Knicks Morning News (2018.07.25)

Some imaginable things that might lead to the Knicks overachieving even if they stick to guys 27 and under:
1. Kanter plays with desperation given that he is in a contract year and desperately wants to stay in NY
2. Timmy (yes, he’s going to start and play 30+ mpg) goes all out to prove last year was a fluke
3. KP comes back fully healthy before the halfway point
4. Robinson does what he did in summer league (very transferrable stuff, impacted games dramatically w/o plays being run for him) and adds strength and defensive positional awareness during next 3 months
5. Burke plays like Isaiah Thomas (I think this is the most critical element, and if you look at how they played in ther 25yo seasons, the similarities in production are compelling. Thomas shot more 3’s at a slightly higher %, Burke had more assists and less turnovers, but otherwise they were VERY similar.) http://bkref.com/tiny/jhgi4
6. Knox has typical rookie struggles but plays well enough to be in in the ROY hunt
7. Hezonja matures and takes advantage of his opportunity in a critical contract year.
8. Frank, Dotson, Vonleh and Baker play marginally better than last year
9. Despite expectations, they get off to a faster start than expected and Fiz starts playing more to win.
10. Something positive happens out of the blue (e.g. someone unexpectedly makes a major jump, lke Mudiay, or a shrewd midseason deal for a good young player, or a G-League Jeremy Lin-type call-up)

Obviously this should all be taken with a grain of salt, and it is not a desirable outcome in the sense of draft position, but all of these scenarios involve young players increasing their value to the future. Would that me more valuable than a 14% chance of a #1 pick in a very top-heavy draft?

5. Burke plays like Isaiah Thomas (I think this is the most critical element, and if you look at how they played in ther 25yo seasons, the similarities in production are compelling. Thomas shot more 3’s at a slightly higher %, Burke had more assists and less turnovers, but otherwise they were VERY similar.) http://bkref.com/tiny/jhgi4

Burke played great last year but there’s a yellow flag that’s missing here. IT got to the line 7+X per 36 and Burke got there 2+X. The only way he was able maintain a TS of 56% — only 16bps worse than IT — was by shooting 56% from 16-23. But 56% from 16-23 isn’t sustainable. In the long run nobody shoots that well, but variation in a single year is common. Steph came into last year a career
45% shooter from 16-23 and shot 62%. Korver is career 45%. CP3 is career 46%. At 45% Burke’s TS% drops down to 53% and that is a long, long way from peak IT. Burke’s a nice pickup but he’s going to have to find a way to alter his ratio of long 2s (46% of hits shots) to 3s/FTA if he’s going to be in the same galaxy IT was.

@3 All true. however, Burke got to the line at nearly double that rate in the G-League. He also shot over 50% from 2 and over 41% from 3 at a high usage in a reasonably large sample. He may just be a freaky-good 2-pt shooter, but even if that drops as you suggest, at least he seems capable of getting to the line more and improving his 3-pt %. I also think that his defense is better than IT’s and he’s clearly a better passer both in terms of assists per 36 and ast/tov ratio.

Just to clarify, we’re talking about IT at the same age, which is very good but a far cry from IT in his last year with BOS when he put up one of the best offensive seasons a PG could possibly have and was an MVP candidate.

What makes me so high on Robinson’s quick development is that he seems to have such great body control. He was unbridled at times, but there were lots of instances where he didn’t go for fakes and eventually blocked shots after staying on the ground. He also did a great job staying in front of guards and wings after switches on the perimeter. His agility level was very impressive. So the positional things he needs to learn are not as daunting as a guy who goes for every fake.

My main concern about him is his ability to defend 1-on-1 in the post. There was that one game where some burly scrub went at him over and over again and he kept getting overwhelmed and either fouling or getting scored from deep. Some of that was positional/technique and some was simply having insufficient lower body strength. A guy like Horford will destroy him in the post and have him out of the game in 3-4 minutes. But if you have him out there as a weak-side shot-blocker with Kanter or Vonleh defending the post, some of that can be negated.

But I doubt that he starts down in the G-League. My guess is that he does much of the same shit in preseason as he did in SL and stays up with the big club despite being foul-prone.

I like the Noah Vonleh signing. The Knicks have no defenders other than Frank, Baker, Thomas and maybe Dotson. A couple of those aren’t going to get many minutes. We need more defenders. He’s also a decent fit next to KP when/if returns and plays some 5 because he’s a very good rebounder at the PF position. He’s a big negative on offense, but in the right lineups he can be useful on a team this bad. Taking a look at him for a year on the cheap and seeing if he can get better seems like a good move to me.

