[news.google.com] — Friday, March 3, 2023 5:00:00 AM
GAME PREVIEW: Miami Heat look to slow down red-hot New York Knicks Hot Hot Hoops
[news.google.com] — Friday, March 3, 2023 3:36:02 AM
Knicks vs. Heat: Start time, where to watch, what’s the latest Hoops Hype
[news.google.com] — Friday, March 3, 2023 3:35:37 AM
New York at Miami | 2023-03-03 | National Basketball Association | Yahoo! Sports Yahoo Sports
[news.google.com] — Friday, March 3, 2023 2:30:43 AM
Knicks’ Mitchell Robinson tweets he’s best center in NY before deleting it New York Post Brooklyn Nets vs New York Knicks Mar 1, 2023 Box Scores NBA.comKnicks 142, Nets 118: “The Knicks are building something” Posting and Toasting
[news.google.com] — Thursday, March 2, 2023 11:53:07 PM
Volpe and Mauricio Impress at Spring Training, Michael Carter II on … The Ringer
[news.google.com] — Thursday, March 2, 2023 9:16:00 PM
Knicks: Luka Doncic’s role in Jalen Brunson’s surge, per Charles Barkley ClutchPoints
[news.google.com] — Thursday, March 2, 2023 9:06:00 PM
Knicks’ offense has exploded since Tom Thibodeau tweaked rotation New York Post
[news.google.com] — Thursday, March 2, 2023 7:30:00 PM
NBA Finals odds: New York Knicks picks, predictions New York Post
[news.google.com] — Thursday, March 2, 2023 7:00:00 PM
Knicks could end up with a lottery pick thanks to Kyrie Irving Daily Knicks
[news.google.com] — Thursday, March 2, 2023 5:00:22 PM
NBA Honors Knicks’ Jalen Brunson’s Fantastic February Sports Illustrated
[news.google.com] — Thursday, March 2, 2023 4:33:25 PM
Knicks’ Jalen Brunson named Eastern Conference Player of the Month Yahoo Sports
[news.google.com] — Thursday, March 2, 2023 3:56:24 PM
Knicks’ Mitchell Robinson claims he’s New York’s best center after 4th straight double-double Empire Sports Media
[news.google.com] — Thursday, March 2, 2023 2:58:48 PM
Knicks center makes big claim in deleted tweet Larry Brown Sports
[news.google.com] — Thursday, March 2, 2023 2:56:08 PM
New York Knicks vs Miami Heat Prediction, 3/3/2023 Preview and Pick Doc’s Sports
[news.google.com] — Thursday, March 2, 2023 2:39:26 PM
Knicks get another break as LeBron James set to miss last meeting of the season Empire Sports Media
[news.google.com] — Thursday, March 2, 2023 2:08:49 PM
Knicks keep Derrick Rose past artificial buyout market deadline Empire Sports Media
[news.google.com] — Thursday, March 2, 2023 2:00:00 PM
Will the Celtics live and die by the three in the playoffs? Celtics Blog
[news.google.com] — Thursday, March 2, 2023 1:44:59 PM
Knicks Trade Rumors: Bulls All-Star DeMar DeRozan to New York? Sports Illustrated
[news.google.com] — Thursday, March 2, 2023 1:13:03 PM
Miami Heat vs. New York Knicks odds, tips and betting trends | USA TODAY Sportsbook Wire
[news.google.com] — Thursday, March 2, 2023 1:11:02 PM
MSG Networks announces streaming service to watch Knicks … Yahoo Sports
[news.google.com] — Thursday, March 2, 2023 1:02:00 PM
Gio all in on Knicks, but comparisons to 1990s teams is ‘total insanity’ WCBS 880
[news.google.com] — Thursday, March 2, 2023 12:08:23 PM
Magic Acquire Nuni Omot from Knicks OurSports Central
[news.google.com] — Thursday, March 2, 2023 12:05:00 PM
Mike Gorman Reveals Reason For Eye Patch During Celtics-Knicks Game NESN
[news.google.com] — Thursday, March 2, 2023 11:56:18 AM
NBA: Wizards’ Morris out due to back soreness Bullets Forever
[news.google.com] — Thursday, March 2, 2023 11:50:12 AM
Three keys to the Knicks’ seven-game winning streak Newsday
[news.google.com] — Thursday, March 2, 2023 11:12:37 AM
I Humbly Ask Every Knicks Fan To Cherish Just How Fun And Good … Barstool Sports
[news.google.com] — Thursday, March 2, 2023 11:05:49 AM
Knicks cornerstone RJ Barrett sounds off on ego-less team ClutchPoints
[news.google.com] — Thursday, March 2, 2023 10:44:07 AM
Knicks’ Free-Agency Outlook and Top Contract Decisions Following Trade Deadline Bleacher Report
[news.google.com] — Thursday, March 2, 2023 10:31:24 AM
Is this Knicks team the best New York has seen this century? AMNY
[news.google.com] — Thursday, March 2, 2023 10:11:06 AM
Knicks’ Quentin Grimes breaks out of slump in blowout win versus Nets Empire Sports Media
[news.google.com] — Thursday, March 2, 2023 9:00:00 AM
Knicks News: New York makes two-way roster move, MSG streaming service Daily Knicks
[news.google.com] — Thursday, March 2, 2023 8:20:00 AM
How can the Knicks trade for a superstar and who’s out there? New York Post
[news.google.com] — Thursday, March 2, 2023 8:10:05 AM
Tom Thibodeau sees similarity between Jalen Brunson-led squad and 1990s Knicks Yahoo Sports
[news.google.com] — Thursday, March 2, 2023 7:34:30 AM
The Knicks’ End-of-Season Outlook Breakdown The Knicks Wall
167 replies on “Knicks Morning News (2023.03.03)”
I highly recommend yesterday’s Zach Lowe pod with Doris Burke. Around the 25-minute mark (I think?), they do a segment where they cannot say enough good things about this team. RJ’s inconsistency is basically the only negative they can find at the moment. Zach said he wouldn’t be shocked if we beat the Cavs in the playoffs, and could also see us (depending on the seedings) beating the Sixers under the right circumstances. Boston and Milwaukee were an understandable bridge too far for him.
Thanks Alan-I will check it out. I guess Butler is listed as questionable tonight. Whether he plays or not, he’s got a sore knee.
The first coach I can remember to have caused discussions about “three-point line defense” was Bud, he gave Pelton and the other analytics guys the spark for their specific searches.
And while data tell us that “it doesn’t exist”, whoever has played a bit of basketball, organized or pickup, know the feelings, the “I know HIM, he’ll miss….I can avoid rotation and stay here to concentrate on boxing out” and his scared counterparts “Fuck, HE is open, he’ll kill us!”…
To me you can “baptize” a player, a “known unreliable shooter” and sag off him (see Herring’s comment on Westbrook), or “force” a good corner shooter to take shots over the break and things like that (just as you can try, in “basic defense 101”, to send a lefty to the right).
Then you can have good and quick rotations, rushing the shooter timing, limiting his “breathing space”, make him not setting his feet, all things that matter and made for a good defense.
So I lean more toward Z-Man’s “position” on the subject, and I respect and value Malcom Brogdon’s words more than a cold statistic rounded to the fourth decimal.
At the same time I’ll not stop referring to ISM in my post, when opponents have bad shooting nights (or us, when the other team deploys a good ISM)…
And I’ll do it because it’s fun, just as IHM is a fun way to joke about opponents missing good/star players before Knicks’ games. Let’s call it “poetic license”. 😀
I think we have a good (and improving) defense but I won’t give up on ISM, I spent a low 1st rounder on him and I’ll try everything to make him a useful player… 😉
Butler’s absence could be a huge factor, I’m not scared at all by a Butler-less Heat team…
Anyway I’ll skip tonight’s game due to family matters that force me to sleep and will keep me busy for a good portion of tomorrow… sigh
Changing subject, my personal crush Kenrich Williams is out for the season, so Brunson has a legit shot at winning the “most charges taken” category.
One stat cited on the Lowe pod is that in the 97 minutes the trio of Brunson, IQ, and JHart were all on the floor the Knicks are +60.
Ready to have an amicable conversation about the ISM theory. The argument has, IMO, become settled over the last month or so. But first we have to define what it really is.
