Knicks Morning News (2018.08.15)

I’d have a very hard time pulling the trigger on any of those deals. Each one of those guys is flawed and there’a a reasonable chance that KP becomes better than any of them. KP is the only guy that has a chance to become the next in the Willis/Clyde’Patrick lineage. That means more to me than to most here, but hey, I’m not the GM so who cares?

The problem is the Knicks don’t have a choice to pay him less. He’s not taking less than the max or very close to it so trying to get surplus value by signing him to a bargain contract is not happening.

Why!??????

How has it gotten to this point?

A player coming off his rookie contract has zero leverage to get a max. The best leverage he can create is acting like he’d choose to forfeit long term security by signing a one year offer sheet, which we can still match. And then next year, we’d still be the only team able to offer him a full max. That would be idiotic for a player and agent to accept coming off an ACL tear. If we don’t offer him a 5 year max, the best another team can do is offer him a 4 year deal at less than max. That should be our highest offer.

KP has literally no leverage to get a 5 year 25% max other than to say it will hurt his feelings forever and he’ll never forget it.

I understand that he will get it. I just don’t understand why. Teams have all the leverage here, and they give it up all the time by defaulting to the max.

Golden State didn’t say “we have no choice but to offer Steph Curry the max”. Milwaukee didn’t say “we have no choice but to offer Giannis the max”. And they got deals done.

Just out of curiosity, I know we all think he’s getting the max. How many think he’s getting the max because:

A) The Knicks have no choice, they have to offer KP the max if they want to re-sign him, and it’s the right thing to do bc we need to re-sign him.

B) The Knicks are going to give him the max for the same reason they gave Melo a NTC, and gave Noah 4 years, and Baker a player option, and paid a 250% premium for Tim Hardaway: because they are idiots who don’t know how to negotiate and automatically overpay for everything.

?

phew, Z-man’s not crazy (except Jokic for KP is a no-brainer)

Embiids injury history is worrying but I’d trade porzingis for those other guys without even thinking about it.

@6

It’s surely B, as I have zero trust in this front office to properly negotiate a contract under the pressure of re-signing the “franchise savior”. They gave Tim Hardaway Jr. a goddamned trade kicker.

On one hand, it is very irritating to me that a 23 year old who is 50% production 50% potential in his 3rd year on the league will be treated as if he was disrespected when he gets offered less than the max; on the other hand, I understand it’s happening anyway because the Knicks have dug themselves into this hole of never properly rebuilding and being a franchise most players do not want to play for, and when Wiggins gets a max contract, Porzingis has the narrative on his side.

The worst part is that since he’s injured, we won’t be able to see if he’s fully recovered until very close to the trade deadline, as simply losing Porzingis for nothing would be a disaster in asset management.

To be clear, I’d trade KP for any of them, too.

Embiid’s injury history is very worrying. He has other flaws too…I see lots of Boogie Cousins in his game. Here’s a comparison of Boogie’s last healthy season to Embiid last season. Both are better than anything KP has done, but combined with the fact that Embiid is a heavy-footed player with a bad foot and sore knees, there’s ample reason for pause.

It’s not fully captured in counting stats, but Jokic is one of the worst defensive bigs in the league. The difference between his impact on defense and KPs is arguably just as large as it is on offense. And it is far more likely that KP improves on offense than that Jokic improves on D. I get the cold, calculating choice for production over potential, but despite his enormous gifts on offense, Jokic is just not my cup of tea. I’m glad I don’t have to make that decision.

Simmons is the most freakish player in the discussion. However, he simply can’t shoot from more than 10 feet from the basket, and only shot 41% from 3-10 ft! He’s the most no-brainer out of the bunch for me, even with the foot injury, because of his size advantage at the all-important PG position and the Knicks putrid history of PGs.

Towns is my least favorite of the bunch, but the healthiest. He’s another guy in the Boogie mold.

Look, any smart GM makes the trade for any of these guys. But as a Knicks fan, and knowing that these trades will never happen, I’m okay with hoping that KP develops and outshines them all in the long run, and think that it’s a fun thing to hope for, even against the odds.

It’s not fully captured in counting stats, but Jokic is one of the worst defensive bigs in the league. The difference between his impact on defense and KPs is arguably just as large as it is on offense. And it is far more likely that KP improves on offense than that Jokic improves on D.