I think some upside surprises on the list are likely. THJ and Kanter will probably play well. Robinson won’t start, but will be a help off the bench. Vonleh will be useful. One or more of Burke, Hezonja, Knox and Dotson will actually be good. Ntilikina will anchor the second unit and continue to improve. To me that means we win more than twenty games. It’s hard to lose more than sixty games.

don’t think that’s how revenue sharing works.

Revenue sharing helps keep small market teams competitive, which is good for the league. The biggest contributors to the revenue sharing pool were the Lakers, Knicks, and Bulls, none of whom made the playoffs. (And the largest beneficiary of revenue sharing since it was adopted has been the Memphis Grizzlies, who have been a very well run and competitive franchise during that time.)

The revenue created by hosting home games in the playoffs isn’t just turned over to the league. It doesn’t disincentivize winning. It’s in everybody’s best interests for teams to try to win.

I oversimplified when I said you have to share the revenue with 29 other teams, but revenue sharing ABSOLUTELY takes away the incentives for teams to choose making the playoffs over tanking.

In 2017, for instance, 10 teams handed over $200mm to 15 teams (http://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/20747413/a-confidential-report-shows-nearly-half-nba-lost-money-last-season-now-what).

The disincentive for tanking is supposed to be that you lose money. But the NBA is a permanent welfare state that can easily be manipulated. If you’re the Orlando Magic, it’s better to be shit every single year until you hit the lottery like New Orleans or San Antonio did. You make more money through the subsidies than you do through marginal improvement and a playoff series worth of tickets and concessions.

Incentivizing losing *and* redistributing profits to the teams that make no money is a terrible combination. That’s why it didn’t hurt Philadelphia in the bank. Their attendance sucked, but the Knicks and Lakers were making money hand over fist, so they still got paid.

Incentivizing losing *and* redistributing profits to the teams that make no money is a terrible combination. That’s why it didn’t hurt Philadelphia in the bank.

I’m still not convinced that you know what you’re talking about. Revenue sharing is based on number of TV households in the team’s designated market. The Sixers, as far as I can tell, haven’t been beneficiaries of revenue sharing during their “process”. In 2016, after losing 72 games, they were neither a contributor nor a recipient. It’s the small market teams like the Grizzlies and Pelicans that benefit because they are required to abide by the salary floor, despite not being able to generate enough revenue to afford it.

(And Orlando hasn’t even been a tanking team. They hired a win-now coach for $22 million and fired him, eating two years of his contract, when he didn’t win now. That doesn’t smell like a team incentivized to lose.)

Side question: Is the term “welfare cliff” politically loaded?

Like if I call what the NBA has created a welfare cliff, does it carry classist/racist/sexist connotations or is it a neutral term?

Kanter becoming completely apathetic on defense

Would probably be an impovement

The Sixers, as far as I can tell, haven’t been beneficiaries of revenue sharing during their “process”. In 2016, after losing 72 games, they were neither a contributor nor a recipient.

I stand corrected on the Sixers.

But the revenue sharing system is more than just a calculation of market size. San Antonio, for instance, pays into the system. As does Oklahoma City (after being subsidized for years during “the presti method”).

There is little to zero incentive for a team like Charlotte, Orlando, Phoenix, Milwaukee to try to make the playoffs before they luck into their star because if they make that revenue they forfeit their subsidies. It only makes sense to for it when you can build a sustainable team that can make the playoffs consistently. That usually requires years of tanking, which is bankrolled by the top of the league.

Side question: Is the term “welfare cliff” politically loaded?

Like if I call what the NBA has created a welfare cliff, does it carry classist/racist/sexist connotations or is it a neutral term?

FWIW my feelings on welfare for NBA teams are completely independent and not related to human welfare, so I would hope it doesn’t carry the same connotation.

In my opinion, the NBA has too many teams, and those can’t be sustained should be contracted for the better of the league. Human beings with the same problem, obviously, need a different solution.

They also want the value of their franchise to go up, and winning makes franchises more valuable.

What makes you say that? The Knicks are the most valuable team in the NBA. The Clippers set a modern record when they were bought for $2bn in 2014.

The NBA is a cartel, not a collection of independent businesses that survive on the merits of their balance sheet. That’s the European sports model.

The Rockets then sold for more money than the Clippers. By market size alone, that shouldn’t be.

Re the ‘European model’ – not uniformly. Many soccer clubs are loss-making and are propped up by billionaires. The Spanish duopoly is largely due to local TV deals being allowed. But yes – lower-level teams in particular are sensitive to market conditions and ultimately need to win to survive, at some level.

Side question: Is the term “welfare cliff” politically loaded?

If it is, it shouldn’t be.

There is little to zero incentive for a team like Charlotte, Orlando, Phoenix, Milwaukee to try to make the playoffs before they luck into their star because if they make that revenue they forfeit their subsidies.