In year 1, the argument was “that’s totally random and it will regress to the mean soon.” (And, in fact, it did in the second half of the season… but I’ll get to that later).
In year 3, the question became “Ok, this is has been going on for three years now, what could it be?”
One camp gives all the credit to Thibs. They say his renowned work ethic has led to him knowing all the shooting tendencies of all the players in the NBA. And that he’s devised a notoriously complex system of funnels that directs shooters to be wide open in their least favorite position.
That theory is a bit outlandish and has been justly roasted quite a few times. I once said that three years of randomness seems more likely to me than the idea that Thibs can consistently force opponents to take wide open shots that they miss.
What I did not say – ever – is that randomness is the reason. Just that it’s more likely than funnels.
Three years is too big a sample for it to be random. The theory for ISM that I proposed was Mitchell Robinson plus variance. It seems likely to me that Mitchell Robinson can fuck you up. That having him back there helps perimeter defenders contest shots and rotate faster because they have less ground to cover (because Mitch protects so much space).
This seemed completely logical to me, and the eye test seems to back it up. I mentioned earlier that in year 1 of ISM, we did regress to the mean over the second half. Well, Mitch missed the second half, didn’t he?
Mitch just went down again, and what happened? The same thing.
To me, this argument is settled.
It’s not random. It’s Mitch.
Grimes and IQ are excellent perimeter defenders. They contest better than basically any Knick post JVG I can remember outside of maybe Bullock.
I am happy to give Thibs credit for the defense. But I think Mitch, Grimes and IQ deserve the largest share, along with Hart in the last 7 games. I give IHart some credit too for being more than passable in the last six weeks.
I will say, this year our defense feels different than it did two years ago. We would comment then about how many open shots the other team had missed. It’s not like that this year.
This team has a lot of good players. It’s kind of crazy.
He acknowledged the tiny sample size, but also sounded flabbergasted and delighted by this.
Raven, really appreciate your work yesterday. Love that you have reminders on your outlook calendar now. FYI I know it seemed benign to you, but when someone takes your position, changes it into something stupid, and then mocks you by mocking the made up position, that is trolling 100%. You might not get it because you probably skip past every post when we’re arguing. But if you’d been involved in the conversation the entire time (like me), you’d recognize it. He wasn’t responding to Noble; Noble didn’t say anything about randomness. He was trolling me 1000%. Very cleverly, too, to make it seem benign to anyone who hasn’t been paying attention. I have fallen for this bit too many times and will have to do better to avoid it. But if you or people like you police him like you did yesterday, there will never be any reason for me to reply. So thank you.
I won’t stand for this Pablo Prigioni erasure.
Hubert you are full of shit. Carry on!
Z-Man just couldn’t resist anarchistically spackling the joint with saliva flecks and poo flings yesterday, so now — of course — confusion and mission creep have hit poor ISM.
ISM doesn’t have anything to do with defending threes generally, but only defending open threes. So if Mitchell Robinson is good at contesting shots or helping others contest shots, or Quentin Grimes is good at contesting 3s, those 3s they’re good at contesting are no longer open shots and ISM has nothing to do with anything.
And since ISM doesn’t have anything to do with defending threes generally but only with defending open threes, Z-Man’s recitation of the “8,000 shot” sample size is completely inapposite and false. Teams have shot around 8,000 total threes against Thibs’s Knicks, but far fewer open threes.
In many ways, E, I think the idea of ISM is an illusion. It was real in year 1, and it’s been confirmation bias ever since.
We surely have our share of games when the opponents shoot bad. I think there was a stretch earlier this year where our opponents shot like 16-20% on high volume over 3 or 4 games.
That’s the plus variance part of the equation.
But all teams have that happen to them. Not all teams have Mitch.
Mitch provides a consistently low baseline, so that when variance occurs, it makes the numbers look even better.
On top of all that, though, I do think open shots can be effected by this. If opponents get used to us closing down quickly, and if we can close down quickly because Mitch is protecting our perimeter defenders, I imagine their would be a real “hearing footsteps” effect that could impact open shots.
Did anyone bother to read the article I linked to yesterday?
I agree that the better defensive players you have, the better any defensive scheme will work. That is totally irrelevant to the scheme itself and what it tries to accomplish, or how it compares to other schemes in what it tries to accomplish.
Isn’t one of the arguments that Thibs’ defensive strategy “select” which players can be left open* (“let bad shooters shoot”)?
In this theory ISM’s role is to defend the open shooters, sometimes he plays well, sometimes not, like any other player 🙂
(and yes, Mitch’s ability to cover a lot of ground, IQ, Grimes and J-Hart committment to defense and so on helps a lot)
* or forced to shoot more, keeping the ball away from good shooters
“Isn’t one of the arguments that Thibs’ defensive strategy “select” which players can be left open* (“let bad shooters shoot”)?”
Exactly, Max — that’s the “funneling” claim.
Thibs’s Knick teams have given up a higher than average number of open threes, yet still had an overall better than average 3 defense, (in part) because the other teams miss a higher-than-average number of open threes.
One “side” says that’s because of ISM; the other says it’s because Thibs “funnels” shots to the “right” guys in the “right” places. No real evidence of this “funneling” is ever proffered. (And if I’m remembering right, Thibs’s defenses do not result in a higher than average amount of open 2s being missed; i.e., Thibs doesn’t “funnel” open 2s, only open 3s.)
Isn’t one of the arguments that Thibs’ defensive strategy “select” which players can be left open* (“let bad shooters shoot”)?
I think that is part of his offensive strategy also–cf. Barrett, RJ (2021-23).
I think this will be a tough game tonight. The Heat should be a desperate team. Losing badly at home against the Sixers without Embiid. But, I am hoping they are in a rut. A key is going to be keeping Butler off the foul line.
No, because an alarming amount of good shooters were being left open and were missing at a high rate. This gave rise to the “funnel theory.”
The funnel theory is that Thibs knows which spots on the court good shooters don’t like to shoot, and that he created a defense that intentionally leaves good shooters open in these spots because he knows they don’t like that spot.
So for instance, if Klay Thompson goes 3-10 and misses five open shots, it wouldn’t be random. We actually didn’t contest those 5 shots because those were the spots we knew Klay didn’t like shooting.
It’s crazy on a lot of levels.
Meaning the Klay example as representing the funneling concept. Read the article.
I just realized that the average age of our rotation is 24.4 years old! Considering that, there’s not a whole lot to complain about with regards to the job that the FO and coaching staff have done. Sure- alot of it is luck, but they still cobbled this together and made it work. Especially Thibs. For as frustrating as he has been, he crafted an offense that minimizes the weaknesses of this team- and it works very well more often than not. For a team that doesn’t particularly shoot jumpers well, this team can really score most nights. I don’t think he gets enough credit for that.
My hazy recollection is that Pablo was a genius at stealing the ball and otherwise forcing turnovers, but wasn’t as good as IQ or Grimes in terms of bodying up and making it hard for guys to shoot. Though I guess if you steal the ball before the guy can pass or shoot, that’s just as good, if not better?
Yesterday while day dreaming about the Bockers, I was imagining this group on the court: Deuce, IQ, Hart. Those 3 guys would be flying all around on defense and really bothering the other team. Like a bunch of pinballs. I am hoping Deuce improves this offseason. I like his effort.
I agree on Prigs. Great at ball pressure and a canny defender but not especially good at contesting the three.
Grimes and IQ are absolutely flying around out there. The Brogdon comment is on point too because they will often contest just to disrupt rhythm or force them off the line.
