Comments on: Knicks 120, Cavs 103

By: Frank O.

Frank O. — Fri, 02 Mar 2012 15:48:06 +0000

jon abbey: again, give Shumpert a few games starting at SG, a role he hasn’t had a shot at all year, and I think it would very quickly become clear that he’s a better offensive player than Fields. there’s “nothing you’ve seen to prove that otherwise” because D’Antoni hasn’t yet given him that opportunity.

I appreciate that. It's a fair point.

By: ruruland

ruruland — Fri, 02 Mar 2012 03:26:34 +0000

jon abbey:
again, give Shumpert a few games starting at SG, a role he hasn’t had a shot at all year, and I think it would very quickly become clear that he’s a better offensive player than Fields. there’s “nothing you’ve seen to prove that otherwise” because D’Antoni hasn’t yet given him that opportunity.

The most positive thing I saw from Shump was how he fits in to the “slot position” (AS MDA calls it) in the angled/middle pick and roll.

The Knicks spacing is so much better than it was earlier in the year.

That’s incredibly important for a slasher like Shump.

Much of the improved spacing is a result of the additional talent, some of it is guys moving back to their more comfortable position (or “natural”) in the MDA offense, and some of it is more time meshing and getting mentally adjusted — all that practice bullshit.

Just like Melo is going to be lethal as a slasher either in the corner or in the slot, the improved spacing is going to open up Shumpert’s driving lanes…. We saw that last night.

I think he can be SO much better offensively when he’s not initiating. That is so much like Spreewell.

The second thing I’m really excited about is Shumpert’s pairing with runners. Baron, JR, JJ, all of these guys that turn defense into running, something we’ve seem little of to this point because of the pg issues.

Two areas Shump will thrive in that we’ve yet to see to date. Fields is solid there, Shump will excel.

To me, the best lineups are going to be Novak or Melo at the 4, JR at the 3, Shump at the 2, doesn’t matter which pg, and you can play offense and defense with Amar’e/Chandler/JJ at 5.

Melo has no problem with guarding 4′s. He needs to block them out, however, which he can do. Novak will need to be paired with a defensive center.

By: jon abbey

jon abbey — Fri, 02 Mar 2012 03:07:44 +0000

again, give Shumpert a few games starting at SG, a role he hasn’t had a shot at all year, and I think it would very quickly become clear that he’s a better offensive player than Fields. there’s “nothing you’ve seen to prove that otherwise” because D’Antoni hasn’t yet given him that opportunity.

By: Frank O.

Frank O. — Fri, 02 Mar 2012 02:29:35 +0000

Brian Cronin: Which is exactly what will happen, for what it is worth.

This is as accurate as it gets

By: Frank O.

Frank O. — Fri, 02 Mar 2012 02:29:07 +0000

Juany8:
Will that’s kind of my point, Shumpert isn’t a good offensive player right now, but neither is Landry, and the fact that Landry’s TS% is much higher does not imply he’s a better or even more efficient offensive player than Shumpert is.

Wait. So the logic is a sucky offensive guy who can’t finish at the hoop needs to be guarded more than a guy who scores at a far more efficient rate because he doesn’t take shots he can’t make?
Landry’s higher TS and eFG, which are measures of scoring efficiency, do not imply greater efficiency?
Are you Rod Sterling?
I mean, come on folks. This is ass backward logic.
A guy that can’t score inside or out efficiently is clearly a lesser concern than a player who gets into the paint and scores efficiently from there.
Landry is a slashing threat. He plays off the ball, is effective going to the glass and creates when he is able to get in the paint, whether for himself or for another player.
Advanced stats are useful in determining whether a player is more or less likely to be productive. We have seen that time and time again.
Shump is a physical freak, but actually Landry is taller. Shump isn’t more effective going to the glass. If he were, he’d be scoring more and more efficiently. If He shot better from outside,his statistics would show that. He simply isn’t a better offensive player.
His defense is better. His offense is not, by a lot.
Again, I like Shump and think he is invaluable. But to imply that somehow this player who doesn’t finish as well as Fields, or shoot as well as Landry, period, is somehow a greater offensive threat. That’s just bunk, and there is nothing I have seen to prove that otherwise.
You can like the guy. But you can’t say, “Just because” and expect that to stand.

