Knicks Morning News (2016.08.08)

  • [NYTimes] U.S.A. Basketball Is Already Cruising in Rio. Now, to Take the Court.
    (Sunday, August 07, 2016 2:21:34 PM)

    The men’s and women’s basketball teams are again avoiding the athletes’ village at the Olympics for security reasons, although other high-profile athletes do not share the concern.

  • [NYTimes] Highlights: Day Two at the Rio Olympics
    (Sunday, August 07, 2016 8:42:37 PM)

    Latest news from the second day of competition at the Rio Olympics on Sunday (all times GMT):

  • [NYTimes] Basketball: Senegal Gets Rio Mugging From the U.S.
    (Sunday, August 07, 2016 6:21:31 PM)

    Rio visitors have been warned of the risk of muggings during the Olympics but Senegal still could not avoid a brutal beat down as the U.S. women’s basketball team began their bid for a sixth consecutive gold with a 121-56 rout on Sunday.

  • 101 replies on “Knicks Morning News (2016.08.08)”

    It turned I couldn’t watch the Olympic basketball. But I could read the box scores. As reported in this blog, the line for Hernangomez was uninspiring to say the least. But the line for Kuz was pretty good and he played 20 minutes or so. So I’d like to know what the posters on the blog found wanting in his play. Any comments?

    Reading box scores and analyzing stats are the worst way to judge how a player performed. The second best way is to have a few beers and just watch to get a feel of their performance. This closely mimics the best way, which is the super-advanced statistical analysis front offices use, the vast underlying of which we only can imagine.

    Not sure what Mike is trying to say, but whatever it was is almost certainly inconsistent with drafting Kristaps Porzingis at #4, given the alternatives.

    What I think Mike is trying to say is that we’re a lock to win 60+ games next season

    I’m sure Mike was just trying to spew his politically correct pablum in some way so nothing new to see here.

    Kristaps Porzingis and Joakim Noah will anchor our best defense since the 90s. Book it, y’all. And Derrick Rose is gonna dunk. A lot.

    What’s the best way and second worst way to judge how a player performed?

    I’m sure Mike was just trying to spew his politically correct pablum in some way so nothing new to see here.

    What the heck does politically correctness have to do with basketball statistics???

    This makes zero sense. None whatsoever.

    The two are in no way related except for being two things that rueb doesn’t understand and is against.

    The 2016-2017 Knicks will go 57-25. 24 wins from Porzingis and Noah, 14 wins from Melo and Rose, 6 wins from Lee, and then O’Quinn, Jennings, Holiday, Thomas and Hernangomez will produce the other 13 wins. Book it!

    What I’m basically saying is that stats-lead analysis is thought of by some here as a foolish path to take. The eye test is thought to be a better method to understand player performance.

    However this doesn’t exclude the thought that NBA front offices use metrics that are unavailable to us, which is the pinnacle of analysis and unquestionable by people without access to their methods.

    I don’t think most people making those arguments see that as an accurate description for their opinion on basketball evaluation.
    It’s more like this:

    1) Stats like WS/48 and WP48 are flawed and we should not rely on them for everything.

    2) NBA front offices have access to other statistics that we do not have access to (I agree but it’s not like the stats we have aren’t good enough to determine if a player is actually good or bad).

    3) The stats don’t tell the whole story and tend to underestimate outliers. The group you’re speaking about believes Derrick Rose is an outlier and that his last 3500 minutes of play won’t be the way Derrick Rose plays this season or even for the rest of his career.

    Personally, I think people are focusing more on eFG% than the other three factors that determine success. I think the Knicks will be a great four factors team defensively (well our eFG% is based on perimeter defense so Rose and Jennings might really screw us there), and that we’ll rebound and not turn the ball over well enough to be as good as the Memphis Grizzlies and Indiana Pacers of 2-3 years ago. The only thing is that our offense might be so bad that it will sink our potential top 5 defense unless Melo and Porzingis can hero ball us to a below average offense instead of atrocious. That’s where I stand.

    I do think that everybody is being too extreme. Rose sucks and is likely to continue to suck because that’s the way things go, but it’s not like rebounding, free throws, and turnovers don’t matter. The Knicks can be average to great in all three categories with the team they assembled, and that counts too. There’s also a slim chance that Rose progresses to the mean. Disagreement is a big part of what happens here though, so no big deal as long as everybody keeps it relatively respectful I suppose.

    Gonna drop a comment grenade and then leave!

    I read this site a lot, comment occasionally. One thing that bugs me about the “realists” (or “pessimists” depending on who you ask)….specificlaly Jowles. Is that no matter how the Knicks and Derrick Rose do this season you’ve all ready set yourself up to be negative about the results outside of winning a championship. In their world view you either compete for a championship or you completely rebuild, which I think are not the only two options. If Derrick Rose sucks they will say “I told you so.” If he is average or even good then they get to be negative about how Phil is going to resign him to a big contract. So even if he is average or even good, they still get to be negative. And outside of getting to the ECF or Finals or winning it all, the season will be pointless to them because we aren’t really rebuilding. So even a 50 win season and getting to the second round, they get to say “oh but now our draft pick won’t be as high, we’re tapped out.”

    Facts – We have Zinger plus some other young and intriguing players. We also have 3 draft picks next year. And all of our first round picks going forward. We should have cap space next year with DRose coming off the books. Melo is on a reasonable contract and we have a s tarting center who doesn’t have to score at all to really change the game. We have plus defenders in Noah, Zinger, Lee, and Lance and Melo can be good on defense too. When Melo’s contract is done we will have Zinger plus all the young guys we’re gonna draft and if things go well Zinger will have some playoff experience under his belt. Why are things so bad? Phil inherited a team with no picks. He’s tried to find young talent with what he had but the odds are long that Larkin or Greek Freak 2 or even Grant were gonna be good players. But he’s tried to find youth, he hasn’t destroyed our cap space and he hasn’t traded away picks. I like where we are.

    What I’m basically saying is that stats-lead analysis is thought of by some here as a foolish path to take. The eye test is thought to be a better method to understand player performance.

    This is another straw man of course. Pretty much everyone who comes here believes in statistical analysis of one sort or another — the disputes come out of which models to believe or not-believe, and to what degree you can extrapolate future performance based on past performance when the exact conditions under which a player is performing are not the same — ie. changing teams, roles, injuries, etc.. And generally ZERO posters here believe purely in pointzzz.

    However this doesn’t exclude the thought that NBA front offices use metrics that are unavailable to us, which is the pinnacle of analysis and unquestionable by people without access to their methods.