It’s very helpful to have good defensive rebounding if you do this. Randle has certainly pitched in there.
the ism question is hard. if you feel sure about it you might be saying more about your fetish for assuredness than the jumbled morass of variables and confounders in your windshield. mitch is not an easy answer to the question. over the last 3 years combined opponents have shot 34% with mitch on and 34% with mitch off, with admittedly a small mitch advantage before rounding. this of course doesn’t itself rule him out as a factor.
toward the middle of 20-21 (1291 3pa allowed at the time) i used synergy or second spectrum to look at every opponent 3pa against us. the shooters who took those attempts did not indicate that we were forcing shots to worse shooters on average, ie if you gave those shooters their overall ytd 3p% the results would have ~the same as what the opponent team was shooting (.366 at the time). in other words, the weighted mix was the same against us by shooter quality as it was against other teams. good shooters we missing more than usual.
shooting success is complex, and this doesn’t come close to telling the whole story. maybe we were making shooters take shots they were uncomfortable with for some reason that isn’t easily identifiable. we were not allowing fewer corner threes, or fewer wide open shots, but “open shots” is also not something that is recorded with perfect fidelity. there is a lot more that could be relevant to shooting than what we don’t record.
but there is also a lot of noise in the soup. it would only take 149 extra misses to make us an average 3pt shooting against team over the last 3 years. this is not nothing. but if you did that to steph he would still be one of the greatest shooters of all time. 41% vs 42.8%. it’s certainly still possible that a lot of luck has been involved.
for all of zach lowe’s good qualities he should be in the small lineup sample size lip service but no chill hall of fame
but “open shots” is also not something that is recorded with perfect fidelity.
This is the most likely explanation. An “open” shot is a subjective decision, made by a human being, and it’s eminently possible that a shot that an outsider’s eyes looking at video tape tell her is “open” still feels contested to the player on the court taking the shot.
It’s a fair hypothesis that a team that is otherwise better than other teams at contesting and defending threes would also make a higher-of-average number of “open” threes “feel” contested. (If you’re playing against a strong defense that had been contesting hard all night, there would be a split second of “wow, I’m open, is that *really* true?”)
“One camp gives all the credit to Thibs.”
I was the first one to bring this issue up quite awhile ago. So let me repeat what I’ve been saying for years.
1. It’s not a theory. Mark Cuban was the first person I can recall to publicly discuss using player level shot location data as part of the Mav’s strategy. That was many years ago. He specifically said they try to force shooters to their bad spots. I think he was using a combination of scouting and the data from technology installed in some arenas.
2. The Knicks are not funneling people to be “wide open”. They never want anyone to be wide open. But just as there is a preference to take away corner 3s around the league or to force a player to his left or right depending on his strengths, if you know someone is better from some areas than others you can emphasize those things in preparation.
3. Some players may not even have obvious exploitable shot location weaknesses. Even if they do you may not have a sample or data to know about it. But some do and you should.
4. The definition of “wide open” doesn’t account for everything that goes into the difficulty of a shot. So any stat that tries to adjust for “luck” is not going to capture everything the defense is doing.
5. Thibs is not on record saying saying he uses this kind of information, but he’s such an extreme details oriented guy, it’s very likely he does. That’s why I brought it up initially as a possibility to explain the repeated “luck” we were supposedly having. I don’t buy that it’s luck.
That theory is often used to describe great shot blockers who are “felt” even when they aren’t in position. Bill Russell had an oft-cited quote about that.
Would still like to hear feedback on the article…any takers? pt?
I always thought that E’s explanation was the most logical to me to explain the success. Seems like a Brogdon anecdotally backed that up. An open three by data set does not feel open to the shooter because of the level of defensive pressure generally applied by the team causing the % to be lower.
In addition the funnel theory as applied to each individual shooter on each team is way too complicated for a defender to be able to contemplate in game speed. Much more likely that there are generic spots on the floor and ways of defending those spots that make it more likely for a shooter to miss
Maybe the snail-like pace at which we play is a factor. That’s one thing that has been consistent across Thibs’ teams.
Fewer transition three attempts, thus more three attempts in half court sets? I have nothing to back this up statistically, just spitballing here.
Whatever the real answer is, it’s probably neither raw dumb luck nor the funnel theory.
Sue me, but I think the idea that NBA coaching staffs don’t study shot chart data and opponent tendencies and modify scheme accordingly is utterly preposterous.
Haha, very fair. It still does my heart good to hear national media people — particularly smart ones like Zach and Doris Burke — praising the team, and seeing the same things we’re seeing, both the good (almost everything) and the bad (RJ).
6. I should add that what I am talking about is not just general shot location data at the NBA level.
It’s something like this.
“I know from scouting reports that player X is way better on the right wing than the left wing”.
So my choice on how to defend a specific play could be subtly different depending on which side of the court he’s on. We may want to make sure we don’t give up that open look on the right side but do something different when he’s on the left side that results in an occasional extra open look.
For player “Y” our scouting reports may say he’s excellent from straight on but not so good from either wing. So you defend him differently.
Splitting hairs. No one is trying to get a guy to move a foot one way or the other in game speed. Schemes are general tactics that are intended to take a whole offense out of what it is trying to do. Within that are taking away the general areas of the floor the opponent wants to shoot from. In the playoffs it then gets more detailed.
“Whatever the real answer is, it’s probably neither raw dumb luck nor the funnel theory.”
Answers are almost never black and white, one or the other etc… but we live in period where for some reason people think in very binary terms. There are probably several things that account for it, possibly even including a bit of luck, but it’s not all luck and it’s likely that scouting/technology and intent is playing a part in it.
“Sue me, but I think the idea that NBA coaching staffs don’t study shot chart data and opponent tendencies and modify scheme accordingly is utterly preposterous.”
It is preposterous, especially in a period of time when we have technology tracking these things, analytics departments, large coaching staffs and a tech savvy owner on record from years ago saying he used that kind of data as part of his strategy on defense.
“This is the most likely explanation. An “open” shot is a subjective decision, made by a human being, and it’s eminently possible that a shot that an outsider’s eyes looking at video tape tell her is “open” still feels contested to the player on the court taking the shot. ”
I sent the link to Luke Kornet and he agrees with the above quoted premise. He signed off Luke ” The Eclipse” Kornet.
The funnel theory is that Thibs knows which spots on the court good shooters don’t like to shoot, and that he created a defense that intentionally leaves good shooters open in these spots because he knows they don’t like that spot.
I don’t think this theory is that far fetched. You make it sound like Thibs himself has to know which spots a shooter shoots well/poorly from for the entire NBA in order for this theory to work. He doesn’t. His coaching staff is full of assistants and the front office has statisticians, etc…that can research all of this stuff. And it’s not like he has to know EVERY single player in the NBA at the start of the season. He just has to know the main ones on each team and know the teams we play more often a little bit better. He wouldn’t need to know the 3 point shooting tendencies of most centers, for example, since many of them don’t take 3’s. And some dudes are only good at hitting 3’s from maybe one or two spots. And he wouldn’t have to know the tendencies of all the third stringers, etc. And not every player on our team would have to learn this stuff about every single player on the opposing team. It would really just apply to whoever is most likely to guard who.
You make it sound like Thibs is wearing tinfoil and has some crazy massive white board in the locker room with the entire association mapped out. It doesn’t have to be like that. He probably has some assistants who put together a notebook on each team’s main players and the week of that game they go over that notebook and some game footage with the players.
These dudes do this shit 24/7 during the season for their careers. IQ watches a TON of game footage, even in the off season. Etc. It’s not that hard to memorize this stuff if that’s you’re only job.
Good to see a calm, intelligent discussion. Ptmilo has done the most extensive research into the matter and doesn’t feel confident declaring one clear thing or the other, which should humble us all.
