well. If you put a guy like David Lee on the Phoenix Suns, he?d be mostly useless and probably a net negative because his particular skills aren?t needed or useful in that situation.”

    I wouldn’t be at all suprised if that inverse relationship exists. That still doesn’t answer for how an o-rebound doesn’t result in points. Every single basketball team misses some shots.

    (If Isiah is so great, why do the Knicks miss so many shots?)

    First Lee stinks because all he does is cut to the basket and get points off the passes of teammates, which ignores his passing skills among other things, now he wouldn’t be a good fit on a team that generates lots of the kind of shots Lee excels at hitting. Starting to see what I meant by contradicting yourself?

    “Have I ever made any reference to turnovers not being important?”

    How can TOs be important if possessions aren’t important????? A TO is nothing more than a wasted possession.

    Wait, your team didn’t get to shoot??? Exactly, they wasted their possession.

    “If Zach Randolph misses a shot but someone else gets the offensive rebound, he hasn?t used a possession. Do you understand the negative implications on possession theory?”

    No. On an individual basis, Randolph should be penalized. If the team scores 2 seconds later on a put back, “possession theory” or not, why does it matter to the team? They have still scored 2 points in a time span where the other team has scored 0. It would have no impact on the impact of the game whether Randolph hit the shot of someone dunked the rebound. Randolph’s miss will show up in the team stats in other ways: eFG%, FG%, TS%, pace…

    “But it?s readily apparent you still don?t understand my basic premise. You can?t look at single statistic and use that to determine all of the facts.”

    While maybe we don’t all express ourselves well all the time (and because I personally don’t have unlimited time and already waste way too much time on this blog) I don’t think any of us look at one stat and say boom this guy is great. No one said TS% is the best, most important, or only stat.

  29. thefatkid

    ?That?s only a valid point if your team is not going to miss shots, but that never has been and never will be the case. Teams are ALWAYS going to miss shots, and rebounding those missed shots themselves will help them score more points, won?t it??

    Tell that to the Phoenix Suns. They don?t miss many shots and they don?t get very many offensive rebounds. That seems to work for them.

    ?Also, Randolph?s ?dominating presence? helped the Blazers finish 25th, 30th and 22nd in the League in offense in the last three seasons. I don?t think his presence helped his teammates out very much, which is probably why he was given away at a cost of 30 million dollars to the Blazers.?

    The Atlanta Hawks have also been one of the worst offensive teams in the league the last few years. I?d still call Joe Johnson a pretty dominant player who is one of the most complete perimeter players in the NBA. The four other guys on the floor have something to do with success and both of those guys have been surrounded with crappy players for years.

    The Blazers cut Francis because they aren?t interested in winning games any time soon and they want to develop the young players. There is no doubt in my mind that Francis is still a very talented player and someone who could have helped that team immensely.

    ?on a related note, I?m really interested to see how Francis and Mike James coexist in what don?t figure to be huge roles.?

    I?m very interested in seeing how a team with Francis, Alston, James, Head, Brooks, and Lucas at the point and only Luis Scola at PF wins games. That?s what I call a poorly constructed roster.

    ?That still doesn?t answer for how an o-rebound doesn?t result in points.?

    You don?t score points on rebounds. You score points on shots.

    ?If Isiah is so great, why do the Knicks miss so many shots??

    What can?t you blame the guy for? The Knicks were pretty average in shooting efficiency this season.

    ?First Lee stinks because all he does is cut to the basket and get points off the passes of teammates, which ignores his passing skills among other things, now he wouldn?t be a good fit on a team that generates lots of the kind of shots Lee excels at hitting. Starting to see what I meant by contradicting yourself??

    What in the world are you talking about? The Phoenix Suns shoot jumpers, and lots of them. The entire offense revolves around the ability to shoot. Every player on that team can shoot and shoot well. David Lee can?t shoot and his only great skill, rebounding, is something the Suns don?t really need. He?d be completely useless on that team and never play. In case you?re wondering, Grant Hill won?t work out well for similar reasons.

    And I?d never say Lee stinks. He?s a very good role player. But he?s a role player, pure and simple. Guys with holes in their games resembling the damage done to the Titanic are strictly role players.

    ?How can TOs be important if possessions aren?t important????? A TO is nothing more than a wasted possession.?

    Individual possessions are important, the number of possessions isn?t.

  30. xduckshoex

    “Tell that to the Phoenix Suns. They don?t miss many shots and they don?t get very many offensive rebounds. That seems to work for them.”

    That would be a great answer to my question if I asked you whether or not a team could be a good offensive team without being a good offensive rebounding team…..but unfortunately, that’s not what I asked.

    Would the Phoenix Suns score more points if they continued shooting the same percentages but got more offensive rebounds? It’s a pretty simple question.

    “The Atlanta Hawks have also been one of the worst offensive teams in the league the last few years. I?d still call Joe Johnson a pretty dominant player who is one of the most complete perimeter players in the NBA. The four other guys on the floor have something to do with success and both of those guys have been surrounded with crappy players for years.”

    …but you said that Randolph’s dominance helps out everybody else on the floor. How much can he be helping if his team ends up being one of the worst offensive teams in the game?

    As for Francis…it doesn’t matter why the Blazers cut him. That is irrelevant. The point is that to get rid of Randolph they were willing to trade him for a player that they had no intention of keeping and would cost them 30 million dollars to cut. Doesn’t that strike you as odd? Instead of trying to get value for him, they paid 30 million dollars to get him off the roster.

  31. thefatkid

    ?Would the Phoenix Suns score more points if they continued shooting the same percentages but got more offensive rebounds? It?s a pretty simple question.?

    It?s an overly simple question. Is there a magic knob that the Suns can turn to increase offensive rebounding while keeping everything else constant?

    ??but you said that Randolph?s dominance helps out everybody else on the floor. How much can he be helping if his team ends up being one of the worst offensive teams in the game??

    He can be helping plenty. But Randolph?s presence isn?t going to make his teammates into good basketball players. It?s the exact same scenario with Johnson and the Hawks. I have a feeling you understand this quite clearly and you?re strictly interested in being pedantic.

    ?As for Francis?it doesn?t matter why the Blazers cut him. That is irrelevant. The point is that to get rid of Randolph they were willing to trade him for a player that they had no intention of keeping and would cost them 30 million dollars to cut. Doesn?t that strike you as odd? Instead of trying to get value for him, they paid 30 million dollars to get him off the roster.?

    Value for the Blazers was saving money and getting what they perceived to be a talented young player, Frye. They clearly took plenty of offers and considered the Knicks? package the most attractive. Again, I have a hard time explaining the motivations of the Blazers as I don?t fully understand many of their moves.

  32. xduckshoex

    “It?s an overly simple question. Is there a magic knob that the Suns can turn to increase offensive rebounding while keeping everything else constant?”

    It’s a hypothetical question, it doesn’t have to be realistic.

    Why play these games? It’s obvious that the Suns(or any team, for that matter) would, in fact, score more points if they got more offensive rebounds, so how can you say that offensive rebounding does not affect scoring?

  33. Caleb

    “Again, I have a hard time explaining the motivations of the Blazers as I don?t fully understand many of their moves.”

    Easy – with Oden & Aldridge on the roster, Zach’s contract was nothing but a millstone. That money, or flexibility, is freed up after 2009. They might lose a couple of extra games this year, but long-term it’s a no-brainer.

    I’m not a Randolph-basher, but it does give pause that the Knicks’ offer was the best the Blazers could get. The market has spoken: by league consensus, Zach is not a franchise player or “dominating force.”

    Of course the consensus could always be wrong, as with Steve (pre-MVP) Nash, Ben Wallace, etc.

  34. thefatkid

    “Why play these games? It?s obvious that the Suns(or any team, for that matter) would, in fact, score more points if they got more offensive rebounds, so how can you say that offensive rebounding does not affect scoring?”

    Offensive rebounds give you the chance to score more points. Shots and free throws score points. Offensive categories are those that relate to shots and the scoring of points. Rebounding is not linked to the scoring of points.

    “I?m not a Randolph-basher, but it does give pause that the Knicks? offer was the best the Blazers could get. The market has spoken: by league consensus, Zach is not a franchise player or ?dominating force.?”

    Not really, it’s more a case of the Knicks having what the Blazers considered the most attractive package. The Blazers wanted to save money and acquire a young player. I think there was plenty of interest in Randolph, but nobody else had the right assets.

  35. Caleb

    ?’I?m not a Randolph-basher, but it does give pause that the Knicks? offer was the best the Blazers could get. The market has spoken: by league consensus, Zach is not a franchise player or ?dominating force.’

    Not really, it?s more a case of the Knicks having what the Blazers considered the most attractive package….”

    Exactly. Channing Frye, and a guy they paid $30 million to go away, was the most attractive package.

  36. Caleb

    Actually, it’s a good example of why cap management, or not paying ridiculous salaries, is important — even if you aren’t using it to outright sign free agents.

    Here’s what I mean: if Randolph were making $7 million a year, Portland would have had multiple offers of good players, draft picks, etc. With a $14 million contract, his trade value plummeted – almost through the floor.

  37. xduckshoex

    “Offensive rebounds give you the chance to score more points. Shots and free throws score points. Offensive categories are those that relate to shots and the scoring of points. Rebounding is not linked to the scoring of points.”

    More offensive rebounds = more shots = more points. That’s not a link?

  38. thefatkid

    Caleb, I’d say it’s more indicative of the benefits of being in a position to take on large salaries. Teams concerned with cap room weren’t able to field competitive offers for Randolph so the Knicks acquired him at a deep discount. Furthermore, Randolph would command even more money on the open market.

    duckshoe, the rebounds aren’t linked to the points. You could argue that steals lead to shots, which lead to points, but nobody’s making ridiculous arguments about steals being an offensive category.

  39. Ted Nelson

    “You don?t score points on rebounds. You score points on shots.”

    Again, by your reasoning an assist is not an offensive stat.

    Re: Lee and the Suns

    Amare is a great shooter???

    A fast breaking team doesn’t need rebounders??? I’ve certainly seen Phoenix run off an inbounds pass, but running off a rebound or turnover seems like it would be more effective more of the time.

    “I?m very interested in seeing how a team with Francis, Alston, James, Head, Brooks, and Lucas at the point and only Luis Scola at PF wins games. That?s what I call a poorly constructed roster.”

    They win 52 games and add talent without losing much of any and that’s what you’d call a poorly constructed roster? There’s this guy called Chuck Hayes who played 22 mpg for them at the 4 last year. We’ll have to see, but having lived in Spain the last 3 years I’d be willing to bet that Scola is a huge upgrade over Juwan Howard.

