Statistical Analysis. Humor. Knicks.

Thursday, October 23, 2014

On Consistencey & Team Building

One term that is frequently used during the Knicks telecast is consistency. Mike Breen often questions why the Knicks aren’t more consistent. In Breen’s mind, New York’s main problem is their inability to “get the job done night in & night out.” However from what I’ve seen, New York has been very consistent. In their first 16 games, they’ve only held their opponent under the league shooting average (49.1% eFG) 3 times. And they’ve only managed to be over that mark 6 times on offense. They own the league’s second worst defense (112.3 pts/100 poss), and to accomplish that dubious goal you have to be remarkably consistent.

Breen’s words make it seem as if the Knicks have the ability to be better, but some inexplicable force keeps them from jelling in a way as to produce wins. But my response is that New York has been consistent, just consistently bad. The nights they play good defense are the outliers, not the expected.


There have been a lot of discussions both here and around the internet on how valuable a Curry/Randolph frontcourt can be. While their combined production in key categories is tantalizing, there are those who think they are less valuable than their scoring numbers would indicate. A pair of losses this weekend seem to punctuate the idea that the Knicks aren’t getting the production from the duo that they expected.

On Friday night, New York’s frontcourt was man-handled by Philadelphia’s. Friday night Evans & Dalembert combined for 31 points on 14-20 shooting with 20 rebounds, while the Knicks’ Randolph & Curry managed only 16 points on 7-20 shoooting with 10 rebounds. On Saturday night, New York suffered a humiliating 28 point loss on their home court. Randolph & Curry watched most of that game from the bench due to their ineffectiveness.

I think these games highlight a key problem with the Knicks: team building. When people talk about chemistry in sports, they usually refer to off the court personality issues. However in basketball there is a meaningful on the court chemistry. Unlike baseball where a player’s value is largely unrelated to anything other than his own ability, a basketball player’s value is partially tied to his teammates.

Looking at their ability with the basketball, most people would laugh if you said Dalembert and Evans were better than their New York counterparts. You certainly wouldn’t want either to put the ball on the floor or have possession more than 6 feet from the rim. However they are both very capable players without the ball, and in those respects they are head and shoulders above the Knicks pair. Philadelphia’s duo are very good rebounders, with Evans being one of the best in the NBA. While Evans doesn’t block many (any?) shots and he’ll never be thought of as a great defensive player, his defense on Randolph was fantastic for the two games. Zach was held to 6 points on 14 shots in the two games. Evans inability to alter shots is complemented by Dalembert who is usually among the league’s best. He was 11th in blocked shots per minute among players with 1400+ minutes last year.

This weekend I witnessed a Philadelphia team, that when compared player to player should not have swept the Knicks. What I took from these games is that the Sixers are a better built team. While they have a lot of holes on offense (Willie Green being one of them), Philadelphia played solid defense. Although I already mentioned Evans & Dalembert’s contributions, the Sixers defense went beyond the pair. Philly was able to use Iguodala as their defensive stopper, and featured a press/trap that led to some easy buckets and disrupted the New York offense.

In essence the combination of players on the floor and the defensive plans gave the Sixers a synergy in which allowed their team to be worth more than the talent level of their individual players. It’s ironic that in the two wins Evans and Dalembert put up the offensive numbers that you would have expected from Randolph & Curry. But the results show how in basketball it’s more important for teammates to be complimentary to each other than be able to score with the ball in their hands.

67 comments on “On Consistencey & Team Building

  1. Adam F

    I agree 100% with your post, although i almost feel as though you are stating the obvious. Contrary to popular belief the Knicks are a talented team, its just that every player’s talent is scoring, and so the talent is repetitive.
    I truly believe the knicks would be a significantly better team if we traded randolph or curry (preferably curry) for Dalembert. The sixers could use the scoring punch, and we’d have somebody to anchor our defense. Combine that with more guards that can play defense/rebound (or just give fred jones more minutes) and I think the team is a lot better.

  2. carl tropper

    The reason for no chemistry is the team president. The reason for the team president is the owner. I propose “Sell the Knicks”
    t shirts.

  3. Matthew

    Good post. What I usually say on this topic is that a lot of people (specifically people in old media) mistakenly think that a player’s ability to do one thing great (usually scoring) trumphs any weaknesses they might have. But basketball is not baseball. You can’t hide someone’s weaknesses very easily. A basketball player has to be on the court during both offense and defense. He needs to be able to put the ball in the basket when left open, to find the open teammate when he doesn’t have his own shot, to crash the boards, and stay in front of his opponent on defense. If you can do all of these things even reasonably well then you’re an effective basketball player. But if you’re just good (even great) at one of those things your team will suffer tremendously. That’s why Bruce Bowen is far more valuable to a basketball team than Jamal Crawford.