Some additional food for thought:
-We’re the only team who has held teams below 35% for three consecutive seasons (including this one)
-Maybe an insignificant distinction, but holding teams below 34%, as we did in 2020-2021, is much more rare. Over the last 3 seasons, just one team has done each season and it’s been a different team every time (2021 NYK, 2022 BOS, 2023 NOP)
-There is little rhyme or reason to the other teams who have done it at al over the past three years, but the list does skew towards good teams in general–a cursory glance tells me the only below .500 team on the whole list is the 2021-2022 Knicks
My mostly uneducated stab: we were lucky in 2020-2021, there’s no scheme that produces a “genuine” sub 34% outcome. But we’re doing *something* to produce an opponent 3PT% that isn’t picked out of a hat. The idea that Thibs’ insistence on 48 minutes of rim protection allows our perimeter defenders to aggressively close out seems like the most plausible explanation.
the whole theory behind 3pt shooting defense is that it doesn’t actually exist because the vast majority of 3pt’ers taken are of the catch and shoot variety and they are mostly open…. this has been discussed ad nauseam a couple years ago but for whatever reason this got thrown out the window in favor of… vibez…
there’s some aspects of 3pt shooting defense that is quantifiable like… a wide open vs just an open 3pt shot contest has a difference of about 3-5% but generally speaking there’s not much control over how well someone shoots….
this is mainly why IQ’s defense and any other perimeter defender metrics are going to be highly volatile and at times very misleading…. most of the shots they contest or are responsible for are these catch and shoot 3pt’ers or jump shots from elsewhere and most of the time they will be late on a contest due to ball movement… you should try counting these next time in a game to get a picture…. and also track these for the team if you’re actually curious and not just gripping onto an idea….
the difference between .345 and where we are to .359 to about average.. is NO WHERE NEAR the likelihood of getting 3000 heads in 8000 tries.. if you’re going to use the energy to use a calculator you would be served to use actual data instead of misusing an analogy…
Lots of good stuff in Katz’s latest notebook column, including his own take on the small sample size theater Zach Lowe was raving about:
Whole thing is here: https://theathletic.com/4270804/2023/03/03/knicks-winning-streak-jalen-brunson/
Of course coaches study opponents shot charts and all of that, nobody is saying that they don’t. We’re talking very specifically about opponents missing OPEN threes, and how complicated and difficult it would be to make in-game calculations like “it’s okay to let Harrison Barnes shoot a three from the right corner but not the left so you don’t need to worry about letting him get to that open space on the right corner” and then extrapolate that strategy to every perimeter shooter in the league at game speed. That seems like an ad hoc description of what is actually happening.
also i see a lot of theories but very little testing of these theories… a lot of folks have put in a lot more work than you in publishing these studies that has been proven true over a long period of time… and before you say all that work is wrong you should probably put in 1% of the effort to also prove your case….
this is kind of how discussions with flat earthers go.. dont be a flat earther….. it’s good to be curious and question things but after a certain point you need to come up with something concrete instead of basing your position and be all antagonistic to people based on speculation…..
I was actually going to look it up, but
a) I don’t know how to,
and b) I knew if I was wrong ptmilo would tell me.
It’s a trick I’ve used quite a bit, actually: if you don’t know how to find the data, act assured that you already have it, then wait. If ptmilo doesn’t chime in, you’re assumption was correct.
I guess I’m back to the drawing board then. I don’t know what ISM is, but I hope it continues.
* your assumption. Jeez.
Yeah, they’re doing a total revision.
If Strat had come out and said that Thibs prepares his team to force players to go left when they want to go right… or that he tells his players to sag off the bad shooters… or that he says leave the elbow three open but cover the corners…
Of course he does that!! No one would have argued against that.
ISM is about our opponent’s propensity to shoot less than expected on open 3’s. The funnel theory supposed that it’s because the specific players who shot those open 3s all have lower expected conversion rates from those specific spots than the league average, therefore Thibs “forced them” to take a wide-open shot that may look good to the naked eye but actually isn’t good.
Another hypothesis, one I’m not sure I even believe in but that I’ll throw out there just to show the difficulty of determining the existence of ISM: the likelihood of a catch-and-shoot (three or otherwise) going in is probably slightly impacted by where the pass arrives — i.e., is it in the ‘breadbasket,’ or is it off to the left or right or down at the feet.
So if you have IQ and Grimes and Mitch (maybe not so much RJ) flying around and flummoxing offensive players, some percentage of kickouts are going to be unplanned efforts to get out of something the player thought was there but then wasn’t. Which probably leads to some increase in shitty passes because they’re unplanned and/or desperate.
Which should lead to a slight down-tick in threes going in, even if they are wide open.
Disprove THAT. (You actually could, but it would involve watching a shit-ton of game film…)
How was Thibs Minnesota teams 3-point defense? I know the 3-point shot has become even more prevalent since then, but maybe that provides even more information.
(1) There’s a correlation between 2pt defense and 3pt defense. Teams who defend 2pters well tend to defend 3pters well. Of course, this is almost just saying that a good defense is a good defense. It doesn’t tell us what those defenses are doing differently, if anything, they may just be doing the same thing as every other team, except better.
(2) Thanks to the internet it takes about 2 seconds to figure out the probability of 3000 heads on 8000 coin flips. I thought it was a funny result. We really don’t need to make a big thing of it, E just threw out a random number that happened to be absurdly improbable. I don’t think anyone is taking that comparison too seriously. I’ve spent a lot more time on a lot dumber questions thanks to KB.
I think we can all agree on that, yes.
It’s the idea that if one studies more it can yield an overwhelming result that has been pushed back on.
Thibs is an excellent coach and he surely works very hard. It’s just these magical abilities some of y’all ascribe to him that we disagree with.
The only thing about that theory, Raven, is that Thibs’ defenses create very few turnovers, so I don’t believe that the opponents’ passing is being disrupted in such a manner. You’d expect more turnovers from errant passes and we’re always near the bottom of the league in turnovers forced.
It’s just these magical abilities.
What is so hard to believe that Thibs is able to do this? I’m really confused.
2008 Celtics were one of the greatest defensive teams of all time. Thibs schemed that.
Thibs Bulls teams were the best defensive team in hte NBA when he was coach.
Now we’re a good to great defensive team with Thibs as the coach.
90’s knicks? Also good defensive teams and thibs was an assistant on that coach.
Yes, he’s had good defensive players. But plenty of coaches have had good defensive players and crap defenses. It’s not magic that Thibs has. He’s a good defensive coach who can coach a good defense when he has good defensive players.
You’re saying it’s all Mitch. I’m saying Mitch alone isn’t going to make your defense good. Just ask Fizdale.
What is ISM?
IF other teams hit 1% more of their threes against us we’d be like 13th in the league instead of 3rd or 4th. I am willing to bet that’s just random.
The simplest explanation is just looking at how the NBA defines an “open” shot and seeing what isn’t counted. It’s considered any shot with a defender 4-6ft away from the shooter.
An open shot could be Randle standing 6ft away with his back turned and yelling at a ref, or it could be Mitchell Robinson sprinting from the paint and leaping 11ft into the air in a flyby from 4ft away. Those shots are both considered open.
If you do want to stick to pure funneling, we need to ask how many shots does funneling need to impact each game to have a tangible difference? Is 1 or 2 shots a game taken under slightly worse conditions enough to make an impact over the course of a season?
And I always thought I’d see the Knicks win a chip before I read these words.
how complicated and difficult it would be
I don’t think it would be that complicated in difficult for an NBA team that had good defensive players to do this over the course of a season or two. This also plays into the continuity thing. If we’d fired Thibs or traded away a bunch of our players after last season, whoever took over would be starting over. As it is, the stability Leon has allowed by keeping Thibs even when things were rough last year and the core players (Randle, RJ, Mitch, IQ, etc.) would allow them the time to learn this stuff.
“What is ISM?
IF other teams hit 1% more of their threes against us we’d be like 13th in the league instead of 3rd or 4th. I am willing to bet that’s just random.”
That’s exactly what ISM is, only on open shots alone rather than all shots.
It’s not about “letting” “guys”shoot” “open” 3’s. Never has been.
It’s about prioritizing specific shooters and shot types. Dame is not going to be guarded the same way as Beverley. Or more generally, above the break 3’s are not going to be guarded the same as corner 3’s. There are also in game adjustments. Thibs is constantly bellowing out shit, do folks think he’s just cheerleading?
There’s likely a huge overlap in defensive principles employed by NBA coaches. Yet it is still a complex science. It strikes me as pretty presumptuous and facile to handwave away the subtle but critical differences between coaches, especially given the results. Again, I think the Strickland article explains Thibs’ defensive principles and why they are effective pretty conclusively. I’m sold. If folks want to dispute what he wrote, please do so. At the very least, understand that it isn’t a hairbrained idea that some KBers pulled out of their asses for the purposes of trolling the board.
Important thing to insert into this discussion:
The best 3P defenses are the ones that prevent the shot from being taken.
At my job I handle group sales all by myself. At any one time I’m doing groups for at least 25 shows. Sometimes it’s as many as 50 shows, some with multiple week runs. Sometimes I’m doing sales for several seasons at once. On top of that I’m doing other special marketing promotions for ticket sales.
