Statistical Analysis. Humor. Knicks.

Thursday, April 17, 2014

Knicks Morning News (Sunday, Oct 07 2012)

  • [New York Daily News] Knicks’ Camby already out with strained calf (Sun, 07 Oct 2012 05:42:44 GMT)
    The Knicks’ new senior-citizen bench brigade has absorbed its first blow of the season and the victim will come as no surprise.

  • 42 comments on “Knicks Morning News (Sunday, Oct 07 2012)

    1. danvt

      I think it’s a really interesting tactic to bring back veteran players who are talented and have a track record. Especially when the alternatives are late draft picks and undrafted players who may not in fact have NBA skills. Grant Hill was completely derailed by injuries early in his career but returned to be quite durable and effective in his late thirties. Antonio McDyess had a terrific run after his horrific Knicks tenure.

      Last thread was all about how Shump needs to develop his offensive game to realize his all star potential. Camby, Thomas, Kidd (3pt shot), all have done this. Wallace hasn’t played which means he won’t be running up the court in pain.

      These guys have the potential to break down, yes, (as do D. Rose and J. Wall) but they also have the potential to give us vintage play in limited minutes. Can you imagine if they do? What if we rolled 7′s and 11′s on these guys? We really might be able to win it all.

      I know everything Dolan does turns to shit and we’ve seen it all but at some point a Knick fan has to look on the bright side.

      Where would the Yankees be right now without Andy Pettite? Who would you rather pitch game 2?

      The knicks training staff needs to be smart though. Look at how the Yanks have everyone ready for the playoffs.

    2. danvt

      BTW, calling another poster’s comment the dumbest thing you ever read has no basis in the dry reasoned statistical analysis that some profess is the raison d’etre of this forum. Very offensive. Kind of like Mit Romney’s debating style. Abbey’s point was that taking a good shot in rhythm, as opposed to holding the ball, thinking about it, and passing it up, creates openings for put backs.

      Take your cheap shots over to ESPN-NY. You’ll be comfortable with that level of discourse

    3. d-mar

      Glad to see the italics gone, I was getting a migraine trying to read those posts.

      Coming back to the Shump discussion from the prior thread, I believe someone made the comparison a while back to Tony Allen. I think that’s where Shump will end up, a superior defender with an average offensive game. Which is not the worst thing in the world, every team can use that type of player, and the Knicks have plenty of other offensive options.

    4. jon abbey

      danvt:
      BTW, calling another poster’s comment the dumbest thing you ever read has no basis in the dry reasoned statistical analysis that some profess is the raison d’etre of this forum.Very offensive.Kind of like Mit Romney’s debating style.Abbey’s point was that taking a good shot in rhythm, as opposed to holding the ball, thinking about it, and passing it up, creates openings for put backs.

      my point was more that it’s a team game in the end, as much as we try to disentangle individual contributions, and that drawing a help defender and freeing up your teammate for an easy putback results in the team being in the exact same position at the end of the action. this should be about as controversial as boldly declaring that people need oxygen to live, but evidently not. :)

      and agreed on the Tony Allen comp for Shump, I’ve been saying that since early on. again, though, for me all discussion of him is on hold until we see how he comes back from his injury (breath held and fingers crossed).

    5. danvt

      On offense we want Carmelo and Amar’e to be the focal point. They’re people who get shots close to the basket. I think the plan is probably for Chandler to get the ball in the post a bit (I’m praying anyway). Woodson wants to play inside out. That’s how basketball is supposed to be and that’s how the Knicks played when they were last a force in this league. The guards shouldn’t need to be the stars of this team

      The most important thing for Shumpert is to have the skills to take advantage of what the defense gives him. So he needs to make open threes at close to 40% to be considered an excellent two guard on offense. Do guys improve from .306 in their first 58 games and eventually get to .400? Manu Ginnobli went from .345 as a rookie to .359 to .376 to .382 to .396 to .401 in his first six years. I think this shows that a great player who’s a hard worker can make incremental improvement but that we probably can’t expect a .050 improvement from Shumpert in 3 point percentage. Now, of course he was out of position last year and his shot selection was poor so maybe he’s a bit better than he showed.

      He has explosiveness and quickness, so if he commands respect with the deep shot he’ll get lots of dunks. That, along with his great defense would make him the star guard we covet. However, as of the first half of this coming season, I’d prefer JR as starter.