+1

It’s worth bearing in mind that the Knicks have been an epic shit-show for most of KPs time here. He might really mean it if he says he’s willing to take some risk or less money to walk, unless we pay up. Doesn’t mean we should do it, of course.

I suspect we end up paying him 25% of the cap. But we should be able to negotiate on years… make it four years, with year four conditional on health in the previous years. Maybe give him an option on year 4 too, which is technically his highest earning path (opt out as a 7 year player then sign for 30% of the cap). We ought to be able to get some sort of risk sharing into the deal given injuries, the Embiid precedent etc.

I already know I’ll get killed for this by Bruno and Jowles (both of whom i generally agree with) but…

I think it is possible that KP is a – perhaps rare – case where his potential really is higher than his stats suggest. It’s interesting that the Spurs are huge fans – Messina, who seems to be very highly respected as a basketball mind, races about him at the ASB a couple of years back. Stevens and Boston also seem high on him. Is that all eye-test? Maybe but these guys aren’t old-skool stats-deniers.

Could it be that a combination of him being an unusual skills mix and the Knicks coaches being genuinely clueless mean a big part of the problem really is how he’s been used? I think we can all agree that the well-defended catch-and-shoot mid-ranger we ran for him a lot last year isn’t the most obvious use of a 7-footer whose one near-elite offensive skill is three point shooting.

I really like KP and I’m sure there’s a load of endowment effect and affect hueristoc at play on this argument. It also highlights the issue with drafting very young guys with lots of development needs as there’s always the risk you hit the contract decision before you know what you have. But still – interested in views on this usage question.

(Good think we didn’t double or triple down on the ‘young with upside’ strategy in subsequent drafts… Frank (ahem)… Knox (ahem)…)

Agreed but the Giannis thing is a great example… it took the FO/staff to realise he was a 7 foot pg and change how they were using him.

I totally buy the ‘but maybe not’ point. I do wish Kp had a healthy season of a good coach and system and a competent pg before we had to decide to ‘back up the truck’ or not…

@21 all of your points are valid, and yes, my feelings about KP are steeped in my desire to have a homegrown superstar lead the team rather than a bunch of mercenaries. There are exceptions… I loved Bernard King like I would have had we drafted him. But we didn’t trade a guy like Porzingis to get Bernard either. And at least he was a NY guy.

Jokic is a phenomenal player, and the move would indeed be a no-brainer based on performance and probably on potential as well. I just find myself attached to KP to the point that I really want to see it through, come hell or high water. He’s the closest thing to a potential superstar we’ve drafted since Ewing, and that’s worth a lot to me as a fan. Those first 20 games or so last year were pretty intoxicating. If he were traded for any of the guys mentioned, I’d come around to it, especially if the new guy far outshined KP, or if KP never improved or stayed healthy, but at first I would definitely feel a great sense of loss. I suppose it’s a weird loyalty thing, probably from being indelibly stamped by watching/listening to nearly every minute of Knicks basketball in the late ’60’s-early ’70’s.

KP already has the length and skill to shoot 3s, make FTs, dunk on putbacks, finish on ally oops, and create his own shot off the dribble at an adequate enough efficiency level to think he could become a serious threat at do all those things at a very high level eventually.

But isn’t your whole argument about spacing? So if he stops taking those “contested” 20-footers (because really, who’s going to block his attempt when he’s releasing at 10′ in the air), won’t he lose out on the “hidden” benefits of his “length” and “skill?”

However, the probability that KP becomes an impact player at both ends of the court is higher than for Jokic.

There’s about a 0.1% chance that Porzingis is ever as valuable on offense as Jokic is right now. Jokic has touch, vision and control in ways that you can only refine, not teach.

Jokic was 7th in OWS, 8th in WS, 5th in BPM (2nd year in a row) and 5th in VORP. He is already a superstar.

We should offer a little below max 2 year contract for KP. Then give him the 5 year max after if he proves he’s worth it. Then at the end of the 4th or 5th year we can trade him for assets before he loses his prime.

But isn’t your whole argument about spacing? So if he stops taking those “contested” 20-footers (because really, who’s going to block his attempt when he’s releasing at 10? in the air), won’t he lose out on the “hidden” benefits of his “length” and “skill?”