If someone who didn’t do my job looked at the sheer volume of sales I handle on a daily basis, all the different shows with pricing, rules, etc. They would probably say “no way one person could do that.” But I’ve been doing it for many years now and it’s my full time job, so that’s literally all I do. So it’s not overwhelming to me at all.
So it doesn’t really seem that far-fetched to me that IQ could learn the 3 point shooting habits of 30, 40 or more NBA guards over the course of a few seasons. Especially if he’s dedicated to learning that information.
And I always thought I’d see the Knicks win a chip before I read these words.
Maybe this is a sign we’re going to win it all this year? 🙂
I think it’s more likely that good defensive principles overall lead to the low opponent eFG%. Don’t worry, Thibs still deserves credit! It’s not dumb luck. The idea of “funneling” as it has been described here seems to me at least like an ad hoc description that is making something out to be way more complicated than it actually is.
Dred’s point about a 1% difference feeds into the idea that overall on-ball pressure could affect passing accuracy and thus ISM, although JK makes a great point that is difficult to repudiate (lack of turnovers). I could try to dig a deep pit over how taking risks playing the passing lanes and outright stealing the ball are different than being all up in someone’s grill, but well, there’s a reason I called it a hypothesis, not a theory (see ‘Dinosaur Train’).
The idea of “funneling” as it has been described here seems to me at least like an ad hoc description that is making something out to be way more complicated than it actually is.
I agree and I also think the funneling is probably not game planned for every single player, ya know? Like Klay Thompson can hit 3’s from all different spots so it’s probably not worth it for Thibs and the staff to try and funnel him to whatever spots he’s weakest at cause he’s probably still good from that spot.
OTher shooters might be “good” but not “great” shooters who are really only good at one or two spots. And in general, the corners are the highest percentage for all players, regardless of how good they are. There’s probably a set of principals that’s applied to all players and teams and then “selective funneling” going on for specific players who might shoot a lot of threes but aren’t as good at certain spots.
JK actually that’s the rub. Folks are using the F word as a punch line. Hard to have a constructive conversation when that happens. In the article, the author uses the word as intended. Why don’t you take a look and tell us if you agree with the actual meaning?
Some Mitch love in Lowe’s Ten Things:
7. Mitchell Robinson, playing two and tying the New York Knicks’ defense together
The New York Knicks — rugged, comfortable in their own skin and 100% certain about what they want from every possession — were flying before Robinson returned from injury last week, but they feel whole again with Robinson owning the paint.
Once an overeager leaper, Robinson has become a sound defender. He’s more choosy chasing blocks, and holds proper rebounding position more often. Robinson has learned to play ball handler and screener at once on the pick-and-roll. He retreats in a wide stance, on his toes, angled to pivot in either direction, arms spread wide into passing lanes. (Defending with his arms down was an early bad habit.)
It looks as if Tatum meets five defenders there. With Robinson patrolling so much territory, New York’s perimeter defenders should be able to stick closer to home — and cut down on opponent 3s. (The one downside of Tom Thibodeau’s protect-the-paint-at-all-costs approach is allowing heaps of 3s.)
The Knicks have allowed 109 points per 100 possessions with Robinson on the floor — and 113 when he rests.
Their offense has been better with Robinson too, and the Knicks are up to fifth (!) in points per possession — one of the season’s shocking subplots. Depending on your tastes, it might be a small warning sign that a lot of New York’s scoring is built on nonshooting elements: free throws, offensive rebounds, ball security. The Knicks don’t generate a ton of 3s or layups, and their shot-making is average.
But the formula is working, and with Jalen Brunson playing at an All-Star level, their offense in the postseason should not disintegrate into Julius Randle one-on-everyone nothingness the way it did two seasons ago.
Robinson is one of the game’s great screen-and-dive bigs. Defenses have to sag away from shooters to account for him; the alternative is death by lob. Robinson is No. 2 in offensive rebounding rate.
New York is 19-9 in its past 28, one game behind the Cleveland Cavaliers for the No. 4 spot — carrying a 2-1 edge in the head-to-head matchup, with one game left. The Knicks are real.
I don’t know how much I buy funneling, but I do think Thibs makes a difference against opponent’s 3p%.
If I *were* to implement funneling it’d be about positioning before the play starts. You cover a shooter closer when he’s in his spot, you sag off him more when he steps 5ft to the left. He should naturally end up where he’s given the most room. When the play unfolds and the defender helps off the shooter leaving him open he’s already shooting from where you want when he gets the pass. This strikes me as fairly doable for a defense. No idea if any of that happens though or if it’d even be worth it.
100% what JK47 said. Of course Thibs deserves credit for our defense being good. We’re talking about credit for ISM.
I thought we all knew this.
I thought we all knew this.
It’s hard to know if people actually give him credit when they’ve spent 3 seasons dismissing the idea that our defense is good because of the coach.
You literally just said up thread it’s all because of Mitch. Of course, Mitch is a much better defender/player than he was before Thibs showed up. Wonder who helped him become the anchor he is? Was it David Fizdale?
I read the piece Z-man linked to yesterday and also found it persuasive. Thib’s stunt and recover D is not unusual, but the discipline with which his players implement it is. Whether it’s the “footsteps” effect or not, it has an impact. Moreover, at that time we didn’t have good point of attack defenders, and now we do, so that makes it even harder for teams to get those open 3s.
And I agree with Raven as well: we’d need better data about where people receive passes when they are open to shoot to know where that’s a factor, but it’s not unreasonable to think it could be. Conversely, there was something on Twitter recently analyzing the quality of Randle’s passing that made the point positively. He’s been hitting guys on the hands, and then they’ve been hitting shots. I noticed this anecdotally in the Nets game – a lot of those passes used to be at the knees, now they’re at the hands. Much quicker/easier catch and shoot…but perhaps recorded as equally open.
Someone included a graphic a while back of RJ’s three-point shooting, where he was doing really well from the right corner (or left corner, never quite sure how that’s defined) and absolutely clanking from every other point along the arc. Anyone with that data should be game planning for that, and if they’re not, they’re morons.
On a separate note. There’s been a long-standing argument about whether players would actually ever want to come play for the Knicks. Maybe I’m wrong, but it sure feels like the amount of national press the Knicks are getting during this stretch of good play is way more than commensurate (I mean, the Bucks have won 15 straight!). It’s nice cuz I like to read about the Knicks, but I also imagine players notice that sort of thing, too.
Actually Z-Man you’re the only snowflake here who seems triggered and butthurt by the use of “funneling” as a harmless in-joke. Try having a sense of humor from time to time and maybe we’ll have less painfully stupid petty squabbles around here.
FanDuel now has IQ at +170 to win 6moty. It was +3200 two days ago.
JK with the yellow flag for a 16.7% discourteous word post.
Nah man, Z-Man is being the word police again and it’s annoying.
I’m moving him into the “ignore forever” category along with Ras, who thankfully seems to not post here anymore, unless he’s posting less obnoxiously under a new screen name. Will not respond from now on.
Not at all, JK. Just find it mind boggling that after 3 years of consistent results, some “smart” folks are still beating the “dumb luck” drum.
Continually mocking the POV of a fellow poster is condescending and insulting. Which if fine! So long as you don’t mind when it comes back at you. Some folks never do that. Others do it all the time. You do it. Haven’t had anything but good-natured beef with you in forever. Same with nearly every poster here. In fact, if my general dig posted yesterday was not taken personally by a poster with a persecution complex, this would be just another lively discussion on a controversial topic (although I still don’t see how it’s controversial at this point, but whatever.)
There’s no one here – no one – who doesn’t think Tom Thibodeau is a big – if not the biggest – reason our defense is good. The dude’s had good defenses everywhere he’s ever been.
I made a joke to Alan recently about how Thibs magically made Cam into a good defender by turning him into Josh. And it’s not really a joke. The shit he did with Kemba, Evan, Cam, and others seemed rockheaded at the time but it won out in the long run.
He doesn’t fuck with guys who can’t play defense. More than X’s and O’s, that’s got to be his number 1 trait. If he will play a G-League caliber PG like Deuce over Evan, if he will bench Kemba 20 games in, if he will announce on day 1 that Cam ain’t playing…
Eventually he made his point! And eventually Leon did what he wanted! It’s an incredible step forward, and Thibs’ previously criticized stubbornness made it happen.