    6. ruruland

      Frank O.:
      Please, please let this not be the epitaph of this season.
      Old, injury prone.

      Said it when he signed, this is what Camby does. Expect him to miss 20-25 games with the self-scratch injury variety.

      Camby does this to save himself for important games. We have plenty of ways to make up for his and others absence. The idea will be to make sure only 1-2 guy is out at a time.

    7. Frank O.

      ruruland: Said it when he signed, this is what Camby does. Expect him to miss 20-25 games with the self-scratch injury variety.

      Camby does this to save himself for important games. We have plenty of ways to make up for his and others absence. The idea will be to make sure only 1-2 guy is out at a time.

      I hope you are right.

    8. The Honorable Cock Jowles

      ruruland:

      Camby does this to save himself for important games.

      Do you chat with him at CAA or can you back this up?

    9. The Honorable Cock Jowles

      danvt:
      BTW, calling another poster’s comment the dumbest thing you ever read has no basis in the dry reasoned statistical analysis that some profess is the raison d’etre of this forum.Very offensive.Kind of like Mit Romney’s debating style.Abbey’s point was that taking a good shot in rhythm, as opposed to holding the ball, thinking about it, and passing it up, creates openings for put backs.

      Take your cheap shots over to ESPN-NY.You’ll be comfortable with that level of discourse

      I’m good. I think that jon abbey is probably the only poster on here who deserves that kind of vitriol, and I’m happy to dish it out to him.

    10. flossy

      So Iman Shumpert is a future All-Star and also a future Tony Allen-type player?

      Which is it? Because it can’t be both.

    11. jon abbey

      flossy:
      So Iman Shumpert is a future All-Star and also a future Tony Allen-type player?

      Which is it?Because it can’t be both.

      he’s a future multiple MVP. Russell, Jordan, LeBron, Shumpert. book it.

      goddamn, the season needs to start.

    12. ruruland

      The Honorable Cock Jowles: Do you chat with him at CAA or can you back this up?

      Pretty well-known reputation.

      Look at games he’s missed by year, none of which he suffered a serious injury:

      2011: 7
      2010: 23
      2009: 8
      2008: 20
      2007: 3
      2006: 12
      2005: 26
      2004: 16

      They call him Bambi. Would often take himself out with the old hang-nail. But I think it’s wise if he sits the 1/4 or 1/5 game this year for the real season.

      When he’s healthy and has his legs he still has the ability to play special in spurts — a lot of hustle plays in combination with rim protection.

    13. flossy

      jon abbey: he’s a future multiple MVP. Russell, Jordan, LeBron, Shumpert. book it.

      goddamn, the season needs to start.

      Thanks. That’s about what I thought.

    14. Frank

      The Honorable Cock Jowles: I’m good. I think that jon abbey is probably the only poster on here who deserves that kind of vitriol, and I’m happy to dish it out to him.

      How about no one deserves vitriol? As far as I’m concerned, you’re the only one who talks like a 12 year old playing Halo on Xbox live here.

    15. The Honorable Cock Jowles

      Frank: How about no one deserves vitriol? As far as I’m concerned, you’re the only one who talks like a 12 year old playing Halo on Xbox live here.

      Email Mike K. and have me banned, then.

    16. The Honorable Cock Jowles

      And like I’m the only one. Give me a fuckin’ break.

      jon abbey: whether or not your tiny cranium is capable of processing that is a different matter.

    17. sidestep

      It is quaint to point to some standard of behavior on this board. It would be nice perhaps if that existed, but frankly I’ve never seen comments moderated, even with the most terrible bullying and trolling that happens here. I’ve seen abbey bully own share of newer users, and no one here ever took issue with that, or said anything about it. And now abbey is going to be made out to be like some hapless victim bc some users found his comment incomprehensible? I doubt he even needs you guys to stand up for him. And the discussion about the topic was not derailed because of impolite remarks, but by a refusal to engage in and actually own up to what was said.

    18. Z-man

      I don’t mind the vitriol when it’s creative and humorous. This is pretty tame stuff compared to what goes on at P&T or TKB.

    19. ruruland

      None of the media yarn over the last 6 months has bothered me more than the notion that Woodson’s offensive philosophy is based around isolations and difficult shots.

