Knicks Morning News (Monday, Jan 23 2012)

  • [New York Post] ‘Melo hopes talk with Amar’e can fix struggling Knicks (Mon, 23 Jan 2012 06:00:52 -0500)

    Carmelo Anthony said it is time for him and Amar’e Stoudemire to have a heart-to-heart.
    The superstar tandem have been a staggering wreck. If not fixed soon, the Knicks’ season â?? and coach Mike D’Antoni’s job â?? will be on the line.
    “We as a team need to do…

  • [New York Post] Davis close to returning (Mon, 23 Jan 2012 04:08:15 -0500)

    Baron Davis is likely to participate in his first practice today and the Knicks are shooting for the injured point guard to make his debut Saturday in Houston for the finale to their four-game road trip, according to sources.The Knicks prefer to start Davis on the road because there…

  • [New York Times] Cable TV Dispute Leads Some N.Y. Fans to Buy Tickets (Mon, 23 Jan 2012 07:30:11 GMT)

    A bitter contract fight between Time Warner Cable and the MSG channels has forced some followers of the Knicks and Rangers to attend the teams’ games.

  • [New York Times] N.B.A. Roundup: Nets Beat Bobcats, 97-87 (Mon, 23 Jan 2012 06:39:12 GMT)

    Deron Williams had 19 points, 10 assists and 9 rebounds Sunday to carry the Nets past the visiting Charlotte Bobcats, 97-87.

  • [New York Times] Pacers Trip Up Cold-Shooting Lakers (Mon, 23 Jan 2012 07:18:35 GMT)

    The Indiana Pacers took advantage of an ice-cold Los Angeles Lakers side with a 98-96 victory on Sunday, inflicting a third successive loss the home team.

  • [New York Times] Hibbert Leads Pacers Past Lakers, 98-96 (Mon, 23 Jan 2012 05:50:08 GMT)

    Roy Hibbert scored eight of his 18 points in the fourth quarter playing with a broken nose, and five of his teammates also scored in double figures to help the Indiana Pacers beat the Los Angeles Lakers 98-96 on Sunday night.

  • [New York Times] NBA Capsules (Mon, 23 Jan 2012 05:23:32 GMT)

    Brandon Jennings scored 23 points, Ersan Ilyasova added 16 and the Milwaukee Bucks held Miami to 37 percent shooting in a 91-82 victory over the Heat on Sunday night.

  • [New York Times] Jennings’ 23 Help Bucks Beat Heat 91-82 (Mon, 23 Jan 2012 01:59:11 GMT)

    Brandon Jennings scored 23 points, Ersan Ilyasova added 16 off the bench and the Milwaukee Bucks held Miami to 37 percent shooting on the way to beating the Heat 91-82 on Sunday night.

  • [New York Times] Nets Upend Bobcats 97-87 (Mon, 23 Jan 2012 01:53:08 GMT)

    Deron Williams had 19 points, nine rebounds and 10 assists to lead the New Jersey Nets to a 97-87 victory over the Charlotte Bobcats on Sunday night.

  • [New York Daily News] Anthony admits he could be Knicks’ problem (Mon, 23 Jan 2012 07:34:11 GMT)

    Maybe, just maybe, Carmelo Anthony is shooting too much. That was one of the issues Anthony raised during his impromptu confessional with reporters Saturday night after the Knicks lost their sixth straight game.

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

    Mike Kurylo

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

    45 thoughts to “Knicks Morning News (Monday, Jan 23 2012)”

    1. bobneptune: 6-10

      your beloved stat has tyson chandler rated higher than scottie pippen and john havlicek and easy ed macauley rated higher than bill fricking russell lifetime.

      i’m convinced!

      but i have an open mind and am willing to learn. lou williams and tyson chandler are the 6th and 7th what in the nba this season?

      Bill Russell played in an era for which we only have shooting information. We have no idea how valuable he actually was aside from sportswriters’ accounts that he was really, really good. Either you’re really, really old, or you were a kid when he was playing and really have no idea what you were watching.

      And that list is accurate for this season. Ryan Anderson has been playing unreal basketball (have you seen his team’s record?) and Howard’s TS% and eFG% came way down this year. Probably a fluke, and it’ll return to normal (and he’ll be #1 against), but his shooting has been two-tenths of a point down from where Chandler’s at right now.