You know what kinds of teams play good defense? Teams with good defensive players. It’s really that simple. I know he does more than that, but that bit might be the most important he does.
Hey, call it both ways, referee! I counted 7 or 8 times the Alphabet Man tried to derail this pleasant convo by trolling me, using straw men, and directly insulting me by name. You’re lucky I didn’t have any coffee today, mate 😉
Alan, how did I miss “Light of Day”?
Your fictional band list is fantastic.
Hubert, go back and read your second post today. Then get back to me.
would you guys just shut the fuck up already, god damn
also I have no idea what ISM is and at this point it’s going to take about 300 comments of feuding to define it
Opponent goes on three point shooting binge, one or two wags make a joke in the game thread about “hey what happened to the funneling” and then said wags have to answer for the harmless joke weeks later, all in the name of protecting the feelings of, I dunno, the pro-funneling contingent or something. It’s all just very tedious.
Sounds like someone boofed the wrong flavored white claw this morning.
because nobody’s given any concrete examples… it’s all backwards rationalization… our opponent 3pt% is about 1std deviation from the mean… that’s well within the range of random chance…
if there are other theories… then show your work! there’s tons of clips of knicks games out there… we relying on the whole funneling theory and nobody even knows if they’re even doing that… or even giving examples… there’s approximately 150 examples of this out there why is it so difficult to show this?
this discussion is destined to go nowhere… the variance on opponent 3pt shooting has been published and looked at from a variety of angles…. the burden of proof are on the people to disprove that…. and the best we get are essentially imaginary scenarios in retort….
if it’s not random chance you have to do a lot better than having something that could very well happen 3x in a row through sheer luck… being something other than sheer luck….
Kind of like when RJ hit a three and someone posts “RJ says fuck off to his KBlogger critics”? (I’m paraphrasing, could even be “gives the middle finger”…)
Last year it was Randle’s good games, the year before Payton’s ones and so on… 😀
wow so more people have issues with z-man’s attitude.. but somehow it’s always someone else’s fault?
if you run into assholes all day.. you probably the asshole dude….
For the record,
I’m not talking specifically about Z-Man, he’s not the only one who does what I described before.
P.S. And I’m close to his stance on ISM Religiuos War 😉
Elon, if you’re reading this, please buy Knickerblogger and destroy it for the sake of mankind.
Jalen Brunson around +330 to win MIP
Thibs +2200 to win coty
Sadly, I can’t find a line on Keels for roty
Who are the other top candidates?
JK, I never reacted to any playful banter in the game threads and this is not what that’s about.
Odds will shift depending on the book
Also, futures aren’t the most reliable. If there’s a wave of Knick fans betting, it could be the books adjusting to that or trying to get them to bite on bad odds. There’s no market for “not to win” so you can’t figure out the implied odds.
Don’t know if they do those things but there aren’t the same incentives to make fair odds in a futures market.
Calling in just to say I love you again. The ISM discussion is quite insightful.
Jowles, ISM is Invisible Sixth Man, or in other words the magic that makes Knicks opponents miss open 3s. The board is now decrypting this magic.
Markannen’s progress has been really impressive,
he did look “different” since Eurobasket but I wasn’t expecting him to keep it going so well in the League…
You know what kinds of teams play good defense? Teams with good defensive players. It’s really that simple.
And yet plenty of teams with good defensive players aren’t good at defense! And players that aren’t good at defense will go to teams with good defensive coaches and get better.
Heck, just look at the excerpt from Macri’s letter about Mitch and the progress he has made as a defensive player since Thibs has arrived.
I sometimes get the idea that some people (maybe you) think coaches just do team scheming and planning and in game stuff and all development is completely on the players. But who do you think got Mitch to be better with his screens, his help defense, his not going for every single block, not fouling out, etc. Mitch didn’t just figure this shit out on his own. THibs took a guy who was a potentially good defensive player and molded him into a good one. So when you say “its just Mitch” you’re dismissing the work thibs did.
Same with IQ. Of coures the players have to want it and put in the work and that’s where E’s little thibs worker b comment is so dumb cause what coach wouldn’t want that kind of player. But there’s gotta be a coach to tech and reinforce that shit or else it won’t stick.
Like I can be a good student but if I have shit teachers, my potential may not be unlocked. Sure, if I’m just insanely dedicated I can still be smart and learn but it’s gonna be so much easier with a good teacher. Same with coaches.
It’ll be hard to beat out Markannen, but the awards are so narrative driven that a strong finish by Jalen/the Knicks or the opposite from Lauri/the Jazz could swing it
What is this about then? Seriously, some people here don’t buy into the concept of “funneling” as described here, so how has that become a punch line? What kind of eggshells do I need to walk on in this place exactly?
Just doing the daily check in like darules. A few yellow cards today. No reds. Nice.
Didn’t we start the season “fast” for a Thibs team? Did we also slow down appreciably once he went to nine guys? Lotta talk about how good we’ve been since the rotation was shortened. I wonder if pace is part of the reason.
And, @Max. It’s Markaten.
Honestly, I think we’ve spent so much time on this blog arguing with each other over what this inept franchise should do that we don’t really know how to behave now that we’re actually good.
JK I challenged a comment made by TNFH in a mildly edgy but general way. The good news: it triggered a rich follow-up discussion on the matter. The bad news is that a particular grudge-holder took it personally. If you are interested, see his second comment above, then go back to the original comment and tell me whether you think I was targeting an individual poster. Raven weighed in at the time and said he didn’t see it that way.
If you are not interested enough to do that, then whatever. Let me know the next time you see me have a problem with someone other than H, d, or E. (Well not really E, he has a thick skin at least.)
JK47 you made an innocuous comment about funnels in a game thread three weeks ago and he didn’t like it so he has been trying to relitigate ever since. This is like the fourth time he’s brought your comment up without provocation.
Likewise I once said that I think randomness is more likely than the funnel theory and he’s been trying to promote this idea that I said the entire success of our defense is down to luck. Yesterday when he was trolling was like the fifth time he brought this up without provocation.
It’s sad, and you’re right to permaskip. I’m doing the same.
Today was a really nice discussion for a while. Too bad we can’t have nice things for very long. Call it Z-Man’s Razor.
Go Knicks. And never boof a mango claw.
New rule. If someone makes a sarcastic comment about a widely held opinion on this blog (any opinion), even if they exaggerate that opinion in order to prove how wrong that opinion now is…if that someone doesn’t explicitly call out a person who held that opinion, let’s just assume that poster is just generally poking fun or jokiing about that opinion. And even if they do call out a specific poster…as long as an insult like idiot, stupid, asshole, etc…isn’t attached to their post, then there’s no need to take it personally.
I used to do this with jowles all the time. It was hard being team optimist when we sucked and doubly hard for me because as much as I love the analytics talk on this blog, I have very little patience or time to research or back up my assertions with analytics or data. Unlike Thibs, I’m not maniacal with my preparation.
So I’d get mad when jowles roasted me, especially if it got personal. But then I realized, even when it was personal, it actually really wasn’t. He doesn’t really know me and I don’t know him and it’s just fucking basketball.
So yeah, I’m gonna blast people’s opinions now that we’re good. I’m gonna say you’re wrong and I’m right. That’s just what we do here. There’s just no need to get that upset about it or take offense to it.
Again, if someone specifically calls out a poster and drops an insult in there unprovoked..that is different.
The Lowe/Burke discussion on the Knicks starts at 34:30 or so on Spotify if people want to give a listen.
Lowe is very high on the Knicks as others said above.
The episode on the whole is a good overview of a lot of the leading East teams.
I don’t even remember how I allegedly started this
Amen, but to the extent I know you, I like you, swifty. Never forget it.
Caught up on Poker Face for the most part the other night. Something clicked for me with it and I enjoyed the last few episodes a lot more.
The Ghosts of Pensacola was a wonderful and absurd parody of theater.
You’re 100% correct, Swifty. And I’ve never doubted this. I think we’ve been on two different pages. We’ve been conflating the reason opponents miss open 3s with the reason our defense is good.