    I think it’s unquestionably true is that there are some teams out there that have invested heavily in next-generation analysis of both video/sportvu/number-based analytics. I’ll direct your attention again to this article, which was written in 2013, and describes work that Zach Lowe says started 5 years before that. Call me crazy, but I don’t imagine Toronto would have shared this with the public unless their analytics/code was well beyond what they revealed in the article.

    The idea that forward-thinking teams like the Warriors, Spurs, Mavericks, etc. are not heavily investing in this kind of analytics is pretty naive IMHO. But maybe I’m wrong, I don’t know. I have no idea what the Knicks are doing, of course. But remember the Knicks were one of the first teams to install Sportvu in their arena, and as Seth at P&T noted, Mark Warkentien is stats-oriented, and was the guy who hired Dean Oliver to the Nuggets.

    1) Stats like WS/48 and WP48 are flawed and we should not rely on them for everything.

    Agreed.

    However I think the statement should be reworded as:

    1) Stats like WS/48 and WP48 are flawed and we should not rely on them for anything.

    I’m not a Holy Grail stat kinda guy. I don’t think PER, WS, WP, do a great job at player value. It’s an interesting starting point, but I would never use this stat in a vacuum.

    That said I think if you look at a player like Rose, and see him under performing in key stats (ts% for starters), then you can look at those stats to get an idea of his worth.

    However opponents of statistical analysis use these stats as proof that all statistical analysis is worthless. Cole Aldrich had a higher WS/48 than Anthony Davis and Greg Monroe, therefore all statistical analysis is garbage. I laugh at the thought that Cole is that valuable, but I don’t think it means that ts%, per36, usage, etc. is no longer valid.

    2) NBA front offices have access to other statistics that we do not have access to (I agree but it’s not like the stats we have aren’t good enough to determine if a player is actually good or bad).

    Agree 100%. However I’d add that I don’t think some of the decision makers are using these stats at all. They may have departments that do work in these areas, but I don’t think the guys calling the shots are doing anything other than taking their analysis into advice, on equal (or worse) footing than their already pre-conceived notions.

    That is “Rose is a former MVP who can score a lot” weighs more heavily into the factor than “his ts% is awful.”

    What’s the best way and second worst way to judge how a player performed?

    Sports Center highlights should rank pretty high. (Or is that for the dinosaurs? Maybe YouTube highlights is the cutting edge these days)

    If teams really do use next-level stats, you’d see it in their records, right?

    Shouldn’t those teams have consistently higher than expected win totals when you consider the stats we do have? Or do they correlate so closely with the stats already available that we are already 95+% of the way there?

    Does it strain credulity that Toronto is a decade into some statistical spirit quest and still almost accepted Shump and THJr for Lowry? Or threw gobs of cash at DDR while letting Biyombo walk?

    If teams really do use next-level stats, you’d see it in their records, right?

    Shouldn’t those teams have consistently higher than expected win totals when you consider the stats we do have? Or do they correlate so closely with the stats already available that we are already 95+% of the way there?

    Does it strain credulity that Toronto is a decade into some statistical spirit quest and still almost accepted Shump and THJr for Lowry? Or threw gobs of cash at DDR while letting Biyombo walk?

    Just because you have analytics that may or may not be “right” doesn’t mean that in practice it’ll actually work. You need to have the coaching, the players, and have things actually happen the way you want them to.

    You could have analytics tell Amare how to cover a PNR, but he’d still have no clue how to do it. You can design perfect plays, but someone could make slightly the wrong cut, or miss the shot. Or crazily, the opposing defense might just snuff it out. Or your analytics could be wrong.

    Re: Toronto – first of all, it was Shump+THJ + 2018 1st round pick. Second, the way you phrase the DDR/Biyombo thing assumes that you are right and they are wrong, when it might just not be that way, especially when you consider the totality of roster construction.

    Like, for instance, they had just drafted Poeltl, who is on a rookie deal.

    Like, for instance, the fact that Biyombo, no matter how much you like him, prob was not going to start over Valanciunas, so you’d be paying 4 years/72MM for a backup center.

    Could they have signed/traded him? With an entire league full of cap space, it seems unlikely that that could come together.

    One thing you can say about Masai Ujiri – it seems extremely unlikely that he did not really think things out. Pretty sure he did not make a decision off the top of his head, unlike how most of the posts here are written (mine included).

    I read this site a lot, comment occasionally. One thing that bugs me about the “realists” (or “pessimists” depending on who you ask)….specificlaly Jowles. Is that no matter how the Knicks and Derrick Rose do this season you’ve all ready set yourself up to be negative about the results outside of winning a championship.

    This is absolutely, 100% false. If anything, I am the kind of person who thinks that the Warriors were still a contender for GOAT team last year because I don’t evaluate large-sample-size results based on whether Kyrie Irving happens to make a deep 3 late in a game 7. Wins and losses are binary, but games are simply the sum of hundreds of possessions. A team that loses by 30 points per game should go 0-82, but that team is still better than a 0-82 team that loses by 50 per game. I appreciate the difference between them.

    If the Knicks showed that they were capable of sustained growth and habitually smart decisions, I’d be happy. I would be satisfied with a team like the Grizzlies or the Jazz — contenders but never really even making much noise beyond the first few rounds of the playoffs. I don’t think it’s reasonable to look at years of bottom-feeding and call it “positive development.”

    tl;dr

    I don’t think you have to be #1 to be happy.

    Does it strain credulity that Toronto is a decade into some statistical spirit quest and still almost accepted Shump and THJr for Lowry? Or threw gobs of cash at DDR while letting Biyombo walk?

    You think there are doctors that’ll try echinacea when they are sick? Are there Keynesian economists that don’t tip well? Are there skeptics that cross their fingers?

    Honestly I’d like to see statistical front offices that actually use statistics in all their decisions, not just most. Reminds me of Bill Maher who would say something to the effect of “it’d be nice to have liberals in office actually enact liberal policy.” But I feel the job of NBA GM, like politics, is half public opinion half decision making.

    If front offices have all of this magical statistical information and are so smart how do you explain Benoit Benjamin, Andrea Bargnani, Anthony Bennett, etc.. getting drafted so high?

    What I’m basically saying is that stats-lead analysis is thought of by some here as a foolish path to take. The eye test is thought to be a better method to understand player performance.

    This is another straw man of course. Pretty much everyone who comes here believes in statistical analysis of one sort or another — the disputes come out of which models to believe or not-believe, and to what degree you can extrapolate future performance based on past performance when the exact conditions under which a player is performing are not the same — ie. changing teams, roles, injuries, etc.. And generally ZERO posters here believe purely in pointzzz.

    I don’t believe this. I’d say there are about 10%-33% of the commenters here that believe Derrick Rose will be beneficial to this team next year. That must be due to the rejection of statistical model beyond volume scoring (pointzzz), no?

