Knicks Morning News (2014.05.24)

  • [New York Newsday] Rick Fox thinks Phil Jackson should coach Knicks, but he'd do it if asked (Sat, 24 May 2014 00:56:00 EDT)

    Rick Fox thinks Phil Jackson should coach the Knicks. But Fox also said he would coach them if the Knicks' president asked him to do it.

  • [New York Times] Sports Briefing: Pacers’ Paul George Cleared to Play in Game 3 (Sat, 24 May 2014 04:41:34 GMT)

    The Indiana Pacers’ Paul George, recovering from a concussion, was cleared on Friday to play in Game 3 of the Eastern Conference finals Saturday.

  • [New York Times] In Twist, Sterling May Allow His Wife to Sell the Clippers (Sat, 24 May 2014 00:26:49 GMT)

    Rochelle Sterling would negotiate a sale of the Los Angeles Clippers in an effort to avoid a protracted battle with the N.B.A., according to a person close to the discussions.

  • Liked it? Take a second to support Mike Kurylo on Patreon!

    Mike Kurylo

    Mike Kurylo is the founder and editor of His book on the 2012 Knicks, "We’ll Always Have Linsanity," is on sale now. Follow him on twitter (@KnickerBlogger).

    62 thoughts to “Knicks Morning News (2014.05.24)”

    1. Boxscoregeeks will post that stuff soon. Probably after the Finals.

    2. Seems weird that it takes so long, isn’t it just about plugging box score stats into a formula and norming it?

    3. Who do you think should have been the all-rookie team? I thought Carter-Williams was a good choice due to triple-double potential…I liked the kid on the Bucks…otherwise, nobody really stood out much.

    4. @3

      Of course it has. End of season awards are, after all, a piece of a larger narrative and it is much easier to give them to the players who “wrote” the most. Carter-Williams got the lead on the ROTY after his debut vs. Heat and never relinquished it, and I think that in 3-4 yrs it will look apparent that MCW isn’t the best of this rookie class (but still in the best five, overall quality is really piss-poor). But it was fun to watch him play this season, and I don’t think it’s all that wrong to give him the ROTY.

    5. Giving Michael Carter-Williams the ROTY award for being fun to watch is like giving Kim Kardashian the Best Actress Oscar for having the juiciest butt.

      There is no explanation for him getting the award over Plumlee (67 TS% as a rookie, and scored more PPM than the league-average C!) that has anything to do with production. If you want to say that the award should be about “best narrative,” then, sure, give it to the guy who led his awful team to 27 consecutive losses. But since the most important narrative in the league seems to be “winning,” I think that Plumlee’s massive contributions to the Nets’ success is the best narrative. Unfortunately, he didn’t play enough minutes, so his per-minute production is viewed as secondary, even though he was significantly more productive, both per-minute and total, than MCW. By a Country Cole mile.

    6. Post-season awards are something I used to care about when I was like 12 years old, but I gave up right around the time Andre Dawson and his .328 OBP won the NL MVP in 1987.

      They’re not gonna be changing the “Rookie Of The Year” award to the “Rookie With Highest WP48 Award” any time soon, I’m afraid.

    7. I’m not even going to enter a debate in which we’re arguing Plumlee versus MCW for ROY. MCW played with a historically terrible team that was openly trying to suck and strip itself of all productive players for future draft picks and depended on him to be their primary scorer and creator. Plumlee is a below average defensive played who thrived offensively playing the Tyson Chandler role of being the primary roll man on all PNR for Brooklyn.

      Plumlee is a good young player and could well end up being a better player in the long run than MCW, but if Plumlee was asked to be the center of the offense there’s no chance he could sustain his efficiency at a reasonable level. Hell against teams that were prepared for Plumlee’s sole offensive skill at rolling to the rim in the playoffs Plumlee put up a 46.0 TS% and posted a -.040 WP/48 in 10 games, limiting him to only 114 minutes.

