Knicks Morning News (2016.08.23)

  • [SNY Knicks] Knicks, Melo can pause to appreciate Olympic accomplishment
    (Monday, August 22, 2016 8:27:47 AM)

    Over the course of his Knicks tenure, Carmelo Anthony has been under plenty of scrutiny as the subject of a variety of criticisms. As New York has continued to struggle over the years, of course, some of it has been justified. But alas, some of the more exaggerated criticism simply comes with the territory of playing in one of the biggest markets in the world.

  • [NYDN] Carmelo Anthony’s calls for change lacked the power of a protest
    (Monday, August 22, 2016 10:34:17 PM)

    Carmelo Anthony failed to draw everyone’s attention to the flawed American justice system that he himself has called “broken.”

  • [ESPN] Vote: Is Melo an all-time great basketball player?
    (Monday, August 22, 2016 6:46:46 PM)

    Vote: Is Melo an all-time great basketball player?

  • [ESPN] Carmelo Anthony could still compete in Olympic Games — for Puerto Rico
    (Monday, August 22, 2016 2:49:33 PM)

    Carmelo Anthony could still compete in Olympic Games — for Puerto Rico

  • [NYPost] Carmelo’s high ends with Knicks reality: Here’s the hard part
    (Monday, August 22, 2016 7:10:23 PM)

    Carmelo Anthony got his record third gold medal, got a mural drawing of himself on a wall of Rio’s most notorious “favela’’ and got a taste of winning again. During the U.S. Olympic Team’s exhibition schedule, Anthony led a Los Angeles town-hall meeting to address the recent racial strife between blacks and police, earning the…

  • Liked it? Take a second to support Mike Kurylo on Patreon!

    Mike Kurylo

    Mike Kurylo is the founder and editor of KnickerBlogger.net. His book on the 2012 Knicks, "We’ll Always Have Linsanity," is on sale now. Follow him on twitter (@KnickerBlogger).

    32 thoughts to “Knicks Morning News (2016.08.23)”

    1. There is this great article on RealGM about Porzingis’s progression. I recommend everybody read it because this guy is our only hope. Word.

      http://basketball.realgm.com/analysis/243152/Projecting-Year-2-Of-Kristaps-Porzingis

      The amount of big men who can hit a three-point shot and consistently protect the rim can be counted on one hand.

      Or two hands:
      http://bkref.com/tiny/c8YaN

      The amount of big men were able to do it in their rookie seasons can be counted on two fingers.

      Or twelve fingers:
      http://bkref.com/tiny/rR1XS

      This isn’t really statistical analysis. It’s squinting and making things fit wherever the author wants them to. For instance:

      Put Porzingis in place of Pau Gasol on this play, and you can see why the Rose addition will help Porzingis’ shooting efficiency.

      I’m going to wager that if you can take Porzing’s TS% with Rose on/off the court it won’t be vastly superior with Rose. Porzingis’ TS% is almost certain to improve this year, but I don’t think Rose will be the catalyst.

      He uses lots of stats, especially in the latter half of the article, but none of it seems relevant to the projection of Porzingis. And the numbers don’t really fit the premise nor support his claims.

      If it were published here, I’d change the focus and fact check some of the claims that can be verified with stats, and chuck others that have no facts to stand on. It’s a good attempt, but I don’t think the editors at RealGM did anything other than fix the grammar and post it.

    2. Over the last 2 years, Gasol’s eFG was .8 higher with Rose on the court than with him off. I’m not sure how much you can make of that, but it doesn’t seem like D Rose did wonders for Gasol’s shooting efficiency.

    3. Projecting Derrick Rose to do anything positive, for any individual players or the offense/defense/team as a whole, is just completely irrational based on every piece of data that exists. What’s really annoying is if it wasn’t for the Rose trade the team would be a lot more interesting assuming everything else stayed the same and they kept Langston. I don’t really buy that the Rose trade was quid pro quo for the Noah and Lee signings. It was well known that Noah was leaving Chicago regardless and he most certainly did not take any kind of discount. As for Lee, well, maybe, but it’s not like missing out on him would’ve been the end of the world anyway.

    4. @1

      Is there a reason you made the 3PA/36 minutes as low as 1 (seriously asking, not being dickish)? If you make it 3, which makes more sense since you want to see volume, only Millsap, Horford and Porzingis fit that criteria from last season.

      http://bkref.com/tiny/mUldv

      If you change the parameters to 3PA/36 greater than or equal to 3 and block/36 greater than or equal to 2, with 1000 minutes played still kept as the threshold, there are only 8 seasons and 5 players in the history of the league that fit that criteria. LaFrentz, Ibaka, Porzingis, the late Eddie Griffin (3 times) and Brad Lohaus (2 times).

      http://bkref.com/tiny/Z5YGW

      If you change the parameters to revert blocks/36 back to 1.5, increase minutes played to 2000 and keep 3PA/36 at 3 there were only 15 such qualifying seasons from 10 players in league history. Marion, Millsap, Horford, Sheed, LaFrentz, Odom, Ibaka, Porzingis, Josh Smith and Donyell Marshall (most surprising one).