      You are comparing names to name, reputations to reputations.

      I’m comparing numbers to numbers, stats to stats.

      Your “But he’s Ryan Anderson!” won’t do anything to the argument that he’s shooting something like 62 TS% with a usage of 22+. We could be talking about Darko or Kwame and we’d still have to concede that he’s having a phenomenal year.

    2. You know, When Melo is slumping, he becomes they guy who loses the lottery and out of frustration, buys 10 more tickets.
      He feels frustrated and embarrassed, and he keeps thinking the next shot will change everything. Meanwhile, his teammates stand around and watch him implode.
      But on the other hand, him saying he’s the problem to the media doesn’t feel right either. It sounds like his confidence is waning. You need him to believe in himself. Don’t tell the press; show up at practice and make the changes you need to make. This public musing on fault doesn’t help anyone.
      30 shots for one guy, a cold shooter, is ridiculous.
      Amare needed more touches. Landry was playing well.
      One thing I take heart from the game was that while Amare and Melo didn’t play particularly well offensively, other guys stepped up offensively. Also, the defense was tenacious most of the game. Or guys were flying around, pressure the ball and keeping a high scoring team in check.
      We knew they would lose when Chandler fouled out, but I love the guy.

    3. First off, I’m sick that Harrelson is out for 6 weeks. One of the few reasons I’ve enjoyed watching the Knicks this season.

      Does this mean that Jordan will get called up from the D-League? Incidentally, he had an impressive line on Friday – 26 pts, 8 rbs, 2 stls and 3 blocks in 33 minutes.

      More impressive however was Lin’s triple double in the same game – 28 pts, 11 rbs, 12 assists, 2 stls and a blocked shot in 44 minutes.

      Some good vid from the game: http://www.nba.com/dleague/games/20120120/ERIMNE/gameinfo.html#nbaGIboxscore

      At this point, I really think Toney needs to be firmly planted on the bench. Bring back Lin and give the guy some limited burn to see what he can do. I know Baron is supposedly coming back within a week’s time, however, we still need depth at the position. Toney is a liability and this team is reeling.

    4. and since I don’t recall it being broached here, am I the only one who’s thought that there’s a chance that Baron was never especially hurt, but just trying to force his way to the team he wanted?

      it’s interesting that today marks almost precisely 4 weeks since Opening Day, I think there’s a chance that he was told by the NBA/Stern that he had to sit out the 4 weeks at a minimum to not make the new waiver process seem like a mockery (remember how they shot down Billups when he tried to game the same process).

    5. The Honorable Cock Jowles: Bill Russell played in an era for which we only have shooting information. We have no idea how valuable he actually was aside from sportswriters’ accounts that he was really, really good. Either you’re really, really old, or you were a kid when he was playing and really have no idea what you were watching.

      And that list is accurate for this season. Ryan Anderson has been playing unreal basketball (have you seen his team’s record?) and Howard’s TS% and eFG% came way down this year. Probably a fluke, and it’ll return to normal (and he’ll be #1 against), but his shooting has been two-tenths of a point down from where Chandler’s at right now.

      You are comparing names to name, reputations to reputations.

      I’m comparing numbers to numbers, stats to stats.

      Your “But he’s Ryan Anderson!” won’t do anything to the argument that he’s shooting something like 62 TS% with a usage of 22+. We could be talking about Darko or Kwame and we’d still have to concede that he’s having a phenomenal year.

      Stats are interesting, informative and very helpful, but have limited value to analyze and compare players in basketball.
      Anyone who thinks they can accurately determine a players true value by displaying an advanced metrics chart does not understand the game. That works better in baseball which is more of a series of isolated plays.
      Basketball has an infinite number of variables. Yes, infinite. Too much going on all of time, and the cause and effect of each nuance of action is beyond what statisticians can encapsulate. i.e. loose balls, box outs, back screens, passing to the right guy for the followup pass are not properly qualified. . . not to mention a players attitude. But not only are these actions not quantifiable, the effect of them changes everything that follows. Statistics can’t begin to measure the nuances of…

    6. Hula I understand where you are coming from but it seems to me that that logic effectively = I’m right because I say so.