      MCW looks like he can develop into a solid distributor, with the potential to be a very good defensive player on the ball and in playing the passing lanes. He’s not a good scorer, particularly not in a role where he needs to do it at a high volume and his lack of a perimeter shot is a massive drawback right now. Maybe he’ll never improve that, but at 22 years old he certainly has time on his side.

    8. You shouldn’t enter an argument like that, because it’s totally clear that you have no idea what you’re talking about.

      If you try to equalize their shot attempts, he would have had to shoot 752 more shots at a 30% clip to be as bad as MCW at making the ball enter the rim. Do you think the Mason Plumlee could have shot the ball an additional 752 times and made 30% of those shots? I’m pretty sure he could. I’m pretty sure he could have flailed wildly with the ball in his hands, trying to bank 20-footers in and hit somewhere around 30%. What do you think?

      Did you not read the part about Mason Plumlee being ABOVE LEAGUE AVERAGE AT HIS POSITION in terms of scoring volume? That means that, whatever it is he “does” to score the ball, he is REALLY FREAKING GOOD AT IT.

      I really can’t believe the idiocy about shot creation still remains on this site. A dude posting a piss-poor 112 minutes in the postseason is the end-all-be-all argument, when MCW was “good” “despite” his “tanking” team. Bro, he was one of the main reasons that the Sixers lost all those games in a row. You can tell me all about how he was the focal point of the offense, but Plumlee’s a fuckin’ center, dude. He’s supposed to be the roll-man, because he’s really tall and that’s a good thing to be in basketball.

      You’re making my brain hurt with this garbage.

    9. Why is he using Win Shares?

    10. Ok Cock Jowles thanks for letting me know Plumlee is above average at dunking and finishing around the rim. Your argument is infallible. Mason Plumlee is destined to be an all-time legend. In fact he was better than Carmelo Anthony this season because his WP48 were better.

      Like I said MCW isn’t a good shooter so asking him to be a volume scorer is a terrible idea. I like to give the guy credit though for putting up a nice 30.2 AST% playing with a pile of shit as his supporting cast. Plumlee could probably put up a better shooting percentage, but that doesn’t mean he’s a better overall player which is all I’m saying.

      Plumlee is above average at dunking and finishing around the rim. Unfortunately you can’t get those shots all the time. He can’t do jack shit else which is why when they faced Toronto and Miami in the playoffs they were prepared for that and he was terrible. It’s good that Plumlee’s a great roll man and I knew he’d probably be a good one coming out of Duke because he got better every single year at it when he was there. When you take that away though he’s not a particularly good player and doesn’t provide anything offensively.

      Plumlee is a pedestrian rebounder for his position. On a 17.1 USG% he had a monstrous 16.6 TOV%. MCW had a 16.9 TOV% on 25.7 USG% and handled the ball way more than Plumlee. MCW was a bad scorer and yet the Sixers kept putting him in positions to shoot the ball way too often. Maybe you don’t think playing with an awful supporting cast has an impact on how a 22 year old rookie might play but I do.

      You make my brain hurt with your garbage.

    11. In fact he was better than Carmelo Anthony this season because his WS/48 were better.

      No, it’s WP48. WP48 is the only thing that matters in the whole entire world– you want to know everything you ever needed to know about basketball, just look up the WP48 rankings and it’s all right there for you. Did you know, for instance, that Bismack Biyombo is an elite player? That he is easily superior to Dwight Howard? Well, you do now.

    12. @JK47

      I actually checked WP48 after and edited to correct my original statement. I feel far more enlightened since I now know that Trevor Booker was better than Blake Griffin.

    13. better =/= more skilled/athletic =/= more productive

      Christ, this board never changes.

      I really want you to say that Plumlee would have shot worse than 30% if he had taken 750 more shots. Say it.