    Or is there a statistical argument for being optimistic on Derrick Rose?

    If front offices have all of this magical statistical information and are so smart how do you explain Benoit Benjamin, Andrea Bargnani, Anthony Bennett, etc.. getting drafted so high?

    The draft is a crapshoot, and statistical models are less reliable for players entering the draft.

    However you can’t explain a team with MSI (magical statistical information) thinking that Bargnani is helping their team & resign him to a multi-year deal and keep giving him playing time, or another trading assets for him.

    @ Jowles

    But you’re negativity regarding the Knicks is based on a pre Phil Jackson era philosophy.

    I know you think DRose, Noah, Lee and Jennings are win now moves. But I disagree. You act like any player approaching 30 is useless when that’s just not true. Sure there is athletic peak and decline starting around 30 but there are plenty of players who are useful/good till their mid 30s and all of these longer contracts (Melo, Noah, Lee) end before these dudes are 34. Rose and Jennings are one year rentals. Maybe we resign Jennings. But you have no proof that Phil is going to resign Rose AT ALL.

    And every move Phil has made besides these FA signings and the Rose trade since he’s gotten here have been made towards retaining picks, picking up 2nd rounders where we can and getting younger players.

    We have a nice mix of younger guys and vets. And we have draft picks going forward. Again, we can build a playoff team with Melo, get Zinger experience, draft players to add to Zinger and the other young guys and by the time Melo’s contract ends we could have a nice group of young guys to go around Zinger and can attract FA’s with the cap space that opens up with Melo being done and be more attractive because we’ve had decent teams. Maybe it doesn’t work out that way but to act like Phil is trying to put together some win now team that sacrifices long term building just doesn’t make sense with the evidence in front of us. You’d probably feel way different if Grant, Greek Freak 2, Labayie, Early, or Larkin…if any one of those guys paid off and turned into a good guy. You talk about finding good value young guys who haven’t been given a chance. Phil has tried to do that. But with undrafted guys or dudes who have bounced around the success rate is pretty low. Phil has tried to do that. He’s acquired 2nd round picks, and kept our draft picks going forward. All the lamenting over trading draft picks…they were all traded BEFORE Phil got here. Oh and…

    I don’t believe this. I’d say there are about 10%-33% of the commenters here that believe Derrick Rose will be beneficial to this team next year. That must be due to the rejection of statistical model beyond volume scoring (pointzzz), no?

    Not sure about that % but I think he can be good enough where he doesn’t sabotage the teams efforts(not because of pointz). I’ve posted his TS% with and without the mask(41 TS vs 51 TS) and you can see how one might be optimistic about his chances to replicate that kind of play with a new team this year.

    Playing with a coach caters to PG’s, a scorer in Melo who doesn’t clash with his playstyle and being in a contract year leads me to be optimistic about his chances. That doesn’t mean I like the trade but I’m willing to bet that worst PG in the league label doesn’t hold up next season.

    Somebody still needs to explain to me what the great upside of the Derrick Rose trade is if he plays one year here, plays well, then walks. I’ve heard people make the argument that this scenario leads to the Knicks signing Russell Westbrook or Chris Paul (though those possibilities are now down by 50%) but I don’t see how that one year of hypothetically good Derrick Rose play makes the Chris Paul scenario more likely.

    Seems like there are three possible outcomes:
    1. Rose plays badly, leaves
    2. Rose plays well, signs extension
    3. Rose plays well, leaves

    None of those three are desirable.

    I have been pretty critical of the Knicks moves this offseason, but I would absolutely be thrilled if they were playing meaningful games late in the season, and playoffs. However, I would have mixed feelings of Derrick Rose if he was playing well. I feel like if he stays healthy and puts up league average numbers, the chance we resign him to a max contract is pretty high. I kind of want him to crash and burn, so we don’t do something that stupid and set ourselves back another 5 years.

    The only way I see the Rose move working out is if he plays at his MVP level, then signs a max extension and stays healthy and plays at that level for several years. I can’t see how he’s supposed to play well and then the Knicks sign him to some sort of team-friendly contract. He is always going to be the kind of player who is an overpay, because DERRICK ROSE, MVP.

    However you can’t explain a team with MSI (magical statistical information) thinking that Bargnani is helping their team & resign him to a multi-year deal and keep giving him playing time, or another trading assets for him.

    One of Masai’s first moves was to dump Bargnani in 2013. It may very well have been the magical statistical information that convinced him that Bargnani was unsalvageable (and he also traded away Rudy Gay later that year). And re: us trading assets for him — clearly there was no MSI involved on our side then.

    I don’t believe this. I’d say there are about 10%-33% of the commenters here that believe Derrick Rose will be beneficial to this team next year. That must be due to the rejection of statistical model beyond volume scoring (pointzzz), no?

    Or is there a statistical argument for being optimistic on Derrick Rose?

    Being optimistic about Rose is NOT us looking at the last couple years and feeling good about his stats or the eye test. I can only speak for myself of course, but the optimism comes from his previous level of play (yes, that was 5 years ago), and that he’s finally healthy. In other words, I think there is a small but reasonable possibility that the stats he’s recorded the last 2+ seasons don’t necessarily predict what his production will be this coming season.

    I don’t think it’s a stretch to say that statistics are useful for future extrapolation if all other things remain equal between when those statistics were compiled and the current/future situation. In this case, there are many things that are distinctly NOT equal – role, system, health, etc. There are clearly reasons to be deeply pessimistic about him this season. I get these things. I really really do. I may be optimistic but I’m not dumb. It’s just more fun to be optimistic than pessimistic.

    You’d probably feel way different if Grant, Greek Freak 2, Labayie, Early, or Larkin…if any one of those guys paid off and turned into a good guy.

    Of course I’d feel different because the outcome would have been different.

    I wouldn’t be able to champion any kind of reasonable, consistent team-building strategy if I said, “Find the next Hassan Whiteside!” (who, by the way, I wanted on the Knicks back in 2012) and then criticized the Knicks for actually having found the next Hassan Whiteside.

    What happens to players like Jerian Grant? Traded in a package to acquire washed-up, injury-prone, overrated volume scorer. That’s what I criticize.

    When the Knicks have the picks-and-cap package of the Celts or Sixers, then I will reach peak optimism. The Knicks have very little to inspire that kind of future-seeking joy. Three over-thirty starters and the above washed-up superstar do nothing for my basketball libido.

    Nearly everyone here values advanced metrics and those that don’t are not taken seriously. The differences in opinion are largely about choice of stats, interpretation, situational decision-making and risk management.

    There is no question that the last 3500 minutes of stats strongly suggest that Rose is unlikely to become anything better than a mediocre starting PG next year. But there is also evidence to suggest that the weight of these 3500 minutes is far less that it would be for a different player because of Rose’s unique situation.