    7. He is coming from the same place as every other person who has argued here that stats have very limited value for understanding basketball, usually without having reading the Layman’s Guide.

      We get it Hoolahoop, stats aren’t perfect.

    8. The Honorable Cock Jowles: Bill Russell played in an era for which we only have shooting information. We have no idea how valuable he actually was aside from sportswriters’ accounts that he was really, really good. Either you’re really, really old, or you were a kid when he was playing and really have no idea what you were watching.

      And that list is accurate for this season. Ryan Anderson has been playing unreal basketball (have you seen his team’s record?) and Howard’s TS% and eFG% came way down this year. Probably a fluke, and it’ll return to normal (and he’ll be #1 against), but his shooting has been two-tenths of a point down from where Chandler’s at right now.

      You are comparing names to name, reputations to reputations.

      I’m comparing numbers to numbers, stats to stats.

      Your “But he’s Ryan Anderson!” won’t do anything to the argument that he’s shooting something like 62 TS% with a usage of 22+. We could be talking about Darko or Kwame and we’d still have to concede that he’s having a phenomenal year.

      so you are saying the data YOU posted is not relevant due to sample size?

      i mean when you post data and try to buttress an argument with a stat showing chandler, lou williams and ryan anderson are among the top 10 in the league in anything, it doesn’t pass the laugh test.

    9. Steve Nash Ast% in Dallas was around 35%. In Phoenix, it is been always around 50%. 6 seasons in Dallas, and 7 in phoenix, more than 30mpg in either team, neither percentage is an outlier.

      I have to point his out because although stats are useful (and i agree the naked eye is easily deceived in things like shooting percentages), they don’t tell the whole story. D’Antoni saw something in Steve Nash (or perhaps it was a byproduct of chance, but let’s say that an intelligent coach would see something in Steve Nash that would make him a great passer). But that thing isn’t quantified yet; i would like to see the stat that said that Steve Nash in Dallas was going to be one of the best passers in NBA history in Phoenix (But please, don’t point out to me stats that say that Nash was a really good shooter before and after the trade)

      But sometimes, statheads in this forum can’t discuss anything if it is not quantified. If i say Melo is shooting well except when ISOing, statheads in this forum wouldn’t believe me unless there is a webpage that tells them that it is indeed true. If there is, then they say that OK, perhaps i am adding something to the discussion.

      So, if i say that Melo is really talented while Ryan Anderson is just a good shooter, i don’t have anything to back it up. So it would be more productive to have some nice discussion in how to use the talent Melo has (For example, pointing out how Melo is not able to play Point Forward because the only play he can run is a P&R with Chandler, but can’t pass timely if a perimeter player is using a screen and getting open). But instead, some people prefer to show some number, about how good Ryan Anderson is shooting. Perhaps if Dwight Howard wasn’t double teamed his numbers would look a bit different… (and DH12’s would look better)

      Melo is doing a lot of different things here in NY, and looks like a multidimensional player; but he is not a 1-man team, although he is trying to play like one…

    10. Owen:
      He is coming from the same place as every other person who has argued here that stats have very limited value for understanding basketball, usually without having reading the Layman’s Guide.

      We get it Hoolahoop, stats aren’t perfect.

      stats are the essence of evaluating practically everything. when your constructed stat says tyson chandler (.146) is better or even in the same zip code as bill walton (.142) then i say your stat is far from an accurate expression of relative abilities.

      when you intentionally post a list of stats based on a miniscule sample size showing ryan anderson, lou williams and tyson chandler are more valuable at anything than dwight howard and kevin durant , then you are just being intellectually dishonest.

      if you said this metric says tyson chandler is the 106th best player in nba history (explaining the metric undervalues older players then you have a better argument)

      if you said tyson chandler is the 23rd best lifetime active player according to your metric , i would ask you how on earth could the metric be any good if it calls jeff foster the 25 best active player in the nba? or how could deron williams be rated 30th and jeff foster 24th in anything?

      this metric Does show that low volume high efficiency offensive players that do work on the other end are sometimes undervalued, but i believe it way overstates the case.

    11. … I think coaching have to think about what he is doing good and what he is doing bad; and that the team needs to get everyone involved.

      Stoudemire, for example, is more unidimensional. So i think Melo has to adapt to the rest of the team; but that’s on the coach to tell the players how to play as a team.