Thibs is a pretty good coach, and I’ve always said as much. I criticize him, but I don’t hate him. Have a good weekend, bud.
Caught up on Poker Face for the most part the other night. Something clicked for me with it and I enjoyed the last few episodes a lot more.
Its enjoyable but 2 things that kind of annoy me about it. At what point does the main character start to wonder why everywhere she goes people are getting murdered.
Second point. While it is enjoyable to see what happens in each episode, etc. It does kind of take the thrill out of the episode knowing that her skill of being able to detect when people lies basically means she will always know eventually who murdered someone and why. At some point they’re gonna need to address that. Have her lose the skill or meet people who are able to lie without her noticing.
That being said. It is enjoyable. The Tim Meadows dinner theater episode was hilarious and amazing.
Another thing I’ve noticed about Thibs’ teams is that they have closed strong, and they’ve improved on defense as the season progressed. That has happened all three seasons here.
Some of it seems to be what Hubert is saying: minutes allocation. Once Thibs figures out which of his guys can execute best on defense, those are the guys who get lots of run. It’s why Cam Reddish was never going to work out here: he just does not have the focus to play defense well on a consistent basis.
I’ve been more of a Leon Rose critic than a Thibs critic, I’ve always thought Thibs had his pluses and minuses. But this season has convinced me he’s a damn good coach. Best we’ve had since JVG. And that matters. And Leon hired him, so thumbs up for him too.
Lol, Noble. That’s bc you didn’t.
I’d just like to say that my wife and I are taking a baby break to go to the Knicks/Laker game on March 12th!
With Mr. LeLaker out with a foot injury, we really can strike a blow into the Lakers chances to get back into a play-in slot (they’re currently 11th in the West). Now THAT would be sweet!
P.S: she has no clue LeBron isn’t gonna play, and I ain’t tellin’ her either. 😀
Would still like to hear feedback on the article…any takers? pt?
if i have the right article, it seemed like an okay description of what thibs tries to do on defense, but a bit too one sided for my taste. it was better than this one i remember, which was probably too one sided in the other direction.
i once read a really great one written by juco coach that taught me a lot when he was with the celts. but it’s hard to go from plausible descriptions of how things are supposed to work, to confidently dissecting noise from signal in actual results. over the 2 1/2 years thibs coached/ran minny, they were 29th of 30th in 3p% allowed. sure, maybe this just means thibs-ism can’t work with a terrible big defender like KAT (but they also had taj on those teams). it’s always the tension. telling plausible basketball stories while remembering that stories, like numbers, can be seductive and incomplete.
if forced to guess whether our 3p% against of .341 over thibs tenure (second best team: .349) was pure luck, i would guess no.
Something we should talk about more is that the Clippers seem to be kind of imploding and they employ not one but two players who would make us way, way better.
As best I can tell, it would be 100% legal for us to trade *seven* first-round picks before we even get into swaps.
If the Clippers blow it up, is anyone topping RJ + Fournier + DAL 2023/WAS 2023/DET 2023/NYK 2025/MIL 2025/NYK 2027/NYK 2029? for Kawhi?
I know how to change the subject.
Back in the days when KP was a Knick but before any serious injuries, Phil was already considering trading because he thought he might be a be injury prone and have some issues on defense because of his high center of gravity.
The player he was considering replacing him with was Markannen because he still wanted an outside shooting big man that could play in the triangle. He even met with him personally, which took a lot because usually he was just sleeping or getting high. 😂.
Phil was years ahead of his time. He probably invented the triangle funnel and scouting reports back in his day as a SF for our championship teams. 🤣🤣🤣
I have just 3 things to say, but all in 1 comment to not waste my daily allotment early on. 😛
1) For the ones that didn’t bothered to read the tail end of the last thread, i inform that llcoolbp made a comeback and you should go back to read it. For clickbait purposes he’s posting from wifi in India. 😀
2) After reading this thread i’m not sure if it’s still allowed to make jokes about the ISM on game threads, is it? Yesterday i thought people were doubting Thibs’ defensive schemes, but now i see that it’s only open 3s that we’re discussing. One question about this then, is there a place to check if our defensive 3P% on open 3s is better than our overall defensive 3P%? Among the league, i mean. If opponents are missing an unusual amount of open 3s, we probably lead the league by a wide margin. Because if we don’t, then probably it isn’t luck. And even if it is, other teams have it too, then it’s “average luck” and nothing out of the extraordinary.
3) “A few yellow cards today. No reds. Nice.”
Very nice indeed, it’s far better when people behave like they should. And the yellows are fine too, or else this can become a boring board where we’re all polite with each other, we all know HEAVEN doesn’t exist. LOL
Yeah, the Poker Face issues are the same for me. I think you just have to concede that it’s going to be ridiculous with the number of murders she faces. It’s a bit of a B-movie idea executed very well, a little Tarantino-esque, but in that same vein.
I assume they’ll introduce a character like that at some point, but with serialized shows it’s going to be more of a slow burn introducing some of the players. They setup the FBI agent from the old folks home to appear again (not mentioning him by name for the minor spoiler).
It is too bad Phil Jackson made all the terrible moves he actually made instead of any of the brilliant one he was allegedly contemplating. Phil Jackson was really done dirty by Phil Jackson in that sense.
delete this nephew
and swift, you gotta start using blockquote or some other way to denote quoted text or we’re gonna have problems
Kind of reminds me if that old TV show Hart To Hart. You really didn’t want to be friends with that couple. Terrible survival rate.
Z-Man, you have a total lack of self-control. Constantly picking fights on the internet is not healthy behavior. I love your enthusiasm for the Knicks, and you have some genuinely interesting insights. Please remember, finding professional help to appropriately address these issues isn’t a sign of weakness, it’s a sign of strength. Best of luck my man.
I hope they weren’t named Josh & Isaiah
Wait. Has that babydiggy profile pic been there this whole time? Adorable! Have fun at the game.
Noble, i think it’s a lot of picks for a guy that has played in less than 60% of the regular season games he could’ve played in the last 6 seasons. Not two or three, it’s six seasons. But he’s a heck of a player, and if we made the trade then i’d light some candles to protect him from injuries and would be delighted to see him play as a Knick.
>>>Kind of reminds me if that old TV show Hart To Hart. You really didn’t want to be friends with that couple. Terrible survival rate.
Same IRL tbh
I heart Strat.
Just remember to act surprised when you’re at Staples Center and she finds out. 😉
I assume everyone here has seen those “heat charts” that show all a player’s shot locations for a game so you can see how well he did from various locations or how well the team did from various locations.
If they can generate those for a game, they can generate those for any period of time and see the strengths and weaknesses of every player in the NBA with a reasonable sample size.
I can’t imagine data like that not being part of the scouting report from a detail oriented defensive coach, but I have to confess I’ve never been in an NBA locker room or talked to an NBA level coach or player, let alone Thibs. All I know is that data like that is available and the Dallas Mavericks used it in the past.
It also know there are players out there like Shane Battier that used all kinds of advanced stats to refine his defense at the individual player level. I suspect a guy like Quick is similar to him. He seems to be the super prepared high IQ type player.
What I’m getting here is that the data is available, it has been used that way, it makes sense to use it that way, we have a detail oriented defensive coach, and we have a few film watching high IQ players on the team.
That doesn’t prove that’s why we’ve been getting good results.
That doesn’t mean it’s the only reason we’ve been getting good results.
But it is one logical explanation as a contributing factor instead of thinking it’s all luck. There’s nothing to debate because we don’t know the answer, but as I said from the start, there are reasons to suspect “luck adjusted” data is not perfect, reasons to think something else is going, and a growing amount of evidence to suggest it’s not all luck.
Let’s switch gears to the Miami Heat.
I’m with Cyber. Kawhi is too risky. And not just injuries. He’s created irreconcilable differences in both San Antonio and LA.
Jimmy Butler is 3 years older than Kawhi and I’d put money on him playing more games over the next 3 seasons than Kawhi.
Butler’s also the kind of guy that inherently has a no-trade clause because no one would dare trade for him if he didn’t want to play there. He can force his way to Thibs. It won’t be cheap, but it should be palatable.