    Nobody here is saying “ignore advanced stats, Rose will be good because he scores lots of points.”

    Nobody here is saying “ignore advanced stats b/c the Knicks FO has better stats.”

    Folks like me are saying “Rose is reasonably likely to outperform his straight-line trajectory from his last 3500 minutes b/c of his unique circumstances. The substantial risk is mitigated by the thinness of options in the current PG market, and the cost of the transaction being acceptably recoverable.

    We are also saying that scouting, while not a substitute for advanced stats, are an important countermeasure for avoiding over-interpretation, and vice versa. Anyone relying solely on advanced stats drafts WCS over Porzingis every single time. It was the scouting of Clarence Gaines, and the trusting of Gaines’ opinion, that led to that decision. And that single decision will be the most notable one of Phil’s tenure as GM. I’m hoping he’s just as right about Rose as he was about Zinger, and that whatever constituted his “scouting” is the reason why Rose is the outlier rather than the norm.

    . In this case, there are many things that are distinctly NOT equal – role, system, health, etc.

    Has there ever been a case in which you’ve argued that a new acquisition of the Knicks is not in a better situation, having come to the Knicks’ roster? On this site, all I hear is that the Knicks are some kind of magical team-improving system (Carmelo as a #1 option, Phil Jackson zenning his players into previously-unreached productivity heights).

    We are also saying that scouting, while not a substitute for advanced stats, are an important countermeasure for avoiding over-interpretation, and vice versa. Anyone relying solely on advanced stats drafts WCS over Porzingis every single time. It was the scouting of Clarence Gaines, and the trusting of Gaines’ opinion, that led to that decision. And that single decision will be the most notable one of Phil’s tenure as GM. I’m hoping he’s just as right about Rose as he was about Zinger, and that whatever constituted his “scouting” is the reason why Rose is the outlier rather than the norm.

    Why not switch out Cauley-Stein and Mudiay? It will make your argument much better. Cauley-Stein is a good NBA player already. Mudiay might be the worst. And we can stop disagreeing on this point, for once.

    Has there ever been a case in which you’ve argued that a new acquisition of the Knicks is not in a better situation, having come to the Knicks’ roster? On this site, all I hear is that the Knicks are some kind of magical team-improving system (Carmelo as a #1 option, Phil Jackson zenning his players into previously-unreached productivity heights).

    who said better? i just said different.

    fwiw – i was obviously wrong about Bargnani. I did say again and again that I hated the Carmelo deal — not the fact that we traded for him but that we were bidding against ourselves (I believe I said the most I would give was Fat Eddie and his contract + Wilson Chandler, but I’m sure you will scour the website and find some line where I agreed to include something else, or that I was optimistic post-trade. whatever).

    and look – I already said I get why people are pessimistic. I just choose to be optimistic. I’m not blind.

    for all you pessimists/”realists” out there — it’s fun to be optimistic. it makes you happy. Really, you should try it.

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/amyanderson/2013/08/05/success-follows-the-incurable-optimist/#75b8507d4a1f

    @ 18, I remembered it as two of the 3, but it seems the proposed Lowry deal was Felton, Metta, and either THJr. or the 2018 1st – it’s worse than I remembered. The Woj article that describes the same package on offer isn’t available so we’re all stuck with the Daily News.

    I’m also not presuming anything about DeRosan or Biyombo but my read on the advanced stats consensus is, theres’s a wariness of DDR’s aging curve and love for what Biyombo brings. It just seems incongruous. You’re 100% right about their depth chart as a factor, though.

    JK47, I think the best case scenario if Rose playing very well and then leaving if his playing well leads to a clear vision that the Knicks are a player or two away from true contender status. That makes us a more attractive FA destination for PGs and gives clarity as to how we should draft. Jowles mentioned the Celts, who have no superstars but were a strong regular season team. That clearly led to them being able to sign Horford, who probably had other options at that money. I don’t think there were other moves possible for this year that put 50 wins into the realm of possibilities. Right now, Vegas has us at 43 wins…that’s better than would have been the case had we kept Lopez, Calderon and Grant.

    Seems like there are three possible outcomes:
    1. Rose plays badly, leaves
    2. Rose plays well, signs extension
    3. Rose plays well, leaves

    None of those three are desirable.

    @26. You got me with this. Then what DO you want? “Rose plays badly, signs extension?” That’s the only other permutation. It’s totally ridiculous.

    I like #2 – Rose plays well and signs extension. I also think it’s likely.

    I don’t believe this. I’d say there are about 10%-33% of the commenters here that believe Derrick Rose will be beneficial to this team next year. That must be due to the rejection of statistical model beyond volume scoring (pointzzz), no?

    Or is there a statistical argument for being optimistic on Derrick Rose?

    @23 – I’ve been keeping relatively quiet, but I’m in that 10-33% so I’ll answer. I believe in statistics taken with perspective. For the Knicks I look at Rose as the “best we could’ve done realistically.” He’s a buy low (OK, salary isn’t low), low risk investment. None of the Westbrook, CP3, Lowry, Isiah Thomas crowd are going to be finding their way to NYC. Better Rose/Jennings than Grant/Calderon and if we’re not stuck with those salaries for a decade, that’s a good thing.

    Why not switch out Cauley-Stein and Mudiay? It will make your argument much better. Cauley-Stein is a good NBA player already. Mudiay might be the worst. And we can stop disagreeing on this point, for once.

    Because the fact that WCS is good, even very good, makes the point more clearly. There is absolutely zero probability that WCS becomes a generational player, and there will always be guys like Cole and Birdman that can essentially reproduce what WCS does at a much lower salary than he will eventually make, or guys like Tyson Chandler and Robin Lopez ( and JOAKIM NOAH!)that can be acquired at a reasonable price. Porzingis has immortal as his ceiling right now, and Gaines saw that after scouting him, telling Jackson that even if the Knicks were picking #1, they should not hesitate to pick him. So yeah, WCS would be a decent consolation prize, but would you want to be the one to have passed Porzingis over for him? Not me!

    Also, if I recall correctly, advanced stats did not like Mudiay but loved WCS.

    I think we should separate statistical analysis from player management. There is no question stats are very valuable, but front offices deal with many other factors that can dramatically alter a particular player’s evaluation. Salary, contract length, injury history, personality, attitude, age, team need, coaching style/system, team location, cap situation and dozens of other factors are (or should be) taken into consideration when deciding whether a player is worth pursuing. Not to mention you can have all the data in the world, but you still need someone who can draw the right conclusions from it.

    Even simple, basketball-unrelated factors can affect front office decisions: Dolan would rather get famous has-beens than talented unknowns, because MSG regulars and a majority of Knicks fans want just that: big names.