      The stats aren’t telling the truth about Melo.

    12. One stat that has really gripped me is +/-. To me, it seems like it would be the most important single statistic. Ironically, through links on this forum, I read that the stat gurus believe it’s flawed without huge sample sizes.
      Now, I don’t think the guy with the highest +/- is the best player on the floor (Jorts, Fields are highest individually and as a two-player combination on knicks), but, to an extent, it says who knows how to play winning basketball.

    13. bobneptune:

      if you said this metric says tyson chandler is the 106th best player in nba history (explaining the metric undervalues older players then you have a better argument)

      if you said tyson chandler is the 23rd best lifetime active player according to your metric , i would ask you how on earth could the metric be any good if it calls jeff foster the 25 best active player in the nba? or how could deron williams be rated 30th and jeff foster 24th in anything?

      Look.

      When someone tells you the sky is green long enough, you may start to believe it yourself. Do you get that?

      Sportswriters do not know what they’re talking about. Every day we see that on ESPN, MSG, and every other channel that broadcasts sports. You have a bunch of guys who maybe played varsity high school basketball in the Eighties who talk about the game like they’re experts. Why? Because they can tell who’s athletic and who’s not. And those who are deemed athletic are automatically deemed superior basketball players.

      I don’t adhere to that idea. You may seem to think that Bill Walton was the greatest player of all-time (and, AGAIN, the stats from that era are incomplete, and he suffered injuries throughout his career that affected his overall WS/48; he was very good when he was actually good), but you don’t have any evidence outside of your own fleeting, distorted memories (just admit, god dammit, that your memory, like everyone else’s, is weak) and the numbers.

      You disregard the numbers ONLY because what you see and what you read are two different things.

      That’s the very antithesis of the scientific process, and if you don’t recognize that, you are even less reasonable than your rambling, sarcastic, illogical posts suggest.

      The argument “Ryan Anderson’s stats are flawed because he doesn’t look like a good player” is obsolete. Read the advanced stats…

    14. The Honorable Cock Jowles:
      I’ll keep posting this until you read it, bob.

      http://wagesofwins.com/2012/01/13/i-know-what-the-stats-say-but-the-illusion-of-validity-in-basketball-fandom/

      It’s not about Wins Produced. It’s about cognitive fallacy.

      In reference to your link, it is nothing more than an interesting theory, far from proven.

      You’re hinging your argument on a study that’s likely to be flawed. Why don’t you find the study that shows how inaccurate studies are – for reasons including motives, predispositions, funding, etc.

    15. I’ll never understand what is so fun about coming on to a board where lots of advanced stats fans post in order to tell everyone they don’t know what they are talking about. The Internet Era version of bullbaiting I suppose….

      Bob and Hoolahoop – I highly recommend you guys get copies of Basketball on Paper and read them.

    16. Owen:
      I’ll never understand what is so fun about coming on to a board where lots of advanced stats fans post in order to tell everyone they don’t know what they are talking about. The Internet Era version of bullbaiting I suppose….

      Bob and Hoolahoop – I highly recommend you guys get copies of Basketball on Paper and read them.

      I thought this was a knicks forum. One of us are in the wrong room.

    17. Wow THCJ, seriously how much have you actually studied the field of statistics? I’m sorry but you say things that totally disagree with the basic tenets of the field. The argument isn’t “Ryan Anderson looks bad on the court regardless of what the stats say!”. The argument is, a player like Ryan Anderson relies on ball movement and Dwight being doubled to get those open 3’s, which means his offensive value is limited regardless of what percentage of those 3’s he makes. Looking at all field goal attempts like they are exactly the same and are all the result of basic basketball plays displays an ignorance of how basketball works. Stats only have meaning when properly contextualized, which means understanding how Ryan Anderson and Lou Williams got their production is the only way you can say something conclusive about how valuable their production is.

      Also, coaches and gms aren’t simply relying on memory when talking about a player’s basketball skills, they watch an obscene amount of tape, scouts go to multiple games and write down notes while watching, not a year later. Just because you’re not willing or don’t have the time to sit down and watch hours of tape to understand what’s actually going on doesn’t mean the people responsible for the actual decisions won’t. A truly analytic and deep look at the tape, which again would take forever and would have very few actual numbers associated, would be far more scientific and data oriented than looking at a box score and determining that 3/5 is a bigger fraction than 6/18 and that therefore 3/5 (oh let’s say fields goals) are better.

