<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Top 25 Favorite Knicks of the Modern Era: #2-1</title>
	<atom:link href="http://KnickerBlogger.Net/top-25-favorite-knicks-of-the-modern-era-2-1/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://KnickerBlogger.Net/top-25-favorite-knicks-of-the-modern-era-2-1/</link>
	<description>The NBA&#039;s indispensible, premier analytical blog.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 18 May 2013 19:45:14 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.5.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Caleb</title>
		<link>http://KnickerBlogger.Net/top-25-favorite-knicks-of-the-modern-era-2-1/#comment-308468</link>
		<dc:creator>Caleb</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 31 Dec 2010 17:46:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://KnickerBlogger.Net/?p=5612#comment-308468</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[@6
Camby&#039;s TS% edged out Oak if you just compare those two years, but it was easily the best of Camby&#039;s career while Oak posted higher numbers several times - up to .585. 

On rebounding, again Camby has the edge between those two seasons but Oak&#039;s career-bests are better - he was over 20% three times, and over 21% twice (all with the Bulls) while Camby only hit 20% once (with Denver). Your suggestion in the original post, that Oak&#039;s board numbers were hurt by Ewing, makes intuitive sense. Of course rebound numbers usually go down with age (except Camby!)

Defense is an interesting comparison. Of course Camby was an awesome shot-blocker while Oak never blocked anyone - but I&#039;m not sure he wasn&#039;t a better defender anyway. The early &#039;90s Knicks as a team had the best defensive efficiency of all-time, and were actually last in the league in blocks once (even with Ewing). So there&#039;s something going on there.. Sadly +/- doesn&#039;t offer an answer, and neither does my Magic 8-Ball. 

re: assists and turnovers, basically Oak had a bigger responsibility as a passer which led to more assists AND more TOs. 

Oak&#039;s game changed a bit over time, as he became less of a single-minded rebounder. I&#039;d still take him over Camby, as a pretty easy call. But also fair to say he was perfect for the rules and officiating of the late 80s / early 90s, while Camby was a better fit for the game 10 years later.

Decide for yourselves:
http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/c/cambyma01.html
http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/o/oaklech01.html
]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>@6<br />
Camby&#8217;s TS% edged out Oak if you just compare those two years, but it was easily the best of Camby&#8217;s career while Oak posted higher numbers several times &#8211; up to .585. </p>
<p>On rebounding, again Camby has the edge between those two seasons but Oak&#8217;s career-bests are better &#8211; he was over 20% three times, and over 21% twice (all with the Bulls) while Camby only hit 20% once (with Denver). Your suggestion in the original post, that Oak&#8217;s board numbers were hurt by Ewing, makes intuitive sense. Of course rebound numbers usually go down with age (except Camby!)</p>
<p>Defense is an interesting comparison. Of course Camby was an awesome shot-blocker while Oak never blocked anyone &#8211; but I&#8217;m not sure he wasn&#8217;t a better defender anyway. The early &#8217;90s Knicks as a team had the best defensive efficiency of all-time, and were actually last in the league in blocks once (even with Ewing). So there&#8217;s something going on there.. Sadly +/- doesn&#8217;t offer an answer, and neither does my Magic 8-Ball. </p>
<p>re: assists and turnovers, basically Oak had a bigger responsibility as a passer which led to more assists AND more TOs. </p>
<p>Oak&#8217;s game changed a bit over time, as he became less of a single-minded rebounder. I&#8217;d still take him over Camby, as a pretty easy call. But also fair to say he was perfect for the rules and officiating of the late 80s / early 90s, while Camby was a better fit for the game 10 years later.</p>
<p>Decide for yourselves:<br />
<a href="http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/c/cambyma01.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/c/cambyma01.html</a><br />
<a href="http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/o/oaklech01.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/o/oaklech01.html</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Brian Cronin</title>
		<link>http://KnickerBlogger.Net/top-25-favorite-knicks-of-the-modern-era-2-1/#comment-308463</link>
		<dc:creator>Brian Cronin</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 31 Dec 2010 16:49:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://KnickerBlogger.Net/?p=5612#comment-308463</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Figuring that Oak&#039;s 1993-94 was his peak and Camby&#039;s 2000-01 was his peak, Camby has the advantage in TS%, Block Rate (a giant advantage), Turnover Rate (a giant advantage), Rebound Rate (not a huge advantage) while Oak has a giant advantage in Assist Rate (both guys had basically the same Usage).]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Figuring that Oak&#8217;s 1993-94 was his peak and Camby&#8217;s 2000-01 was his peak, Camby has the advantage in TS%, Block Rate (a giant advantage), Turnover Rate (a giant advantage), Rebound Rate (not a huge advantage) while Oak has a giant advantage in Assist Rate (both guys had basically the same Usage).</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Caleb</title>
		<link>http://KnickerBlogger.Net/top-25-favorite-knicks-of-the-modern-era-2-1/#comment-308462</link>
		<dc:creator>Caleb</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 31 Dec 2010 16:31:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://KnickerBlogger.Net/?p=5612#comment-308462</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I&#039;m a little surprised to see Ewing #1 &quot;favorite&quot; - there was such a love-hate relationship with the fans. I wonder if he would win the poll with a broader group of fans.  But it&#039;s amazing - we (even me) would focus on how he wasn&#039;t as good as David Robinson, or wasn&#039;t one of the top 3 or 4 players in the league. Amazing what a long, long drought will do to your perspective.  

