I really wouldn’t be…
Most top decision makers are former players with big egos and a belief they know the game better than anyone (especially statisticians).

“IMO, it would be very easy to improve those stats and his efficiency by putting him on a good team and taking some of the scoring burden off him. He’d score less but take fewer bad shots, hit a higher percentage, play a little more defense etc…. He has been used poorly in NY partly because Isiah is a moron, but partly because he’s the only guy on the team whose Sphincter doesn’t get tight at crunch time. If he was on a team with a couple of players with some heart he would be a lot better.”

He had one of his best seasons with Larry Brown, so I agree. He’s still a bad shooter, but can be a useful player.

I would be shocked if any NBA teams don’t keep at least some form of advanced stats, but they also rely on scouting reports a great deal. The stats alone simply don’t tell you enough about a player’s limitations, how much their favorable/negative stats are a product of the talent and chemistry of their specific teamates etc… They also don’t get at intangibles well. You have to watch the games to get at some of that stuff.

I think everyone in the NBA knows Crawford’s limitations and flaws, but I’d be willing to bet they also think he’s not as bad as many NY stats oriented fans think he is.

IMO, it would be very easy to improve those stats and his efficiency by putting him on a good team and taking some of the scoring burden off him. He’d score less but take fewer bad shots, hit a higher percentage, play a little more defense etc…. He has been used poorly in NY partly because Isiah is a moron, but partly because he’s the only guy on the team whose Sphincter doesn’t get tight at crunch time. If he was on a team with a couple of players with some heart he would be a lot better.

I think he’s probably going top stay with Dirk and possibly Howard (depending on where his head is at) and move almost everything else he can among the aging players that get a lot of playing time.

You really only need 3 major pieces to contend. Dirk and Howard are 2 of them. Both have plenty of good years left, but the current mix can’t get it done.

All this and the only team with a payroll worse than the Knicks. This is why so many people are down on this franchise.

But they made it pretty deep two years ago, beating Spurs and Suns. Yeah, with different personnel. But new coach and a big man of some sort, maybe? I know, not easy especially with their cap situation.

But if you have a decent shot, don’t you have to keep trying? Especially with whatever younger/new players gotten from trade/draft ain’t necessarily or even likely to get Dallas to a similar position of success.

I agree with Ted. The tele-broadcast made a big deal about flopping and a flopping foul. Why? Properly called, all it does is give an open shot to the opposition.

My thought on the Mavs getting rid of Dirk now is based on the idea that they’ve had their run with this team and as long as they have Jason Kidd they will not be winning any championships. Kidd is probably not tradeable, but Dirk is.

Re: Jamal Crawford, seems to meother GMs could very well see him as a useful piece and chalk up the bad percentages to the general atmosphere surrounding the Knicks…

Tom (Sydney, Australia): Who’s the front-runner for the Knicks job now?

Chad Ford: (5:30 PM ET ) Here’s the order I’d put it in:

1. Mike D’Antoni
2. Sam Mitchell
3. Avery Johnson
4. Mark Jackson

I’ve been cracking up on all of the NY media reports that Donnie Walsh is moving at a snail’s pace on the coaching search. Can you blame him? If he can get a coach like D’Antoni, it’s worth the wait. Mark Jackson isn’t going anywhere.

NBA decision-makers can look at his shooting percentage, including the number of games when it was just god-awful…and watch tape to see his lousy D too…It’s pretty easy to see Jamal isn’t much.