    “I think there was plenty of interest in Randolph”

    Is there any source on which you base this? Everything I heard in the press was that no one wanted him, not that the press always gets the whole story.

  40. Ted Nelson

    “I?d say it?s more indicative of the benefits of being in a position to take on large salaries.”

    What are these benefits? The Spurs, Suns, Pistons, among others seem to be able to both manage their payroll and win a lot of games.

  41. thefatkid

    “Again, by your reasoning an assist is not an offensive stat.”

    For an assist to be recorded, points have to be scored. How is this so hard?

    “Amare is a great shooter???”

    He shot jumpers at 43.6% last season. David Lee shot them at 28.9%.

    The Suns have plenty of rebounders. That offense depends on players who can shoot. They didn’t have a single rotation player who shot jumpers at less than a 40% clip last season.

    As far as the Rockets go, they added three point guards to a roster that already had three point guards without subtracting a single point guard. They traded away a PF, their weakest position, before they had a clue about acquiring Scola. And Chuck Hayes is a 6’6″ post player who can’t defend anyone. That team won games because of McGrady and Yao, not intelligent roster management.

    As far as Randolph, you don’t read sites like hoopshype and realgm, do you? You’d know about him if you did.

    “What are these benefits? The Spurs, Suns, Pistons, among others seem to be able to both manage their payroll and win a lot of games.”

    Didn’t I just explain the benefits? The whole getting a player on a discount thing? And what do the Spurs, Suns, and Pistons have to do with the positives of being able to take on extra salary?

  42. Ted Nelson

    If I grab a offensive rebound and dunk it, is that really much different from someone throwing me an alley-oop pass? I realize that not every offensive rebound results in points, and although not every pass results in points every assist by definition does. Still, while rebounds don’t necessarily result in points, they can. An offensive rebound and a steal can be differentiated because a steal necessarily occurs when the other team has possession of the ball, an offensive rebound necessarily happens when your team has possesssion. Again, possession are a part of basketball.

    “That team won games because of McGrady and Yao, not intelligent roster management.”

    You seem to think that all you need is one or two great player(s), and you can win tons of games. The Cavs have a terrible, terrible roster except LeBron and the Rockets have no one outside T-Mac and Yao, yet they are 2 of the better teams in the league.

    Another contradiction for you: Curry and Randolph are dominant forces, all you need to win is a dominant force, yet somehow the Knicks and Blazers fail to win. Flux and youth…right?

    “As far as Randolph, you don?t read sites like hoopshype and realgm, do you? You?d know about him if you did.”

    I read hoopshype everyday, I don’t read realgm. I do know about Zach Randolph. I never saw rumors about the Blazers having so many offers for him they had to start turning them down. Any doninant player that is rumored to be available (Kobe, JO, KG, AI, even far less dominant players) I read tons of rumors about teams intersted. I heard that some teams were marginally interested. I read the RJ-ZBo rumors, then read that they were fabricated by the Blazers or media and that the Nets had no interest in that trade.

    “Didn?t I just explain the benefits? The whole getting a player on a discount thing? And what do the Spurs, Suns, and Pistons have to do with the positives of being able to take on extra salary?”

    The Knicks have been “getting players at a discount” for several years, where are the wins?

    Those are three very good teams that have not as far as I can remember ever taken on extra salary. The Knicks are a mediocre team that takes on extra salary, as were the Jail-Blazers. The Mavs have suddenly gone from perennial playoff team to serious championship contenders and the best regular season team in the league since they stopped spending wildly and aqiring players at a discount. They are about the only model for what Isiah is doing, but they always won along the way.

  43. Caleb

    “Caleb, I?d say it?s more indicative of the benefits of being in a position to take on large salaries. Teams concerned with cap room weren?t able to field competitive offers for Randolph so the Knicks acquired him at a deep discount.”

    You’re making my point. The Knicks are virtually the only team willing to accept Randolph + his contract. With no competing offers, Portland was forced to accept very little in return for a good young player.

    Basic economics: double player’s salary = sharply reduced demand for player = lower value.

    “Furthermore, Randolph would command even more money on the open market.”

    ?

    In a hypothetical league where everyone had salary cap room, maybe. But that’s besides the point. I bet if you looked at the 5 or 6 or 10 most expensive free agent signings, each of the last five years (or 10), you would find at least 3/4 of the signings were deeply regretted within a season or two. Many teams spend idiotically, giving an advantage to teams who manage contracts better.

    I’ll work up a list in the next day or two…

    “As far as the Rockets go, they added three point guards to a roster that already had three point guards without subtracting a single point guard. They traded away a PF, their weakest position, before they had a clue about acquiring Scola…”

    You’re forgetting Shane Battier, who is an excellent defender and good all-around player, even as an undersized power forward… he played about half the minutes there, with McGrady at the 3.

    The Rockets do have a lot of duplication with similar players in the backcourt, but they gave up virtually nothing to add the talent. Scola is a steal, not to mention Jackie Butler. To me it looks like a great offseason, especially if Aaron Brooks turns out to be a player. If (BIG if) McGrady stays healthy, I think the Rockets will contend.

    The season is getting closer…

  44. thefatkid

    ?You seem to think that all you need is one or two great player(s), and you can win tons of games. The Cavs have a terrible, terrible roster except LeBron and the Rockets have no one outside T-Mac and Yao, yet they are 2 of the better teams in the league.?

    The Cavs hardly had a terrible, terrible roster. They are just a fairly mediocre team without LeBron James. Others seem to grasp this relatively easily.

    The Rockets have two very good players and a whole bunch of mediocre to below-average ones.

    The ?2 stars + supporting cast = championship? formula is fairly widely accepted. The Bulls used it, Lakers used it, the Heat used it, and the Rockets are banking on it.

    ?Another contradiction for you: Curry and Randolph are dominant forces, all you need to win is a dominant force, yet somehow the Knicks and Blazers fail to win. Flux and youth?right??

    You realize that Randolph and Curry have been on separate teams, right? You also realize that neither of them has an All-Star appearance or the stats of Yao or McGrady?

    Not to be rude, but spend less time worrying about whether I contradict myself in your mind and more time thinking out your arguments.

    ?The Knicks have been ?getting players at a discount? for several years, where are the wins??

    Calm yourself, it?s been a whopping three years since they last made the playoffs. It was eight years between playoff appearances for the Nuggets, seven years for the Cavs, seven years for the Wizards, and six years for the Bulls, to name a few. The Knicks are on pace to return to the playoffs in year four of the rebuilding process and you?re clamoring for Isiah Thomas? head?

    ?Those are three very good teams that have not as far as I can remember ever taken on extra salary.?

    How is that relevant? What do those teams? situations have in common with the Knicks?

    ?The Mavs have suddenly gone from perennial playoff team to serious championship contenders and the best regular season team in the league since they stopped spending wildly and aqiring players at a discount.?

    It was a sudden transformation, eh? You don?t think it had something to do with the Mavs acquiring progressively more and more talent and then doing minor trades to balance the roster?

  45. Jersey J

    You guys really don’t know a thing about basketball. The Mavs and Suns really benifited from Shaq gonig back east. Before this both franchises were average at best. The key to having a good chance to win in the NBA is a dominate force down low with perimeter players around them to hit the open shots.

    Lee didn’t start last year because he needs to develope a jumpshot. If you have Lee on the court with Curry teams will play off of Lee alowing him to shoot the open J. This would also free Lee ip to get a running start for the rebounds. In basketball (if any off you couch potatoes ever played the sport) in order to box your man out you have to put a body on him. Since teams don’t guard Lee from 7 feet out, this makes it harder to put a body on him thus enabling him to get more rebounds.

    Since Frye was a threat from outside, this forced teams to keep a man on him at all times.

    If you look at the trends in the NBA most dominate rebounders can’t shoot. The only exception being KG but for the last couple of years he was the only player on his team thats why his statics are of the chart.

    To me it’s comical to hear people brag about Lee. In all honesty Lee gives you what a roll player should, consistant minutes off the bench, the ability to change the tempo off the game if needed and the ability to get rebounds to save possesions.

    All of this however comes with a cost, until the ball goes up we are playing 4 on 5 offensivley with Lee or Balkman on the court. If you need anymore evidence of this look no further then Kurt Thomas as a Knick rhe thrived on the ball and with the pick in roll system. Since he left he’s be a shadow of himself.

  46. Owen

    Thanks for another insightful comment Jersey J.

    What is your theory on why the Knicks were 8.9 points better on offense with Lee on the court.

    I would be fascinated to hear your thoughts.

  47. xduckshoex

    “All of this however comes with a cost, until the ball goes up we are playing 4 on 5 offensivley with Lee or Balkman on the court.”

    It seems like if they were playing 4 on 5 with him out there, he would have hurt them, yet for some reason that’s not the case. He improved the Knicks offense more than any other player.

    Guys like Lee have to be guarded…if you’re not guarding him, that means you don’t have a body on him to keep him off the offensive glass and you’re also not likely to be paying attention to him while he cuts.

  48. Ted Nelson

    “You realize that Randolph and Curry have been on separate teams, right? You also realize that neither of them has an All-Star appearance or the stats of Yao or McGrady?”

    One argument you made is that Curry and Randolph are dominant players, franchise players. Another argument was that all you need is a mediocre team and a franchise player. Thus, it would follow that unless you are contradicting yourself the Knicks and Blazers would be good teams. They have not been good teams, so one or both of your points has to be false.

    “How is that relevant? What do those teams? situations have in common with the Knicks?”

    How it’s relevant doesn’t have to do with what their situations have in common with the Knicks’ situation, but what they don’t. Overspending.

    If spending tons of money is such a valuable thing, show me some examples of teams in the NBA that have suceeded in this way. Dallas is the only one that comes to my mind, Portland did it for a while but then got itself into a lot of trouble by doing it.

    The thing is that the last time Dallas failed to win 40 games it’s highest salary was Shawn Bradley at 6.75 mill. The following year was the last time they failed to win 50 games and Bradley was their highest paid at 7 mill and change. What the Knicks are trying to do is just unprecedented. To spend so much, win so little, and then suddenly become a good team has just never happened as far as I know. Not to say that it can’t, but it just seems that a lot of teams have won a lot more games without overspending.

    “It was eight years between playoff appearances for the Nuggets, seven years for the Cavs, seven years for the Wizards, and six years for the Bulls, to name a few.”

    So we should compare ourselves to the most pathetic teams, not the best. We’re not as bad as the worst, great. Take a look at the men who replaced the terrible regimes: John Paxson, Danny Ferry, Kiki, and Grunfeld maybe. If any of those guys did as bad as Isiah for as long as Isiah, let me know.

