Comments on: Knicks 110 – Pacers 103

By: chrisk06811

chrisk06811 — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 18:14:44 +0000

I MUST TAKE EXCEPTION to Robert’s writeup. He goes player by player, but he misses one important cog. Jarred Jeffries. I feel this is an injustice.

Mr Jeffries played 28 minutes in this game, more than all but 4 other knicks. just to summarize:
-He tied the for the team lead in blocks (1)
-He hit 1 shot, 1 more than Darco, who was a top 3 draft pick
-He was plus 16 on the night. Today at work, I’m -30
-He hit 100% of his freethrows, the highest possible mathmatical result in the USA or in international play.
-He outplayed a guy named Solomon Jones, on IND, whom I have never heard of
-(this one hurts): He outscored starters Galo and Toney Douglas COMBINED
-His hair remained loose but curly throughout.

By: Peter87

Peter87 — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 15:53:43 +0000

Frank,

“For instance, it’s likely that playing under the screen is MUCH better when defending our PnR because Duhon can’t hit a jumper to save his life. On the other hand, playing under Steve Nash is likely to cost you 3 points more often than not. So league-wide stats don’t mean much to me.”

You may be right; however, in the article, they gave specifics, including the fact that playing under the pick is better AGAINST LEBRON JAMES.

It seems to me that, even among stat-heads, there is a strong desire to ignore (or “discredit”) the stats that disagree with our intuition.

By: BballEngineer

BballEngineer — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 15:01:38 +0000

Frank O. Nice last post! I agree with your assessment of the current Knick’s roster. I especially agree with your comment about the weight of unrealistic expectations on some of the young guns. There is no player on the current Knick’s roster who could take the team on his shoulders and carry the team to a victory. AI could still do that, even at his age. I know this is a stat heavy site, but there are aspects of Bball that can’t be determined my numbers. Call it swagger, heart or Bball IQ, whatever, but the current roster of Knicks don’t have it. Not a one. Now I love my Knicks, but at some point I have to be honest about the player’s skills, heart and Bball IQ or lack thereof. I would take AI and all of his issues over anyone currently on the Knick’s roster. This man brings it every night. There is not stat for that.

By: d-mar

d-mar — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 14:19:03 +0000

I think at this point after all the speculation and a lot of fans (including myself) convincing themselves that signing AI is a good idea, it would be a big letdown if they didn’t. And I’m not sure why they are supposedly waiting until the end of the weekend – do they want to see if they can get a 3 game winning streak going and then pass on AI? (Yeah, sure, we’re beating Boston.) I actually hope they sign him today, because the Nets are going to be extremely motivated tomorrow and look at a game against us as a big opportunity to get rid of the 0′fer, esp. since they go out West afterwards.

By: Nick C.

Nick C. — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 13:49:55 +0000

Signing AI=a concession that everything and every player on the team is a dismal and utter failure so f’ it let’s just sign this castoff and see what happens. As for Curry the Knicks sucked whern he was at his “peak” so I don’t think the effects you ascribe to him really make a difference assuming they occur.

By: Frank

Frank — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 13:38:34 +0000

Just changed my mind to fully in support of Iverson coming. Was listening to Mike and Mike’s podcast from a day or two ago when they had Tim Legler on, and he was saying that MSG is so quiet nowadays it’s like a graveyard– that cannot be a good selling point to 2010 FAs. We want them to come to MSG during this season, feel the ambience and history of the building — not come and feel like MSG is about the same as the Nets building. If Iverson can bring some buzz back, even if it’s sort of artificial and short-term, maybe it’s worth it.

In addition — I feel like if we go 26-56 or something like that this year, some of the sheen will come off D’Antoni, and maybe FA’s will think he was mostly the beneficiary of ridiculously good players in PHX who happened to be perfect for his system.

And Peter87 – I don’t personally put much stock in the figures quoted in that NYT article — just like any stat, it can be confounded by so many things. For instance, it’s likely that playing under the screen is MUCH better when defending our PnR because Duhon can’t hit a jumper to save his life. On the other hand, playing under Steve Nash is likely to cost you 3 points more often than not. So league-wide stats don’t mean much to me.

By: Frank O.