You are over complicating.

If you are a big man that can shoot 3s at a deadly rate like Porzingis (close to 40% last year despite taking more than his share of atrocious ones that need to be weeded out), you cannot leave him open on the perimeter. You have to least make it tough on him. That means it’s tougher for the defender (usually big man) to sag, help teammates, rebound. When that scenario occurs, he’s adding value that is not accruing to him. It’s adding to Kanter who will get extra offensive rebounds and score. It’s adding to someone that drives or cuts to the basket and isn’t met by whoever is guarding KP etc..

What the defense can try to do is put a smaller quicker guy on KP so at least they get to him quicker and he will have trouble on the defensive end. It’s tougher for KP to stay with those smaller quicker guys. That’s in fact what many teams try to do. They know his range will create a problem for them defensively, so they try to create a mismatch on the other end.

Now comes the next skill. When you are 7’3″ and long, you should be able take those smaller defenders down inside and punish them because you are bigger, stronger, longer, and can shoot over them. That makes going small problematical for other team. The thing is, KP is too weak to use his advantage well. The smaller guys are actually stronger than him. They hold their position, push him out of the paint, and he winds up taking an off balance fade away or turnaround against a guy he should be dominating. When/if he gets stronger and can take advantage, they’ll stop doing that because he’ll be killing them inside.

But either way, when he’s dragging bigs out, he’s helping his teammates.

@26

I really relate to that Z-Man as I can honestly say nothing would satisfy me more than seeing KP become the guy for us. An euro guy with crazy measurements that has a very peculiar skill set and can seemingly do everything on the court, he’s the type of guy I love watching, and when he’s on it’s such a joy to watch. I haven’t been this excited in a long time about the Knicks then when he went off to start last season.

But I think specially strato is painting a picture that’s way too optimistic, specially since we have no idea how the injury will affect him. Like I said before I’m a pragmatic at heart, and I think I would grow to love a guy like Jokic or Embiid equally if they played for the Knicks, perhaps even more.

There’s just too many ifs still and if we’re treating Jokic or Embiid as question marks, KP is a bigger one even. Maybe it is easier for KP to become a better player than for Jokic to improve on his issues, but I know I’m getting a superstar passer, scorer and rebounder in Jokic and I can imagine building a team around him that minimizes his flaws. I can’t see that yet with Porzingis as elite rim protection is simply not something you can build a team around, and that’s the only elite talent Porzingis has shown consistently so far.

Jokic deserves the benefit of the doubt of being surrounded by a heavily flawed team with no defenders and a bunch of one-way wing scorers. My argument in the end comes down to my belief that the Denver team that came one overtime game short of the playoffs last year wouldn’t be in that position if you swapped a healthy KP for Jokic.

Jokic is really fun to watch. Something to be said for that. His skills should age well too. His offense more than makes up for it but his defense isn’t so hot, I agree there.

Embiid is awesome and great on defense. The health risk is huge but I think when he cleans it up he’ll be a superstar two way player.

The question isn’t whether the player picked turned out to be good; it’s whether they were, in retrospect, the best player available

Yeah, this “debate” over the past few days started with Jowles saying the Knicks should “stop drafting players based on ‘upside,’ stockpile picks, and draft BPA”; To which Z-Man said that that is easier said than done because the BPA doesn’t have a sticker on them (snideness redacted); To which Jowles said the franchise would be in a better position if it had randomly selected from the players with the best advanced stats still available.

Upon further study, it appeared the players with the best advanced stats on the board when the Knicks were selecting over the past ten years were Speights, Dejuan Blair, Reggie Bullock, and Willy Cayley-Stein.

So, yeah, the “debate” is silly because nobody said the Knicks were good at drafting, just that they hadn’t made any huge errors on draft day that an advanced stats bot would have fixed.

I’m not really sure why it’s lasted four days. There’s really nothing to debate about it.

Since Porzingis allegedly has hidden value from floor spacing, can we say the same about Jokic?

Yes.

I think any player that has good enough 3 point range to impact how the defense plays is adding some value. Since he plays C, he’s typically guarding on the inside. So his defensive rebounding stats are probably not being impacted as much as someone that often defends stretch PFs. Also, I suspect that even though Jokic takes quite a few 3s, he spends less time out there.