    18. I think I would agree with this. Whilst I find advanced stats illuminating to find hidden value in players such as Ryan Anderson, it is the antithesis of scientific process to put your entire faith so vehemently in a theory that is in its genesis. Valuable yes, infallible certainly not.
      Advanced stats accurately show Melo to be far less valuable than is commonly believed, but I feel it is perhaps a little foolish not to recognise his premier abilities even if he does not utilise them efficiently. I look at the stats and agree that there is little chance of Melo changing his production. However I also appreciate that he is a small forward who has shown he has the ability a lot of nba players do not, minus the humility to realise he is not good enough on his own.

    19. HoolaHoop- As the fact that there is a tab for the “Layman’s Guide to Advanced Basketball Statistics” on the home page suggests, this has always been a Knicks blog friendly to those of us who live in our mother’s basement and sleep with our TI-82 by our bedside.

      There really is a lot of stuff out there if you are interested in basketball statistics. Check out APBR. Check out Basketball Prospectus. There is an entire cottage industry of people using statistics to understand basketball, both for teams and as independents and hobbyists. There are multiple data streams, including box score numbers, Synergy, +/-, and tons of people analyzing all that data in different ways including some very fine work here at Knickerblogger.

      I can understand your skepticism but I encourage you to think about a moment ten years ago, when basically no one was employing any of the data that is now commonly available and discussed.

      There is way more to advanced b-ball statistics than what different player value models spit out.

    20. The Honorable Cock Jowles: Look.

      The argument “Ryan Anderson’s stats are flawed because he doesn’t look like a good player” is obsolete. Read the advanced stats…

      a few things:

      please to be showing me where i said anything like ryan anderson doesn’t look like a good player. i said calling him a top 10 player in the league is obviously flawed due to sample size. also a guy the forces double and triple teams that frees him up for 23 foot set shots certainly impacts on his numbers… which you metric totally ignores. he was a below.100 ws/48 (worse than average) playing with the nets and all of a sudden the next year when playing with a player that demands triple teams and frees him up so his specialty can shine, he becomes a great player by your metric taken in a vacuum.

      swap chandler for howard and see if ryan andersons ws/48 holds up.

      he is a wonderful complimentary player at 2.2 million a year, but if orlando signs him to a big extension with howard (or another similar player that demands triple teams) gone, they will be wildly unhappy.

      that is why basketball doesn’t render itself as point for point statistically as baseball. in baseball, my ops is basically on the batter (with some influence of the persons hitting around them, but essentially on the hitter). in hoops, ryan anderson’s scoring and shooting is a function of dwight howard drawing the defense away from him to get his open shots. he cannot function without howard.

    21. Dean Oliver, the author of the book you recommended suggesting the value of statistics SELF RATED HIS OWN BOOK ON AMAZON, then goes on to give a lengthy review.

      And there you have the reliability of stats. (he’s 1 of 9 reviews – 11%)

      It doesn’t mean the book is no good, but it shows how easily stats can be manipulated and misleading.

      Owen:
      I’ll never understand what is so fun about coming on to a board where lots of advanced stats fans post in order to tell everyone they don’t know what they are talking about. The Internet Era version of bullbaiting I suppose….

      Bob and Hoolahoop – I highly recommend you guys get copies of Basketball on Paper and read them.

    22. In theory if Anderson hits enough and teams won’t double so hard with Howard, thereby potentially increasing Howard’s effectiveness. Which brings us to the great fantasy of several years ago here Curry and Zach will draw all sorts of double teams leaving the shooters and each other wide open. Didn’t work out then.

    23. hoolahoop:
      Dean Oliver, the author of the book you recommended suggesting the value of statistics SELF RATED HIS OWN BOOK ON AMAZON, then goes on to give a lengthy review.

      And there you have the reliability of stats. (he’s 1 of 9 reviews – 11%)

      It doesn’t mean the book is no good, but it shows how easily stats can be manipulated and misleading.

      False analogy. Try again.

