Knicks Morning News (2018.08.28)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P4z2-jgigXc&list=RDPeidYEabGiY&index=4

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=28&v=kpmswV71imQ

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=48WnPHE2dKk&index=3&list=RDPeidYEabGiY

Going to miss you Manu.

I will take Manu’s career over Kobe’s. Without a doubt.

The Ginobili one was specially such a lucky break. They drafted him in 99, he spent 3 more seasons in Europe and then decided to come over when he was already a mega star in Europe. So much could have gone wrong or differently and yet it culminated into a perfect storm pretty much.

He arrived as the perfect player fit for the perfect team in a time when they were struggling to replace their older players like Steve Smith, Terry Porter, Avery Johnson and Danny Ferry. The 01-02 Spurs that still won 58 games had a legitimate garbage roster around Duncan and 36 year old Admiral.

Bombshell by The Atlantic…. Orlando is willing to include Vucevic in trade talks. It’s like the Decision all over again! Who will land Vuc, and how many 1st round picks will they have to surrender???

For sure the Spurs made a great decision picking Manu, I mean, every other team pretty much passed on him, but to get arguably the best player of the draft at the 57th position is insane.

The 1999 draft is one of my favorite underrated drafts, as it had so many players I enjoyed watching a lot, specially Shawn Marion, Kirilenko, Manu, Andre Miller and even Artest and Baron Davis, but then I remember the Knicks drafted Frederic Weis one position ahead of Artest and also over Kirilenko and I get depressed once again.

“last 5 years or so ” = 8 years

But I get your point. Yeah, the Mavs really did Chandler wrong. I remember thinking at the time it made no sense for them not to re-sign him. I was really surprised the Knicks got the opportunity to get him.

The teams that have competed for the championship since 2010 were largely built around positionless superstars earning near-max to max salaries, so most of them manned the C position with journeyman-level players at best whose main job was to complement the superstars and stay out of the way. It’s not all that different than back in the Bulls heyday when they had guys like Bill Wennington and Luc Longley manning the 5.

It is also the case that some higher-level guys who are listed at other positions actually saw significant minutes at the 5: Duncan, Bosh, and Draymond are three prime examples. Duncan is the closest to a traditional low-post guy but he kinda transcends position.

That said, I think that in general, being a relatively low-cost three-level defender (PnR/PnP, perimeter/in space, and post/at the rim has become far more valuable at the C position than post scoring, especially on a contending team. Chandler was a supreme defender and his uber-efficient low-usage offense was at best a modest bonus (as confirmed by Jowles’ new fave stat, BPM/VORP; note that in 2009-10 when Chandler’s TS% was “only” .643, his OBPM was an horrific -3.2 and when he upped his TS% to .697 in 2010-11 his OBPM only jumped to 0.5).

Horford was made for today’s game. How the hell is anyone in the East going deal with Kyrie, Brown, Hayward, Tatum and Horford?

I think Horford is definitely undervalued and is a pretty good, versatile player, but I think he’s a poor rebounder and rim protector and that matters quite a bit. They were outrebounded by the Cavs, who were by all measures a poor rebounding team, and specially when they play Horford at the 5 and Tatum at the 4 they can struggle a lot with that. They even got heavily outrebounded by the Sixers in their series.

Since their best lineups are probably going to be full of shooting (something like Kyrie / Brown / Hayward / Tatum), a guy like Steven Adams or Capela would be a lot better than Horford, even though I love what Horford brings to the table. With this sort of lineup you really don’t need another shot creator or 3 pt shooter, just a guy to run at both rims, secure offensive rebounds and guard the paint, with the bonus of finishing easy baskets with Irving and Hayward on pick and rolls.

I love Horford, but I don’t think he’s necessarily the best fit together with the Celtics best weapons right now.

I agree he was fantastic last year and I love him as a player, but now I’m the one who’s going to look at the lineup interaction to make my argument (one time only, I promise)

With Hayward out, Baynes became the starter and Smart the de facto finisher in those lineups, with Rozier coming in when Irving was injured. In that lineup, adding two non-shooters, non-creators in the Hayward slot, then yes, Horford’s versatile skills made a massive difference. Baynes and Smart are also strong defenders who helped Horford too in that end.

My argument is that with Irving back and Hayward as a full-time starter and finisher, the need for Horford’s diverse skill set is lessened by a lot, and Hayward’s return phases out Baynes and Smart of the lineups in exchange for a lesser defender and adds a fantastic offensive player. In this specific lineup then, the one with Irving – Brown – Hayward – Tatum all playing big minutes, a guy like Adams would fit their needs from the center position better than what Horford can, as his skill set is somewhat redundant with everything the other 4 players already provide (passing, shooting, versatile scoring), and they are not well-equipped to deal as well with the areas that are weaknesses in Horford’s game.

I really like Horford as a player, I love his game and I have been defending him for years. It’s just that the current Celtics, no possible injuries considered, would in my opinion be better off with a different type of elite center at the 5.

In my view, it’s definitely a rich man’s argument. Boston is perfectly fine with Horford and they’ll be a fantastic team with him. We’re kinda debating on whether they would be 5% better one way or another.

I just hope the damn Pelicans don’t gift wrap them Davis. I have a bad feeling that the West is so rough that the Pelicans are going to be out of the playoff picture early and Davis will want to leave. I don’t think I have forgiven the Wolves to this day for giving them Garnett, if the Pelicans give them or the Lakers AD I’ll be supremely pissed.

While he is near the top of my all-time NBA shitlist, Bill Laimbeer was a very good player, far above anyone else on either your or Jowles’ list (we could quibble about Chandler, but whatever.)

Yes, and not a traditional back-to-the-basket big either. But like Horford, I believe that his impact was far greater than reflected in his stats, both on the court and in the locker room. That differentiates him even more from most of the guys referred to in the discussion, which I think is mainly about how recent championship-level teams are using disposable C’s to fill out their lineups. Most people would include Laimbeer as indispensible to his team’s success.

Mostly agree. Once you have your stars you can fill in around them. That hasn’t changed.

“Point Forward” is an interesting position.

A player like that will pile up assists in addition to his expected scoring and rebounding from the forward position. So stats wise, the models will love him to death since he’s doing more than typical forward. On the flip side, when a guy like that is out or hurt, it probably gets trickier to put a team on the court that’s balanced the right way. It’s unlikely you’ll have another forward like that. So if you put out a traditional forward to replace him, you’ll have to have a traditional PG to put out there with him. But if you regular starting PG is more of an elite shooter playing off your Point Forward, he won’t be enough of a play maker. If your backup PG is more traditional and you up his minutes to make up the gap in play making, then you basically have 2 backups out there and are really hurting.

I guess what I am saying is that if one guy does a LOT, he plays in a non traditional way, and you build around him to maximize the team, you better hope he stays healthy. Otherwise you can be really screwed. As great as James is, his Cavs teams have tended to totally fall apart when he’s out or hurt. IMO, that’s not just because he’s so great, but also because his teams have tended to be built to play off him and not without him.