My point primarily has been that PFs traditionally played inside. As they shifted outside, many started rebounding a little less than they used to. So they lost boxcore value relative to the past, but they are just as good as they were before and perhaps better.

If we created a metric that used some combination of 3 point attempts per 36 and 3 point percentage it would give us a rough estimate of space generating ability. I’m sure many stats heads have already come up with good metrics and an analysis like that. I just don’t recall ever reading one I liked.

Embiid is awesome and great on defense. The health risk is huge but I think when he cleans it up he’ll be a superstar two way player.

I agree 100%. I think Embiid has a chance to become one of the truly all time super greats. He’s almost unstoppable inside, he has range, and he’s a defensive beast. I love watching him play, but I’m going to hate trying to beat him.

Oakman, you still don’t get it. The question isn’t whether the player picked turned out to be good; it’s whether they were, in retrospect, the best player available. Much of the time (Thanasis), they were. Some of the time (Jordan Hill), they weren’t.

Actually rama, you don’t get it. You can’t cherry pick individual players and go, “Shoulda drafted him, shouldna drafted him,” like Mike Francesa going through the Giants’ schedule and saying “that’s a win, that’s a loss, that’s a win.” It’s too arbitrary.

Rudy Gobert was still on the board when the Knicks picked THJ at #24. Does that make THJ a bad pick? No. He’s outperformed his expected WS so he was a good pick. When the Knicks drafted Cleanthony Early at #34, the following guys were still on the board: Jokic, Dinwiddie, Jerami Grant, Jordan Clarkson, Dwight Powell. Also still on the board were a bunch of bums. Does that make the Early pick a bad one or a terrible one? Your method makes it completely subjective.

The system I outlined, while just a back-of-the-napkin calculation, standardizes the evaluation process. For any one individual draft it’s not that meaningful, because as you point out, sometimes there were no better players on the board so it’s not fair to call a pick “bad.” But over time, each draft slot does come with an expected value that you can measure against. So the anomalies that you mentioned should even out.

So, are you saying that you agree with DBPM that, all things considered, Kanter was neutral or a slight net positive on defense? If so, then I guess that you think that DBPM is a good indicator of defensive impact. However, since most people on this site have been screaming that the Knicks should get rid of him despite his elite rebounding and elite offensive efficiency, I thing that most people think that he is a huge net negative on defense and, therefore, most people don’t agree that DBPM (or defensive rating for that matter) accurately measures his defensive impact.

I’m having flashbacks to discussions from 2009 about David Lee.

Here’s some film of future New York Knick Zion Williamson tearing up some random Canadians:

https://youtu.be/PytyGUI66SA

If we get this kid KP will never have to rebound again.

His ability to track the ball on those rebounds and the way he moves is so fluid… I promised myself I wouldn’t get too excited about potential top 5 picks after the Knicks botched their chances at Lonzo and Doncic, but it’s stronger than me. Coming out of next year’s draft with him or Barrett would be so great.

On the topic of Zion, this was on twitter from today. Amazing vertical.

https://twitter.com/DefPenHoops/status/1029897863076012033?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1029897863076012033&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fbleacherreport.com%2Fnba

Watching the Barkley video Z-Man posted and then his highlights is mindblowing. He really looks so much like him. I can’t wait to see him against top college competition, if his 3 pointer is legit there’s no question he’ll be the guy I’ll want in the next draft.

I thought my contract idea for KP was good… 🙁 No discussion though…

It’s hard to discuss something that has an extremely low probability of happening. KP is going to either get a max for at least 4 years or is going to test the market. It is highly likely that he will get what he wants. He wanted Phil and Horny out, and he and his brother very cleverly greased the skids for that to happen.

As to his next contract, how can that possibly be discussed at this time?

A combination of watching Zion Williamson highlights and me being on vacation in Montauk has made today a day for dreaming.

The 2019-20 Knicks?

Guards: Kyrie, Hardaway, Ntilikina
Forwards: Porzingis, Williamson, Knox
Center: Robinson

How dreamy is that? I’d be pretty happy having that young core without Kyrie, too.

The beauty of tanking this year, too, is that the guy we want the most isn’t projected to be the top pick. Of course, so much can change. But NBA teams typically drool over the wing prospects like Barrett, Little, and Reddish. We’d likely be able to select Zion at 2, 3 maybe even 4.