Oak? What can I say? Maybe that you are even underplaying how good he was. What makes you say that Camby&#039;s peak value was higher? 

Oak was the best defender at his position, hands-down. He led the league in rebounding. He was, as you note, a good offensive player - efficient, and a terrific interior passer. 

And of course he regularly crushed Horace Grant in their one-on-one playoff matchups...]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;m a little surprised to see Ewing #1 &#8220;favorite&#8221; &#8211; there was such a love-hate relationship with the fans. I wonder if he would win the poll with a broader group of fans.  But it&#8217;s amazing &#8211; we (even me) would focus on how he wasn&#8217;t as good as David Robinson, or wasn&#8217;t one of the top 3 or 4 players in the league. Amazing what a long, long drought will do to your perspective.  </p>
<p>Oak? What can I say? Maybe that you are even underplaying how good he was. What makes you say that Camby&#8217;s peak value was higher? </p>
<p>Oak was the best defender at his position, hands-down. He led the league in rebounding. He was, as you note, a good offensive player &#8211; efficient, and a terrific interior passer. </p>
<p>And of course he regularly crushed Horace Grant in their one-on-one playoff matchups&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Z</title>
		<link>http://KnickerBlogger.Net/top-25-favorite-knicks-of-the-modern-era-2-1/#comment-308439</link>
		<dc:creator>Z</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 31 Dec 2010 05:25:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://KnickerBlogger.Net/?p=5612#comment-308439</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I&#039;m guess i&#039;m glad P-Ew was #1, even if he wasn&#039;t in my top 10. A great player, he deserved better than what obnoxious fans like me were willing to give him. As much as I respect a man&#039;s desire for privacy, I found it difficult to love a player who&#039;s greatest insight in post game interviews was &quot;we got the job done today,&quot; or, in the event of a loss, &quot;we just didn&#039;t get the job done today.&quot; Is it too much to ask our players to show just an ounce of personality? I know they can&#039;t all be Clyde, or Oak, or Spree, but at least broaden the cliche-pool a little bit during your 16 years in one media market. 

Standing on the press table with his arms up after dunking the putback on Starks&#039; drive to end the ECF in 1994 was the only time he ever asked to be loved, so it was the only time I ever gave it to him. 

Maybe if he&#039;d hit that finger roll 1 year later, I&#039;d have given it to him again. But, alas, he &quot;just didn&#039;t get the job done&quot;... :)]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;m guess i&#8217;m glad P-Ew was #1, even if he wasn&#8217;t in my top 10. A great player, he deserved better than what obnoxious fans like me were willing to give him. As much as I respect a man&#8217;s desire for privacy, I found it difficult to love a player who&#8217;s greatest insight in post game interviews was &#8220;we got the job done today,&#8221; or, in the event of a loss, &#8220;we just didn&#8217;t get the job done today.&#8221; Is it too much to ask our players to show just an ounce of personality? I know they can&#8217;t all be Clyde, or Oak, or Spree, but at least broaden the cliche-pool a little bit during your 16 years in one media market. </p>
<p>Standing on the press table with his arms up after dunking the putback on Starks&#8217; drive to end the ECF in 1994 was the only time he ever asked to be loved, so it was the only time I ever gave it to him. </p>
<p>Maybe if he&#8217;d hit that finger roll 1 year later, I&#8217;d have given it to him again. But, alas, he &#8220;just didn&#8217;t get the job done&#8221;&#8230; :)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: DS</title>
		<link>http://KnickerBlogger.Net/top-25-favorite-knicks-of-the-modern-era-2-1/#comment-308306</link>
		<dc:creator>DS</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 31 Dec 2010 00:00:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://KnickerBlogger.Net/?p=5612#comment-308306</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I realized I prob. seem like an ingrate. Great job! This list was a great idea and was wonderfully executed.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I realized I prob. seem like an ingrate. Great job! This list was a great idea and was wonderfully executed.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: DS</title>
		<link>http://KnickerBlogger.Net/top-25-favorite-knicks-of-the-modern-era-2-1/#comment-308305</link>
		<dc:creator>DS</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 30 Dec 2010 23:55:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://KnickerBlogger.Net/?p=5612#comment-308305</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&quot;That season Oakley also made the NBA All-Defensive Second Team.&quot;

FIRST Team, Brian, FIRST!
http://www.nba.com/history/awards_defensiveteams.html]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;That season Oakley also made the NBA All-Defensive Second Team.&#8221;</p>
<p>FIRST Team, Brian, FIRST!<br />
<a href="http://www.nba.com/history/awards_defensiveteams.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.nba.com/history/awards_defensiveteams.html</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: BigBlueAL</title>
		<link>http://KnickerBlogger.Net/top-25-favorite-knicks-of-the-modern-era-2-1/#comment-308304</link>
		<dc:creator>BigBlueAL</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 30 Dec 2010 23:33:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://KnickerBlogger.Net/?p=5612#comment-308304</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[All I have to say is its great to see Ewing, deservedly, voted as our favorite Knick!!  

I have a feeling if this poll was taken 10 years ago he wouldnt have won the vote but the misery of the last 10 years has allowed everybody to see and realize how truly great Ewing was.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>All I have to say is its great to see Ewing, deservedly, voted as our favorite Knick!!  </p>
<p>I have a feeling if this poll was taken 10 years ago he wouldnt have won the vote but the misery of the last 10 years has allowed everybody to see and realize how truly great Ewing was.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