If this was true, how come none of these teams has done The Process? All of them have recently tried to put playoff teams together.

There is little to zero incentive for a team like Charlotte, Orlando, Phoenix, Milwaukee to try to make the playoffs before they luck into their star because if they make that revenue they forfeit their subsidies.

Per Larry Coon:

“The plan makes teams responsible for meeting revenue benchmarks, based on the size of the market (determined on the basis of the number of TV households in the team’s designated market area) in which they play. Any team that falls short of its benchmark has to make up the difference in its contribution into the pool — in other words, teams are penalized for underperforming. Revenue benchmarks range from 65% (New Orleans) to 160% (New York and Brooklyn) of the league average revenues.
Teams falling short of their revenue expectations are required to work with the league office to develop and implement a business improvement plan, which could include reorganizing business operations, hiring or replacing staff, or adopting new sales strategies. If a team fails to satisfactorily implement such a plan it could forfeit a portion of its revenue sharing payments (up to 25%).”

It’s hard for me to see the incentivized losing embedded in this plan.

Many soccer clubs are loss-making and are propped up by billionaires.

That’s fair, but they’re still an independent business, and if that billionaire loses his fortune or doesn’t want to continue with the cash injections, the ride’s over.

Under the NBA model, for instance, Leeds would have stayed in the top league and been supported by Manchester United and Liverpool until they became financially viable again.

I think I’ve said it here before, but one of life’s great ironies is that America has a capitalist society but for some reason loves to employ socialism in sports, whereas Europe is largely socialist but has ruthless capitalism in its football leagues.

I guess language doesn’t work the way it used to work.

Back when America was great, no doubt.

If this was true, how come none of these teams has done The Process? All of them have recently tried to put playoff teams together.

Probably for the same reason the Knicks keep trying to win 35 games.

One plausible explanation is that sports franchises are prestige toys for billionaires. Makes them a local celebrity while providing long-term growth and, if they’re lucky, some positive cashflow.

I would guess that most wealthy businessmen have little emotional capacity for sustained losing. Rather than face a long-term slog (which, indeed, may not work out), they make short-term moves to reposition themselves, and simply fire whoever had convinced them to make those errors.

Plausible, but most likely wrong and at best partially correct. A much bigger reason is that coaches, GMs and players all want to win, and to tank to the degree that Hinkie did for as long as he did is both dangerous to one’s career (players, coaches and GMs) and very difficult to accomplish successfully even when trying. It is horrible PR-wise in the media, breeds resentment among peers, invites scrutiny by the commissioner, and alienates your fan base. It can also be quite expensive. And most of Hinkie’s success rides on two fragile foot bones.

None of the teams in the NBA that have had sustained success over the past 20 years established that success by abjectly tanking over a long period of time. Some have done it for 1-2 years, but not by doing all of the aspects of “The Process.” Philly is pretty unique in that regard. And even the teams that did not prioritize winning and eventually turned the corner either made very shrewd personnel moves (smart drafting, good FA signings, lopsided trades) and/or got very lucky.

And now with draft odds flattening, it isn’t as sound of a strategy as it was before.

New Orleans makes ~$365k per game in gate receipts (https://www.forbes.com/teams/new-orleans-pelicans/). Obviously a playoff game would bring in more. I’m not going to calculate it but let’s be generous and round it up to $1mm.

You would need to play a lot of playoff games to offset giving up the $32mm in revenue sharing.

It’s interesting you choose New Orleans, a team that plays in a city that was effectively destroyed by a natural disaster forcing the NBA to assume control of the franchise to keep it afloat. In keeping with the “welfare” analogy, it was the foster child of the league.

And yet this team, so disincentivized to win as you state, traded a rookie and two draft picks for DeMarcus Cousins. If that’s not a “win now” move, I don’t know what one is.

Strat, save yourself the headache. You can see where this is going/has already went. Go spend the day on a libertarian site and come back tomorrow.

did you guys know Trey Burke’s name is Alfonso? Alfonso Clark Burke III

So should I go call someone “negro” because it literally means “black?” Since “black” is an acceptable term for a person of color, African American, etc., I see no reason that anyone would be upset by my chosen nomenclature.

The acceptability of a word should depend on its typical use and the intent of the user and not on the sensitivity of the most sensitive people in society.

“negro” has become almost universally accepted as derogatory. So it’s mostly off limits.

If someone called me goombah because of my mostly Italian descent, it might be one of my friends using it as a term of endearment or it might be someone trying to insult me. My reaction would depend on the intent. I think it’s idiotic to suggest no one should ever use the term goombah because some hypersensitive Italians are always insulted by it.