Think you missed the cap hold for our 1rp (which we should hope is about $7m as that means we’re picking first). Kyrie would be 30% of the cap I think, so about $32.5m. But ends up pretty close to your number.

The issue is, can we simultaneously show enough growth this year to believe Kyrie and another 1rp moves us into a serious playoff team, while also being bad enough to snare a high enough pick for it to be true? Basically the t-wolves model – we have to hope we’re conpetitve in lots of games but lose due to lack of experience and poor late game execution…

Here we go. Jowles assuming the worst for something that is a year away from theoretically happening, throwing shade at The Knox pick bc picking Knox with the 9th pick when the alternative is a red shirted 23 year old senior is TOTALLY the same as passing on a “can’t miss” prospect with a top 5 pick.

Look, Kyrie Irving was on a team last season that won 55 games and is projected to win close to 60 this season. If he wants to come to the Knicks it’s because he’s a lunatic, and I’m 100% sure winning 24 games and getting a top 4 pick or winning 32 and getting the 12th changes absolutely nothing on his decision. In fact he might be more inclined to join the Knicks if they are terrible and get a top 2 pick because of the added talent than if they win 32 and add another guy who’s all upside with a lot of question marks.

This progression from being terrible to bad to decent then good is about as unrealistic as expecting the Knicks to tank properly. Very rarely contending teams actually follow that scenario because most are influenced by heavy spikes in production from either acquiring superstars or having young players make massive leaps. Even the Warriors, who have built their contending team on a slow pace from within have had jumps of 10+ wins in key moments for the franchise.

Philly jumped from 28 to 52, the Celtics from 25 to 40 and then upwards, the Cavs from 33 to 53 when lebron came back. The Rockets are probably the closest to what you’re describing because even with Harden it took a while for them to actually become contenders.

10 wins seems like a natural progression of a team improving.

“Seems like” is the operative phrase. Reality, however, is different the majority of the time, which Bruno underscored with a few examples, but would be easy to add to….with very few examples supporting your assertion of “got a little better each year.”

If I’ve got Zion, KP, Knox, and Frank… I’ll take a 27 year old Kyrie for 4 years. He’s probably ahead of our win curve, but he’s likely to still be extremely good when/if the young core comes into it’s own.

The Dubs made a lot of smart decisions, but I would be shocked if they knew that Steph Curry would have a few of the greatest offensive seasons of all-time. I would call them a franchise that was good at getting out of its own way — dumping Monte Ellis; recognizing that Barnes, Ezeli, Lee, Speights, et al. were overrated via their team success; and firing Mark Jackson before his idiocy torpedoed their rise.

They minimized bad decisions, got lucky (no cap smoothing) and hit some home runs on personnel choices. You can look at their patterns of decision making and draw some usefulness from them, but trying to duplicate a Steph Curry draft decision or Durant signing is total foolishness.

The Spurs are a much better example of long-term strategy, especially since they’ve only had one high draft pick in 20 years.

@75

We could suck and still be able to sign a star player with a bum knee. Hey, we’ve done it before!

Found an interesting tidbit on twitter re: schedule difficulty.

https://twitter.com/JacobEGoldstein/status/1030102912138194944?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1030138102776586241&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fbleacherreport.com%2Fnew-york-knicks

New York has the 5th most difficult schedule which works in favour of the tank. Downside is that other tanking teams like Phoenix, Sacramento and Dallas all apparently have harder schedules.

Just about every contending team (including the Spurs) has had an unconscious stroke of luck at some point in the process. It’s virtually impossible to build a perennial contender without luck.

Starting in 1991:

Bulls #1: not so lucky as they were good
Rockets: lucky that Jordan “retired” or they don’t win a thing
Bulls #2: lucky that no one realized how good Rodman was, but otherwise good
Spurs #1: lucked into Duncan, but mostly good
Lakers: Kobe was a 17-year-old that they bet right on. They lucked into Shaq since Orlando was too dumb to pay him
Spurs ’03-’13: mostly good, although I wonder if they really knew that Kawhi would become a star
Pistons: mostly good, sort of a Moneyball championship team “without a superstar”
Heat: smart drafting and lucky to get Shaq before he was washed
Celtics: fleeced Minnesota, so I would call this lucky AND opportunistic
Lakers: fleeced Memphis, lucky AND opportunistic
Mavs: I wonder how smart they actually were, since they lost their franchise center to FA (and he didn’t even get that much money from the Knicks)
Miami: lucky to have 2.5 superstars take discounts to win
Golden State: lucky and good
Cavs: luckiest franchise in modern era

Yeah, very few can win it all without being lucky. No one wins for an extended period of time without being good.

