The Knicks Thread....

Knicks add Beno Udrih as the third PG.

so i'm guessing he couldn't find a team to give him more than the veteran's minimum? iirc he was holding out for that.

Knicks Gonna Dissapoint?

source: thenbageek.com
The New York Knicks
So...take last year's Knicks, which were surprisingly good, and a big reason for that was the strength of their 3-point efficiency (a highly variable factor). Now subtract its best 3-point shooter (Novak) and its highly efficient shooting guard (Kidd). Then make Tyson Chandler and Amare Stoudemire each a year older (are we done calling Amare "Stat"? 'Cause now it's just kinda embarassing). Finally, sprinkle in a bit of the worst player in the NBA. These are not the ingredients of a championship. Adding a stellar-but-ancient defender who won't see a lot of playing time won't help either. You can make an argument that Kidd was a defensive liability, but he was a good rebounder and he and prigioni were the only two players that kept the ball moving in that offense. Then consider that Bargnani is a much worse defender, at a much more important position defensively, and that the Knicks don't have the types of players that can make up for it. I expect that this team is going to be about 10 wins worse than last year's team, which is probably going to get Mike Woodson fired, because management's expectations are too high.

I suppose it is possible that Woodson keeps Bargs on the bench entirely, starts Metta World Peace, and plays Melo at PF, but it won't be enough to make up for the Knicks shortcomings. And all the while we're banking on Tyson Chandler to stay healthy and play heavy minutes. It's hard to see this team beating the Bulls, the Pacers, or the Nets in a four game series, much less the Heat.

^ I agree with the above 110%. Show me where the Knicks got better defensively, and you have to play championship-level defense to go deep in the playoffs. They still don't have the size to match up with Indiana.

Knicks management always has championship expectations, but they don't know how to put the pieces together. They're a joke no matter who's in charge - 40 years and counting.

Sorry Jeffx and other Knicks fans but had nowhere else to post this article.

New York Knicks: Why Carmelo Anthony Is Not a Better Player Than James Harden

The point of comparing them to find out who the better player is....what?

These types of "arguments" are so pointless. A same styled article can be made showing that Melo is better than Harden. They just have to bring up the "right stats". As Sauru says "voodoo numbers"(something benji is an expert at).

Melo > Harden. But I know what the Harden fans will bring up how Harden uplifted the Rockets. That doesn't necessarily make him a better player than Melo. Currently, Melo is in the Top 5 players list in NBA. Harden can be at #9 or #10, but that will most likely to improve next season.

Why do you think people should believe MJ and LBJ are top two best ever in 3 pt era? What evidence do they have to back it up?

Individual achievements? Rings, MVPs.

In this particular case, scoring champion.

Individual achievements? Rings

WTF?

MVPs

You do realise it's a media-voted award that tends to go to whichever player makes for the best story, right?

In this particular case, scoring champion.

I struggle to think of a more meaningless achievement.

You do realise it's a media-voted award that tends to go to whichever player makes for the best story, right?

This shit is old. MVP award goes to the best player in the league, period. It's NBA, not Disneyland.

I struggle to think of a more meaningless achievement.

I struggle to see how achievements can be meaningless. A player scoring beastly is meaningless to you? I would like to which achievements are "meaningful" to you.

WTF?

Elaborate.

MVP award goes to the best player in the league, period.

Except the years it doesn't (which is most of them). Like every year in the 90s that the media got sick of giving it to Jordan, so they gave it to the next-best player. Or the year Nash won it because nobody wanted to give it to Bryant. Or the year Bryant won it because they realised they fucked up not giving it to him before.

Even if it were supposed to go to the best player in the league, there's no reason to believe the media actually votes correctly, but it's not even that. The MVP award isn't supposed to go to the best player in the league in the first place. It's simply supposed to go to anyone who played 55 games in the regular season. There are a million different definitions of 'valuable'. Only one of them is 'best'.

A player scoring beastly is meaningless to you?

Who says anyone was 'scoring beastly'? The scoring title just goes to whoever has the highest PPG total. Which favors players on shitty teams, because they have to shoulder more of the scoring load, disfavors pass-first players, favors guys who play more minutes, favors guys who get more shots up, and tells you very little about how good someone is at a) helping their team win or b) scoring.

Elaborate.

Rings aren't an individual achievement. I don't see how that's so difficult to understand.

Except the years it doesn't (which is most of them). Like every year in the 90s that the media got sick of giving it to Jordan, so they gave it to the next-best player. Or the year Nash won it because nobody wanted to give it to Bryant. Or the year Bryant won it because they realised they fucked up not giving it to him before.

So, you are saying the years Nash & Kobe got the MVP, they were not the most deserving ones?

The MVP award isn't supposed to go to the best player in the league in the first place.

Who is the MVP award supposed to go to & why?