I wouldn’t love putting up with Kawhi’s weirdness, but on the court I’m not exaggerating when I say I think he’s *the best possible* addition we could make. We take our biggest weakness and turn it into our biggest strength.
If we’re able to make the trade by only giving up RJ from the current rotation, we know we have the depth to weather his load management.
We probably get 3 seasons with top-5 championship odds.
We can quibble about the number of draft picks we should draw the line at, but I can’t abide pickiness about the target.
What Jowles said. If remembering the blockquote system(*) is too difficult, just put quote marks around what you’re quoting, and/or put a line of dashes between what you’re quoting and what you yourself are writing.
(*) This is your periodic reminder: you put [blockquote]around the text you want to appear as a quote[/blockquote], only you use > < instead of ] [
Over the last 5 years Butler, Kawhi, and PG were basically equal bets to miss 25-30 games a season. Kawhi did miss a year to the ACL, otherwise his percentage of games played would actually be the highest among them.
In that sense, none are good bets. But if there’s a three-year championship window, those are the bets you make.
My block quote ability went away with the transition. I’ll use quotes going forward!
We probably get 3 seasons with top-5 championship odds.
He’s a good bet to give us zero, too. He’s had 4 seasons w the Clippers and that’s what he’s given them.
Butler gives us two right off the bat, I think. Two in the hand v 3 in the bush.
And god the garden would love him. He is what you’d get if Charles Oakley and Latrell Sprewell had a baby.
Thank you to the saint who finally explained what ISM is.
A funny thing about this discussion is we’re not even particularly lucky on open opponent 3s, we are 12th in the league in open 3pt% against. We’re luckier on wide open 3s, at 5th or 6th.
We were actually luckly against open 3s last year, but not at all on wide open 3s. idk I think you guys are arguing with each other over something that probably doesn’t even exist.
I am so surprised Alan has nothing to say about Pokerface yet.
I am also so high on the Knicks right now I am thinking of going full Reddit mode and just talking about how great the team is and how I want my daughter to marry a Knick (in 25 years) or someone from Thibs’ family tree
Well, as a man who famously has no opinions about Poker Face, I would definitely not encourage you to read this week’s newsletter, which discusses what some people are calling easily the show’s best episode yet:
As to the structural concern, it’s a long-held conceit of any mystery series — whether in books, movies, or on TV — where the sleuth is not in law-enforcement, or at least a private detective. I used to joke that Jessica Fletcher from Murder She Wrote was the greatest serial killer of all time, because no one ever questioned why her friends and/or dinner party guests kept getting murdered. And even she’s at least a mystery novelist, so it’s not 100% out of her area of expertise.
And the superpower is actually Rian Johnson’s attempt to sort of explain it: https://www.rollingstone.com/tv-movies/tv-movie-features/rian-johnson-interview-poker-face-peacock-glass-onion-natasha-lyonne-daniel-craig-mystery-1234659173/
That’s how you troll someone!!! 🙂
I generally will joke with Brits from the Oxford area about how horrific the crime rate is there. Every detective series seems to be set there and there are multiple homicides every week.
Yeah I updated my avatar w/in his first week. And my wife pulled the “you’re the older adult sister” card on my bonus daughter to get us a babysitter for the game on the 12th 😉
BTW… I’ve been thinking for awhile that Kawhi would be PERFECT for this team and immediately vault us into surefire title contenders. Yes, Rose & Co would likely need to get certain non-public assurances that he’ll completely buy in for the remaining two years of his deal: there will likely have to be some legit compromises made on his “load management” and anti-media personality – the NY scribes will target him for the stuff he pulls now and especially when he was in Toronto.
There’s a lot of risk in it. But the league is really wide open right now, and he’s the caliber of player you empty the cupboards for (I think he’s the right guy for our win curve, am I doing that right JK47?).
I’d try to sell the Clips on RJ’s age and the fact he’ll allow PG to go back to being a natural 3. RJ, Obi, Grimes, 5 firsts…?
TNFH-Given how great a player he is, a Kawhi acquisition, by almost any means, seems like a no-brainer. Like others though, I would be quite concerned with his injury history. I would also be concerned that his “weirdness” (which might be a euphemism) plays out in ways that will hurt the team. I do agree that if he is right, he fills a current gap and certainly elevates the team by a large margin.
[Extremely fake Samuel L. Jackson voice] Kids knew! They called me Mr. Glass!
Even when you guys are *trying* to spell it right, you’re spelling it wrong. It’s “Markkanen,” not “Markannen.” Two Ks; two Ns: there is a good way to remember it.
Doogie, your spelling is missing at least two T’s, and possibly three.
I did say – way at the beginning – that I believe ISM is an illusion. Confirmation bias.
It was real for half a season in Thibs’ first year. And there was a weird stretch this year when opponents’ shot like 10-15% on high volume over three straight games. That stretch, in fact, is what started the whole funnels vs variance argument.
Re: Kawhi’s weirdness, if you view it dispassionately, Kawhi is a lot Kyrie without the off-court controversy.
Kyrie left the best player of the 21st century; Kawhi left the best organization.
Kyrie signed with the 2nd best team in NY in 2019, promised to take over the city, rarely showed up for work; Kawhi… the same, but in LA.
The off-court controversies can’t be ignored and Kawhi is a much better player, but let’s not underestimate how nuts he’s been.
As a fan…I am really looking forward to this game tonight….more than we’ve had to play for in a long time…looking for some playoff intensity….
Viva el embudo!
I dont really feel that way about Kawhi. Has he had that much off court stuff?
I feel like not wanting to re-sign in SA is hardly crazy. But there is probably a lot of stuff I have forgotten about
I strongly support this opinion (even with his flaws 🙂 ).
Markkanen (I’m practising)
Emotionally Butler over Kawhi. Would love to be the place where Buckets gets his ring.
Here’s what TNFH said:
“It’s worth nothing that while there still seems to be some kind of ISM effect, we’re now 22nd in opponent 3PT% which is obviously still “good” but no longer screams “smoke and mirrors.””
Here’s what I said in response to him:
“That’s 3rd, 6th and 5th, coming up on 8,000 opponent’s 3PA in the three years and 218 games of the Tom Thibodeau administration, or in other words, around the same amount of 3’s Steph Curry has taken in his entire career.
But that’s just the ISM! It’s all an illusion! We are leaving guys wide open and they are just missing! Regression to the mean is going to hit us hard any day now…..any day now….any day….”
Here’s what Hubert said, without any further provocation:
“I reserve the right break my limit any time Z-Man blatantly and shamelessly trolls me without provocation. So y’all might want to keep that little bitch in line before he ruins yet another great day for everyone with his latest narcissistic endeavor.”
Judge for yourself whose blew this shit up. Spoiler alert: It wasn’t me. And for confirmation, read Hubert’s second post today, which was also out of the blue on a spanking new thread.
Ok, case is closed. Perfect.
I am looking forward to Mitch showing Bam who the second best center in the East is.
Time for a new thread
Owen, you saw that about Mitch’s tweet? I caught it in real time in Twitter before he deleted it – a lot of fanbois of BKN cussing him out, saying Claxton is better, etc.
Mitch deleting his tweet was weak. Stand by your boasting, dude.
Is there any hill you won’t die on? Jesus dude, take a week off. As a long time lurker I’m honestly getting pretty tired of your schtick.
i just want somebody to dunk on Herro…
Best words you’ve ever said. I concur. Now let’s watch some basketball.
The Claxton Mitch drama was pretty hilarious.
I love that Mitch is finally getting to the point where he is feeling himself like this.
Going back to trade targets, I know Butler has more mileage on him and is older than Kawhi, but man, a lineup with him, Randle and Brunson in it? Sign me up for 1990’s redux, we would be a tough mother effin’ team to deal with!
I bit the bullet and paid for league pass. I’m hoping I can get it to run in my tvs browser. It’s a lot cheaper than going to the bar to watch.
My curmudgeon days are over — thank you, Denise the Therapist, to whom I owe a great deal, monetarily and otherwise — and I want it known that in online beefs, one cannot win. One can only lose.
You are why we cannot have nice things, bidiong
I was immediately punished by my internet cutting off Jowles. It’s been quite the stormy day down here in Nashville.
the ghost of David Stern laughs in your general direction