      The ignorance of that narrative is staggering, even for the incredibly high standards of ignoranceNY and other basketball media has set.

      The Knicks might not run quite as much pnr as they did under MDA, but they have the pgs to be much more effective with it now — guessing Woodson understands that.

      Melo is one of the few guys in the league who CAN BE very efficient as both the roller and the ball-handler.

      Looks like the “stats-driven” Woodson realizes this.

      From Hahn: “Woodson implemented some defense during the week and on Saturday started putting in the foundations of the offense. Expect to see a lot of the same pick-and-roll sets we saw with Mike D’Antoni, only with a lot more motion from the other players. It’s similar to what most teams run in the NBA these days.”

      That’s right: “Only with a lot more motion from the other players”

    20. ruruland

      Speaking of how underutilized Amar’e and Melo were in MDA’s offense.

      Nene and Melo were very effective in two man game in Denver, Nene, a very passive offensive player, would often pass up some of the really good opportunities it would present. Amar’e won’t.

      A lot to get excited about here:

      Seth Rosenthal?@seth_rosenthal

      ” I watched Amar’e and Melo practice the two-man game against Kurt and Chris Smith for a few minutes. Lots of down screens and cross screens.”
      http://twitter.com/seth_rosenthal/status/254989229380222976/photo/1

    21. danvt

      I was

      sidestep: It is quaint to point to some standard of behavior on this board.

      I’m just saying that THJC always brags about how he’s the only one who does his homework around here. That, to get respect on this board you had to come with more than just conjecture. So, I was just pointing out that calling another post “the dumbest thing I ever read” is beneath him.

    22. danvt

      I mean, tell me why a good shot, taken in rhythm, that is missed, is always a bad thing for an offense. Might the definition of good shot be that a big man is under the hoop? Isn’t that what the coach tells you when you’re like 8 years old? Only shoot when there’s a rebounder.

      Or are you not supposed to take a shot you might miss?

      Or is this just dumb?

    23. jon abbey

      danvt:
      I mean, tell me why a good shot, taken in rhythm, that is missed, is always a bad thing for an offense.Might the definition of good shot be that a big man is under the hoop?Isn’t that what the coach tells you when you’re like 8 years old?Only shoot when there’s a rebounder.

      Or are you not supposed to take a shot you might miss?

      Or is this just dumb?

      shh, you’ll confuse them.

    24. Brian Cronin

      I mean, tell me why a good shot, taken in rhythm, that is missed, is always a bad thing for an offense. Might the definition of good shot be that a big man is under the hoop? Isn’t that what the coach tells you when you’re like 8 years old? Only shoot when there’s a rebounder.

      Or are you not supposed to take a shot you might miss?

      Or is this just dumb?

      That’s the point, Shumpert did not “take good shots in rhythm.” He took lots and lots of bad shots. He had an awful offensive season. Yes, he might have also missed some good shots, but he missed many many many more bad shots. He was horrible in every conceivable way you could attempt to score a basket last year. Outside shooting, pick and roll, transition, everything. His results pretty clearly demonstrate that he was not “taking good shots in rhythm.” If he was “taking good shots in rhythm,” he would have done better offensively. He did not.

      Essentially, we’re talking about making up something that Shump did not do last year and then giving him credit for it to excuse his awful offensive performance last year. It does not make sense.

      Especially when Shump was so good defensively that he was still very much a net positive for the team and when his problems are the sort of thing many other players have gotten better at over time while his perimeter defensive skills are not skills that players develop over time. In other words, great perimeter defenders often improve their shooting. Decent shooters don’t learn to become great perimeter defenders. Shump is ahead of the game.

    25. danvt

      I think poor shot selection was rampant on the team last year as people played out of position, learned an offense on the fly, and made up for lost minutes of injured players. I mean, by the Miami series it was one pass and a shot by either Melo or JR. So, yes, not all of Shumperts shots were within the offense but he was also not in his correct role on offense often. I said, I’d prefer JR as starter this season, but I do think that Shump had some nice moments breaking down defenses, and finding open spots on the floor for people to create for him. As defenses rotate other areas of the offensive floor become vulnerable, thus the little soap bubble of a point from my client Mr. Abbey.