      Also Porzingis is the youngest player to achieve these marks in each set of criteria which is impressive.

    5. It’s not about moving the goalposts. Porzingis averaged 3.4 3PAs per game and 4.3/36 minutes. Using 1 as the baseline includes players that weren’t even close to the rate at which he was shooting.

    6. Move the goalposts, Mike!

      The point is that Mike’s original goalposts were completely arbitrary too. There’s no one correct way to measure how unique a player is, but regardless of whether it’s 2 players, 12, 15 whatever the author of the original post is essentially correct in saying that players with Porzingis’ combination of rim protection and 3-point shooting are rare. Mike is the one who originally brought in the pointless nit-pick of arguing about whether it’s 5 guys in the league or 10.

    7. Amir Johnson shot 23% on his way to making 10 3 pointers last season. He doesn’t belong on the list, regardless of goalpost, if the goal is to look at people who “can hit the 3 point shot with consistence”.

      Same goes for Shawn Marion, who took 22 3 pointers his rookie year and only made 4 of them.

    8. @Donnie

      http://bkref.com/tiny/xDgtv

      I included the parameter of greater than or equal to 33% from 3. I admit that’s somewhat arbitrary, but I figured since it’s pretty close to 1 PPP that it’d be a reasonably good cut off.

      So adding that to the parameters of at least 2000 minutes played, at least 3.0 3PA/36 and at least 1.5 block/36, there are only 10 qualified seasons and 6 qualified players in league history. Marion (05/06), Horford (15/16), Sheed (03/04, 05/06, 06/07, 07/08), LaFrentz (01/02, 04/05), Ibaka (14/15) and Porzingis (15/16).

      http://bkref.com/tiny/fYla0

      If you keep all the parameters the same, but decrease the qualifying minimum 3P% to 30% then Millsap (15/16), Odom (00/01), Josh Smith (14/15) and Sheed (04/05) get added to the previous list.
      Porzingis qualified in his rookie season at age 20 last year. The youngest player to qualify other than is LaFrentz and Ibaka in their age 25 seasons.

    9. The thing is Jowles. I don’t even disagree with you a lot of the times but the way you present yourself as this asshole who thinks he’s smarter than everyone makes you and this blog (since you are the top poster here) shitty. It used to be a fun place where people had debates and disagreed and there was humor. Now its Jowls bashing everyone who has hope or wants the knicks to be good because they aren’t smart and are a homer. Honestly, you should stop being a Knicks fan and root for another team. People are tired of your shit.

      haha this discussion man

    10. I agree with Lavor. Those goalposts were incredibly arbitrary – .5 blocks per 36? 1 3PA? Terrible shooting percentage on 3s? 22 3PA taken all season?

      Talk about cherry picking.

      And as for the second point, I’m pretty sure the sentence says “the amount of BIG MEN who were able…” I did not realize Vince Carter was a center. Or Tracy McGrady. Or Kirilenko. Or Shawn Marion. Or…well, the ENTIRE LIST except Sabonis and KAT.

      Which, and again I’m no mathematician, but that looks like “two.”

      Or is the argument that KP should be compared to guards and small forwards who get blocks?

    11. Any player comparison will lead to statistically insignificant benchmarks.

      http://bit.ly/2bxwkES

      But the shot-blocker/3-point shooting combo is obviously pretty rare, which I guess is the point.

      Right now, a favorable comparison (one that has been made a few times on this board) is a pre-ACL tear Raef Lafrentz, who blocked 2.8 shots a game while shooting 38 % from 3 on 1 make a game.

      Raef was not as athletic or long as KP, however, and of course played 4 years at Kansas.

      Serge Ibaka was the player, at least statistically, I thought KP could become relatively quickly.

      But Serge was a better shooter in his rookie season.

    12. @ruru

      Not sure he was a better shooter as much as he was a superior finisher around the rim. He also only attempted two 3s all rookie season and while he’s listed at 20 there’s some speculation that age may not be accurate.

    13. But the shot-blocker/3-point shooting combo is obviously pretty rare, which I guess is the point.

      There we go. I can agree with this.