    I think Portland is a good benchmark. They had a terrible cap situation and started to gut their team. They’ve brought in Pritchard in the last year or two and although they’ve lost slightly more games over the past 2 seasons than the Knicks
    (in the West) they now have a really promising young core. I’ll wait to see how they do over the next few seasons compared to the Knicks.

    “All of this however comes with a cost, until the ball goes up we are playing 4 on 5 offensivley with Lee or Balkman on the court.”

    Yeah, they’re really terrible players.

    “If you look at the trends in the NBA most dominate rebounders can?t shoot.”

    What trend is that. The 10 most dominant rebounders in the NBA last season (measured by rebound rate) included Tim Duncan, KG, Carlos Boozer, Al Jefferson, Emeka Okafor. None is Steve Kerr, but all were asked to carry a sizable burden on offense.

  49. Ben R

    “All of this however comes with a cost, until the ball goes up we are playing 4 on 5 offensivley with Lee or Balkman on the court.”

    Lee was our best offensive player last year. The Knicks scored 101.5 pts per 48 when Lee was on the court, the next best player was Richardson with whom the Knicks scored 98.4 points per 48 minutes he was on the court. Also the Knicks outscored their opponents by 2.5 points per 48 minutes that Lee was on the court, the next best Knick was Balkman and the Knicks were actually outscored by 0.6 per 48 minutes that he was on the court.

    On top of that the Knicks saw their offensive production increase by 8.9% and their efg% increase by 2.0% when Lee was on the court. As for hurting Curry’s production, Curry shot a 62.7% efg% when playing with Lee which was better than with any other player and 0.51% higher than his season average. Also Curry averaged 25.1 points per 48 minutes with Lee which was the better than any other player and 3 points better than his average points per 48.

  50. Z

    “I think Portland is a good benchmark. They had a terrible cap situation and started to gut their team. They?ve brought in Pritchard in the last year or two and although they?ve lost slightly more games over the past 2 seasons than the Knicks
    (in the West) they now have a really promising young core. I?ll wait to see how they do over the next few seasons compared to the Knicks.”

    I will be shocked if Portland isn’t in a better place than the Knicks three years from now. Shocked. When Portland won the lottery, they really won the lottery.

    There was a post made a few days ago. I can’t remember who posted it. It had something to do with not understanding the Blazers moves this off-season because they had compromised their own competitiveness this coming season.

    I suppose a competitive purist, in the vein of Vince Lombardi or Bill Russell, would have a hard time understanding the Blazers and other teams that sacrifice the present for a bright future. A team, theoretically, should try to be as competitive as they can be at the start of each season, especially if they are going to charge full ticket and advertising prices. If they are not going to try to compete, they shouldn’t even be allowed to play in the league.

    Unfortunately for those purists, there is really no incentive to act this way, and sacrificing a few wins one season tends to pay heavy dividends a season or two down the road.

    The Blazers realize they got very lucky when they landed Oden. Like a good franchise, they didn’t plan on winning the lottery, but when they did they realized it was in their best interests to re-prioritize and look at where they?d be three years from now.

    Looking down that road, the future looks brighter than any other franchise. In 2009 they will have great young talent AND be $40 million under the salary cap. If Oden develops as expected and Aldridge continues his own, the sky is the limit in Portland for a long long time…

    Instant gratification aside, I think it is hard not to understand why the Blazers would a) deal Randolph, and b) buy out Francis.

    If the Blazers are the benchmark by which we measure ourselves in 2010, I really really really hope we measure up well. We’ll be playing against them in the finals.

  51. xduckshoex

    I think the Blazers have done an excellent job rebuilding their team. The only position where they don’t have a very promising young talent is small forward. I wouldn’t be surprised if Rodriguez, Roy, Aldridge and Oden win a handful of rings together.

  52. Jersey J

    How many of you actually look at the games?

    When I played in college (D1 baby). When had a guy on our team that went and played in Europe. He had a agent which foreced him to go pro. At that time his agent was pushing him very hard to teams in the NBA and abroad. That was my first experience with the rating system. This guys agent was able to make him look loke a star when he was marginal at best. If only you guy could’ve heard how cocky this agent was. I can remember him saying that the best thing about numbers is you make make them say anything you want. Needless to say the guy signed a sweet deal to play but never made it on the court.

    Look at the numbers all you want but sooner or later is comes down to playing basketball on the court.

    The knicks when 85% more when I watching the game while listening to miget porn.

  53. Owen

    Jersey J – Everyone here watches games. It would be sort of silly to post thousands of words in the comment section of somebody’s blog on the Knicks —— and then not watch games.

    Also, if you show me statistically significant results proving that correlation is causation, then I will join you in listening to that midget porn.

  54. Matthew

    Jersey J: Sounds like your friend got jobbed. Unfortunately coaches buy into the “scoring is all that matters” myth just as much as fans do. It takes extremely special players, like Dennis Rodman or Ben Wallace, to break that mold. Anyone else is going to get low salaries and not play all that often.

  55. Jersey J

    The correlation is simple. Things just happen!! We as people now try to put statistics behind everything then tout it like it’s the rule of thumb.

    Giving the same statistics a person good with numbers will be able to make the argument that even a journey man center should get more then the mid level exception because while going against the most dominate center in the league his team was plus +4.

    Guys get your head out of the sand. Statistically Collins out performed every Knick over the last couple of weeks in the season. I never see you guys mention him or even mention him fighting for the starting point guard spot.

    Why?

    Maybe it’s because there is more to the game then just stats. What if a person plays in garbage time? How can your (ts) stats justify that!!

    If you guys really watched the Knicks the way you claim!! You would understand that during the first half of the season the team would go down early then Isiah would be forced to play the young guns(nate, balkman, Lee) for extension garbage time. Do your numbers take this into account!!

    Also in your numbers where does it make reference to the quality of the opponent? If person starts the game they go against a better caliber opponent then the guys coming of the bench.

    I really don’t expect you guys to understand my points above because you never played the game.

  56. xduckshoex

    “Guys get your head out of the sand. Statistically Collins out performed every Knick over the last couple of weeks in the season. I never see you guys mention him or even mention him fighting for the starting point guard spot.

    Why?”

    …maybe he didn’t actually outperform every Knick?

    Or, if he did…maybe it was because everybody else was hurt?

  57. Jersey J

    Thats my point, you can’t look at stats without taking into consideration what went on during that time period. If you analized every knick game right after the game, thats one thing, but looking at season stats after the season and not being able to take into consideration events that happen on a daily bases is asinine.

  58. xduckshoex

    So…what is the excuse for David Lee? He came off the bench, therefore the fact that he was easily the Knicks best offensive player is now irrelevant?

    Nah, I don’t buy it. He was so far above everybody else that it doesn’t matter whether he started or not.

  59. Mike K. (KnickerBlogger)

    “Statistically Collins out performed every Knick over the last couple of weeks in the season. I never see you guys mention him or even mention him fighting for the starting point guard spot.

    Why?”

    Because he statistically didn’t. Collins put up nice per game numbers, but there is a fallacy in per game numbers that we understand. Over his last 9 games he played 39 minutes or more which inflated his per game stats. However when you extrapolate those numbers on a per minute basis (or as we use around here per-40 minute), Collins numbers aren’t all that great. Additionally he shot very poorly. Collins eFG% was 41%, good enough for second worst on the team (Malik Rose was the worst).

    Saying Collins was statistically great is a fallacy. Nobody here believes that.

  60. Jersey J

    Thats my point it you listened to the telecast during the summer leage they even said that statisticly Collins out performed every Knick over the last 20 games of the season.

    Understand that numbers can be manipulated!!!!

    Is the glass half full or half empty!!!!

    Your guys are the same people that will call for a team to wear a curtain uniform because they win more when they wear blue apposed to white.

  61. Jersey J

    (So?what is the excuse for David Lee? He came off the bench, therefore the fact that he was easily the Knicks best offensive player is now irrelevant?)

    He was a good player last season but so was Mikki Moore. The difference between stars and roll player are stinging together 10 years of productivity. I do think he has upside but calling him the best Knick is crazy. One season doesn’t make a career.

    Also if you put him on a bad team like the Hawks what would be his impact. Would he still have the same shooting percentage when he relied on to score?

    Right now for the Knicks what they get from Lee is extra because he’s not a primay, secondary or tertiary option on the court.

  62. Jersey J

    You should try making sense sometime.

    Maybe this will make sense!!
    I played D1 ball for four years now I’m a D1AA coach with contacts out the as_. I’ve coach players on the AAU level that are now in the pro’s. I know the game and I have a great feel for it.

  63. Mike N

    “if you put him on a bad team like the Hawks what would be his impact”

    The Hawks record last year: 30-53
    Knicks record: 33-49

    The Knicks *are* a bad team like the Hawks.

  64. Mike K. (KnickerBlogger)

    “Thats my point it you listened to the telecast during the summer leage they even said that statisticly Collins out performed every Knick over the last 20 games of the season.

    Understand that numbers can be manipulated!!!!”

    Numbers can not be manipulated. Rather the people using statistics can portray them incorrectly. Just because those people are using *some* statistics to say that Collins is good doesn’t mean that *all* statistics are incorrect.

  65. Jersey J

    Rather the people using statistics can portray them incorrectly.

    Portay them incorrectly or to try to validate thier point!

    You guys are always trying to portray Lee as the best person on the team. If you took him off the team this year and providing that the team doesn’t have injuries the knicks can still be successful. I can’t say that about Marbury, Crawford or Curry.

  66. xduckshoex

    “Maybe this will make sense!!
    I played D1 ball for four years now I?m a D1AA coach with contacts out the as_. I?ve coach players on the AAU level that are now in the pro?s. I know the game and I have a great feel for it.”

    I’m Dr. James Naismith. I think I win this round.

  67. xduckshoex

    “Portay them incorrectly or to try to validate thier point!

    You guys are always trying to portray Lee as the best person on the team.”

    Then portray the numbers correctly to show that Lee is not the Knicks best player.

    If you’re unable to do that, how can you say that other people are using the numbers incorrectly?

  68. Ben R

    Jersey J – You are right Lee’s sample was quite small and he has not done it like you said over a ten year span. So he could very well not be as good next year, but last year he was the best Knick. Also maybe all of the Knick gains on offense when Lee was on the court (much more than any other player) were due to other factors but that is very unlikly and would have taken alot of things lining up just right.

    As for manipulating the stats, they do not need to be manipualated. Pretty much every single stat says that Lee was a very very good player last year. Wages of Wins puts Lee as the best player in the league last year, PER puts him at about 30th (but still the best Knick), 82games.com’s OCS puts him as the 10th best offensive player in league, and Dean Oliver’s offensive rating puts him as the best offensive player in the league. While it is true you can find faults in all of these statistical measures, it is pretty telling when every single one puts Lee as one of best players in the NBA last year and these aren’t even Knick fans.