    14. @Lavor and JK47 How dare you mock Professor Jowles. After all, did he not sound the alarm about trading for a 27yo Italian whose last name begins with the letter “B” and ends in “I” and sported a career WS/48 of about .065? Need I spell it out further for you? Of course I’m talking about Marco Belinelli; boy I bet the Spurs wish they never acquired this guy despite his .140 WS/48 this season. And had Jowles been in the Knick front office, he surely would have traded Gerald Wallace for Melo straight up if possible. Since Wallace had a higher WP48 this season than Melo, we would have made the playoffs and had a real value in Wallace’s contract going forward. Pick up Reggie Evans at the min and the Heat and Pacers would be trembling in fear at the prospect of facing a front court of Chandler/Evans/Wallace. Though a real loss to his former college, Jowles is now applying his special talents in the real world of business. I’m sure you would mock him were he to recommend a specially formulated sunscreen for Eskimos but I would pick up the phone right away and call my broker.

    15. Look, that special sunscreen has a much better WP48 than Iman Shumpert, so I would certainly buy it. Anyway, aren’t we heating up too much? After all, I think it’s safe to say that Cock Jowles is to this board what Patrick Beverley is to the NBA: abrasive, relentless, joyingly hateable but still making this environment much more interesting.

      Oh, and I dare to say it: Plumlee would have shot 30% if he took 750 more shots, because if Plumlee jacked up all those shots they would have been quite certainly horrible shots, and he’s pretty useless as a shooter outside the restricted area. I like the kid, but come on.

    16. Yeah it’s actually quite likely that Plumlee might shoot 30% or so on all those extra shots. It’s not a stretch to say that at all. What kind of shots would you expect him to take?

    17. I think it’s safe to say that Cock Jowles is to this board what Patrick Beverley is to the NBA: abrasive, relentless, joyingly hateable but still making this environment much more interesting.

    18. How many times do we have to talk about this? WP48 doesn’t tell you why someone is good at basketball. It tells you how someone is productive to team wins. Is it because he scores efficiently? Or because he generates extra possessions? Or because he doesn’t give the other team extra possessions? Okay, good: that’s done. Then we take on the question: Why does he score efficiently? Why does he generate extra possessions? Why doesn’t he give the other team extra possessions?

      This isn’t rocket science, fellas. Michael Carter-Williams might crush Plumlee at a game of one-on-one, but when it comes to generating wins through basketball acts, Plumlee is MVP Champion of Team Roundball compared to MCW. If you want to say that Plumlee would be a shitty PG on the Sixers, that’s fine, but let’s not make our straw-men and burn ’em down without thinking things through. Plumlee scored a ton of points on a very small number of shots, and even if you think being the roll man isn’t very valuable, it sure as hell was working for whomever was lobbing him the ball. There are lots of guys who can toss lobs up, and far fewer guys who can get their hand high enough to dunk over NBA frontcourt players. If it’s so easy, I think Michael Carter-Williams should start playing the roll man and providing league-average scoring volume at league-high efficiency. Or are we doing the whole “Plumlee’s production is inherently maximized, MCW’s is lessened because of his role” thing again? That’s stupid; let’s not do that.

      P.S. Tyson Chandler, for his career, has shot +30% on all shots between 3 and 16 feet, so I’m pretty sure Plumlee could jack up some mid-range set shots and knock down 3 out of 10. Just sayin’.

      I’m very happy to have joined the private sector. It’s been pretty happy to have me, too. Thanks for the well-wishes.

    19. Id love for the Knicks to get Biyombo. Biyombo-Cole and we’re ready to roll.

    20. Biyombo is such a liability on offense that his teammates almost literally NEVER pass him the ball; he touches the ball on offense less than any player in the league. I’m not talking about not shooting the ball– I mean, his teammates hardly ever even pass the man the ball he is so bad. Biyombo touches the ball on offense ONCE EVERY FOUR MINUTES. Yet our WP-inclined friends will tell us that Biyombo is actually a very good offensive player, and quite valuable to his team’s offense, despite the fact that the Bobcats are literally playing 4-on-5 the vast majority of the time when he’s on the floor. They don’t see any downside to a player who gets one touch every four minutes because he can’t shoot, pass or dribble.