    24. Juany8:
      The argument is, a player like Ryan Anderson relies on ball movement and Dwight being doubled to get those open 3?s, which means his offensive value is limited regardless of what percentage of those 3?s he makes.

      What are you talking about? What kind of “tenet” is that? How do you think marketing works? How do you think actuarial science works? Do you think actuaries say, “Hey guys, let’s just assume that everyone is different and even though there are similarities between people and their actions, there are an infinite number of possible variables, so let’s just judge people on a case-by-case basis.”

      Are you kidding me, here? Are you trying to assert some kind of “expertise” over me and the stats crew here with that kind of argument?

      We take the raw data and we do regression analysis to figure out which of the raw (and often unsatisfactory) data has a greater impact on a team’s wins. Then we assign value to players on the individual level. WS48 has something like 70% correlation to actual wins and WP48 has something like 90%. It’s not perfect, but it’s a fuckboat better than the eyetest.

      And Nick C. said it best: it works both ways. How does Anderson turning into a 3PT threat affect Dwight’s inside game?

      Or maybe not at all. That wouldn’t fit the narrative.

    25. The Honorable Cock Jowles:
      And Nick C. said it best: it works both ways. How does Anderson turning into a 3PT threat affect Dwight’s inside game?

      Or maybe not at all. That wouldn’t fit the narrative.

      >>>>>BN

      according to your stat, anderson’s explosion of .070 in ws/48 this year has caused howard’s to go down by .032!!!

      your stat says howard is less valuable because of anderson’s influence. that certainly clinches it!

    26. Wow THCJ, want to maybe use a different argument then the same one you’ve used in every post? I know how regression analysis works, WP48 and WS48 have a high team correlation to wins, that is 100% true and not very insightful since the WS and WP of a team are just regressions on efficiency differential, which has a very high correlation with future wins. Just because a statistic is designed to correlate well with a predictor of wins doesn’t say anything about the statistic, it just shows the value of efficiency differential.

      Furthermore, I’ve read all the statistical justifications for both WP and WS and nowhere do they provide empirical proof that the statistics that correlate to wins on a team level are exactly the same on an individual player level. They totally guess on defensive value, and WP goes as far as assuming that every player on a team contributed exactly the same defensive value per minute as everyone else. So WP gives Amar’e the same defensive score as Chandler, which is just absurd on a basketball level. On offense, they assume that high efficiency and rebounds, which correlate extremely well with wins (this isn’t as insightful as it might seem either. Every coach in the league preaches taking good shots, limiting turnovers, and securing a rebound after forcing an opponent into a tough shot) have the same value on an individual basis. Going back to the Ryan Anderson analysis, his high efficiency shooting is obviously very valuable, but most Ryan Anderson shots are heavily reliant on a coach that designs sets to use him appropriately and other players to draw defensive attention away from him. That means almost every shot he takes had much of its value created by other players and the coach. So even though Anderson’s shooting might be a big part of why the Magic are winning, Anderson’s shooting percentage and number of attempts (since obviously the Magic love it when he shoots) aren’t entirely value he has produced.

    27. There might be a way to quantify how much of Anderson’s value can be attributed to his teammates, but the box score just does not go deep enough into what happened on the court. Even something as simple as the time left on the shot clock when a shot or turnover happened would probably be revealing, especially since a desperation 3 with 1 second on the clock would be acceptable while the same 3 with 22 seconds would get a player benched. Now you’re perfectly welcome to point to Anderson’s high WS as evidence that he is a valuable player, but at the end of the day that is the conclusion you made after looking at the stats, nobody else simply has to accept that Anderson has been a top 10 NBA player this season because of it, and they are not somehow ignorant or stupid for doing so. Basketball isn’t a science, and even if some day there is highly advanced and expensive research into a way to objectively quantify player value, WS and WP are not the answer.

    28. I think advanced stats are great but the refusal to even attempt to contextualize them seems short-sighted. Nothing on the court outside of free throw shooting occurs in a vacuum. Two, the stats we do have are imperfect- I’ve said before that in few years we’ll be looking at rebounds per game the same way we now look at points per game- we’re not seeing who’s boxing out (and helping his teammates grab rebounds) and who’s not, who’s snatching rebounds out of teammate’s hands and who’s grabbing tough rebounds in traffic, whose rebounds lead to fast breaks and who’s swinging his arms around for three seconds after every board and making the point guard come and take the ball out of his hands.
      You need to actually watch the games to see this stuff- at times stats can be every bit as misleading as the eye and saying “stats are better than the eye” doesn’t mean they’re always right.