    14. But the shot-blocker/3-point shooting combo is obviously pretty rare, which I guess is the point.

      There we go. I can agree with this.

      Exactly my point. Then the article should say specifically that. Don’t try to be cute and say you can count it on one hand or two fingers, when you can make the case for it not being so.

      And if you do want to create your own goalposts, say you’re doing so, what criteria you’re using, and show the results. Even better acknowledge that if you move the goalposts you can get different results. The combined work of the commenters here is what the article should be!

    15. I agree that where the article fails is precision. On the other hand, the conclusion seems valid. KP has room to improve and that’s something we should all look forward to.

    16. Willy H looked good in Brazil, no? Set good picks, rebounded and finished. Stroke looked pure though he missed against the clock and a FT against FRA. The team played well with Pau out.

      Also, is coach K actually not smart? I’m serious. If Melo is just a high volume shooter who plays bad defense and stops the ball, why does coach K seem to trust him at the end of games? He had Butler, George, Draymond, H Barnes. Seriously, you there Jowles? Does Melo have some incriminating evidence against coach K? How do you explain all the run? Would the team have been better if he never hit the floor? Could Coach K, Boeheim, these kind of people, have they not done their homework?

    17. Like most rookies, Porzingis has room to improve. But unlike most rookies, Porzingis is 7’3″ and, considering that fact, has the rare combination of good-looking shot mechanics and the ability to actually leave the ground when he jumps. This warrants discussion. I agree.

      There is no problem with being amazed that the guy who is as tall as The Great Boban can also hit a three-pointer without looking like Javale McGee. We don’t really need fake objective analysis to be excited.

    18. Porzingis has lots of potential, without question. Trying to project much based on a single season of so-so numbers is an interesting, if ultimately useless, exercise in cherry-picking stats to prove a certain point,

      Let’s just say the young man has shown more than enough to bring hope and excitement to us Knicks fans, but if he were playing for Brooklyn the projections would not be rosy at all and his below-average numbers from last year woul be used to prove it.

    19. We don’t really need fake objective analysis to be excited.

      Fake? No. The author did with statistics what everyone does with statistics. He tailored them to prove his point. That’s why I posted the link to the “statistics” site above. Some of my favorites:

      Statistics are just a way for the mathematician to evangelize his faith. ~Hunter Brinkmeier

      Statistics can be made to prove anything – even the truth. ~Author Unknown

      What I got out of the article was the author’s valuable insight (opinion). Truth does not matter when arguing about how these “facts” will predict the future. I have zero impact on KP’s play. But when the Knicks do play, I know to look out for some of the things he said.

    20. Fake? No. The author did with statistics what everyone does with statistics. He tailored them to prove his point.

      That’s not at all true. Statisticians use numbers to verify a hypothesis. If the numbers show the converse, then the statistician must change his view point. In other words the numbers lead the analyst not the other way around.

      I can’t tell you how many times I’ve re-written an article because my opinion changed due to the stats proving me wrong.

      Everyone else (mis)uses statistics to validate what they already think.

    21. Let’s just say the young man has shown more than enough to bring hope and excitement to us Knicks fans, but if he were playing for Brooklyn the projections would not be rosy at all and his below-average numbers from last year woul be used to prove it.

      Thank god for your ability to objectively analyze his performance. Without that we’d all be lost.

    22. Thank god for your ability to objectively analyze his performance. Without that we’d all be lost.

      Giving me too much credit, Lavorr. You’d be lost with or without me.

    23. Far from being lost, I nominate lavor postell for MVP of Statistical Analysis on Knickerblogger!

    24. @25 – Mike, statistics matter but as the quotes hint at, people manipulate the presentation of them to prove their points. Improper sample size is an example of that and it was pointed out by others. It’s up to astute analysts to determine the validity of all facts (including statistics) and they should start from the skeptical perspective. That’s the scientific method.

    25. Statistics can be very helpful, but coaches are still going to have to use their eyes and do the the dreaded “eye test”. The reason is that there just isn’t enough data for most decisions. For example, let’s say some player works hard over the summer and improves is 3 point shooting percentage from 28% to 33%. That’s a big change by basketball standards. But there is no way he is going to shoot enough 3 pointers in training camp to prove that statistically to a 95% confidence level. But he can do enough to suggest he improved and he can demonstrate better form or that he knows how to get open in ways he didn’t the previous season.

      We’re in the same boat when looking at players. We cite statistics, but for young players at least, they aren’t proof of anything, they are just suggestive.

    26. How in the world are John Wall and Bradley Beal talking openly about how they “dislike” each other on the court? Man, that’s some dysfunctional BS right there.

    Comments are closed.