      Look, I’m no hater of WP. I think there is value in that stat, and I think for the most part, the players WP identifies as good players are indeed good players. Efficiency is important. Volume scoring is overrated. I’m a big believer in advanced stats in general. But WP creates some hilarious statistical absurdities that need to be dealt with, such as “Bismack Biyombo, top 20 NBA player.” The almost religious zeal with which some people value that statistic is just puzzling to me.

    21. “let’s not make our straw-men and burn ’em down”
      That’s precious…

    22. There is no explanation for him getting the award over Plumlee (67 TS% as a rookie, and scored more PPM than the league-average C!) that has anything to do with production

      Jowles, I’m curious. In 2008 Kevin Durant with his horrible 52 %TS (0.040 WS/48) won the rookie of the year award over Carl Landry and his fantastic production 64 %TS (0.251 WS/48). Do you think it was undeserved?

      I am eagerly awaiting your answer.

    23. I think the key there is that Landry only played ~700 minutes. Was he more productive than Durant? Yes, he was. There’s no question that he was more productive than Durant, even in 1/3 the minutes. Durant wasn’t a great rookie. Would I have taken Durant at #2? Absolutely. Would I have taken Landry there? Definitely not. He was 24 (entering his physical prime) and, although it can be valuable to have a player locked into a rookie contract during his prime years, he wasn’t exactly top-pick material.

      You know why Durant won ROTY? He led all rookies in scoring. By a wide margin. The race was never about production; it was about shooting.

      I’m not talking about whether MCW will ever be a great basketball player. As we’ve seen with KD, a player can have a poor rookie season and go on to become a legitimate MVP winner. As we’ve seen with Bargnani, a player can have a poor rookie season and go on to become the worst basketball player of the modern era.

      If we’re talking about contribution to team wins, Plumlee is the ROTY. If we’re talking about who had a “more difficult” role on the basketball floor, I’d say MCW is the ROTY. There is no question that his production could have been replaced by a bench PG, though, and that means he wasn’t very valuable. Was he a terrible rookie, a la Bennett? No. But let’s be real here: he got the award because he led all rookies in scoring.

      And yes, he is a large reason that the Sixers lost 27 games in a row. Not despite — because.

    24. I was not asking who would you take at #2. I was asking who should have been the ROTY

      And for the record, if Landry only played 1/3 minutes than Durant, Plumlee has only played 1/2 minutes than MCW (Perhaps because his idiotic coach has not realized how valuable he is).

    25. I was answering your question with a question. What’s more important to you: playing a lot, or playing well?

      In baseball, it would be like giving the ROTY award to the guy with the most plate appearances instead of the guy with the best WAR (or whatever). I think that cumulative production matters. If you only play 500 minutes, but you provide triple the average production during those minutes– that matters to me. Likewise, if you play 1500 minutes but only give 1/3 the average production, that matters too.

      Now, if Michael Carter-Williams had a bunch of 5th graders as backups, I think you could make the argument that he deserved ROTY because of how relatively valuable he would be to his team. But again, if we define the most important criterion as “contributes to wins,” then he is not the ROTY. He is definitely not the ROTY.

      So again, my question is this: What do you think matters most?

    26. I don’t know, i just go by eye test, gut feeling, points per game, call it whatever you want. You are the one who can give accurate total wins produced throughout the season for Durant, Landry, MCW and Plumlee.

      Sooo… Kevin Durant or Carl Landry for ROTY 2008?

    27. When we’re talking about Landry vs. Durant or Plumlee vs. MCW, we’re talking about huge differences in production. We’re not trying to figure out who’s got a better ceiling or who is better at doing multiple things on the basketball court. Nor are we trying to sort through a difficult comparison, like whether Durant or LeBron was the best forward in the game this season. Even if you think the box score is tremendously flawed, you can’t honestly say that a guy who shot as badly as MCW can actually be a productive basketball player. Bad for a rookie, probably not, but taking a lot of shots and making a well-below-average number of them doesn’t make you a good player. Plumlee may only be able to dunk, but he took very few shots for the number of points he put up, which means that his possessions were used very, very well.

