I can hold Chandler to a higher standard than a role player. That is fair. But I may expect less from him against the Bulls’ frontline than say the Bobcats’.

I don’t know what happened, but I am glad Ilyasova only played 13 minutes. Was it the three fouls he picked up, or was it Skiles? Whatever, I’ll take it.

and to your first point, Chandler needs to be held to a higher standard than a role player like Novak. under normal circumstances, he doesn’t need to look to score much, but in that Bulls game, with Amare and Lin out and with Smith/Davis/Novak all being non-factors, he did need to contribute more on that end. again, this was clearly obvious to him because he came out last night with a very different mindset on offense than he’s had in recent games, he was much more aggressive (although please, Tyson, never try to bring the ball upcourt yourself again unless your four teammates are all dead).

jon abbey:

when someone gets an A+ and contributed close to nothing on one end of the court, yep.

Melo and Amare got rightly demolished when they did well on offense but gave it all back on the other end, but Chandler sometimes gets a free pass for doing very little on offense. in the Chicago game specifically, they needed him to do more and he didn’t, so an overall A+ was silly.

I get your point jon. And the reason your sniping doesn’t bother me because:
1: You do make fair points
2: Grading is very subjective
3: I get paid the same whether you like it or not

I try to grade based on how well I (in my flawed view of sports) thought the player did what he is supposed to do. When Chandler plays beastly defense, rebounds well and keep plays aloive with tip outs, he can still get an A from me even if he is only 2-4 from the floor. I do not expect Chandler to put in 18 against Gibson and Noah. But I do except defense and rebounding. So yeah he could do nothing on offense and still get an A, but that is just how I see the world. Just like I might give Novak an A for doing nothing more than hitting 4 3pfg in the 4th quarter of a win. I don’t look for 3 blocks from Novak, as I don’t look for 3pfg from Chandler. You need not be Oscar Robertson to get an A+.

Ellis did score 35. I don’t think that was Shumpert’s fault exactly. Ellis is very good. Plus this was a very fast paced game (96.8) means a ton of shots are going up. Ellis’ USG was 34.0, which is in the Kobe level of usage. So yes, Ellis was going to get his but that did not mean Shumpert played poorly. I thought Ellis did the most damage in the 2nd when Bibby was on the floor.

I’m so glad the Knicks are up on the Bucks by two games so we can talk about grading rather than how much our team sucks and missing the playoffs and firing Dolan. Thanks for winning guys!

ruruland: Jon, Jon, Jon. Ty had a 706 TS and 139 offensive rating. It was everyone else who struggled offensively.

hehe.

I stay here for the comment threads (which again, I think are generally really good) and mostly ignore/skim the articles/recaps but the large letter grades are hard to ignore while scrolling down.

jon abbey:
when someone gets an A+ and contributed close to nothing on one end of the court, yep.

Melo and Amare got rightly demolished when they did well on offense but gave it all back on the other end, but Chandler sometimes gets a free pass for doing very little on offense. in the Chicago game specifically, they needed him to do more and he didn’t, so an overall A+ was silly. and clearly Chandler recognized this himself, as he was much more aggressive on offense last night, and it was a big reason they won.

and not that it really matters, but I think the grades are too often based on overall perception of players coming into the game. as has been noted in this thread, my man Shumpie had his worst defensive game in a long time last night, until the final minutes at least. Baron Davis is another one, he was criticized in one recap for so many turnovers when in reality he had barely turned the ball over for the previous 3-4 games.

Jon, Jon, Jon. Ty had a 706 TS and 139 offensive rating. It was everyone else who struggled offensively.

Jim Cavan: Point taken. You’re right, I do get defensive when posters here bust their ass on these recaps and the response is “why don’t you be more like this other Knicks blog.” I’m a little cranky from lack of sleep and probably overreacted. Trust me, no one is being banned or otherwise being discouraged from posting.

And I do agree with you that there’s a bit of a logical disconnect when someone says “why don’t you be more like this other Knicks blog?” One would think that if this blog experience isn’t satisfactory, those readers would just hit the ol’ dusty trail over to their desired blogging experience.

For me, it’s in the middle somewhere. Not all the recaps tickle my fancy, but I don’t have a big enough problem with the mix of humor and analysis (whatever ratio it might be) to drive me away, especially considering what I perceive as an incredibly high quality of discussion in the threads. I mean… we’ve all seen the “conversations” on ESPN’s game pages, right? Homina.

Jim Cavan: Point taken. You’re right, I do get defensive when posters here bust their ass on these recaps and the response is “why don’t you be more like this other Knicks blog.” I’m a little cranky from lack of sleep and probably overreacted. Trust me, no one is being banned or otherwise being discouraged from posting.

actually 95 percent of the responses are along the lines of “awesome job dood!”. mine is part of the other 5 percent, and I’d be defensive too if I were you.

at least know that my only agenda is to try to make this site stronger, and I agree (seriously) that it’s somewhat lame for me to say that and then largely stay on the sidelines, but that’s what I’m doing.