    Quite honestly, Porzingis is very, very far from being a guaranteed superstar. His first season was one promising (and nothing more) for a rookie.

    Cut the hype.

    Quite honestly, Porzingis is very, very far from being a guaranteed superstar. His first season was one promising (and nothing more) for a rookie.

    Cut the hype.

    BOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!

    (you’re right, but…)

    BOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!

    Honestly, I think Hornacek will have a huge say in how/whether Porzingis turns into a superstar. He’s a special athlete, but probably just relative to his size. He doesn’t seem to have a ton of quick-twitch athleticism. He doesn’t seem to have a ton of body control while on the move (his off-screen jumper footwork is beautiful though). I don’t know how much of that is improvable as opposed to stuff you’re just born with.

    But the dude works hard, seems very coachable, and does have a ridiculous amount of physical gifts. Pterodactyl arms, 7’3″, sweet sweet jumper.

    let’s just hope.

    There is no question that the last 3500 minutes of stats strongly suggest that Rose is unlikely to become anything better than a mediocre starting PG next year. But there is also evidence to suggest that the weight of these 3500 minutes is far less that it would be for a different player because of Rose’s unique situation.

    Based on what?

    The last 3500 minutes, all of his minutes post-injury is weighted more heavy than any other parsed data. So to say that 2 months data, even with a story, isn’t really enough to throw out that other data. It’s a possibility that Rose will perform better than he did, but certainly that shouldn’t overrule in any way the other minutes he’s played.

    This is the part I don’t understand. What gives you credence to depart from such clear indications?

    It’s like if I said I believe in Christianity, but I think there’s so much more to the bible than the New Testament that I can go ahead and ignore all that Jesus stuff. Then I’m not really a Christian, am I?

    Similarly you’re saying you believe in advanced stats, just you choose to not believe in them for this player on our team. The one that you deem worthy for such an exemption. It often seem that some people make such exceptions for the players they like or want to perform well. Eddy Curry. Penny Hardaway. Steve Francis. T-Mac. Vin Baker. Jerome James. Andrea Bargnani. Derrick Rose. All the players that the Knicks could use to do better, are the anomaly to the rule.

    Yet, from my experience, the players that statistics say are better than their role (David Lee, Balkman, Cole Aldrich) don’t receive the same benefit of the doubt. In fact they are derided for having that trait. So then I conclude that some people are not really using statistics for evaluation, but for promoting their own thoughts, since they reject it when not convenient.

    Or do you pro-Rose guys think that Cole Aldrich would be a productive starter if given the minutes?

    “Right now, Vegas has us at 43 wins…that’s better than would have been the case had we kept Lopez, Calderon and Grant.”

    I have to agree.

    The Porzingis hype is very real and justified. I know what the stats say, but the stats also said Kevin Durant was going to be terrible and Faried would be a HOF talent. It was the journalists and the eye test evaluators who knew KD was going to be a special talent and that Faried would never be much more than what he was as a rookie. I have to believe what I saw, and that was a super skilled 7’3″ guy who is already a plus defender with the rough ryder intangibles and legendary work ethic that you can’t teach. Once he improves his stamina and strength, he will be unguardable.

    but the stats also said Kevin Durant was going to be terrible and Faried would be a HOF talent.

    No they didn’t. Kevin Durant racked up monster stats at Maryland.

    IMHO Rose and Aldrich are two completely different situations.

    I like Aldrich. His per-min numbers have always been great. The problem is that (reportedly) he is too out of shape for more than the 13-16 min/game he’s maxed out at over his career. Parsing out whether that’s actually true is difficult – you couldn’t even look at his stats in games with >20 min played and compare with <10 min played, because those stats would be essentially an average of his tired and not-tired productivity. you'd pretty much have to chart out his minute-by-minute productivity and see whether he's much better in his 3rd minutes than in, say, his 15th minute. That in itself would be biased because if he was playing badly, he wouldn't even get to 15 minutes played.

    Re: Rose – again, I understand why there is so much pessimism about him. But a reasonable (not definitely true!) story to be optimistic about is that his knee issues were not fully recovered for the first x number of minutes of post-injury play, then he broke his face, etc., so the idea that 3500 mostly “non-optimal physical condition” minutes might not infallibly predict the rest of his career is not so farfetched.

    Yes, you need to look through rose-colored glasses (HA! you see what I did there!?!), but I don’t think it’s a ridiculous case to make.

    Don’t ya know? Zinger is the next Landry Fields. Of course Landry isn’t 7’3″, could never really shoot or handle the rock as good as Zinger (who again is 7’3″) and wasn’t 19 years old when he entered the league.

    Top 5 draft prospects in 2007 according to PAWS40:

    5. Noah
    4. Oden
    3. Horford
    2. Durant
    1. The Incomparable Nick Fazekas

    Not bad.

    ’06 had Paul Millsap as the #1 prospect. They missed on Tyrus Thomas, Shelden Williams, and Balkman (#2-4) and recovered with Brandon Roy, Rondo, Aldridge and Ronnie Brewer in consecutive slots.

    KD’s first season in the NBA did 0% to predict what he would become today. The only metric he did well in that season was POINTZZ.

    And he went to Texas.

    I have no problem looking at three players who projected well out of college and then deciding based on “ceiling” or “potential” or “attitude” or whatever else you want to use. Beasley, for instance, had an incredible college career, and we all know how that turned out.

    I have a problem with drafting players like Josh Selby, who are god-awful in college by any available metric.

    Start with the stats to narrow the selection pool. Use the intangibles (or w/e the fuck ever) to get a clearer picture.

    Porzingis numbers were not extraordinary by any means, but why let stats and facts get in the way of our dreams? It doesn’t cost anything to predict superstar status while insulting those who ask for a bit of objectivity and truth.

    And truth is Porzingis is a talented rookie and nothing else. Still very far from stardom status, but all the projections for the team include demented calculations where he is assumed to be a superstar.

    I ask: what is the basis for assuming Porzingis is a sure-fire superstar? I mean he could very well turn into one, but I bet those who sing his daily praises would not be so enthusiastic and certain about his future if he were playing for Brooklyn.

    Yep, and in 2008-9, PAWS has Tyler Hansborough and Lester Hudson over Curry, Harden and Griffin.

    It also had Damoin James, Kenny George, K.C. Rivers, Lee Cummard, Leo Lyons and Tyler Smith ahead of Griffin.

    It had Hasheem Thabeet way ahead of Darren Collison, Omri Casspi, etc al.

    We can do this for every season.

    No they didn’t. Kevin Durant racked up monster stats at Maryland.

    1) KD went to UT, not Maryland.