      27 losses in a row. I promise you that his 43% eFG had a lot to do with those losses. Ray Felton was 47%, and he’s a terrible basketball player. I don’t understand how it’s unfathomable that MCW might have been a typically-bad player on a terrible basketball team, and thus undeserving of a postseason award that is intended to reward excellent play from a first-year player.

      Great narrative, what with that first NBA game and all, but he didn’t have a good season by NBA standards, and he wasn’t a stand-out among his peers. I don’t think that’s up for debate, really.

    28. These have been great answers, Jowles, and I don’t mean it in a sarcastic sense.

      Just to add my two cents: end of season awards are like Academy Awards. Context is everything, but when you look at them some years removed, they can strike you as completely foolish. What do we have to think of the Derrick Rose 2008/09 MVP, with his .078 WS/48 (Bargs’ 2008/09 = .076)?

      And another thought: I am a great fan of analytics, but I am kinda wary of them, because sometimes they plainly contradict the eye test and that’s awful dissonance. They are, at the moment, in the empirical stage of the scientific process, we shouldn’t forget that.

    29. ROY seems to be more about potential star power than anything else. Does scoring lots of points equate to star power? Obviously. But in this case, the ROY did not just score lots of points. He did some things that very few NBA players did in terms of scoring, rebounds and assists. He generated the most conversation about potential. Will he become a “special” player? Unknown, but he has a chance. Plumlee will almost certainly never be a star in the NBA. At best, he will be a solid starting C. As you’ve said many times yourself, Jowles, rebounding is the most predictably transferable skill from college to NBA. Scoring efficiently at low usage is not as easy as many here make it out to be, but it is not sexy in a game where the team that scores the most points wins 100% of the time.

      If the draft were to be held again today, I doubt that a single team in the league takes Plumlee over MCW, not even Houston.

    30. Dare I say that, if the 2013 draft was held today, no.1 pick would be Gorgui Dieng? And then MCW, Oladipo, Antetokoumpo, Noel, Plumlee, Burke? Yes I do.

    31. My point about rebounding being transferable is that guys who have high PAWS40 scores mostly on the basis of rebounding and low-volume efficient scoring tend to hit the ground running in the NBA, whereas volume scorers/PGs likely have a greater learning curve, and are therefore harder to make predictions about. This draft was loaded with athletic skill-position players who either got hurt or shot terribly. It will be interesting to see who develops.

    32. The list of players in the 3-pt era that put up 16-6-6 as a rookie is very short: Magic and MCW. Expand to all time and it adds the Big O.

      For 15-5-5 in the 3-pt era:

      MCW has the lowest WS48 on the list by a large margin, so he’s really a weird player statistically. Interestingly, the next player above him is LeBron (3 years younger.) The biggest bust in this category is Tyreke Evans. Maybe the most intriguing comparison is Penny Hardaway, I see similarities there.

    33. @Z-man

      Check out Westbrook and MCW’s rookie seasons

      Westbrook was 20 his rookie season, while MCW is 22, but the numerical and stylistic similarities in their games is interesting to note. I don’t think MCW is nearly as talented as Westbrook, but if he improves his decision making in passing and shooting the ball he can be a very solid player. Hopefully Philly will put some players around him this summer better suited to carrying the scoring burden which should help MCW’s efficiency a lot and he should also work on his perimeter stroke this summer.

    34. Excellent, lp. If I change the parameters to 15-5-5 per 36, Westbrook is added to the list and is very close to MCW. (Although that would hardly impress Jowles, he is not a big fan of Westbrook.) I think that MCW will be more of a passer than Westbrook.