    29. nicos: You need to actually watch the games to see this stuff- at times stats can be every bit as misleading as the eye and saying “stats are better than the eye” doesn’t mean they’re always right.

      Let’s take that further. Stats can be far more misleading than the eye.

      It’s strikes me how condescending you stat guys are. Stats are valuable as an aid, but nowhere near a full measurement of a players performance. I could poke holes in the shortcomings all day. A particular player can have completely different metrics simply by playing a different role on a different team using a different system. You can’t say he’s better in one system than the other if he’s a cog in a system .

    30. hoolahoop: Let’s take that further. Stats can be far more misleading than the eye.

      especially the way they’re compiled in the NBA. I challenge any Berri adherent to sit and chart an entire game (or multiple games) themselves, meaning keep track of rebounds, assists, steals, and then look at the official box score afterwards. I think you’d be shocked at how much they differ.

    31. Owen, you’re right, but unfortunately this is the best place on the web to talk Knicks, although it’d be decidedly better if we’d stuck with the forums idea from a few years ago, as then discussions could last longer than a day or so, and be revisited later on when more evidence has emerged.

    32. The predictive value of WP48 on team success is solid (but still with significant margin for error). Attributing wins to individual players is much less exacting. While it is silly to say that player A is infallibly better than player B due to WP48, it is perfectly logical to ask why a team signs player B at $20mil per year for 5 years when they could have player A for $1.5mil + 2-3 other players and draft picks. The salary cap is what makes this kind of analysis critical. Denver is in a great cap situation and has an exciting young contending team, in spite of losing 3 rotation players to China. The Knicks have very talented and relatively young (compared to Boston, San Antonio and Dallas) but expensive players and are capped out. It remains to be seen which team will compete for a championship first, but the “moneyball” approach has worked very well for Denver. However, even THCJ became “suprisingly but cautiously optimistic” when the Knicks managed to get Tyson Chandler. He also insists that Fields is the player he was for the first 50 or so games last season, and not the player he was in the playoffs and so far this season. Players “tend” to gravitate to their career numbers, but there are many that don’t, and many seasonal fluctuations (and even in-season ups and downs) for the same player over time.

      The next month should be telling as we find out what difference Baron Davis makes and whether we have a nucleus on which to build for next year. I expect the stats for players like Amare and Fields to start improving significantly, and Melo’s usage drops below 30% and TS% to improve to where it was last year with the Knicks. I think the magnitude of our guards’ ineptness can’t be overstated as a reason for our shitty play. Others feel that Melo is what he is and who plays on his team will not make much of a difference in his value or efficiency. We’ll see.

    33. jon abbey:
      Owen, you’re right, but unfortunately this is the best place on the web to talk Knicks, although it’d be decidedly better if we’d stuck with the forums idea from a few years ago, as then discussions could last longer than a day or so, and be revisited later on when more evidence has emerged.

      Tenacious Jon…lol

    34. it’s the reason every thread degenerates into the same few topics, where people go over and over and over the same territory like we’re all in the film Groundhog Day. if I really cared enough, I’d start my own Knicks forum along those lines, but I’m already stretched too thin to take on something else like that.

    35. jon abbey:
      Owen, you’re right, but unfortunately this is the best place on the web to talk Knicks, although it’d be decidedly better if we’d stuck with the forums idea from a few years ago, as then discussions could last longer than a day or so, and be revisited later on when more evidence has emerged.

      What do you mean “… better if we’d stuck with the forums idea from a few years ago…”?

    36. iserp:
      … I think coaching have to think about what he is doing good and what he is doing bad; and that the team needs to get everyone involved.

      Stoudemire, for example, is more unidimensional. So i think Melo has to adapt to the rest of the team; but that’s on the coach to tell the players how to play as a team.

      The stats aren’t telling the truth about Melo.

      Who is going to do that? Mr Pringles can’t to that. Mr Woodson is not that man either. Time to bring back Patrick Ewing ;o)

    Comments are closed.