    2) KD’s rookie year stats on the Sonics: 21.1 pts, 2.5 asts, 4.5 rbs per 36. .451 eFG, .519 TS, .040 WS/48. That hardly screams future superstar. KP’s rookie numbers were definitely better, despite being slightly less prolific in terms of points scored and assists.

    Evan Turner, Damion James, Xavier Henry and Landry Fields were all PAWS sweethearts in 2010, each of them projected to be better than Paul George, Gordon Hayward, Al-Forouq Aminu, Greg Monroe and Eric Bledsoe.

    Looks like someone’s cherry-picking.

    “’06 had Paul Millsap as the #1 prospect. They missed on Tyrus Thomas, Shelden Williams, and Balkman (#2-4) and recovered with Brandon Roy, Rondo, Aldridge and Ronnie Brewer in consecutive slots.”

    So how is that any better than the actual draft results which you’re constantly deriding?

    “It doesn’t cost anything to predict superstar status while insulting those who ask for a bit of objectivity and truth.”

    The problem, Theo, is that most superstars don’t put up anything near superstar stats in their rookie seasons.

    Lebron James had .488 TS as a rookie, and Melo had him in WS/48 and total WS.

    The list of HOFers who eclipsed .100 WS/48 their rookie seasons is much shorter than the list of those who didn’t.

    Oops, I don’t know what happened in my brain there. I must have been getting KD confused with Len Bias or something.

    KD’s first season in the NBA did 0% to predict what he would become today. The only metric he did well in that season was POINTZZ.

    I don’t think you understand stats as well as you think. 21.1 pts/36 with a 51.9% ts% is phenomenal for a 19 year old rookie.

    The problem, Theo, is that most superstars don’t put up anything near superstar stats in their rookie seasons.

    Are you suggesting that the absence of superstar numbers is the basis for assuming Porzingis will inevitably become a superstar?

    That would be a new one!

    I still have to hear a cogent reason for assuming Porzingis is a no-miss superstar instead of a very promising rookie.

    4.4 rebounds in 34.5 mpg.

    But yeah, if you think usage is ACTUALLY a thing, then .519 for a rookie on 28 usage is pretty awesome.

    JFC, who said anything about inevitably? Of course projections are rosier for KP on a Knicks message board then they would be anywhere else.

    You guys are tussling with shadows.

    All things being equal, KP has a superstar ceiling and his rookie year did nothing to make that less likely.

    Quite honestly, Porzingis is very, very far from being a guaranteed superstar. His first season was one promising (and nothing more) for a rookie.

    Cut the hype.

    Porzingis numbers were not extraordinary by any means, but why let stats and facts get in the way of our dreams? It doesn’t cost anything to predict superstar status while insulting those who ask for a bit of objectivity and truth.

    And truth is Porzingis is a talented rookie and nothing else. Still very far from stardom status, but all the projections for the team include demented calculations where he is assumed to be a superstar.

    I ask: what is the basis for assuming Porzingis is a sure-fire superstar? I mean he could very well turn into one, but I bet those who sing his daily praises would not be so enthusiastic and certain about his future if he were playing for Brooklyn.

    Since you interpret “his ceiling is…” to mean the same as “he’s a sure-fire…” I’m guessing that reading comprehension was never your thing.

    No one is seriously saying that Porzingis is a sure-fire superstar, only that his odds of becoming one are better than anyone in this draft other than KAT, or better than any draft pick the Knicks have even had a choice about, much less made, since Patrick Ewing. But I guess you’ll dispute that too, since your posts are invariably rooted in worst possible outcomes.

    Is there anyone who actually gets paid to evaluate basketball players that thinks that the hype about Porzingis is excessive? What do you think his trade value is right now? Other than Towns and Anthony Davis, what player drafted in the last 5 years would you trade him for straight up? If the answer is nobody (which it should be) does that mean it’s unjustified hype, as you snarkily suggest?

    (and I’ll confess that I’d be hesitant to trade him for either of those two right now. But that’s just my love for the home-grown guy, not logic.)

    2) KD’s rookie year stats on the Sonics: 21.1 pts, 2.5 asts, 4.5 rbs per 36. .451 eFG, .519 TS, .040 WS/48. That hardly screams future superstar. KP’s rookie numbers were definitely better, despite being slightly less prolific in terms of points scored and assists.

    Here’s a list of comparable rookie seasons for 19 & 20 year olds since the 3 point era, for players with 20+ pts/36, ranked by WS.

    http://bkref.com/tiny/2zpHo

    Rk Player Season
    1 Shaquille O’Neal 1992-93
    2 Karl-Anthony Towns 2015-16
    3 Carmelo Anthony 2003-04
    4 Kyrie Irving 2011-12
    5 Cliff Robinson 1979-80
    6 Michael Beasley 2008-09
    7 Kevin Durant 2007-08
    8 Jahlil Okafor 2015-16

    By his second season, the greatness was obvious.
    http://bkref.com/tiny/N30aQ

    Rk Player Season
    1 LeBron James 2004-05
    2 Anthony Davis 2013-14
    3 Shaquille O’Neal 1992-93
    4 Karl-Anthony Towns 2015-16
    5 Kevin Durant 2008-09
    6 Kobe Bryant 1997-98
    7 Carmelo Anthony 2003-04
    8 Kyrie Irving 2012-13
    9 Carmelo Anthony 2004-05
    10 Kyrie Irving 2011-12
    11 Andrew Wiggins 2015-16
    12 Cliff Robinson 1979-80
    13 Michael Beasley 2008-09
    14 Cliff Robinson 1980-81
    15 Kevin Durant 2007-08
    16 Jahlil Okafor 2015-16

    What about Porzingis overall beliw average NBA numbers? He is a rookie.
    What about his cherry-picked numbers? He is a superstar!

    Durant also played SG his first year. So rebounding will be low.

    Also if you take my lists and drop them to 18 pts/36 a certain Latvian shows up.

    He favors well to KD – but at that age their careers could go in many ways. The promise is surely there though.

    Porzingis came into the NBA with a significant problem with his game – he shied away from contact in Europe. Other teams brutalized him, sometimes with guards and they don’t even really play all that rough in Europe, but they knew that the way to mess with Porzingis was to push him around. And they did so. So that was a major concern. He came to the NBA and then was totally banging in there in the paint right from the get go. He obviously tired as the season went on due to, you know, banging in the paint right from the get go after not doing it for years, but just the fact that he came in and not only addressed his biggest concern but made it a strength of his game was a huge indication that he would live up to the hype.

    He shot fine in Europe and his shooting stroke doesn’t seem busted, so the odds are that his shooting will improve.