By: Juany8

Juany8 — Thu, 01 Mar 2012 23:45:54 +0000

Will that’s kind of my point, Shumpert isn’t a good offensive player right now, but neither is Landry, and the fact that Landry’s TS% is much higher does not imply he’s a better or even more efficient offensive player than Shumpert is. This team has serious spacing issues when Landry is in with Amar’e and Chandler, and yes it is also an issue that Chandler can’t take shots outside 2 ft, he can’t make them so he shouldn’t take them, but it’s an issue that his defender can just leave him open if he steps outside 10ft. You can get away with 1 or 2 non shooters, you can’t have 3. Again Shumpert actually takes the shots and drives and passes better than Landry, so he has to be guarded. Landry doesn’t, even when he decides to take a 3 he takes forever to shoot it and he isn’t fast or athletic so he takes a while to get to the rim. It takes no defensive effort to guard him

By: Brian Cronin

Brian Cronin — Thu, 01 Mar 2012 22:06:07 +0000

I’d say you’d have to take it game by game and go with matchups.

Which is exactly what will happen, for what it is worth.

By: Will the Thrill

Will the Thrill — Thu, 01 Mar 2012 21:47:55 +0000

Yeah, it doesn't seem like defenders worry too much about Shumpert on the outside shooting and missing threes. I'd say shooting and missing and not taking them is just about the same, the defense doesn't bother to guard you out there and can crowd up the paint.

kronicfatigue: No need to decide on the SG rotation right this very minute.They all bring something different to the table, and we need to spread minutes w/ the crazy schedule. Who cares who starts? Let the in game performance and matchups decide who finishes. When the rotation tightens for the playoff run, we can revist this.

By: nicos

nicos — Thu, 01 Mar 2012 21:37:53 +0000

Fields is a poor defender and I’m talking Amar’e level bad- mostly because he’s a three trying to play two. The most important thing you want from a two on D is a guy who can maintain contact with his man, anticipate the screen and cut his man off before he gets to the screen, and failing that, a guy who can get over the screen quickly. Fields does none of these- he gives guys too much space, reacts slowly to every change of direction so he’s trailing his man by a step or two before he even hits the screen, and he’s slow getting through screens. Is he hurt by poor help from Amar’e and Melo? Of course but when you let your guy run as free as Fields does, you’re every bit as much of a problem as a poor helper. I think he’d be okay- just okay- at the three but he’s completely miscast defensively at the two. His one positive is he does have fairly quick hands so he can pick up some steals but his overall defense is pretty bad.
On the plus side- he has become a much better passer and can run the high screen and roll very effectively when the ball gets swung to him on the weak side. And, last night not withstanding, he’s very good finishing around the basket. Should he play over Shumpert? If Shumpert could limit his usage down to say 12-14 then I’d prefer Shump- the way the game is played now having a great on the ball defender is really, really valuable but that value gets negated when your TS% is .450 and your usage is 20. If Shumpert could get his TS% up to even .50, I’d say his defensive value would make him an easy pick over Fields but at his current numbers I’d say you’d have to take it game by game and go with matchups.

By: kronicfatigue

kronicfatigue — Thu, 01 Mar 2012 21:02:21 +0000

“passing up wide open 3′s is actually worse than missing them”

- can someone explain this? I’m not familiar yet w/ advanced metrics, but that doesn’t pass the smell test. Attempting the shot might keep the defense honest, but missing it just reaffirms that you don’t have to cover.

- is there a higher chance of an offensive rebound on an open 3? seems like being open means the defender is sagging, and thus more likely to pull in the rebound himself.

- Does it apply to non shooting guards too? If chandler is open at the 3 point line, should he throw it up instead of passing it?