  4. Brian Cronin

    Spot on piece, Mike.

    Every one of the Knicks’ “main guys” could be major parts of good teams – just not when they are put together.

  5. Brian Cronin

    By the by, appropos of nothing, what the hell is Randolph doing bitching about getting benched?

    He should be more concerned about not being terrible the next game.

  6. Owen

    Chemistry matters a bit, but how much?

    You can say the Sixers are a better built team, but you can also just say they are a better team because they have better players. Their best three starters, Dalembert, Iguodala and Miller, are a lot better than our three best starters, and have been consistently so throughout their careers.

    Its true that their are diminishing returns on scoring, given that there is only one ball. However, facts are facts, our two main scorers, or shot takers anyway, Crawford and Randolph, have career TS%?s below what was the league average last year. Our big four, in my WOW influenced view of course, is composed of two players who have been well below average in their career, (Curry and Crawford), one player who has been marginally below average in his career, (Randolph), and one player who is at the tail end of a career in which he has been microscopically above average. (Marbury)

    So, in sum, I respectfully think the problem isn?t just with chemistry.

    Here is post from 2006 from Berri, which bears on this point quite directly. The ?Knicks and Team Chemistry.?

    dberri.wordpress.com/2006/08/10/the-knicks-and-team-chemistry/

    With this quote from Isaiah:

    ??I spent a lot of time this summer talking to different people about chemistry,? Thomas said, ?because one of the things that was written and said and that?s true about us is the chemistry wasn?t right.?

    As a WOW guy, I have no problem saying that Evans-Dalembert are better than Curry-Randolph. The stats, when viewed from that perspective, indicate that the Sixers pair is in fact much better, and always have been.

    When the Sixers signed Evans, it was a great pickup I think, one of the best rebounders in the league joining one of the worst teams in that respect. I totally agree that?s the kind of sensible personnel decision that has been very rare in New York in the last, oh, ten years?

    also, typo there with “consistencey”

  7. Brian Cronin

    I think “chemistry,” in the sense of “guys feeling good around each other,” is certainly overrated.

    But I think there is a lot to be said for players playing positions that put them in the right spot for success, and Randolph being a “power shooting guard” is not good, but that’s what happens when he is playing with Curry.

    Stuff like that – just building your team so the parts all mix together – I think is real.

  8. Owen

    I think the whole may be less than the sum of the parts so far this year, but the players we have staked our future on simply aren’t that good.

    And I think I am going to have to defer to Ben R’s post the other day. Curry is a problem, but not THE problem with Randolph. Being a “power shooting guard” in your excellent phrase, seems to be in his basketball DNA. He took a lot of jumpers last year too, which was what Ben pointed out.

    And really, if Randolph were a great guy to pair with a dominant low post player, why wouldn’t the Trail Blazers have kept him?

  9. Latke

    Isiah seems remarkably calm for how horrible a loss this was. At what point does he start panicking? Isiah’s seems too proud to ever make a “panic trade”. Even though one could argue in that in his irrational clinging to “talent level” as the only barometer on which to weigh the trades he makes, isiah is insecure, afraid to go out on a limb, and as a result, is always panicking, I feel like that’s a move to protect his pride. Isiah needs to make a panic trade of the sort that is a result of feeling humbled.

    He needs to make a move that will call into question some of his past moves. He’d trade Stephon today, but back in the day, when many would have questioned both the move itself, and his past judgment in bringing Steph in, he would never have considered it. And now, although I’d still support moving marbury for just about anything, his value has got to be at an all-time low.

    Yes the nets were without kidd when the knicks beat them earlier this week, but I can’t help but feel that the reason they won that game was not just because of kidd’s absence. It was because the two largest Isiah pet projects were out, and without those boulders of Isiah’s ego tromping around the court, Isiah could make clear minded decisions, was free to play the chemistry guys and just allow them to do what they do. Play their roles.

    And I don’t think it’s a knock on these players – randolph, crawford, marbury, curry, are decent guys who just have some holes in their games – but ego is a powerful thing. People have ideas of themselves as scorers, and they aren’t going to change, especially in a situation like New York, where they are surrounded by other guys with big egos. It just devolves into chaos. I mean even Michael Jordan couldn’t change himself, couldn’t be the role player that would have allowed Rip Hamilton to be the best player he could be (and has proven to be) when he was on Washington.