    I absolutely agree that just looking at his first year numbers don’t show that he will clearly improve into a star player, but the context around the numbers certainly suggest that he will improve. His biggest weakness became his biggest strength – that’s the hard part. Bringing his shooting numbers back to where they were in Europe should not be nearly as difficult. Especially since historically players do improve as they hit their early 20s.

    Now you can differ as to whether an improved Porzingis will become a “superstar” rather than just a very good player, but either way, the future looks bright for him. He’s not KAT, but come on, who debuts with a season like KAT at 19? That dude was just crazy good.

    … their careers could go in many ways. The promise is surely there though.

    That’s exactly my position.

    Oh I understand stats well enough to know that both usage and scoring efficiency matter when determining if a guy can become a great scorer. It’s why it’s easier to build a top offense around Harden and scrubs than it is to build one around DeAndre Jordan and scrubs. The point is he also was good at nothing else. In fact, he wasn’t even “good” at scoring; just good relative to his age. The only thing he was good at was not fouling, as he averaged like 1.5 fouls a night or something. He had more turnovers than assists, a .459 eFG%, wasn’t a good rebounder, and shot under 30% from deep, but he did get to the line and convert there pretty well. He had a .040 WS/48 and a -0.011 WP48 that season.

    I promise you if KD was a Knick early on people would have screamed that he had a terrible rookie year and that he’s not going to be a superstar and blah blah we should have picked Fazekas or Horford blah blah kill the hype blah blah. Success wasn’t guaranteed for him the same way it isn’t guaranteed for Porzingis. However, people believe in Porzingis because he showed us upside, promise, potential, and intangibles (statistically speaking he isn’t that far off from Pat Ewing or Durant’s rookie campaigns), the kind of things that get you killed around here for talking about.

    So again. Screw what the stats say. Porzingis forever and the hype will live on.

    Is anyone saying we shouldn’t have drafted Porzingis? It might be we shouldn’t have, but we don’t know yet. We can’t know yet. Chill out y’all

    IM CALM BRO.

    No, I agree. I just think the “kill the hype” talk around Porzingis is corny. He’s legitimately the only thing we have going for ourselves.

    Quite honestly, Porzingis is very, very far from being a guaranteed superstar.

    This is laughable. No one said that he’s a guaranteed superstar. Not even KAT is a guaranteed superstar – for all we know, he blows out a knee, then breaks a suborbital bone in his face and the TWolves board gets into a protracted argument about whether he’ll ever return to form or not, and whether that form was even really that good and he merited ROY.

    What people said is that he has superstar potential. His ceiling is superstar. You’re saying we are overvaluing him because we’re Knicks fans. What watching games reveals that stats does not are the elements of his game that contribute to the picture of who he is as a player. And watching games reveals that, unsurprisingly, he was really inconsistent. He had many stretches of good play, sometimes even multiple games in a row, and many stretches where he disappeared, sometimes even for multiple games in a row. Disappearing when you’re a rookie in a new league, playing more than twice as many games, with better athletes speaking a different language is not exactly a surprise. Continuing to learn and improve is. Most players don’t have that heart or intelligence. Combine those with his very obvious skill and, oh yeah, absurd 7’3? frame, and you have a potential once in a lifetime player.

    I would still trade KAT straight up, though, and maybe even throw in a first round pick.

    Would Giannis be included in the Davis/Towns club of players you would trade Porzingis for?

    Would Giannis be included in the Davis/Towns club of players you would trade Porzingis for?

    Hell to the No.

    Other than Towns and Anthony Davis, what player drafted in the last 5 years would you trade him for straight up?

    Honestly, there was a European 20 year old rookie in the NBA last year that put up numbers way closer to KAT and Anthony Davis’s than Porzingis did.

    Honestly, there was a European 20 year old rookie in the NBA last year that put up numbers way closer to KAT and Anthony Davis’s than Porzingis did.

    Last time I suggested that Jokic should have been #2 in ROY voting, familiar voices started shouting familiar things…

    This Olympic game is shaping up into the shitshow I expected it to be. You’ve got Klay, Kyrie, Cousins and Carmelo on the floor at the same time? It’s like the NBA’s All-Overrated team got confused with the USA Basketball Team…

    Ah, at least they have DeAndre to clean up those Carmelo Assists…

    Of course Klay’s overrated! To think that GS passed on the GOAT, aka Kevin Love, just to keep him!!

    I would have had no problem with Jokic getting #2 as ROY, he was very deserving.

    I would definitely have a problem with trading Porzingis for Jokic straight up. That would be the Jowlesiest thing ever.

    Don’t worry, not even Dolan is that clueless.

    I absolutely agree that just looking at his first year numbers don’t show that he will clearly improve into a star player, but the context around the numbers certainly suggest that he will improve.

    You dare suggest that context matters?! BLASPHEMY!!

    Don’t worry, not even Dolan is that clueless.

    Serious question: Who do you think would make a better basketball team if acting as a one-person front office?

    The Lowly Cock Jowles

    OR

    James Dolan (sans The Straight Shot)

    I promise you if KD was a Knick early on people would have screamed that he had a terrible rookie year and that he’s not going to be a superstar and blah blah we should have picked Fazekas or Horford blah blah kill the hype blah blah.

    Has anyone said Porzingis had a terrible rookie year?

    Porzingis had a very good rookie year. In fact, he’s had the best rookie year (age considered) of any Knicks rookie since I started this site in 2004. In fact I think his rookie year statistically compares to Ewing, although Patrick was by far a better defender. So the Ewing comparison isn’t fair, since their value comes from different areas.

    I say all this by evaluating his statistics, not from my own biases or desires.

    How good can he be? It’s hard to tell trajectory after one year. 2017 will tell us a whole lot about his arc.

    Jokic put up basically the same stats that Anthony Davis did his rookie year, in roughly the same number of minutes, only Jokic shot 3 pointers and had 3 times the assist rate. I think that anybody who only looks at box scores and nothing else would trade Porzingis for Jokic straight up and feel pretty good about it, right?

    @89, that’s fair. Serious question: would YOU do it?

    @86 You, of course! Not a very useful question, though, since its not testable.

    Now, for a truly serious question: why don’t you put your money where your mouth is? Clearly money is somewhat important to you (and I truly don’t mean that as a negative…but if memory serves me correctly, you did leave teaching to pursue something substantially more lucrative, right?) If you are so confident in your abilities, why not make an easy fortune gambling on NBA outcomes simply by being right much more than you are wrong? NBA futures, securities futures, what’s the difference? You could be the ultimate card counter, and Vegas couldn’t do anything about it! You wouldn’t even need to quit your day job! Maybe you could amass a large enough fortune to buy your own team, and then build it to your own specs!

    Instead, you waste countless waking moments stooping to engage in pointless cyber-dialogue with guys like me. Go figure.