    26. ruruland

      “I like some of Mike [D'Antoni]‘s offensive stuff and we will keep some of his offensive plays this year, but I have some sets that I like to run that will utilize guys closer to the bucket and Amar’e's one of those guys we’ll have to try to take advantage of and use him down there.”

      –Woodson

    27. max fisher-cohen

      Going back to the last thread, Z-Man and some other folks were talking about possessions and offensive rebounds. I was wondering if anyone knew how the fact that offensive rebounds don’t count as new possessions relates to usage rate.

      For example, let’s say player X shoots and misses 18 times, and each time his team gets the offensive rebound and gives it back out to him. Then, player Y gets a final offensive rebound and dunks the ball. Does the single possession get broken up into 19 parts, with each shot counting for 1/19th of a possession? If so, this would make a shot attempt in the 19 attempt possession 19x less USG% than a shot on a one shot possession.

      The alternative is to attribute the possession to whomever took the last shot, which seems even more ridiculous.

    28. sidestep

      @27

      Your framing the discussion as whether “a missed shot is ALWAYS a bad thing” seems too theoretical to me. But, okay, even if we grant that it is sometimes a good thing to miss the shot, whatever that means, there is simply no way to 1) measure how some players are better at this skill of it’s-good-to-miss than others, and 2) to conclude that Shump is one of these and 3) that the benefit that comes from the results of missing the shot are equal or comparable to simply making the shot in the first place.

      Perhaps the closest example of the it’s-good-to-miss idea is Melo following up his missed shots at the rim with his quick second jump for the offensive rebound and put back. You might say that his missing it the first time and then making it the second time is equivalent to his making it with just one try. And, for the sake of discussion, there may be a higher chance that the former situation will draw a foul and get Melo an And-1 (that isn’t offset by the chances of his missing the putback and NOT drawing a foul). But this discussion about the possible value of the second jump is entirely premised on the fact that Melo CAN get to the basket and CAN hit that shot, which does not apply to Shump. Melo at least can put back his at-the-rim shots, but Shump requires some other person to crash the boards that makes his misses valuable? The idea is incomprehensible to me.

    29. ruruland

      danvt:
      I think poor shot selection was rampant on the team last year as people played out of position, learned an offense on the fly, and made up for lost minutes of injured players.I mean, by the Miami series it was one pass and a shot by either Melo or JR.So, yes, not all of Shumperts shots were within the offense but he was also not in his correct role on offense often.I said, I’d prefer JR as starter this season, but I do think that Shump had some nice moments breaking down defenses, and finding open spots on the floor for people to create for him.As defenses rotate other areas of the offensive floor become vulnerable, thus the little soap bubble of a point from my client Mr. Abbey.

      Client?

    30. flossy

      Brian Cronin: That’s the point, Shumpert did not “take good shots in rhythm.” He took lots and lots of bad shots. He had an awful offensive season. Yes, he might have also missed some good shots, but he missed many many many more bad shots. He was horrible in every conceivable way you could attempt to score a basket last year. Outside shooting, pick and roll, transition, everything. His results pretty clearly demonstrate that he was not “taking good shots in rhythm.” If he was “taking good shots in rhythm,” he would have done better offensively. He did not.

      Essentially, we’re talking about making up something that Shump did not do last year and then giving him credit for it to excuse his awful offensive performance last year. It does not make sense.

      Right. Exactly. This. Add to that the fact that this kind of magical thinking is only deployed on behalf of the object of Jon Abbey’s man-crush (seriously, have you ever heard him or anyone else say of any other player who shot horrendously “Well, on the bright side, so many offensive rebounds!”) you have all the reason you need to dismiss this line of thinking as bunk.

    31. Juany8

      The offensive rebound argument isn’t bunk, it seems obvious that if someone shoots a shot and someone else gets the putback, at least some of the value of the shot was produced by the original shooter. It’s different on a case by case basis, but one of the most obvious examples of how this works happened a few years ago in the playoffs. Kobe would took a ridiculous buzzer beater attempt against Phoenix (didn’t have much time on the clock) and since absolutely every eye on the floor was on Kobe, Artest was able to sneak in and get the putback.