    The only players who are capable of bending their games are the players who are less celebrated – the role players. Their egos have never been blown up, made sacred. It’s no coincidence that some of the best coaches in the history of hte NBA are guys who were role players in their time. THey were the glue guys, the guys who understood the importance of doing the things that were necessary to complement the rest of the talent on their team. Isiah is like the opposite of this. On the court he was a michael jordan, a guy who ruthlessly led his team. Used example. Coaches can’t do that.

    Sorry for the rant.

  10. Mr. Black

    I agree with all you said except for one thing:

    The Sixers are not better built than the Knicks.

    The Sixer just don’t distrust each other the way the Knicks do. The Knicks players just have awful attitudes about the game, and from the looks of things, each other.

    There is clearly an issue of trust on this team. There are a few plays from the Saturday game that highlight this.

    1) Jarred Jeffries’ back to back to back ball handling turnovers. Yes the last one was called a foul but he stil made a huge ballhandluing error. Jeffries, a forward, waived off a guard when that guard asked for the ball. Shortly thereafter he turns the ball over. That tells me that Jeffries does not trust his teammates to do their jobs. Why else would a 6’10 player with no semblance of an offensive game or passing ability insist on bring the ball up on three possesions?

    2) Randolph shooting the moment he touches the ball without consideration for the quality of the shot. Randoplh has been taking very bad shots that are well out of position. He is doing this because he does not truct that he will get the ball back when he is in good position. I saw Randolph establish good post position on two consecutive plays and each time crawford failed to deliver the ball. On the second of those two plays I am sure I saw Randolph waive off Crawford as he walked to the other side of the play. Randolph did not even try to reestablish himself. He was likely thinking “Why bother pushing Evans to the low block when I wont see the ball?”

    I would like to see Isiah exert his power over this team by benching the entire starting unit. He needs to show them that unless they ALL play together then they will all suffer.

    Thomas made a huge mistake by benching Marbury prior to the game against the Suns. If Thomas wanted better play from the starters then he should have benched them all and made them accountable to each other. If Thomas’ point in ignoring his team’s vote to not play Steph the first game of his return was to force his team to accept each other, then he picked a bad time and bad way to teach that lesson.

    I would like see Jones, Robinson, Balkman, Lee, and Morris starting the next game. I dont expect this team to beat Dallas but at least this team tries to do the things that winning teams do. Also, I would like to see what Morris and Chandler can do. The season seems to be a wash anyway. The regular starters should not get off the bench until the second quarter.

    I canceled my NBA league pass subscription. There is no reason to pay 159 to watch this garbage.

    One last thing:

    The Dolan’s disgust me. How could they let this happen to my Knicks? How did we become Clippers East? To quote Moe Sczlak: “I’m choking on my own rage here.”

    Do you guys see any hope of this team significantly improving by 2010? Becuase we still of the Suns a draft pick and it will be unprotected that year. I say tank this season and the next, get two lottery picks and turn them loose.

    To

  11. sean

    I dont understand why nobody realizes the reasons for Isiah’s BS comments after every game. he is only trying to to follow Dolans media policy and not have that be a reason to lose money if he gets fired (like LB)

    DOes anybody know if the knicks are even trying to get rid of curry – or what type of deals they are trying to do

  12. Ray

    If we are going to lose like this every game we might as well blow up the team and get something in return for our pieces. We cant even look at the schedule anymore and say” Oh yeah, thats a win right there” because you dont know how these guys are going to come out and play ball on any given night. Its going to be a real strong draft class coming out of college this year and i wold hate to see these great players going everywhere else except for NY.

  13. Johnny Twisto

    Broadcasters and writers don’t like to insult players. No one ever wants to say outright that a player is bad, or bad at a particular facet of the game. (Except maybe for Charles Barkley, but he can get away with it because a) he could play and b) no one takes him seriously.) So they use “inconsistent” as a euphemism for “poor.” I agree that the word means something completely different. In a similar vein is Frazier constantly saying X lacks confidence in his jumper, or Y is now showing confidence. No, usually, X just isn’t a good a shooter, and Y has just happened to make a few in a row.

    Also agree on the chemistry issue. This has been apparent from Day 1. Thomas gets a boner for a player and obtains him. There has never been any sense of a short- or long-term plan in how these players will fit together. I haven’t always appreciated this, but it’s obvious to anyone who really observes basketball that players need to complement each other skillwise.

