The Knicks Thread....

]How does that invalidate my point?

Because you were saying there were 2 MVPs on the best & the wost team. But in the whole NBA, there is actually only one.

Then why are you using it to determine which player is better?

There have to be some other achievements along with it as well.

Even if Melo finishes his career without a ring, he would be better than most of the guys with 3 rings.

And my first answer was to the question by NovU when he asked about MJ & LJ. Where I used the plural word "achievements", not achievement to only mean the number of rings achieved by a player.

Every LeChoke fan uses this argument.

Where are you these days man? I miss you.

Because you were saying there were 2 MVPs on the best & the wost team.

No, I didn't say that at all. I said some people think the MVP should go to the best player on the best team, while others think it should go to the best player on the worst team. That doesn't mean there'll be two MVPs, it means there'll be at least two guys getting votes for MVP. It also means that regardless of who wins, there's at least one definition of 'valuable' he doesn't fit, invalidating your argument that the guy who does win MVP will fill every definition of 'valuable'. It's literally impossible for any one player to do that, because many definitions of 'valuable' are mutually exclusive.

And my first answer was to the question by NovU when he asked about MJ & LJ. Where I used the plural word "achievements", not achievement to only mean the number of rings achieved by a player.

But why bring rings up at all? What difference does it make?

I'm sorry man, I totally forgot about this thread.

No, I didn't say that at all. I said some people think the MVP should go to the best player on the best team, while others think it should go to the best player on the worst team. That doesn't mean there'll be two MVPs, it means there'll be at least two guys getting votes for MVP. It also means that regardless of who wins, there's at least one definition of 'valuable' he doesn't fit, invalidating your argument that the guy who does win MVP will fill every definition of 'valuable'. It's literally impossible for any one player to do that, because many definitions of 'valuable' are mutually exclusive.

If Harden is the guy getting the votes for MVP against LeBron, then it's just insulting for Durant. I think you are confusing field of talent with "valuable". Every guy has different skills which make them valuable but only one guy is the most valuable overall.

But why bring rings up at all? What difference does it make?

Rings might not mean everything, but they do have some value when judging a player. But there are exceptions ofc...

Also, I'm kinda lost now. What are we debating about? Harden/Melo or Good Team MVP/Bad Team MVP

I think you are confusing field of talent with "valuable". Every guy has different skills which make them valuable but only one guy is the most valuable overall.

What's your point?

Rings might not mean everything, but they do have some value when judging a player.

No, they don't.

My point is, there are a lot players who fit the tag "valuable" but only one guy is the most valuable.

But there's no reason to believe that guy is the best guy in the league. Or that the guy who wins MVP is, in fact, the most valuable.

Well, if you ignore the reasoning of statistics & overall impact.

You assume they're taken into account.

Half the time, MVP and all other awards are actually phoney business. They pretend to be based on statistics and intelligence. But they're rather promotional tools for the league and media. Nobody cares who really deserves them anyway as long as they fit the requirement(has good story to sell). Like Bill Russell won the MVP, but wasn't selected in ALL NBA 1ST team because of Wilt Chamberlain. The reasoning at the time was: Wilt was the better player, Russell was the Most Valuable one for his team. LOL defuq

Statistics are everything in basketball. Media can shove in your face how points per game and flashy 1on1 skills are everything but proper stats analysis can help you to keep your sanity safe & intact.

It doesn't have anything to do with the current Knicks, but I figured this is as good a place as any to post it:
Report: Knicks players fixed games for drug dealer during ’81-’82 season

Coked-up Knicks players fixed games as a favor to their drug dealer — who bet big bucks against the anemic New York squad, FBI informants claimed during the 1981-82 season.

The feds probed whether three Knicks, reportedly “heavy users of cocaine,” and their supplier, “one of the largest dealers on the East Coast,” shaved points, according to FBI documents cited in Brian Tuohy’s book, “Larceny Games: Sports Gambling, Game Fixing and the FBI.” …

The names of the players and the dealer are redacted in the FBI documents, which The Post authenticated with the federal agency.

As much as Stern has erred over the years, you've got to give him some credit for cleaning up the league with the anti-drug policies that he instituted after becoming commissioner.

Micheal Ray Richardson denies this. How would he even remember, with all the blow he snorted?

Glen Grunwald out, Steve Mills in as Knicks GM. Of course Mills knows absolutely zero about basketball. He's the genius who hired Isiah. Typical Brain-Dead Dolan move.

This organization is shit. Like I've always said, Knicks are winning nothing with Dolan in charge, NOTHING.

You cats should check out Frank Isola's recent column in the NY Daily News. It's really ticking me off Woodson and the Knicks organization (meaning Brain-Dead Dolan) have it in for Iman Shumpert. We finally have a draft pick that actually worked out, a cat who wants to play defense, yet Woodson keeps messing with him. Typical Knicks.

Had to laugh when I saw the report about Dolan expecting a championship this season. Shows you how clueless he is. Unfortunately, Brain-Dead is serious, and Woody could be in trouble if the team fails.

Well if Dolan is really serious about his expectations, this is most likely the last season for Mike Woodson.

Well if Dolan is really serious about his expectations, this is most likely the last season for Mike Woodson.

Need I say more?

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/baske ... -1.1506858

I guess it's good that he actually cares about winning and is setting the bar high, rather than just being content with mediocrity and making money. That said, he's tended to be the one standing in the way of doing what needs to be done for greater success. Getting mad at the dancers is also being a tad silly about the whole thing.

I remember some Knicks fans raving about Bargnani how they stole 20pt player for nearly nothing. Makes me wonder if Dolan was one of them.

Why didn't nobody mention Tyson Chandler's injury yet? Bargnani and Stoudemire, can they do it? This season is extremely important(or un) too because Melo's on the line.

I'd have slightly more faith in Stoudemire than Bargnani, but in any event that's a huge blow for the Knicks.

LoL, looks like we spoke too soon. Bargnani with a huge night in a win, 25-8-3-5blk.

It seems so. Good for him, though he's got to do stuff like that on a more regular basis.

Meanwhile, Amar'e played 8 minutes, while averaging about 11 minutes per game on the season. I'm guessing that probably makes him the highest paid player per minute in the league.

LoL, looks like we spoke too soon. Bargnani with a huge night in a win, 25-8-3-5blk.

Usual Bargnani. Those rare games is what kept him in Toronto with Colangelo hoping he'd finally break out and start being an Italian Dirk.

Colangelo hoping he'd finally break out and start being an Italian Dirk.

We all know that's not gonna happen.