Welfare cliff means that government benefits create incentives that can change behavior. That’s true for millions of people of all sizes, shapes, colors, religions, and ethnic backgrounds. It could be used in an insulting fashion (like goombah), but imo that doesn’t mean we should never use the term. Again, it depends on intent. People that are always insulted by it are like those hypersensitive Italians I referred to.

I’d rather we were more sensible than we are slowly becoming.

Most of my goombahs are, even the ones that have experienced the welfare cliff like me.

You guys are vastly underrating the number of Knicks wins for this season. We now have NINE former top 10 picks on our roster:

Burke
Knox
KP
Frank
Mudiay
Hezonga
Kanter
Vonleh
Noah

That’s gotta be more than any other team in the NBA, right? 50 wins, baby!

When making predictions about next year you need to take into account the inevitable injuries. This team is woefully short on talent and depth even under the rosiest assumptions. When you add in the injuries that happen every year I have a hard time seeing them being very successful. In the end this will be the best result if they come up with a top 3 pick in the draft (rather than the usual 7-9 slot). It will be hard to watch but the Knicks and us fans need to take our medicine and do it right for once.

Can we go back to talking about scotch rather than politics? The McCallan 15 year or the Balvenie 12 year work for me every time.

Donnie, New Orleans was your example, not mine. Technically, it was Larry Coon’s example in your quote, but still, I didn’t choose them.

Any team that falls short of its benchmark has to make up the difference in its contribution into the pool — in other words, teams are penalized for underperforming. Revenue benchmarks range from 65% (New Orleans) to 160% (New York and Brooklyn) of the league average revenues.

^ That’s from you.

Also from you:

And yet this team, so disincentivized to win as you state, traded a rookie and two draft picks for DeMarcus Cousins. If that’s not a “win now” move, I don’t know what one is.

You’re changing things around now. My argument, from post 21, was:

There is little to zero incentive for a team like Charlotte, Orlando, Phoenix, Milwaukee to try to make the playoffs before they luck into their star because if they make that revenue they forfeit their subsidies.

The incentive structure is different once you land Anthony Davis. My point was that it pays to play possum continually until you hit the lottery.

Finally…

a team that plays in a city that was effectively destroyed by a natural disaster forcing the NBA to assume control of the franchise to keep it afloat. In keeping with the “welfare” analogy, it was the foster child of the league.

Katrina was in 2005 and was not the reason the NBA took over that team in 2010. George Shinn disgraced himself in Charlotte, pissed off the other owners, couldn’t afford to stay in the cartel, so the league bought him out until they could find a local owner.

@50

Thanks for the great news on Deadwood, best post of the week!

🙂

i somehow got it in my head that it would be really cool to order scotch and water when i went out…

My first taste of scotch was Dewar’s White Label from a dregs of a bottle opened and sitting for at least ten years. Not good.

If you haven’t had the fancy stuff, save your reservations for when you do. It’s like comparing a McDonald’s burger to Shake Shack’s. Barely the same thing.

My first taste of scotch was Dewar’s White Label from a dregs of a bottle opened and sitting for at least ten years. Not good.

yep – that was it: dewar’s and water…

i guess the positive from that was i never was able to drink it too fast…

now this sounds like a very sound strategy:

Am I the only Scotch lover that puts it away when the temperature is above 70? This is my tequila season. And I’ve been crushing the Casa Dragones Tequila Joven. The more affordable Blanco is also pretty delicious.

We have signed Kadeem Allen? Hmm…

Feel like some roster moves still have to be coming. Even if you assume one Noah (Joakim) will be stretched on Sept 1 to make room for the other one (Vonleh), that still has us at the roster limit. Hopefully either or both of Courtney and Lance are traded for no returning players.

I think they can have something like 20 players under contract for training camp. If i’m counting right, they now have eighteen or nineteen players under contract. So they will probably sign at least one more to a training camp contract.

Neat – why ruin it with water ?

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/science-says-add-little-water-your-scotch-180964562/

Reading up on him, it would be nice to have him floating around for the Westies. Seems to score relatively well for a player touted as a defensive stopper.

People should do whatever feels right for them, but man, Vince Carter going to the Hawks just feels wrong.

I’m happy for Troy. I have no idea why the Hawks want Carter when they are clearly rebuilding.

Another point, Japanese “scotches” can be beyond excellent.

He’s definitely there for his veteran leadership, but Carter can still PLAY a little. It’s so weird to see him not just take a gig on, say, the Blazers or the Celtics or somewhere like that. I mean, don’t get me wrong, he wasn’t good last season, but nor was he awful. He still has some value. Hell, wouldn’t he be a decent fit on the Raptors?