      Again, it is very difficult to quantify how much of an impact a specific shot has on rebound probability. I did see a study a while back that correlated rebounding with shot location (unsurprisingly, shots from different locations get rebounded differently) so you could try to correlate a player’s shot locations to how likely players are to get a rebound from there in general. Still, I love Shumpert but the players I could really see having this kind of impact are players like Rose, Kobe, and Carmelo. It stands to reason that if a big is having to provide help defense to stop an elite scorer, that big is going to have a hard time getting in position for a rebound. In fact some guys like Kevin Love and Zach Randolph have had issues giving up their rebounding position to provide that help, resulting in gaudy rebounding totals but terrible team defense. All of these different individual actions tend to impact each other on a team level, and it’s not consistent from player to player.

    32. jon abbey

      flossy: Right.Exactly.This.Add to that the fact that this kind of magical thinking is only deployed on behalf of the object of Jon Abbey’s man-crush (seriously, have you ever heard him or anyone else say of any other player who shot horrendously “Well, on the bright side, so many offensive rebounds!”) you have all the reason you need to dismiss this line of thinking as bunk.

      again, not what I said, amazing how hard it seems to be for people to read. I’ll try one more time:

      in general (not referring to any specific player), if a player takes a shot while drawing a second defender, thus freeing up a specific teammate for an offensive rebound and score, that is the exact same result as a made shot. I pointed to this as one of many ways I don’t think that the stats we look at to measure individual players accurately represent their true impact.

      on a related note, Shumpert was one of NY’s 3 best players in countless games last year, probably behind only Chandler and Melo. I don’t know exactly why this isn’t translating to his stats, but I do know that those stats seem to underestimate his actual impact. I do wish I’d kept track of that myself as the season went along, though, but sadly I didn’t.

    33. Z-man

      To extend on this, I would love to see a stat that determined the average outcome of a particular player attempting a shot based on what occurred between them and the shootong team’s next statistical possession. Obviously there would be some muddling, but significant differences might be interesting. For example, if Shump attempts a shot, some of the the possibilities are:
      It goes in for 2-3 points
      It goes in and he is fouled, and he misses or makes the FT
      It misses, is OReb’ed and the team scores at its avg PPP rate, or higher, or lower
      It misses, is Dreb’ed and the other team scores at its avg PPP rate, or above, or below.

      So, if we could analyze players in this way:
      On average, a shot attempt for Team A by player X results in a net change of Y in the score at the start of Team A’s next possession.

      You can then extend this to find out 1. how player X generally compares to other players, 2. how this stat varies depending on the other 9 players on the floor, the type of shot attempted, the origin of the shot attempt, etc.

    34. Donnie Walsh

      So should Starks be credited with a game winning assist for dribbling with his head down to the basket and missing over two defenders in the closing seconds of game 7 v Indiana in 1994?

    35. jon abbey

      Donnie Walsh:
      So should Starks be credited with a game winning assist for dribbling with his head down to the basket and missing over two defenders in the closing seconds of game 7 v Indiana in 1994?

      I don’t remember the play precisely, but if it freed up Ewing to get the rebound and putback, then the eventual success of the play was obviously connected to Starks’ initial action.

    36. Juany8

      Assists are another funny little item to look at. If a possession results in 2 points, does it matter whether or not the actual shot was assisted? Common sense says no, of course an assisted shot isn’t any different than an unassisted shot. However, stats like PER and WP48 give credit for both the made basket AND the assist. This means that more individual value is accumulated when a shot is assisted, even though from a team perspective it means absolutely nothing. Said another way, the team only gets credit for 2 points in a possession regardless of whether there was an assist or not, but on an individual level an assist creates more value than a standalone shot.

      Since it is ridiculous for individuals to get more value than the actual team did for a single play, the only way to properly give value for an assist is to reduce some of the value the shot taker gets for the made shot. So if Melo draws a double team and kicks it out to Novak for a 3, Novak doesn’t get full credit for making that 3 while Melo gets a full assist credit. Instead, part of the value of that 3 point shot should be directly assigned to Melo. Either that or assists should go entirely ignored, there is no way to justify Novak getting full credit for making that 3 while Melo gets extra credit for the assist, all while the team only went up by 3 points regardless

    37. Nick C.

      That’s the problem with these stats, to my understanding. While on a team level they may correlate to wins based on years and years of season and team seasons how to parcel that out to the individual players is a whole ‘nother matter.

    Comments are closed.