    As for watching the games, I thought it quite obvious that the Knicks played much better when Lee was on the court and while my eyes did not recognize quite how much better, I thought it clear that Lee made the Knicks a much much better team.

  69. Jersey J

    If thats the case, Please tell my why would a coach not start a person if they feel like he is the best on the team!!!

    These guys see Lee alot more then any of us!!

    If he was the best Knick he would start!!!!!

    Also when Larry Brown was coaching he started Nate and the team won 6 games in a row. I guess we should also check the teams win percentage with Nate in the stating lineup.

    Maybe we should start Nate also.

    I think we should just start Collins, Nate, Balkman, Lee,and Morris since the team has a better +/- with these player on the court.

    You guys don’t make any sense!!!

  70. Mike K. (KnickerBlogger)

    “If thats the case, Please tell my why would a coach not start a person if they feel like he is the best on the team!!!

    These guys see Lee alot more then any of us!!”

    Why did Ben Wallace bounce from team to team? Prior to the Pistons Wallace never cracked 30 minutes a game. Didn’t the Washington or Orlando coaches see more of Ben Wallace to see he would be a future All Star?

    My point is people make mistakes by only using their eyes.

  71. Ben R

    For one thing Lee played more minutes per game than any other Knick PF and probably did not start because for one Isiah liked what Lee brought off the bench and I think he wanted Lee to win 6th man of the year. Also I think Isiah wanted to protect Frye and did not want to shatter what was left of his confidence by benching him.

    Also Manu came off the bench for the Spurs, so does that make him the 6th best Spur because he did not start.

    Also no one is taking one stat and saying Lee is the best Knick, they are taking every stat and seeing that Lee is the best Knick. It was not just +/-, he led the Knicks in PER, offensive rating, TS%, RBr, OCS, Wp48, Player Wins, Player Loses, Player win %, offensive win shares, defensive win shares, overall win shares and he was the second best Knick, behind Balkman, in DCS and defensive rating. This is not a snap judgement, Lee was the best Knick last year and there is no way to statistically argue against that.

  72. xduckshoex

    To add to Mike K’s point…why did Kevin McHale come off the bench? John Havlicek? Manu Ginobili? Detlef Schrempf in Indiana? Ricky Pierce in Milwaukee? Starting doesn’t really mean anything.

  73. Jersey J

    “Why did Ben Wallace bounce from team to team? Prior to the Pistons Wallace never cracked 30 minutes a game. Didn?t the Washington or Orlando coaches see more of Ben Wallace to see he would be a future All Star? ”

    Because if Ben plays on a team with no offensive threat then he’a a liability. Thats the reason why the Bulls struggled with him last year. If you watched the playoffs you noticed that with him on the court on the offensive end the Bull were playing 5 on 4. Last season they didn’t start playing well until Thomas started to contribute.

    But I’m glad you mentioned Ben. I feel the same way about him that I feel about Lee. Both Players are very good if you have offensive weapons on your team. This will allow them to focus on slashing to the hoop when guards penitrate and to get better position on the offensive boards for a rebound.

    If you put these guys on teams with no offensive threats they will be mediocre players.

    Please just look at Mikki Moore. Before last season most people never heard of the guy. During the season most people still didn’t know of him until Nenad went down. After that injury he came up big and most people felt like how could this guy be a journey-man power forward.

    The truth about Mikki is when you play on a team that has offensive weapons you are free to rome and find the open shots. The defense is concentrating on the stars so if you go to the open spot you will get the ball.

    Let see how good he looks in Sac town.

    Note:
    Put Ben on memphis last season, is he and allstar? No!!

    But if you put Ben back on the Pistons, Miami and Cleveland he an shine.

    These teams don’t need his offensive input so he can focus on the grunt work

  74. Jersey J

    All,

    concerning Manu.

    The reason why he doesn’t start is because he a shoot happy guard and finley is better suited for the starting lineup.

    You guys mention Manu as if the person starting ahead of him is some bum. Finley is a hell of a player and if you don’t believe this please look at his stats.

  75. xduckshoex

    “All,

    concerning Manu.

    The reason why he doesn?t start is because he a shoot happy guard and finley is better suited for the starting lineup.

    You guys mention Manu as if the person starting ahead of him is some bum. Finley is a hell of a player and if you don?t believe this please look at his stats. ”

    Manu is clearly the best guard on the Spurs and Finley WAS a hell of a player, but even in his prime he wasn’t as good as Manu. Now that he’s lost a step or three, it’s not even close.

    And it obviously has nothing to do with him being “shot happy” as he shoots less frequently than Parker but scores more efficiently, and Finley took only 2 fewer shots per 40 minutes of playing time.

    In what way is Finley better suited to start? Manu is the better defender, better scorer, better passer, better rebounder, better ball-handler and the Spurs are much better with Manu on the floor compared to Finley.

    Manu is the second best player on the team, yet he doesn’t start. McHale was the second best player on those Celtics teams and he didn’t start. Schrempf was the best forward on those Pacers teams and he didn’t start. Rickey Pierce was the most prolific scorer on those Bucks teams and he didn’t start. Sometimes the better player is not the one in the starting lineup, which was obviously the case for NY this past season.

    I’m still waiting for you to portray the statistics in a manner that doesn’t have Lee as the Knicks best player; since you have essentially accused everyone else of being dishonest with their statistics shouldn’t you be showing us the error our ways?

  76. Mike K. (KnickerBlogger)

    “Because if Ben plays on a team with no offensive threat then he?a a liability… Put Ben on memphis last season, is he and allstar? No!!”

    You seem to contradict yourself here. Memphis was last in defense and above average on offense last year.

    http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/MEM/2007.html
    Offense = 106.8 (12th out of 30), Defense = 112.4 (30th out of 30)

    You don’t think Wallace could have helped the worst defensive team in the league with offensive weapons like Gasol, Miller, Warrick and Atkins?

  77. Jersey J

    No because by putting him on the court you will have to remove an offensive player. Plus by putting him on the court teams can now double the best player on the team. This will also make the teams offensive stats go down.

    Cause and effect.

    The reason why Lee looked better the Frye last season is because the Knicks moved away from LB pick and roll offense.

    The prior season the Knicks ran a lot of pick and rolls. When the defense double Marbury this allowed Frye to take open 20ft jumpers. We all know that this is his shot.

    Last season we started the post game. Teams would still stay home on Frye because he’s and offensive threat.

    I bet you Frye will have a bounce back season this year. He will put up better numbers then Lee.

    Portland will run a offense more suited to him. A month ago while in portland I saw him working out in the gym and he looked focused. The guy wouldn’t even talk to people while working out other then to say that he is looking forward to this season.

  78. Matthew

    Ben R: Wages of Wins doesn’t put Lee as the best player last year. He was #1 per48, but not at the top (i don’t think even top 10) in wins produced. I think Kidd was tops there (With Garnett as 2nd).

  79. xduckshoex

    So…how were people manipulating statistics to make Lee the Knicks best player? And what statistics show that he is not?

  80. Ted Nelson

    J-

    First of all, the Knicks were not a good team last season. No one would say David Lee would have been the best player on the Spurs or Cavs or Suns last season. With your buddies Curry, Crawford, and Marbury all on the team the Knicks won 33 games, how far would they really fall without one of them.

    Next, no one gives a crap whether you played college basketball or coach it. Good for you.

    Finally, did you really say that Mikki Moore and Ben Wallace are comparable players, especially after making a point about how one season doesn’t make a good player? Ben Wallace wouldn’t have helped a Grizzlies team which won 22 games last season? You seem to believe that offense is the only way to win basketball games, if instead of ignorantly dismissing statistics because some agent “manipulated” them you actually became familiar with them you might notice that teams do, in fact, win a lot of basketball games with subpar offenses and strong defenses. You might also notice this simply by watching basketball games.

    As someone said in another thread, while it’s true that you win games by scoring more points than your opponent, it’s also necessarily true that you win games by not allowing your opponent to score as many points as you.

  81. Matthew

    Mike: I’m not stating an opinion on Ben’s impact to the offense, but having a high offensive efficiency is not indicative that every player in the rotation was helpful to the offense. It’s possible that the Pistons would have been 1st if they had had an average offensive player. Again, I’m not stating an opinion on Ben’s offensive impact, just pointing out a logical problem in your statement.

  82. Ted Nelson

    Sorry J, what D1-AA basketball team did you say you coach for? To the best of my knowledge there is no D1-AA basketball. D1-AA football, yes. I knew that sounded pretty funny when I heard it.

  83. Mike K. (KnickerBlogger)

    Matthew, good point. However JerseyJ’s opinion is that adding a player like Ben Wallace would ruin an offense. I was just illustrating that it was not true.

    Although I don’t know why I’m arguing this. JerseyJ has made a lot of assumptions that are absolutely baseless. In fact my original point in bringing up Ben Wallace was that he was an unknown by coaches who were using their eyes, whereas someone who looked at his per-minute stats could see what a talented player he was.

  84. Owen

    Mikki Moors was a below average basketball player last year, as he has been every year in his career. His numbers were actually remarkably similar to his career averages. Nothing changed except for his minutes. Sacramento will realize about 15 games into the season he isn’t very good, basically just a serviceable backup. Don’t put that on us statheads. We know it already.

    By the way, I have said many times on this board that Eddy Curry is the worst rebounding starting center in the league. I lied. Mikki Moore is worse by .3 per 40. And actually Mark Blount was .1 worse also. I think he started also.

    Re Wallace, and re my comments about Dalembert and Curry, I think the impact of offensive rebounding on offense is somewhat undervalued. Actually I don’t know that anyone here not named TFK or Jersey J undervalue it. But fwiw Ben Wallace led the league in offensive rebounds in 05-06.

    Also, I definitely subscribe to the notion that a great defensive player makes it possible for offensive players to be on the court. It certainly goes both ways. I think its more likely that Wallace made Rip Hamilton’s role possible than the other way around.

  85. xduckshoex

    “…teams do, in fact, win a lot of basketball games with subpar offenses and strong defenses.”

    I would think that this would be common knowledge for anybody who is a Knicks fan. Remember 1993? 1996-2001?

  86. Owen

    Lol, that’s probably the best point anyone has made on this board in a while. The two best defensive teams of all time were Knicks squads, in the Jordan era unfortunately….

  87. Ben R

    Matthew – I was looking at wp48 not wins produced, but even going by wins produced Lee was one of the best players in the league, and easily the best on the Knicks.