Here, for your reference, are some details of which advanced stats are skewed. I did all the ones in the advanced table of basketball reference. I did the analysis on a table of every player in the 2017-2018 season. Some players are listed twice in the table because they played for two different teams. I did not consolidate them, but just used the data as is. I tried highlighting the stats in bold italic that are the ones that seem like the median is significantly different than the median but this didn’t come through in the cutting and pasting. The ones that would have been highlighted are FTr, TRB%, AST%, BLK%, OWS, DWS, WS, OBPM, BPM and VORP. Note that I didn’t look at the individual distributions, so I didn’t check if any distribution looked skewed. I just compared the mean to the median. The 25th and 75th percentiles of the actual data are also shown.

PER TS% 3PAr FTr ORB% DRB% TRB% AST% STL% BLK%
Mean 12.7 0.529 0.342 0.249 4.7 14.9 9.8 12.6 1.6 1.6
75th Percentile 16.2 0.582 0.487 0.313 6.8 19.0 13.0 16.8 1.9 2.1
Median 12.7 0.540 0.356 0.221 3.2 13.9 8.6 10.0 1.4 1.1
25th Percentile 9.2 0.494 0.161 0.143 1.7 10.0 6.1 6.7 0.9 0.5

TOV% USG% OWS DWS WS WS/48 OBPM DBPM BPM VORP
12.9 18.6 1.0 1.0 2.0 0.071 -1.7 -0.7 -2.4 0.5 Mean
15.7 22.3 1.6 1.5 3.1 0.120 0.2 0.7 0.3 0.7 75th Percentile
12.2 17.6 0.4 0.6 1.1 0.079 -1.3 -0.6 -1.8 0.0 Median
9.4 14.7 0 0.1 0.1 0.028 -3.3 -1.9 -4.3 -0.1 25th Percentile

@ 81 – yes to this.

I’m an actor/comedian. I had a really great teacher/mentor who used to say that luck happens to people who work hard and are well prepared for success to happen to them. If you aren’t ready to go to the next level, then a big break won’t really do you any good cause you haven’t put in the necessary work to take advantage of that lucky break.

I think this applies to NBA teams. The good teams get “lucky” because they did the hard work of setting themselves up to take advantage of that lucky break. Teams that are poorly run have less good luck. Its not that they don’t have any good things happen to them but when those lucky breaks happen, it doesn’t really propel them the way it would propel a team ready to take advantage of a lucky break.

@80 drafting 3rd was pretty unbelievably lucky for the Bulls. If they drafted #1 they most certainly would have taken Hakeem, an all-time great but not a GOAT candidate. Do they win 6 championships with Hakeem? At #2 do they take Bowie? And did they really think that Jordan would be arguably the GOAT? And as was made clear from his hiatus, they were not anywhere near a championship team w/o him (for comparison, see: GSW pre-Durant.)

Similarly, it was a stupid stroke of luck that Robinson went down just before a sure-fire once-in-a-generation player like Duncan was drafted, and that they lucked out enormously to move up to #1. They win nothing w/o Duncan. So I would replace “lucky but mostly good” with “very good after being ridiculously lucky.”

But that’s what I’m talking about with the Knicks. Maybe now that they actually have draft picks and seem to be committed to young player, they will set themselves up better for when that lucky break comes along, if it hasn’t already.

@84 – Thanks. It’s all about increasing your odds. First, keep your picks and/or add as many as you can. Second, do your homework and now the players. Third, know all the players in the league and in Europe. If you do all well, and build a solid organization that draws free agents, you’ll become lucky.

NJ,

Can you post it as a screenshot of the table? Hard to read as is.

It still didn’t work. The spacing was fine before I hit the “post comment” button. Does anyone have any suggestions how to keep the spacing when I post stuff? Otherwise I have to do one reformat spreadsheet, cut and paste for each individual stat.