    Don’t get me wrong, I hope you continue doing it forever, it’s truly entertaining!

    Jowles would be a prohibitive favorite in a bet against Dolan, Jackson and the Rose Crowd. 17 and 32 wins are my evidence. Phil is good at assembling bad win-now teams. He is also good at missing the playoffs in spite of his efforts to the contrary. All that as a GM, not a coach. Just in case.

    Now, for a truly serious question: why don’t you put your money where your mouth is? Clearly money is somewhat important to you (and I truly don’t mean that as a negative…but if memory serves me correctly, you did leave teaching to pursue something substantially more lucrative, right?) If you are so confident in your abilities, why not make an easy fortune gambling on NBA outcomes simply by being right much more than you are wrong? NBA futures, securities futures, what’s the difference? You could be the ultimate card counter, and Vegas couldn’t do anything about it! You wouldn’t even need to quit your day job! Maybe you could amass a large enough fortune to buy your own team, and then build it to your own specs!

    I am a deeply risk-averse person in real life. I play pickup basketball, but I do not road cycle (anymore). I do barbell lifts, but I do not do judo (anymore). I bought a house here in Portland, but I also pad my emergency and mortgage curtailment funds with rental income from bedrooms that I would otherwise underuse.

    I am considering putting a four-figure bet on the Knicks under this season. Once the roster is finalized and I work out some projections, there’s a strong chance that I will believe myself to have a 80% chance to win 100% of the time with the Knicks at 43-or-under wins. Otherwise, I stay far away from betting, because the only thing I hate worse than being wrong is losing money by being wrong. And sometimes I’m wrong.

    Making money from those Vegas guys is tough: they don’t believe the Knicks are a super-team; they don’t think the team is very good.

    That’s not my point, Mike. I’m not speaking about Porzingis as much as I’m saying that the non statistical evidence on his rookie season is more indicative of what he will become than his stat line for the season. My point is that the stat-based crowd here would have had ruruland’s head if he said “Kevin Durant put up a .519 TS% on a 28% USG at age 19” even though that was the single piece of evidence that predicted his future success (well that, and that he was good at not fouling and getting fouled from a young age). Telling people to “kill the hype” around Porzingis based on his stat-line is shortsighted. That’s my point.

    That’s evidence? How many 19-year-olds have even played as many minutes as Durant did?

    Killer Mike just said in comment 61 that his points/36 and TS% combination were phenomenal for a 19 year old rookie, bro. Pick your beef up with him.

    Durant sucked his first year regardless of his PAWS40 or his ability to “carry the weight of an offense at such a young age.” My proof that everyone would have buried the Durant upside/potential/intangibles “but he was the only real threat to score on a terrible team” talk? Everyone here hates Jahlil Okafor and he had a better season as a scorer than Durant did as a rookie.

    The Porzingis hype train shall roll along. Intangibles, potential, and upside all day, bro.

    Kevin Love, NBA champion. Put some respek on that name.

    He doesn’t deserve much respect. To get that he’d have to hurt his knee, sit out a year, put up 2 years of stinky numbers, and then he’d be worthy of some optimism.

    The Porzingis hype train shall roll along. Intangibles, potential, and upside all day, bro.

    I’m fine with this, but others are talking about Jokic and Cauley-Stein like they’re not the future All-NBA 2nd and 3rd teamers of the future. They had great seasons by any reasonable standard. They’re just not 7’3″ with smooth-looking outside jumpers.

    But you’re negativity regarding the Knicks is based on a pre Phil Jackson era philosophy.

    I wish people would stop assuming this. I was pretty optimistic about the Knicks, very happy with the direction things were going before the Rose trade. With that trade it became obvious that Jackson either wasn’t trying to rebuild the team into a perennial competitor or simply had no idea what the fuck he was doing. It’s likely that Jerian Grant plays as well as Rose does. It’s likely that Lopez outplays Noah. It’s likely that Galloway puts up similar numbers to Lee. We’ve (once again) given up youth and mortgaged the future in a ridiculous bid to win now with declining players who used to be really good because ‘you can’t rebuild in NY.’ Every positive move we made this summer could have happened without the Rose trade.

    I’m not negative because of the Melo deal, or the Bargs trade, I’m negative because we can’t ever try to build a sustainable team without fucking it up. If we do okay this year (and I figure around 38-40 wins, generous considering new coach and mostly new roster) then the following year we’ll have even older Melo, Noah and Lee, and unless KP goes off the charts we’ll be worse than we are this year. It’s fantastic that Jackson hasn’t given away any picks yet! We’re gonna need them because instead of trying to build with youth now we to wait out another 4 years of mediocrity before somebody, maybe, can try again.

    I’m negative because I look at these headline moves and see that Phil Jackson (not Isaiah, not Dolan) made the Knicks worse, for this coming year and the future. I hope we have a great season! Because it looks like we just turned ourselves into the Pelicans, except worse.

    Jokic put up basically the same stats that Anthony Davis did his rookie year, in roughly the same number of minutes, only Jokic shot 3 pointers and had 3 times the assist rate. I think that anybody who only looks at box scores and nothing else would trade Porzingis for Jokic straight up and feel pretty good about it, right?

    And less than half the blocks.

    Instead of putting words in people’s mouth’s – why not ask the question? Would I trade Porzingis for Jokic? Nope.

    Even though Jokic has the edge with ts% and ast%?

    No – because ts% is a stat that can improve, and usually does – especially from underage players. So do other stats, including rebounding. And I’ll take Porzingod’s 2.4 blk/36 over Jokic’s 1.0.

    I am a deeply risk-averse person in real life. I play pickup basketball, but I do not road cycle (anymore). I do barbell lifts, but I do not do judo (anymore). I bought a house here in Portland, but I also pad my emergency and mortgage curtailment funds with rental income from bedrooms that I would otherwise underuse.

    I am considering putting a four-figure bet on the Knicks under this season. Once the roster is finalized and I work out some projections, there’s a strong chance that I will believe myself to have a 80% chance to win 100% of the time with the Knicks at 43-or-under wins. Otherwise, I stay far away from betting, because the only thing I hate worse than being wrong is losing money by being wrong. And sometimes I’m wrong.

    Thanks for the candid response. I think your aversion to risk feeds into your analysis (and said as much a few days ago!) That said, we all “gamble” all the time. Sometimes we call it investing (buying a home, for example.) It’s when the risk seems too high for the circumstances that it becomes a gamble.

    I have no problem with you saying that you wouldn’t bet against the Knicks unless you felt confident that the odds were greatly in your favor. My point is that you speak here with such finality and with such disdain for opinions that are at variance with yours, it comes off as if you are “sure” enough to make betting on your assessments more like investing than gambling.

    Comments are closed.