  88. NJ-n-GA

    My cousin (Jersey J) asked me to join this blog and add my two cents. Although I disagree with my cuz that D. Lee is over-rated, I do believe he is over valued. Lee is a key “role” player on the Knicks, but he is not great nor is he a starter on the current roster. For those of you who put value to the per 48 stat, then you must measure everyone on that same stat since no player actually plays 48 minutes. If you were to put everyone on equal playing field you’ll see they are many players with awesome per 48 stats. Balkman’s numbers would be comparable to Lee’s, and he a better defender. Lee is actually detriment when it comes to defending the 3 and 4 spots, because he’s not quick enough.

    Don’t get me wrong, Lee is an awesome rebounder, and I give credit where credit is due. Rebounding is about positioning and desire, and Lee does both well, but i would trade him for Ron-Ron and Kobe.

    I personally don’t see the Knicks trading him, and not because of what he does on the court. Lee, as one of the few white men in a majority black man sport, is a marketing machine in the media mecca of the world. Bottom line is that the color of his skin, his wholesome personality, and his blue collar hustle puts butts in the seats, and bucks in MSG’s pocket.

  89. Jersey J

    Great comment NJ-n-GA

    I sometimes think Knick fans are more concerned with Lee then they are with the team. This is upsetting because parts can never be greater then the whole. I do like David and I think he?s a good player but some people on the blog go over board.

    If we judge players by stats only it not fair. I challenge the knicks fan to look at the players without prejudice.

    Knicks fans are so quick to call him the best player but the guy didn’t even play the whole season.

    What about the year that Marbury had and the maturity (on the court) that he showed. Last season was probably his best season as a Knick. I never heared Lee fans talk about him.

    One season doesn’t make a career and it also doesn’t break one. We need to give all the players a fair chance. If you know sports, you will also know that this season Lee has a target on his back. It was easy last year, this year it will be much harder for him. Teams will focus on his strengths and try to take them away from him.

    Great players will adjust!!!

  90. Owen

    “Bottom line is that the color of his skin, his wholesome personality, and his blue collar hustle puts butts in the seats, and bucks in MSG?s pocket.”

    Actually, the bottom line is that team wins put fans in the seat, as do visiting superstars like Kobe. That at least is what the latest statisticsl finding is. But Lee create wins, so yeah, he puts butts in the seats.

    I actually don’t think its unfair to say I care more about Lee than the rest of the team. But I doubt you could say that of anyone else on this board. My perspective: I stopped watching th Knicks, after being a diehard fan my entire childhood. But watching Lee, and later Balkman, gave me a reason to come back into the fold. It was really hard for me to stomach what’s been going on for the past six years. If it weren’t for Lee, I don;t know how much I could really be moced to care about the Knicks under Isaiah.

    I also don’t know why you guys are trying make our liking for Lee into a racial issue. Its sort of bizarre. It’s very easy to say Lee was the best player on the Knicks last year. His per minute stats were much better than everyone else on the team. So was his PER, his +/-, his everything. Just ask yourself, how is it that the Knicks were 8.9 points better on offense with Lee on the court.

    It’s possible the fact that David Lee is white might make him more marketable. But he has a lot of things going for him. He is an awesome player, He dominated the Rookie-Soph game. He is famous on Youtube for his (perhaps bullshit) win in that high school dunk competition. He is very well spoken and well behaved. And he plays the game with more passion and intelligence than anyone on the team.

    I also think also, that you guys might be ahead of the curve here in judging his popularity. The honest truth is that unless you are a serious NBA baseketball fan, or someone who has been within 100 feet of me in the past year, you have no idea who David Lee is.

    We will see what happens next year, hopefully he will adjust to being recognized as the star of the Knicks.

    Also, Marbury was much better in 04-05 I think. Wasn’t that his best year as a pro? He had a ts% of 58%, way above his career average.

  91. Mike K. (KnickerBlogger)

    “For those of you who put value to the per 48 stat, then you must measure everyone on that same stat since no player actually plays 48 minutes. If you were to put everyone on equal playing field you?ll see they are many players with awesome per 48 stats.”

    We do that here. Not necessarily per 48 minute stats, but we use per-40 minute stats across the board. You can check the stat page or basketball-reference.com for per-40 minute stats. We use per minute stats instead of per game stats because they put all the players on the same pedestal. So when we say Lee is a great rebounder (he’s in the top 5) we’re comparing his per-minute stats to everyone else’s. Flat out he’s one of the best in the business.

    “Balkman?s numbers would be comparable to Lee?s, and he a better defender.”

    First off, most of the people here think Balkman is pretty good too. In fact most of us are hoping that he’s the starting SF next year and sees significant playing time. Most of us feel that Balkman is a fantastic defender. However just to get one thing straight, Balkman isn’t the rebounder that Lee is. Again Lee’s per minute rebounding is at the very top of the league.

    “i would trade him for Ron-Ron and Kobe.”

    I won’t speak for anyone else, but I personally wouldn’t trade him for Artest. For a few reasons, but mainly because I think Balkman can provide the same amount of defense/production at a fraction of the cost and without all the crazy.

    As for Kobe, If we’re talking about trading half our team for him (Lee, Randolph, Balkman, Robinson, Richardson) then I’m not interested, because the Knicks would turn into the Lakers: Kobe surrounded by marginal talent. We’ve spent a few seasons in hell now, and I don’t want Isiah to trade it all away, hoping to rebuild around another player and wait another 3-4 years to get a core of young guys like Lee, Balkman, etc.

  92. Aaron

    “I also think also, that you guys might be ahead of the curve here in judging his popularity. The honest truth is that unless you are a serious NBA baseketball fan, or someone who has been within 100 feet of me in the past year, you have no idea who David Lee is.”

    Every Knick fan i know, but one, Lee is their favorite player. and that one’s favorite player is Crawford and that says it all right there.

  93. jon abbey

    again, I’m white and I almost uniformly can’t stand white US players in the NBA, I usually laugh when I see them drafted high (how’s Adam Morrison working out? JJ Redick? could those guys possibly have been more overhyped? I haven’t seen many things as lame as Morrison crying in the NCAAs before the game was even over, but I digress).

    anyway, I’ve loved Lee’s game since preseason his first year. among other things, he’s got a high basketball IQ on one of the stupidest teams in history. as for how good he actually is, we’ll see soon enough. but based on how he’s performed so far, Knicks fans would love him if he was purple or blue, white or black.

    “Every Knick fan i know, but one, Lee is their favorite player. and that one?s favorite player is Crawford and that says it all right there.”

    if I have to vote, put me down for Balkman. he’s the rare player to come along with a very unique skill set, a Rodman, a Pippen, a Anthony Mason, a Shawn Marion. he’s obviously got a long way to go until he’s at that level, but he’s got that kind of rare talent, where he’s far and away the best athlete on the floor. couple that with the uniform ridicule Isiah got for drafting him (paging Greg Anthony), and that’s my boy.

  94. Z

    “What about the year that Marbury had and the maturity (on the court) that he showed. Last season was probably his best season as a Knick. I never heared Lee fans talk about him.”

    Marbury carries the baggage of a lot of losing in his career. Sure, he showed a team first mentality this past year, but it didn’t translate into wins. The end result of the teams he’s led has never changed.

    Lee, on the other hand, is fresh and after years of losing with players with little upside, represents a new era in NY ball. In many ways he’s the antithesis of Marbury (and not just his skin color). Nothing against Murbury, who has a lot of talent and I think truly wants to be a leader on a winning team. I just don’t think he has it in him.

    I think Lee does.

  95. Z

    “It?s possible the fact that David Lee is white might make him more marketable.”

    Bitch, we did learn today that 80% of season ticket holders are [expletive] white people!

    Not that anyone should give a [expletive]…

  96. Ted Nelson

    “What about the year that Marbury had and the maturity (on the court) that he showed. Last season was probably his best season as a Knick. I never heared Lee fans talk about him.”

    My opinion is that Marbury was not asked to play a role that is at all suited to his skill set. With everyone healthy he was basically asked to do something similar to what, for example, Eric Snow does: direct the offense and play hard on D. Marbury has rarely ever led a team into the playoffs nor has he ever been an above average defender. In fact, he puts a towel on his head when he?s on the bench and his team is losing. So it seems a bit odd to me that he try to be a leader/defender.
    That said, maybe he’s not doing what he’s being asked to do. He has openly admitted to confusion about his role in the middle of the last two seasons. I really can’t understand how you can be confused about what to do when you’re the PG of an NBA team. If the PG is confused about the offense it’s pretty tough to execute it.
    I think it would be in the Knicks’ and Marbury’s best interest to pair him with either a 2 or a 3 in a Doug Christie/Scottie Pippen mold. I realize Doug Christie and Scottie Pippen were miles apart as players, what I’m saying is someone who is a leader (I know Pippen refused to check into a playoff game, but from what I’ve heard he was more so the vocal leader of the Bulls than Jordan), smart enough and a good enough playmaker to oversee the offense, and a strong/versitile defender.
    Crawford might have had the potential to be this kind of a player, but it is my opinion that he has yet to come even close to playing like it over the course of a season.

    “What about the year that Marbury had and the maturity (on the court) that he showed. Last season was probably his best season as a Knick. I never heared Lee fans talk about him.”

    I think what people have mostly been saying is that Lee was the Knicks’ best player last season and that if you look at last season to project toward next season he has a good chance of being the Knicks’ best this season too. Maybe you could have said that about Channing Frye last season, and we saw how that turned out. One difference is that Lee’s numbers are fairly similar on a per minute and rate basis to his rookie numbers.

    No one is saying that Lee is Shaq or Bill Russell or MJ in their primes or as good as Duncan is today. Most everyone recognizes that the sample size is still small, but as loyal fans to this freak show of a franchise we have to hope. On that note, if Frye goes out and has a strong season in Portland (especially if Lee struggle or isn’t getting much burn) what does that say about Isiah?

  97. Ted Nelson

    “One season doesn?t make a career and it also doesn?t break one. We need to give all the players a fair chance. If you know sports, you will also know that this season Lee has a target on his back. It was easy last year, this year it will be much harder for him. Teams will focus on his strengths and try to take them away from him.”

    This was the second quote I meant to respond to, accidently posted the wrong one.

    Also, I think it would be silly to say that teams don’t make adjustments mid-season. The target may have gotten bigger with offseason hype and being selected to the U.S.A. selects team, but grabbing 10 boards a game probably tipped teams off to Lee’s rebounding prowess during the season and getting Rook-Soph game MVP also generated some hype.