    35. I watched pretty much every MCW game when he was at Syracuse, and I gotta say I don’t ever see him becoming a Westbrook-esque scorer. His value is that he’s a legit 6’5″ PG who has good handle and court vision, and he’s great on the break. He’s also a good defender, uses his long arms to get steals. His ROY campaign is really the result of a weak rookie class. The guy who played PG for the Cuse last year, Tyler Ennis, was clearly a better player in college than MCW.

    36. This is a great discussion. What about Tim Hardaway Jr? Steve Kerr voted for him as ROY. What do you guys think of him compared to Plumlee andMCW.

    37. THJ is an incredibly one-dimensional player. I’m not a fan of players who are flat-out lousy on defense.

    38. I agree on TH2, he’s a very promising shooter but better work on his D if he wants to be anything more that that. It’s puzzling because he seems athletic, focused and smart, three traits that would suggest better defense on his part.

    39. Jr might develop into a solid pro, but he was insanely bad defensively last year. He might have been the worst defender on the Knicks, and if you’re playing with Bargs and Felton that’s quite an achievement

    40. I don’t understand how it’s unfathomable that MCW might have been a typically-bad player on a terrible basketball team, and thus undeserving of a postseason award that is intended to reward excellent play from a first-year player.

      I just wanted to point out that %TS alone was not going cut it. I understand if you think MCW doesnt deserve it, but the rookie class has been bad. Plumlee has played little, and i would rather give the award to a rookie that has played a lot and has taken many responsabilities in his team, even if he did not score efficiently (as Durant in 2008). I don’t think you can be oblivious to MCW’s assists rebounds and steals that compensate his %TS and TOs.

      PS: You still don’t dare to say that Landry deserved 2008 ROTY, :P

    41. Westbrook is really good, but makes bad decisions. Not as productive as he should be. High athleticism, good defender. Brilliant to watch, and I’m glad he’s in the NBA.

    42. THJ is one cold shooting streak away from the D-league. He was ok this year. Good for a rookie but just decently above average overall. He has Marco Bellinelli written on his ceiling.

      Much rather have Stephen Adams…

    43. THJ is one cold shooting streak away from the D-league. He was ok this year. Good for a rookie but just decently above average overall. He has Marco Bellinelli written on his ceiling.

      Much rather have Stephen Adams…

      Given that we grabbed him with the 24th pick, I’d say we came out alright. Now, had we grabbed him with the 12th pick over Adams, that wouldn’t have been so good.

    44. yeah, I mean look, THjr is fine. I just so him being a difference maker. Can’t defend at all. Really can’t do anything but shoot.

      If a careful appraisal of advanced bball stats has taught me anything it’s that to generate a ton of surplus without being a positive value defender is really really difficult. It’s just hard to do enough on one end of the court to make up for not doing much anywhere else….

    45. Oh man, have you guys seen the latest twist in the Memphis situation? Minnesota is basically trying to call Memphis’ bluff regarding compensation for hiring away Joerger. They know Memphis doesn’t want him, so they don’t want to have to give up anything to take a coach Memphis wants to get rid of, so as of right now, Joerger has turned down the Minnesota offer and ostensibly will still be the head coach of Memphis next season.

      Of course, this is all gamesmanship, so it will be fascinating to see who blinks first.

    46. My guess: Memphis will blink first. Minnesota is in no hurry (it looks like, after all, the eventual Joerger signing won’t move the needle for Love) while all kinds of rumors are leaking out of the Memphis brass.

      If Memphis winds up re-hiring Hollins, they’re putting the nails on their own coffin. First year will be good, then the whole thing will fall apart.

    47. THJ is one cold shooting streak away from the D-league.

      During February, when Hardaway posted a .480 TS%, he was probably the worst player in the NBA.

      If he’s not shooting well, he’s not doing anything well.

      In fact, when he’s not shooting well, he’s doing everything else historically badly.

      Hardaway is the only person in the history of the NBA to play 1000+ minutes and post an assist% below 6% and a reb% below 4% in one season. Not even Steve Novak or Anthony Murrow have managed to do less with their time.

