Dear Mr. Berman:

I normally don't respond to these articles but your words today in your Knicks point-guard story was so incredibly biased, that I had to. What, are you working for agent Leon Rose or something?

You are entitled to your opinion on individual players but you have a responsibility to not negatively influence your readers with untruths. Say what you want about Jamal Crawford and Nate Robinson "not being pure point guards" but your suggestion that they are the reason for Eddy Curry's failure to produce is ridiculous.

In case you were watching a different Orlando game on Saturday than the rest of us, Curry had 19 touches in 26 minutes of play. Dwight Howard had 22 touches. So you are saying the reason Dwight finished with 26 points and 22 rebounds (his second 20-20 game against the Knicks this season) and Curry finished with 9 points and 6 rebounds is because of inadequate point guard play. I don't think so.

Getting Curry the ball is not the issue. Isiah makes sure both he and Zach get their touches when they are on the floor. Scoring and rebounding have more to do with hard work and desire than it does with who is throwing the entry pass.

It’s also interesting that you are lobbying for Orlando backup backup point guard Carlos Arroyo as the answer to your perceived Knick point guard woes. I personally like Carlos, but you are overlooking the fact that he is third point guard on the Magic because he is not your typical "pass first" point guard as you suggest he is.

Finally, if you are going to write comments like yours today at least review some empirical data.

Nate Robinson's NBA Player rating is #132, 70 slots ahead of Carlos Arroyo who slips in at #201. Nate's all important PER (player efficiency rating) is higher than 12 starting point guards and is higher than ALL THREE point guards in Orlando.

Here is the rest of that list Mike Bibby, Kirk Hinrich, Earl Watson, Rafer Alston, Beno Udrich, Raymond Felton, and Antonio Daniels. Not only that, it is higher than both Rajon Rondo and Derek Fisher, whose Celtics and Lakers lead the Eastern and Western conferences respectively. And lest you forget, Nate has
played the majority of this season coming off the bench, averaging only about 25 minutes per game.

Listen, I understand some writers have relationships with agents and that's cool. So if you are campaigning for Leon Rose and his clients, I don't have a problem with that. But you are suggesting that the Knicks downgrade from their current guard core and that makes no good basketball sense.

Sincerely,

Eric Goodwin

Goodwin Sports Management

Posted by tkf:

LOL.. excellent read. He killed berman on that one.... really marc has nothing to say.. goodwin is correct.....

Posted by kam77:

Your good play at some point has to contribute towards winning basketball, otherwise you're just a stat player.

Tell that to DWade. Be careful with generalizations.

Posted by kam77:

Before Steve Nash came on the scene, what the hell did Shawn Marion ever do?

They're all stat-players until they're not. You cannot look at Nate and say he will never contribute to winning basketball (i know you didn't say that). Nate is in year 3 and is playing for Team Titanic. I think we can give him a little slack until he plays for as long as say Jamal Crawford before we make that definitive judgement.

Posted by TrueBlue:

Posted by kam77:

Before Steve Nash came on the scene, what the hell did Shawn Marion ever do?

They're all stat-players until they're not. You cannot look at Nate and say he will never contribute to winning basketball (i know you didn't say that). Nate is in year 3 and is playing for Team Titanic. I think we can give him a little slack until he plays for as long as say Jamal Crawford before we make that definitive judgement.

There's no need for me to be careful then since I didn't say the above and said AT SOME POINT. You might want to be careful how you take what someone said.

Posted by TrueBlue:

Posted by tkf:

LOL.. excellent read. He killed berman on that one.... really marc has nothing to say.. goodwin is correct.....

Dude he twisted him into a pretzel.

He didn't apologize too much for Nate or Craw although I find it interesting he didn't elaborate more in defense of Crawford which suggest he is prepping to get Nate an extension. This could be the driving force behind his rant on Berman.

What I took from it though was the fact he exposes Berman's idea of a replacement in Carlos Arroyo. Its like hey I don't appreciate your bias and all but if you feel the need please find a better idea than Arroyo.

His empirical data briefing doesn't tell the whole side of some of the other players listed, who are giving major contributions to their teams while winning such as Rondo, Rafer, and Fisher. Your good play at some point has to contribute towards winning basketball, otherwise you're just a stat player.

[Edited by - TrueBlue on 03-06-2008 3:48 PM]

His empirical data briefing doesn't tell the whole side of some of the other players listed, who are giving major contributions to their teams while winning such as Rondo, Rafer, and Fisher. Your good play at some point has to contribute towards winning basketball, otherwise you're just a stat player.

Posted by kam77:

Posted by TrueBlue:

Posted by kam77:

Before Steve Nash came on the scene, what the hell did Shawn Marion ever do?

They're all stat-players until they're not. You cannot look at Nate and say he will never contribute to winning basketball (i know you didn't say that). Nate is in year 3 and is playing for Team Titanic. I think we can give him a little slack until he plays for as long as say Jamal Crawford before we make that definitive judgement.

There's no need for me to be careful then since I didn't say the above and said AT SOME POINT. You might want to be careful how you take what someone said.

And NATE at some point, can be a winning player.

I agree, but it doesn't erase the fact that nate and jamal are playing pretty good ball and that suggesting arroyo as a replacement is just downright stupid and irresponisible.. Another thing, I know rondo and fisher play on better teams even rafer, but take them off of those teams and their teams probably don't miss a beat. Add them to teams like the knicks or memphis and neither team is 1 game better. But I do think you can add jamal and nate to boston, LA, and houston and they would still be in the same position if not better.. So I see his point there. It doesn't apply to everyone, but in a lot of cases it does... I am not one who believes nate and jamal can't play for winners, while guys like rafer and rondo are the reason why their teams are winning or even a major factor....

Posted by TMS:

Posted by kam77:
NATE at some point, can be a winning player.

agreed... i don't know where all the experts around here think they can label any particular player as a "winner" or a "loser"... i don't think Rip Hamilton or Chauncey Billups contributed to much winning on their teams before they got to the Pistons.