  98. Owen

    Jersey J – Just out of curiosity – you mentioned that you coach a college basketball team. Do you use statistics to analyze their play at all? I was the the team statistician at my high school, as well as the basketball captain, and I certainly found the numbers useful. Not nearly as useful as having a great point guard would have been, my major finding was that our guards were extremely turnover prone, but fairly useful still.

    It might be an interesting experiment to run the numbers on your own team and see which players have the highest ts% and eFG, who your best offensive and defensive rebounders per minute are, see what the four factors tell you. Do you have that kind of data available? Just a thought…

  99. Caleb

    ?What about the year that Marbury had and the maturity (on the court) that he showed. Last season was probably his best season as a Knick.”

    This is ridiculous – the last two seasons were easily the worst of his career, probably due to aging and sore knees. Career-lows in every category, and while he had some good defensive showings, he had a poor +/- and the 82games composite defensive rating had him below the 20th percentile. Those stats may be works in progress, but I don’t see anyone making a case that Marbury became an especially strong defender, to make up for his slowed-down offense.

    I’m not ripping his leadership, understanding or intangibles – just saying he’s entered a predictable decline, and in an ideal world (i.e. if we were a contender-level team) he’d now be a combo-guard, a role player prodiving solid scoring in 25-30 minutes a game.

  100. Jersey J

    Would you rate Lee among the top 10 forwards in the game?

    Zach is in the top ten forwards!!

    I can say that Curry is in the top 5 centers.

    Lets be honest about Crawdford!!!You guys might hate him but as he goes so does the knicks. Our season went down the drain when he got hurt. After losing him the team never recovered!!!!

    Check the TS on that.
    We have players that can fill Lee’s shoes (balkman and Jeffreys) but if we lose Crawdford this team will feel it.

    I for one think he is more important then Lee.

  101. Caleb

    Crawford and Lee going down around the same was unfortunate, in that it helps prolong the debate over which was the key factor in our downfall. At least for another year.

  102. Jersey J

    “I also don?t know why you guys are trying make our liking for Lee into a racial issue. Its sort of bizarre. It?s very easy to say Lee was the best player on the Knicks last year. His per minute stats were much better than everyone else on the team. So was his PER, his +/-, his everything. Just ask yourself, how is it that the Knicks were 8.9 points better on offense with Lee on the court. ”

    Lee’s per min was better then 92% of then NBA so I guess this makes him an elite player right.

    You guys can’t see it but this is a racial issue.

    Again I’m not saying he’s a bad player I’m saying he’s not the best player on the team and if you think he is your reasoning might be prejudice

  103. Jersey J

    Caleb

    Lee wasn’t the guy passing the ball into the post and hitting the jumper when teams doubled Curry.

    After Crawford went out teams didn’t have to play the perimeter anymore.

  104. Owen

    Jersey – Yes, definitely. And if Lee plays 35 minutes per for 82 games and matches his numbers from last year, I will be telling you he was of the 2-3 best power forwards in the game, easily.

    I don’t hate Jamal Crawford. But he took more shots per game than any knick, and shot a very low percentage. The Knicks as a whole had a TS% of 53.9%. That includes Crawford’s season mark of 51.7% ts%. Think which direction the team’s ts% would have gone if the team leader in shots per game hadn’t been 2% below average? That’s exactly how statistics can be useful to a coach.

    I think Jamal is capable of playing better than he did last year. But it’s very very easy to make the case that the Knicks would have been better if all his minutes had been played by a combination of Q, Francis, Marbury, and Robinson. And he certainly is nowhere in the same galaxy as Lee.

    I feel Jersey that you are an old school basketball guy, who considers the most valuable player on a team to be the guy who scores the most points, takes the most shots, and has the ball in his hand the most. That often is the case, but not in the case of the Knicks.

  105. Jersey J

    “I feel Jersey that you are an old school basketball guy”

    No I’m the type of guy the understands the game. I realized a long time ago the every team needs roll players. Its important to have a clean up person on your team if you want do well in the east. I for one liked Rodman, Wallace, oaklee’s of the world. The only diffence with me is I understand the true value of these types of players.

    You guys make roll players out to be stars. Its the blue collar mentality that New Yorkers have.
    Was any of the three players I mentioned earlier ever considered the best on their teams? NO

    So how can we consider Lee to be the best. Do you fear Lee when you go to the garden?

    Did you ever see a team double team Lee or trap him to get the ball out of his hands? NO

    Why can’t we realized that he’s a good player that compliments the the team. He’s not the best player!!!!

  106. jon abbey

    “I?m saying he?s not the best player on the team and if you think he is your reasoning might be prejudice”

    maybe your reasoning against that involves prejudice? not just about the color of the skin, but about what it takes to win basketball games, as Owen just said.

    I do agree that Curry and Crawford are overly criticized on this site, but I also think both are very flawed players, albeit with plenty of potential for improvement. but it’s tough to criticize Lee much, he’s done everything possible to help NY win when he’s been given a chance.

  107. jon abbey

    I think Ben Wallace was the best Piston for a stretch there, actually.

    “Did you ever see a team double team Lee or trap him to get the ball out of his hands? NO”

    and if Curry wasn’t so ridiculously one-dimensional, maybe he’d be our best player. all of our primary scorers are massively flawed, and Lee isn’t, making him probably our best all-around player. I don’t care if you’ve seen a trillion games, clearly you’re missing something crucial here.

    on a related note, Lee’s ability to create shots for himself and score is somewhat underrated, I think, largely because he’s rarely given a chance to do this.

  108. xduckshoex

    Jersey J – Why don’t you make legitimate arguments instead of just repeatedly saying that you know better than anyone who disagrees with you?

    All of the evidence indicates that Lee was easily the Knicks best player last season, if you want people to overlook that you’re going to have to do more than just talk down to them.

  109. Caleb

    “I for one liked Rodman, Wallace, [Oakleys] of the world. The only diffence with me is I understand the true value of these types of players. You guys make [role] players out to be stars…. Was any of the three players I mentioned earlier ever considered the best on their teams? NO”

    If any of those guys was on the current Knicks, they probably would be the best player. We don’t have Jordan, Pippen or Ewing, remember?

  110. Ted Nelson

    Good points by John and Owen.

    J- Two of the three players you mentioned were not considered the best on their teams because they played with very, very good players: MJ and Ewing. Not to mention that Oak had a .526 career TS% and .474 eFG% on his career and Rodman’s were .526 and .529. If the argument is that Lee shoots such a high % because the defense ignores him, surely defenses were concentrating more on Ewing, MJ, Pippen, no?
    Anyway, Lee has been a more efficient and effective scorer than Rodman, Wallace, or Oakley. People who try and pigeonhole Lee as a hustle player with no offensive skills are clearly, in my opinion, the ones who do not watch games or do not understand basketball.

    You are right: role players are important. In fact, I would say that on a well run team every player should have a well defined role and excel at it. In this sense, Tim Duncan is a role player, just like Bruce Bowen. What differentiates them is that they both play much different roles. What differentiates the Spurs from the Knicks is that they both play their roles much better than basically anyone on the Knicks. What differentiates David Lee from Curry, Crawford, or Marbury is that he played his role very, very well. You can say that his role is not as important to the team’s overall success as Curry’s role, and that may be part of why the Knicks were a bad team last season. Another part of why the Knicks were bad might be that only Lee (maybe Balkman) played his role at a consistently high level for the majority of the season.

    I think people would be pretty split on whether Wallace or Billups was Detriot’s best player, Wallace certainly has the hardware to make a case.

    Again, the Knicks were a bad team last year. There is no one on the MJ, Ewing, Pippen level to compare David Lee to. As I’ve been trying to say for weeks David Lee is a very good player, but no one would call him the best player on the Cavs or Spurs in 2006-2007.

    “You guys make roll players out to be stars.”

    You are making subpar basketball players out to be stars. If Curry, Crawford, and Marbury are all stars it would follow that the Knicks should be one of the best teams in the league: they have not been.

  111. jon abbey

    you’re really pushing semantics there when you call Duncan a “role player”, since he’s one of the two top post-Jordan players (along with Shaq), as you well know. he’s a superstar as much as anyone in the league, even if he dresses like a farmer. :)

  112. xduckshoex

    “You are making subpar basketball players out to be stars. If Curry, Crawford, and Marbury are all stars it would follow that the Knicks should be one of the best teams in the league: they have not been.”

    I think Jersey J is confusing talented basketball players with quality basketball players. I think it’s fair to say that Crawford, Marbury and Curry are all more talented than Lee, but when all is said and done talent means very little. The most talented team does not win, the team that plays better basketball does.

    Results trump talent every time, and the results Lee gets are much better than those of any other NY player.

  113. Ted Nelson

    I think the whole division between role player and “star” is a lot of semantics. I would agree with him being the best player in the league right now and a “superstar,” but on his team he still plays a role. Along with his talent, work ethic, etc. the fact that he understand, accepts, and excels in his role is part of why he is so good. Another part is that his teammates also tend to understand, accept, and thrive in their roles.

    I understand that people use “role” player to define generally anyone who is not a “star,” and “star” to define anyone who scores 20 ppg and/or grabs 10 rpg and/or dishes 10 apg. However, I think this is incorrect and that such an oversimplifications leads to Jersey Js comments about how Curry, Marbury, and Crawford are all “stars” and Lee wasn’t the best Knick last season.

  114. Ted Nelson

    Let me put it this way…if Tim Duncan went around jacking up wild shots he can’t hit at a high%, playing mostly outside of the team’s offense, and slacking off on defense like I would argue Crawford does, he probably wouldn’t be anything close to one of the 2 best player of the past 10 years.

  115. Caleb

    “I think it?s fair to say that Crawford, Marbury and Curry are all more talented than Lee.”

    This is an interesting twist on the racial aspect of the discussion… as a whitey, Lee’s athleticism is downplayed while his hard work and hustle get talked up. He’s got terrific leaping ability and is pretty quick. On the other hand, I’m not sure I consider Eddy Curry “athletic” and Marbury is no longer especially quick.

    On the flip side, you can’t ignore that DL’s being a white American (unusual, in the NBA) and being pretty polished (suburban bkgd, nice private HS, etc.) put him in a different media category than most players.

    But all that aside, there’s been reams of analysis on this site, making what to me is an ironclad case that DL was the best player on the Knicks last year, by a wide margin.

  116. Jersey J

    All this is the problem with the your rating system. In 2004 T. Prince was ranked number 8 on the TS overall for the leage. He cleary wasn’t the best person on the team. You can almost make the argument that he was number 5 in the pecking order in Detroit.