There are a million different definitions of 'valuable'. Only one of them is 'best'.

Agreed.

Who says anyone was 'scoring beastly'? The scoring title just goes to whoever has the highest PPG total. Which favors players on shitty teams, because they have to shoulder more of the scoring load, disfavors pass-first players, favors guys who play more minutes, favors guys who get more shots up, and tells you very little about how good someone is at a) helping their team win or b) scoring.

So the Lakers were a shitty team in the 99-00, 05-06, 06-07 seasons? And OKC has been a shitty team as well for the last 3 seasons? And your last few lines remind of someone I think you might like.

Rings aren't an individual achievement.

No, it's not. But having a ring is an individual achievement for a player.

So, you are saying the years Nash & Kobe got the MVP, they were not the most deserving ones?

It's definitely true of Kobe, and there's a decent case to be made for Kobe rather than Nash (and, IIRC, a couple of other players) in 05/06.

Who is the MVP award supposed to go to & why?

I told you. Anyone who's played 55 games in the regular season.

There are a million different definitions of 'valuable'. Only one of them is 'best'.

Agreed.

So how does it necessarily follow that the MVP is the best player?

So the Lakers were a shitty team in the 99-00, 05-06, 06-07 seasons?

I said it favored players on shitty teams, not that they'd be the only players to win, but...yeah. The 06 Lakers were the definition of a one-man team, the threepeat Lakers had Shaq, Kobe and a bunch of scrubs (and Kobe of 2000 wasn't exactly 2006 Kobe)...

No, it's not. But having a ring is an individual achievement for a player.

...no, it's not. You said that yourself a sentence ago.

Bunch of scrubs...players who were good at their roles = bunch of scrubs because it fits the argument.

They weren't "a bunch of scrubs"...Shaq was just too damn good.

They were scrubs compared to Shaq.

The fact that they weren't likely to be scoring in bunches remains, regardless of which particular term you use.

Anyone who's played 55 games in the regular season.

I struggle to think of a more meaningless sentence.

So how does it necessarily follow that the MVP is the best player?

Because there can only be one best player. And that best player is the best because he has all the definitions of 'valuable' in him.

I said it favored players on shitty teams, not that they'd be the only players to win, but...yeah. The 06 Lakers were the definition of a one-man team, the threepeat Lakers had Shaq, Kobe and a bunch of scrubs (and Kobe of 2000 wasn't exactly 2006 Kobe)...

Those were just some examples. I can bring all the examples from history and show you that it doesn't "favor" players on shitty teams. In some cases, at best.

...no, it's not. You said that yourself a sentence ago.

Winning a ring & having a ring are two different things. The fact that Kobe has 5 rings is an individual achievement for him.

Anyone who's played 55 games in the regular season.

I struggle to think of a more meaningless sentence.

That doesn't make it inaccurate. The sole criterion the NBA sets for MVP is that it's for people who played 55 games in the regular season. Yes, it's ridiculously shit, but that's the way it is.

Because there can only be one best player. And that best player is the best because he has all the definitions of 'valuable' in him.

...no, because 'valuable' doesn't mean 'best'. Some people think the best player on the best team is the most valuable. Other people think the best player on the worst team is the most valuable. How can one player be both of those?

I can bring all the examples from history and show you that it doesn't "favor" players on shitty teams. In some cases, at best.

All you can show is that some players who weren't on shitty teams won the scoring title. That's not the same as showing that it doesn't favor players on shitty teams. Regardless, that's the least important criticism of the scoring title as a measure of player quality. That it ignores facilitators, minutes per game and scoring efficiency are far more relevant.

The fact that Kobe has 5 rings is an individual achievement for him.

Not in any but the most vapid sense. Horry having 7 rings is also technically an achievement for him, but that doesn't make him better than Kobe.

...no, because 'valuable' doesn't mean 'best'. Some people think the best player on the best team is the most valuable. Other people think the best player on the worst team is the most valuable. How can one player be both of those?

Team is not in the discussion here. Player is what we are talking about. It's not team's MVP, it's NBA's MVP. Some said Harden should have been MVP last season, which is ridiculous. But Harden was the MVP of his team & LeBron of his, and LeBron was better than Harden in almost every way.

Not in any but the most vapid sense. Horry having 7 rings is also technically an achievement for him, but that doesn't make him better than Kobe.

I never said that the number of rings define which player is better. There have to be some other achievements along with it as well. Of course, Iverson having 0 rings doesn't define him.

It's not team's MVP, it's NBA's MVP

Carmelo Anthony deserved to be the MVP then.

If popular meant MVP, then ...

It's not team's MVP, it's NBA's MVP

How does that invalidate my point?

I never said that the number of rings define which player is better.

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

I never said that the number of rings define which player is better.

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

Every LeChoke fan uses this argument.