    Several posts back, someone mentioned some players who should start getting more PT. Among those listed were Jeffries and Balkman. I commented that I’d hope those two weren’t playing together, as I thought it would hurt the offense more than help the D. And what do you know, in the past few games those 2 are getting extended minutes on the court together. Of course, Jeffries is always the 1st one in. Why? Why???

  14. Matt D

    Look no farther than Crawford’s 7 turnovers to see why we lost on Saturday. That was such a pathetic performance

  15. Ben R

    Our team is not inconsistant this year, this year they are just bad, but I will say they were pretty good just inconsistant last year. Up until the Lee, Richardson, and Crawford injuries last year we had managed to become a top ten offensive team, in fact for the two months prior to the injuries we were even better than that on offense.

    We would go out and beat a couple very good teams then lose to a couple very bad teams. We had a terrible defense but our offense and rebounding were good enough to make us a slightly better than .500 team. Then the injuries came and we collasped down the stretch.

    So when this season started alot of Knick fans were optimistic. We had all our injured players back, we were able to turn our least productive starter (Frye) and an overpaid malcontent (Francis) into Randolph (a borderline all-star PF just entering his prime), and all of our young talent had another off-season under their belt, so there was no appearent reason we would not be even better than the slightly better than .500 team we were last year.

    Then reality hit, our most consistant player on both sides of the ball (Richardson) hurts his elbow and loses all offensive ability but still shoots 9 shots a game, our most effective player (Lee) gets buried on bench and struggles to find his role, our best defender (Balkman) gets injured in preseason and loses his spot in the rotation (to Jeffries of all players), our best offensive guard (Robinson) struggles and shoots 5% under last years TS%, and our defacto team leader (Marbury) abandons the team right before an important road trip.

    But still a couple of players have not performed worse than last year, in fact Curry is playing better (slightly lower TS% but a much better TO rate), and Crawford and Marbury are putting up almost identical stats, so why have our role players become so much less effective. Is it just they are getting worse or is it something else.

    I would say something else and that is Randolph. It is not that Randolph is a bad offensive player(even though he is bad this year), in fact on the right team he could help on offense but much like the addition of Iverson to Denver when you add a very high usage offensive player to a team that is more efficient than the player you are adding the team will actually get worse on offense even if the player being replaced is worse.

    What happend to the Knicks is when they added Randolph he took shots and opportunities away from players that are more efficient scorers. A team only needs two and should never have more than three high usage offensive players on the court at a time, the Knicks already were starting three, Crawford, Marbury and Curry. So when you added Randolph you now had four players that wanted to shoot alot.

    The reason teams need low usage players is because they are usually more effeicient than high usage ones, they get their points when the defense breaks down or when good passing leads to easy opportunities. High usage players divert the defenses attention and low usage players get open looks. What happens when you have too many high usage players is they start to force their own shots because none of them are willing to pass and wait for better opportunities like low usage players routinely do.

    It is because most high usage players have a belief that they must take a certain number of shots to be effective, it is not necessarily selfishness it is just the only way they know how to help a team. When they do not get enough opportunities they start to get self conscious and feel the need to force things and that is when passing breaks down and players try to go one on one.

    We do not have the players to be a good defensive team but if utilized right we could possibly be a good offensive one again. That would be enough to get us into the playoffs and have something to build on. Of course for that to happen we need to get rid of at least one of our high usage-low efficiency players (Crawford or Randolph, I would prefer Randolph because we have a great player behind him in Lee) and start at least two or maybe three low usage players. The addage about there is only one ball has never been more appearent than on our team.

    One on one basketball is due to players not believing they will get enough shot opportunities if they pass the ball. Sometimes it is due to a lack of trust but in the Knicks case it is also due to the fact there are just not enough shots to keep all our high usage players happy, so even if they trusted their teammates, which they don’t, they still would need to force up shots because there just are not enough to go around.

    We are going through the same thing many of our olympic teams went through, a lack of low usage players on the court at a time. One on one basketball and a lack of ball-movement.

    We need Lee to start so there is some offensive balance. Then our offense will improve. Sometimes benching an “offensive player” like Randolph is the only way to improve your offense. With Lee we have better spacing and passing.

  16. Frank O.

    GOOD NEWS!
    The Knicks didn’t lose last night.
    No turnover fiasco, no poor shot selection, no poor passes.
    It truly was an inspired performance.
    I was pleased to open the paper this morning and turn on the computer and not see a single demoralizing story about the Knicks losing, or the franchise’s utter lack of professionalism.
    Of course, they didn’t play, but in my book, lately, that’s a good day.