    I didn’t hear T. Prince was the best Piston!!!!
    Team On Court
    +/- Off Court
    +/- Net Team
    +/-
    1 Duncan SAS +15.1 -1.4 +16.6
    2 Kidd NJN +4.7 -11.3 +16.0
    3 Ginobili SAS +14.7 -0.8 +15.5
    4 Nowitzki DAL +9.3 -6.0 +15.3
    5 Nash PHO +12.4 -2.6 +15.0
    6 Brand LAC +2.9 -11.8 +14.7
    7 Marion PHO +10.1 -4.4 +14.5
    8 Prince DET +6.9 -6.0 +12.8
    9 Marbury NYK -0.4 -12.4 +12.0

    The only point that I’ve been trying to make is David Lee isn’t the best KNICK. He had a good season and I hop it continues but you guys make it seem like he should be starting over Zach and thats not the case!!!!

  117. Jersey J

    Caleb

    For once why not acknowledge that I made a good point.

    I’m sorry to talk about your savior but the truth is the truth.

  118. Mike K. (KnickerBlogger)

    “The TS incorporates +/-”

    JerseyJ, how can you dispute a statistic that you clearly don’t understand? TS doesn’t incoporate +/-.

    You’ve stated your opinion that you think Zach Randolph is a better player than David Lee and that Lee is a role player. You really haven’t added anything to the discussion since then. We get it. Move on already.

    Can the season start already?

  119. xduckshoex

    “All this is the problem with the your rating system. In 2004 T. Prince was ranked number 8 on the TS overall for the leage. He cleary wasn?t the best person on the team. You can almost make the argument that he was number 5 in the pecking order in Detroit.”

    You would have a point if anyone had ever argued that Lee was the best based on that statistic alone.

    But nobody has ever done that.

    Where do you coach basketball again? And what statistics do you use to measure players there?

  120. Jersey J

    Mike I’m sorry but I thought a blog was a place to have an open conversation.

    I guess since I’m talking about (the golden boy)David Lee the teacher now wants to put in the corner.

  121. Caleb

    “TS% True Shooting Percentage calculates what a player?s shooting percentage would be if we accounted for free throws and 3-pointers. True Shooting Percentage = (Total points x 50) divided by [(FGA + (FTA x 0.44)]”

    source: http://insider.espn.go.com/nba/hollinger/statistics

    As for +/-, I wouldn’t use it as a tool to make fine distinctions between players – like saying, Player A is a +8, therefore he’s better than Player B who is +5. There are too many factors affecting it, for example the different player combinations, with a small sample size for each one.

    But… if you play significant minutes, it’s extremely unlikely that any player (who has played significant minutes) with a very positive +/-, is not a good player.

    Along the same lines, it’s pretty much impossible to have a major positive impact on the team, and still come out with a negative +/-. (Eddy Curry being example A).

  122. Caleb

    p.s. Without doing any statistical digging… Is it really crazy to think that Tayshaun Prince really is the best player on the Pistons?

    Seems like he and Billups are probably the top guys, now that Wallace is gone… but the strength of that team is having five starters who are ALL better than average… not that any of them are necessarily a superstar.

  123. Jersey J

    I rate my players as a team.

    Thats the diffence.

    If I have a scorer but he’s weak on D. I try to surround him with players that can help out. Thats a team!!!

    Players need to compliment each other. One small piece can’t be greater then the whole.

  124. Caleb

    p.p.s. Even if we agree that +/- has its limitations, your list kind of undermines your point. There might be a few big names missing, but aside from Prince the guys with the best +/- are stars – guys that everyone agrees are excellent players (remember, this was marbury a few years ago).

  125. xduckshoex

    “I rate my players as a team.

    Thats the diffence.

    If I have a scorer but he?s weak on D. I try to surround him with players that can help out. Thats a team!!!

    Players need to compliment each other. One small piece can?t be greater then the whole. ”

    You didn’t answer either of the questions I asked you.

  126. Ted Nelson

    I think the list 100% undermines the point. Duncan, Kidd, Nowitski, Nash, Brand, Marbury could all have easily been called the best players on their team.

    But as others have pointed out, no one claimed +/- as the decider of who is/isn’t good. Also as others have been saying: what the hell do you call TS ratings, J? If they exist they are a completely foreign concept to me.

    “I rate my players as a team.

    Thats the diffence.

    If I have a scorer but he?s weak on D. I try to surround him with players that can help out. Thats a team!!!

    Players need to compliment each other. One small piece can?t be greater then the whole. ”

    I think everyone else agrees with your point about playing as a team, and that it why most people rip the job Isiah has done. As a coach he got the Knicks behind him, but hardly had them playing intelligent ball on the court. As President he’s brought in redundant talent and run the organizations like a 3 ring circus.

    Everyone would love to see a team that complements each other, yet that is not what the Knicks have in reality. One guy who complements everyone, because he has both skill and intelligence, is Lee.

    The guys on the Knicks who have been known throughout their careers for putting themselves above the team would be Marbury, Crawford, Curry, and now Randolph…along with Jerome James and maybe some others I’m leaving out. I’ve never seen anything that would suggest to me that Lee is not a team first guy.

    Anyway, you were ripping this great collective “us,” not the Knicks. We think Lee was the Knicks best player last year because he played the best on the court and most every statistical measure backs that up. Read some of the comments others are leaving instead of constantly repeating yourself about how “TS” is stupid, and “roll” players aren’t as good as “stars,” and you coach in a division of college basketball that doesn’t exist.

  127. Z

    “In 2004 T. Prince was ranked number 8 on the TS overall for the leage. He cleary wasn?t the best person on the team.”

    That team won the championship. There is a big difference between winning a championship (the 2004 Pistons) and sucking (the Knicks). Prince was a role player on a team of role players. Comparing them to the current Knicks is like comparing tfk to Owen as posters– they’re not even in the same ballpark.

    To say Lee was the best player on the Knicks last year really doesn’t say much at all except he sucked the least. It doesn’t do justice to how much better he actually was.

  128. Jersey J

    All to say that everyone on a team is stupid but the white guy is a great player seams a little racist to me.

  129. xduckshoex

    “All to say that everyone on a team is stupid but the white guy is a great player seams a little racist to me.”

    This sound like a cop out to me. You can’t make your case, so you just accuse everyone who disagrees with you of being racist.

  130. Z

    JJ3–

    ?All to say that everyone on a team is stupid but the white guy is a great player seams a little racist to me.?

    Maybe, but let’s just say that on a team of fifteen players the lone white guy really is, head and shoulders, better than everyone else. Would it be racist to remark the white guy was the best player on the team?

    So far there has been evidence presented to make the case that Lee was the best player on the team. You brought your cousin in to beef up support for your theories, but don’t seem to have convinced anyone. You certainly won’t convince people to stop promoting Lee’s worth by noting he’s white.

    No one here would say that Greg Butler should have gotten more minutes than Patrick Ewing, or Pat Cummings should have gotten more minutes than Bernard King. There would be no basis for those arguments except “I like white people more”. In saying that Lee should get more minutes than any other Knick may be wrong, but it appears to be a highly thought out, rational, evidence heavy platform.

    I think Caleb made a good post earlier today disproving race as a factor in the conversation and urge you to review it.

  131. Jersey J

    First,

    I told my cousin that this was a good blog and that he should join. That was the only conversation that we had.

    Next,

    I guess everyone here knows more then the coaches. You guys have it all figured out. If Lee plays more then the knicks will win. Right?

    Well tell Lee to develope a jump shot, and learn how to put the ball on the floor.

    I can remember a bunch of bad plays he made during the season but he gets a pass because he’s the great white hype.

    Lee is the Tommy Morrison of NY basketball

  132. Ted Nelson

    Throwing around accusations of racism about people you don’t even know is a bit presumptuous.

    I never said anything about everyone else being stupid. I said that Lee was the only player on the Knicks last year who displayed a high level of both skill and intelligence. I was talking about basketball IQ and meant skill in terms of enough skill to get into the rotation. I think Mardy Collins, Malike Rose, Jared Jeffries all have pretty high levels of basketball IQ, unfortunately none displayed a very high level of skills. I think Cato has a decent basketball IQ these days, especially on D. Balkman looks like he has the combo I’m speaking about, and I’m sure he’ll display it this coming season. Maybe someone like Jamal has a very high basketball IQ and just chooses not to use it.

    I also consider guys like Tim Duncan, Bruce Bowen, Shaq, MJ, Pippen, Jason Kidd, Magic, and tons of others to have high basketball IQs. Dirk, Yao, Dikembe, Manu all seem to have pretty high basketball IQs and all come from different continents.

    I don’t give Lee a free pass for bad plays… this is why stats are useful. Over the course of the season you see the same guy make good plays and bad plays. The stats tell you who made more of which.

  133. jon abbey

    Jersey, do you think that Marbury and/or Crawford demonstrate average or above average basketball IQ for NBA starters? I’m talking about decision making during a game.

    if you do, I’d recommend learning a lot more about basketball before trying to teach anyone else about it, whether they’re 4 years old or 40.

  134. Jersey J

    Please keep in mind that its hard to judge a person basketball IQ when they don’t have the ball to make critical decision.

    Its easy to blame the guards becasuse the have the ball in their hand the most.

    I never hear people mention q.
    He average 13p 7r 2a. Until his back got hurt he was the best Knick. Please review the first 35 games. He played about 10 fewer games then Lee but had similar numbers

  135. Mike K. (KnickerBlogger)

    “Mike I?m sorry but I thought a blog was a place to have an open conversation.”

    Yes an open conversation, with “conversation” being the key word. However you’re not having a conversation. You’re trying to force people to have the same opinion as you. And when someone disagrees with you, you start demeaning them and calling them names. That’s not having an open conversation. That’s, for a lack of a better word, fascism.

    An open conversation needs to be open. If you’re just going to resolve to calling everyone that doesn’t agree with you stupid or racist, then you’re not participating in the conversation.

  136. xduckshoex

    “Please keep in mind that its hard to judge a person basketball IQ when they don?t have the ball to make critical decision.

    Its easy to blame the guards becasuse the have the ball in their hand the most. ”

    1. You can very easily judge a persons basketball IQ when they don’t have the ball in their hands.

    2. This is a total cop out. You didn’t want to commit to saying that they are smart players, but you didn’t want to admit that they are not so you tried to avoid the question.

  137. Ted Nelson

    J- I’m not sure what you’re trying to prove… it seems you are trying to prove that David Lee was one of the worst Knicks last season. So far I can remember you saying or implying that Mardy Collins, Q, Marbury, Crawford, Curry, and I believe Balkman were all as good as or better than Lee last season. So, with Randolph in the mix he’s the Knicks’ 9th best player?

  138. Jersey J

    No ,

    I’m only saying that we can’t single him out. Its not fair.