Frank O. — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 13:36:41 +0000

Mike K.
This entire season is a turd sandwich. We all kind of knew that going in. But for the next 70 or so games, the Knicks really can’t afford to get spanked. If these young guys show this season what they have shown so far, no max level guy is coming to the Knicks.
Also I think you probably were being a bit glib citing Francis. He was never the player AI was. Never. Iverson will make the Hall, while Francis will be remembered for a good career. Iverson has had trouble not being the guy in his past two teams. There is no doubt what he would be for the Knicks: he likely would be their best player, a flawed player, a starter, and he will need to show he can play, or else no contract next year.
The point is there is little downside on the whole for the Knicks. He won’t cost much. He won’t affect the cap in 2010. And it’s more likely than not that he will make the Knicks respectable. And if the screaming loonies at MSG take to him like they took to Spree, he could just explode. Who knows?
What we do know is this current set of players have little personality, not a lot of joy, and haven’t really bonded. I suspect it’s because so many of them are rentals, who don’t expect to be back next year.
And the two guys the Knicks believed would be the best of their core, Chandler and Gallo, have been terrible so far.
On another note, Owen:
You know, we have all waxed poetic about the virtues of Lee’s game. I like the guy. He generally plays hard. I also think the team has stunted his development playing him out of position. He can beat a center, but a big center easily beats him. He’s really not big enough to guard the big guys.
And he can’t carry a team, or take over a game, or really make other players on his team better. I know this is blasphemy on this site, but this team isn’t that much better because Lee is on the court. Even if the Knicks are plus whatever while he’s on the court, they still are 2-9, and have largely been blown out in almost all their losses. He doesn’t require a double team. Generally teams let him do his thing.

Add a deeply flawed Curry – and I’m just talking about this year – the dynamic gets a little better. Curry is disruptive enough to force the other guys to react in some way. One problem right now is there is no one on the Knicks that gets anyone scared, that gets anyone out of their game and reacting to the Knicks. If one player is hot, a team knows they can absorb that, and still beat the Knicks. It’s rare that this team of role players can put together a complete game on any given night.
At least with Curry the opposition needs to react. They can’t put one man on him because almost no one alone is strong enough to keep him off the rim. And he was a plus something in his first game back in two years, and with, what, five practices under his belt?
And just a note, the Knicks won his first game back a 100 percent improvement…:)
Outside of Curry, teams aren’t required to do anything special to contain the Knicks. They don’t need to double, foul, take charges, anything. And the Knicks are generally soft on offense, chucking from outside and praying.
And all this talk about Lee’s rebounds being down because he’s already falling back on D…what has that got us? There just is no fight.

And Curry and AI are not long term fixes. Curry needs to play, and probably starter minutes because the Knicks need him to play himself into a trade. And AI just makes them credible.

And both those guys provide cover for Gallo, Chandler, Lee and Nate who appear to be suffering from the weight of unrealistic expectations.
Because at the end of the day, Lee can get 18 and 9, and Nate can have his momentary explosions and Chandler can have his one promising game out of 5 and Gallo can occasionally show life from long range, but this is still a 2-9 team that hasn’t seen .500 ever in their careers.

Without a Curry, or an AI-type player, for most teams the Knicks are a respite, a break in the schedule where they can goof off, make some outrageous shots, and generally enjoy themselves.
It would be nice to see a Knicks player put a hurting on someone else for a change.
Curry and AI are no saviors. They won’t get the Knicks to .500. But it’s a gamble worth taking, in my humble opinion.

By: David Crockett

David Crockett — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 13:25:00 +0000

Just got a big report off my desk and onto somebody else’s. So I’m hoping to be around a bit more. (Yeah for me!)

Gotta say, Bro. Silverman, you have seriously raised the bar for all of us man. Damn!

By: Peter87

Peter87 — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 11:00:41 +0000

I’m curious to get some reactions to this:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/20/sports/basketball/20pick.html?hpw

I’ve read much criticism on this site about lax defending on the pick-and-roll: the consensus seems to be that ‘going over the pick’ is better than going under.
However, according to this article, which discusses the current NBA vogue in pick-and-rolls, going under the pick is statistically a better defense. Going over is preferred because it ‘shows aggressiveness’, not because it works better.

By: daJudge

daJudge — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 01:52:03 +0000

Loved Frank O’s post and agree in almost all respects. Several points: (1) IMO, players must occupy defined roles. I believe a center should play center, a pf should play pf, etc…One of the reasons Curry helps is that, despite his flaws, he’s a real center. He may not be a great center, or even a good center, but he excels in some center-specific skills. More particularly, he can score in the low post, he draws fouls and defenders and occupies space. That helps big time, because, among other reasons, D. Lee can then play pf. and the other’s can fulfill their own roles.
(2) Asking players to be eclectic who aren’t doesn’t work so well, unless their named LBJ or Magic something. IMO, from a stat perspective, the player should be weighed, judged and assessed based on the skills that define his position. If you deviate from this approach, your stat analysis is flawed because you may be overvaluing assets that are not particularly relevant to that position.
(3) I like a line up with:
A. Curry at Center (1), Darko(2)
B. D. Lee (PF-1), Hill (PF-2);
C. Harrington (SF-1), Gallo (sF-2)
D. Hughes (SG-1), Nate (SG-2)
E. AI (PG-1), Douglas (PG-2), Duhon (PG-3)
F. Jeffries (defensive specialist, which is what he is.)
G. Chandler (sub at the 2, 3 or 4)
(4) Next year is another world—-none of these are integral parts of that equation. We do not need to focus on their development. Any of them. At least I can maybe enjoy some games.