  17. frank

    I’ve said this since the start of the season that the best starting lineup would be curry, lee, balkman , q, and marbury. That is one of our better defensive and rebounding teams with good offensive balance. That would leave Randolph, Crawford, and Nate coming off the bench for offense and jefferies or fred jones as defensive subs. Why I can see that that would work better and IT can’t is beyond me.

  18. Frank O.

    I know I got a lot of disagreement from people when I said this when the Knicks were 2-8 or 2-9, but this team needs to be blown up.
    Crawford’s inconsistency is maddening. jon and others are fond of noting his 55 point game last year, but how many games has he scored 6 points on 35 percent shooting? Way, way more often.
    Curry, in my book, is a project that has run its course. He is far worse this year on the boards and his D has always sucked.
    Marbury’s plight is too sad for words. I never thought I could feel sorry for the dude, but what’s going on with him is similar what happened to me when I was 16, and it’s miserable. Having said that, it’s time to bring along a new point guard.
    Randolph is showing all the signs of getting Knicks’ disease: he is so out of sync it’s frightening. The man started as a double double machine and now he’s getting benched.
    Q is just not a starter in the NBA anymore. His scoring is way down and he’s a step slow. His is a wasted 30 minutes.

    And yet the young guys show more life, and still don’t get the minutes: Lee, Balkman, and Robinson have inconsistency, but it is more based on youth. You never question their effort. And what about Chandler and Morris? These guys were solid in the summer and played well in preseason. Why are they buried?

    I mean, the Knicks just lost back to back games to one of the weakest teams in basketball. They don’t show up to play every night.
    How much would it hurt to play the young guys, make a few trades with some of their former starters? Curry and Randolph would still be of interest to other teams. I suspect Crawford would be very attractive to a team that needs a 6th man gunner, probably somewhere out west.
    Pick up a rebounding and defensive center and maybe a three and you make a go with the youth.
    Coupled with Rose’s expiring contract and you might actually get a pretty solid front line center…

    But limping through another 25 win season seems to make no sense with good, young talent gathering moss on the bench.

  19. retropkid

    every guy in the league is capable of playing great inconsistently. Flashes of brilliance don’t prove ability for consistent brilliance; flashes prove a team can only flash. Breen is Captain Obvious — every mediocre team in every sport in every country is capable of flashes of quality. So what? The Knicks just have fewer of them than most… Next topic.

  20. Z

    “Look no farther than Crawford?s 7 turnovers to see why we lost on Saturday. That was such a pathetic performance”

    If Jamal hadn’t turned the ball over at all the Knicks would have still lost and been booed off the court. They watched the 76ers have a dunk fest on them.

    So far Jamal has been the only guy to deliver much on the court at all this season. He’s still Jamal Crawford and will have his bad games and make dunderheaded plays, but so far he has shown up when most Knicks haven’t, and seems to be the only vocal critic in the locker room of the way the team has played.

    I know Frank O., Caleb, and others disagree, but I think Crawford will play for a winning team someday, either in NY or elsewhere. Sure, he’s never sniffed the playoffs, but remember, he’s played half his career on the same team as Marbury, so his drought may possibly be a case of “wrong place, wrong time”.

    I’d like to see Crawford succeed and I think what he needs is a solid PG who can control tempo and take care of the ball.

  21. Greene

    Some good posts on here. Doesn’t it almost seem like Isiah refuses to start Lee because that’s what people say he should do? Like he just doesn’t do it because he doesn’t want everyone else to be right on something. That’s the way it feels when you read between the lines. You know those times when one of the starters is going bad and you think to yourself well he’s gotta put Lee or Balkman in and Jared Jeffried gets up instead. It makes me furious like he thinks Jeffries (the most uncoordinated NBA player I have ever seen) is going to spark anything. His patterns make no sense because he has none.

    One other point. Because Dolan (who won’t fire Isiah for the same reason Isiah won’t start Lee… because people want him to) is going to stick with this guy why don’t the fans start chanting “Fire Dolan” instead? Wouldn’t that be awesome? I bet he would get up and leave. I truly think this would work and eventually he would do something. One thing we know he hates is being publicly undermined and embarassd. Doing that in the building he owns. AWESOME. If people want to pick a game to go to and do this I am in.

  22. Owen

    I like Mike Breen. Grew up with him on the WFAN. KB’s comments are completely correct, but honestly what the hell is the guy supposed to say at this point. Like Isaiah and all the Knicks players, he is employed by Dolan. He isn’t an independent journalist.