    I can’t say one players was the best on his team and the rest of the team has a low bball IQ. It’s not right.

    Yes he had a good season
    Yes I want to see him develope

    But
    Some of the comments I received said he’s the best player on the team and thats not a fair assessment.

    Whenever I post a comment about another player nobody responds.

    Early a guy stated that he’s partial to Lee because he’s white and nobody responded.

    I give up.

    Atleast I state that Lee is a good player and that I like his game. I haven’t heard one good statement from anyone saying anything good about anyone other then Lee.

    He is part of the team so if the team did bad it’s also a reflection on him

  139. Ted Nelson

    “I can?t say one players was the best on his team and the rest of the team has a low bball IQ. It?s not right.”

    Is it unfair to say that Kevin Garnett was the best player on the T-Wolves last season?

    “Some of the comments I received said he?s the best player on the team and thats not a fair assessment.
    Whenever I post a comment about another player nobody responds.”

    Maybe a better example than KG would be to say that if I said Eddy Curry was the best player on the Knicks would you be so upset?

    You point out that Lee is a PF who can’t shoot a jumper or put the ball on the floor. Can Curry hit many outside jumpers or bring the ball upcourt very effectively? I would say no and no. So we’re about even.
    Curry’s post moves were and are 10x better than Lee’s? Fair enough, one point for the fat guy.
    Lee was 10x the passer Curry was? He held onto the ball better? He was a 10x better rebounder? Better defender? …

    Without using stats, there’s my case. Lee has very few holes in his game. The flaws you point out, no outside shot or dribble, are secondary skills at his position. Rebounding, defense, passing, and holding onto the ball can all be seen as pretty important for a “franchise” center and the guy you’re choosing to run your offense through.
    Shooting could be seen as very important for a shooting guard, and if he doesn’t shoot it would be nice if he defends.

  140. jon abbey

    “haven?t heard one good statement from anyone saying anything good about anyone other then Lee.”

    you’re just ignoring those, I went out of my way to call Balkman my favorite player above.

    Q does have a pretty good basketball IQ on the rare occasions his back allows him to play, I thought about him in that context while walking around today.

  141. NJ-n-GA

    I think Marbury is one of the dumbest players in the league, but doesn’t mean he can’t win. I don’t think Kidd or Nash or Iverson are that bright either, but they win. Different style is all! Marbury is a shoot first guard like Iverson (A.I. is better), but before he got to the Knicks, he was one of two men to in NBA history to average 20pts. and 8 assist. The other being the Big O. By-the-way, what did he win in his first 10 seasons? Wasn’t until he was teamed up with a young Lew Alcindor that he won a title. Unfortunately, Lew can’t help Steph, and Eddie AIN’T NO LEW.

    Ummmm… how is basketball I.Q. measured? Do the players take a test? How does it measure up against regular I.Q. or baseball I.Q. or football I.Q.? Does hockey have their own I.Q. also? Just wondering. I thought you were either intelligent or not, you can conceive a thought or you can’t, you have perception or you don’t.

    If the Knicks players suck, then why does everyone hate Isiah’s coaching? He did more than Larry did. He played Lee and Lee’s stats were better under Zeke. I’ll admit that his FA signings suck and his trades questionable, but the future is brighter than it was under any Knick GM in the last 20 years.

  142. Owen

    Jersey J – Q had an excellent season. In my opinion, he was the second best player on the team in absolute terms, and third best on a per minute basis.

    There is muted enthusiasm for him on this board because he is injury prone, because his performance was fairly lackluster in 05-05, (his ts% was 8% lower), and perhaps because there is some suspicion his nearly best in league small forward rebounding numbers had something to do with being on the court a lot with Marbury, Craw, and Curry. But yeah, he played really well before the injury.

    Another thought, I think the best thing about this board, er blog, is that everyone tries hard to be very civil, even when people bash them over the head with weird WOW stats or accuse them of being racists. It’s a nice atmosphere which is very different from a lot of other boards, er blogs, on the intranets. Just something to keep in mind.

    Also, if I have any choice in the matter, I would rather be called stupid than racist. Just saying…

  143. NJ-n-GA

    Jon –

    Thanks for mentioning that there are other player on the team (too many in fact,) I think the bloggers forgot.

    Who should the Knicks cut? Any suggestions? My cousin Jersey J loves Nate. I can’t stand him. He’s an athletic gimmic. Another Knick media prop. I don’t think the Knicks should cut Mighty Mouse, but if the right trade comes along, pull the trigger. He’s a defensive liability, and just frustrating to watch at times. Hopefully Collins will win the back-up spot at point.

  144. Renaldo Balkman's Agent

    “Also, if I have any choice in the matter, I would rather be called stupid than racist. Just saying?”

    I’d suspect you of being gay before I’d suspect you of being a racist.

  145. NJ-n-GA

    Owen, let me tell you a little secret… J wouldn’t be J if he wasn’t trying to get you guys all riled up. If you guys said you hated Lee he would take the opposite side. He (like me) is a lefty and he likes going against the grain.

  146. Renaldo Balkman's Agent

    “My cousin Jersey J loves Nate. I can?t stand him.”

    You want to talk about basketball IQ? If his brains weren’t in his biceps he’d be 6’4″.

  147. Ted Nelson

    “I don?t think Kidd or Nash or Iverson are that bright either, but they win.”

    Kidd and Nash are the two best PGs in the NBA. Watching the way they run an offense, I think it’s safe to say that they know a thing or two about basketball.

    Iverson certainly plays a different style than those two. In fact, he had the most success playing a different position. The years where Iverson had the most individual and team success were years where he played off the ball and the entire team consisted of savvy/intelligent players whose primary jobs it was to defend and get Iverson the ball. He hasn’t done as well as a PG. I don’t know if it’s basketball IQ, stubborness, or his skill set not being suited to the position.

    Marbury’s entire career seems to fit into the A.I. as a PG category. This is why I think you have to put a “point-forward” or “point-SG” next to him. It seems to me that his skill set and/or basketball IQ and/or attitude is such that he’s only an average player when trying to fit into the “pass-first PG” role. The role he was playing when everyone was healthy seemed to take away his strengths and expose his weaknesses.

    “Ummmm? how is basketball I.Q. measured? Do the players take a test? How does it measure up against regular I.Q. or baseball I.Q. or football I.Q.? Does hockey have their own I.Q. also? Just wondering. I thought you were either intelligent or not, you can conceive a thought or you can?t, you have perception or you don?t.”

    It is kind of an arbitrary term, and just from watching the game I think it’s pretty hard to differentiate whether a guy doesn’t know the game, lacks certain skills, has a bad attitude (which might result in him not learning the game), or is poorly coached.

    I gave the example of Jamal Crawford earlier, saying that maybe he knows the game as well as anyone and just chooses to shoot impossible shots and freelance because he thinks he’s the greatest player ever.

    So I guess basketball IQ is sort of an applied IQ. You have to know the game, and that knowledge must come through in your play.

    I would say that baseball definitely has its own IQ. I don’t know if you follow the sport, but you have smart pitchers who last 15-20 years in the big league throwing 85-90 mph and then there are guys who throw 100 mph with a nasty curve but get rocked. There are hitters who are very successful despite underwhelming physical abilities and hitters who can hit the ball a mile but rarely get to because they’ll swing at anything. By positioning yourself well defensively you can make an easy play on a ball that a poorly positioned player couldn’t have gotten even if he had the ability of Ozzie Smith or Torii Hunter.

    I don’t really know how basketball IQ is correlated with overall intelligence. However, I don’t think most concepts in basketball are really quantum physics, and with enough practice and dedication you should be able to grasp them. Then you have to be able to apply them. Maybe Malik Rose knows exactly how to pass out of a double team or Nate Robinson knows some sick moves in the low post, but it doesn’t really matter.

  148. Jersey J

    ALL,

    Jamal is just and off balance jump shooter. If you watched him play throughout his career you know this already.

    Some people feel comfortable shooting the ball off balance. Look at Shawn Marion

  149. Ted Nelson

    J- The difference is that Shawn Marion has made a lot higher % of shots in his career than Jamal. And Marion doesn’t shoot off balance: he has a funny motion.

    FG% 3P% FT% eFG% TS%
    .479 .342 .830 .510 .546 Marion
    .401 .342 .830 .465 .509 Crawford

    They hit the same % of 3s and fts, but overall I don’t see how you can compare them.

    Here’s Crawford under LB though

    .416 .345 .826 .474 .544

    He’s never going to be Reggie Miller, but if he played within a well structured offense I think he’d be respectable.

  150. Caleb

    If Crawford stopped taking 3-pointers entirely he would be a much better player. That’s basically what LB got him to do – drive the lane. He’s great at getting to the line (and making his FTs) but jacks up jumpers constantly, which is why it’s so infuriating.

    I would say that Lee, Curry and Crawford get by far the most attention on the boards bc the public perception is so far removed from the reality of their performance, as most people here see it. I mean, at the All-Star break last year Greg Anthony called Crawford the MVP of the Atlantic Division.

    We don’t talk as much about Q or even Marbury bc hey – there’s not so much to argue about.

  151. Mike K. (KnickerBlogger)

    “J wouldn?t be J if he wasn?t trying to get you guys all riled up. If you guys said you hated Lee he would take the opposite side. He (like me) is a lefty and he likes going against the grain.”

    Yup, that’s the classic definition of a troll. Someone that just argues for the sake of arguing. They tend to get banned in online discussion areas.

    “If the Knicks players suck, then why does everyone hate Isiah?s coaching? He did more than Larry did.”

    Talking about setting the bar low. Isiah is a better coach than Brown was here, and a better GM than Layden.

    “I?ll admit that his FA signings suck and his trades questionable, but the future is brighter than it was under any Knick GM in the last 20 years.”

    Oh wow this is funny. In the last 20 years we were the chief rival to one of the best dynasties of all time. We went to 2 Finals. We had a franchise center, a perennial All Star. In the last 20 years, we had one of the best defensive teams of all time.

    I just don’t see anything like that in the Knicks future.

  152. Larry

    All,

    I agree with Jersey J.

    “Yup, that?s the classic definition of a troll. Someone that just argues for the sake of arguing. They tend to get banned in online discussion areas. ”

    I also don’t know how you can call him a troll when all he is stating his opinion on people calling Lee the best knick.

    Maybe your the Troll because he didn’t say anything wrong.

    He called a person racist after the guy said that he’s partial to Lee because of his skin color and Jersey J is wrong for this!!!!

    Mike – IF you are going to conduct a blog please be open to opinions. Sometimes people want agree with you. Its called a discusion!!!

Comments are closed.