    48. Hardaway is the only person in the history of the NBA to play 1000+ minutes and post an assist% below 6% and a reb% below 4% in one season.

      So lots of room for improvement?

    49. Wait, so a rookie in the NBA who is playing on a team in turmoil all season with a coach who has no defensive strategy beyond “switch” and who’s starting center was hurt half of the season struggled on defense? Color Me Shocked!!!

      Y’all need to lighten up on rook. Shooting and scoring are things that are difficult to teach a young player. THJR can do both and is great in transition and a great athlete. Its not wonder he struggled on defense. He’s A) a rookie and B) was playing on a horrible defensive team with Felton, Bargs, Amare, etc…under a coach who doesn’t like to develop young players and was absolutely clueless this year. Defense is the one area where a good coach/system can make a big difference and HE’S ONLY A ROOKIE! I’d much rather have a player like him that is all ready good on offense and is athletic/smart enough to be good on defense if coached properly than a guy like Shump who is the opposite, good defensively but bad offensively. Shump’s ceiling is not nearly as high as THJR who might not ever be a great defender but can certainly become a decent and maybe even good defender.

    50. Jowles made some very compelling arguments here.
      I don’t see any measure as an end all be all, but the NBA has been rewarding low percentage hero-ballers for two decades now.
      If your primary scorer is shooting 40 percent, you’re done.
      We’ve been through more than a few seasons like that in NY.
      The Sixers were bad for a reason and the ROY was a big part of that.
      I’m tired of hearing people lament the fact that ‘X scorer deserves better, if he only had a solid team around him’…but in many cases X scorer is a part of the reason the players around him are not productive.

      And if you have a big that can roll and dunk and other teams have trouble stopping him (66 percent), you need to find more ways to get him the ball. And if the other team tries to stop him and he’s still doing better than 55 percent from the floor, you still feed him.
      Why is it okay that a player shooting 40 percent from the field is taking 25 percent of the teams shots? Why is it okay that a guy shooting 26 percent from 3 pt, is taking three per game?

      Plumlee shot 66 percent from the field on a usage of about 17 percent.
      He had a TS% of .670 and an eFG% of .659. Williams? .480, .431, respectively.

      So on 16 shots per 36 Williams averaged 17 pts.
      On half as many per 36 Plumlee averaged almost 15.
      The Nets were good and the Sixers were horrible.

      Plumlee’s boards were almost 9 and blocks 1.5 per 36.
      Williams got better than 6 boards and 6.6 assists per 36 (these are nice numbers).

      But Williams, a bona fide bad volume shooter, gets the ROY?

      It is a glaring representation of the NBA’s rewarding hero ball.

    51. Frank O., Plumlee has played less than half the minutes than MCW, and he has taken much less responsability.

      Is this situation any different than when in 2008 the NBA gave ROTY to Durant instead of Carl Landry? I’d say they made the right choice, even though Landry shot 64%TS and Kevin Durant shot 52%TS. Even though Landry board 10.5 times per 36 for 4.5 boards for Durant.

      Landry was in a good team, taking low responsibilities and hiding behind veterans. Durant was in a bad team trying to do everything the best he could. Landry and Plumlee had the luxury to play the kind of basketball they do best. Durant and MCW had to do everything because his teammates were crap: the things they do best, and the things they do worst. Durant has improved a lot since then; but he was already a great basketball player when he was a rookie. I believe MCW is also really good, and in a team where he does not have to do everything by himself, he will improve.

    52. It sounds awarding ROY to MCW or Durant is like awarding the potential the rookie showed instead of awarding according to how much he actually benefited the team in his rookie year.

    53. It sounds awarding ROY to MCW or Durant is like awarding the potential the rookie showed instead of awarding according to how much he actually benefited the team in his rookie year.

      Or maybe, perhaps, there is something else more than your box score stats. Maybe, perhaps, if you play in a team that is tanking, your numbers will look worse. And maybe, perhaps, if you play in the USA national team, your numbers will look awesome (ask Melo).

    Comments are closed.