    As for Crawford, career ts% of 50.9%. That’s the knock on him, and it’s very legitimate. He is a good passer for a shooting guard, but he turns the ball over more than average, is a bad rebounder for his position, and a poor defender.

    The bottom line with Crawford is that he is not a great three point shooter, and he doesn’t get to the line as much as he should. He could be an effective offensive player if he improved in those areas. But he has a very consistent track record at this point at being a below average efficiency player.

  23. Frank O.

    I spoke too soon.
    The Knicks settled with Anucha, and in classic Knicks fashion, refused to take responsibility for an outrageous environment where women were demeaned and interns were used like sex toys.

    Both the Knicks and Isiah denied culpability and blamed Stern for their decision to settle.

    Big, fat phonies.
    Another proud moment for this Knicks era…

  24. Z

    “As for Crawford, career ts% of 50.9%. That?s the knock on him, and it?s very legitimate. He is a good passer for a shooting guard, but he turns the ball over more than average, is a bad rebounder for his position, and a poor defender.”

    I know. I’m speaking from the heart with nothing to back it up. I just think that he will play in some big games in his career before its all over, and I’d like them to be for the Knicks.

    If the league disbanded the current rosters of every team and held a disbanding draft and every team could protect just four players, I’d hold on to Jamal. For as “maddening” as he is, he’s still one of the few guys on this roster I can actively cheer for. I’d protect Lee, Jamal, Balkman, and I guess Curry.

  25. Z

    “Both the Knicks and Isiah denied culpability and blamed Stern for their decision to settle.”

    If Stern has the power to force Dolan to settle against his will, maybe he can force Dolan to sell the team against his will too…

  26. Gmal

    MSG settles suit. Is this the lite at the end of the tunnel? Isiah has just lost the only card that has kept him here, that is if he was fired and then with no alegiance owed to dolan he could of said anything in the pending lawsuit appeal. No doubt stern stepped in here, I think Isiah won’t be fired but he’ll resign very shortly. (buyout or settlement on the remaining years left on his contract)

    Sean – nice, didn’t notice that but a good pickup.

    I can only hope Mark Jackson comes in as head coach but who ever comes here you can bet this team will get huge makeover, we’ll see what these so called assets gets us then.

  27. Owen

    from the line is what I meant.

    Noticed the Sixers are beating the Rockets by 26 points tonight. I meant to post this when we were discussing the Sixers losses, also from Dave Berri…

    “In terms of record, Philadelphia is in last place. But the team?s efficiency differential places the 76ers third in the division. No, they are not a playoff team. But this team is not quite as bad as their record indicates.”

  28. Steve D

    I really hope they don’t come out and have Curry or Randolph on Dirk, that was a pitiful first half.

    Shocking how Crawford is our leading scorer going 3/12

    The only person that can hit an open jumper is Nate

    Can we make it out of a half not being down 15?

  29. Owen

    Kenny Smith is having a field day here, discussing how Curry and Randolph can’t guard, Nowitzki, just like Crawford cant guard Howard.

  30. DNM

    There has to be a line up change. Even a man who wants to get fired should get fired with some respectability that he at least tried to fix this.

  31. Owen

    Here we go! This is better…

    The Knicks fans are doing it….

    Oof, terrible offensive foul, terrible flop by Dirk… Ugliness…

  32. Owen

    Al Trautwig notes that “as the Knicks came back it was impossible not to notice that David Lee was on the court.”

    His game wasn’t that great statistically, but he was a +4, while every other Knick was deep in the negative zone…

    You have to tip your hat to Randolph, he play inspired basketball for a stretch there as well, after sinking us in the first half…

  33. DNM

    There has to be a line up change. This is absolutely ridiculous. Any other coach would try to shake things up. What is going on here? Do all of the starters have something on IT?

  34. Z

    “You have to tip your hat to Randolph, he play inspired basketball for a stretch there as well, after sinking us in the first half?”

    Nothing against the “comeback” but the last 18 minutes was garbage time. The game was over in the 3rd Q.

  35. Owen

    Z – Yeah, well, at least he played hard and made some shots, and got the crowd into it. We closed it to seven at one point I think, we had a chance at least…

  36. Z

    “Z – Yeah, well, at least he played hard and made some shots, and got the crowd into it. We closed it to seven at one point I think, we had a chance at least?”

    Something to build on, I suppose.

    Man, we sure have to reach for positives these days… :(

Comments are closed.