raven wrote:

Dagger wrote:

dk7th wrote:

smackeddog wrote:

dk7th wrote:

smackeddog wrote:

jazz74 wrote:he was also injured during the playoffs while George was perfectly healthy.

Exactly. Unfortunately apparently 'injuries don't count', so if a player lost an arm they should still be performing at their best...

Paul George's playoff stats vs the Knicks:

19.5pts, 37% FG, 27% 3PT, 60%FT

I actually like Paul George, but he got way over-hyped in the playoffs. He had a bad series against us, and was wildly inconsistent vs Miami and Atlanta. Had some great games, but had some stinkers too. He's been anointed as though he's already proven he's a star, when to be honest I think he needs one more season to prove he can put it all together.

he also averaged 5 assists per game, 7 rebounds a game, 27% usage rate coupled with an assist rate of 24% for an elite level ratio of 1.12:1 for a small forward in terms of ball distribution and teamwork. i guess when you don't tell the full story it becomes expedient to your point of view. he is tracking to become a top 5 player in the nba, especially with his zeal for defending the position. and his numbers compare favorably to scottie pippen's numbers.

I'll be honest, I don't know much about those kinds of stats you've posted and don't put much stock in those kinds of stats as a result! (consider me old school, though I'll admit it's based on my gut feeling than any in depth analysis), but I will say Paul George is no Scottie Pippen! Maybe if he keeps improving he can be compared to him, but he's one step back from becoming Trevor Ariza!

The player that killed us, and who people haven't really talked about that much on these boards since that series, was Lance Stephenson- was he playing above his level because he's from NY, or is he capable of playing that well all the time? We could have drafted him a few years ago, though maybe he wouldn't have developed as well due to off the court issues.

well of course he is no scottie pippen but last year was only his third year. yet his numbers are eerily similar at this juncture and he is trending to get better. we'll see if his new contract has an effect on his hunger to improve. something tells me it won't.

so far as the stats i use, relevant and current knowledge is power. you can't look at a player's FG% anymore unless he is a player who never takes 3-pointers. what you have to look at instead is the eFG% which takes into account the 3-point shot.

the other stats are a bit more involved, but look at it this way: the least selfish players are the orchestrating point guards and the best among them have a ratio of around .50 to 1 or even lower. this means that his usage rate is virtually half of his assist rate. the best non-point guards will have a ratio of around 1:1 but most will have a ratio of something more like 1.6 to 1. thanks to the triangle even a chucker like bryant has a career ratio of 1.4 to 1. jordan is a bit better at 1.37 to 1.

bird? a phenomenal 1 to 1 ratio, and that is for a small forward. lebron's is actually under 1 to 1. for non triangle offense players that is absolutely great.

durant is around 1.36 to 1 which is great for a small forward who also happens to score efficiently. and as i mentioned, paul george is closer to 1.2 to 1, which is truly admirable.

so... the higher the ratio is the more selfish the player is in terms of team cohesiveness, and the less likely ones teammates are going to have the necessary confidence to shoot the ball. why? because there will always be a question of if they will see the ball with any regularity or predictability.

both anthony and the italian have ratios of between 2 or 3 to 1. if they want to play a winning brand of basketball both need to bring their ratios down below 2 to 1, and in fact closer to 1.7 to 1.

notes: felton is at .70 to 1 and rose is at .82 to 1. this is no-man's land for putative point guards and so they will need another playmaker out there, playmaker for others that is.

Assists is also the most subjective stat in basketball in that it is very easy for scorekeepers to manipulate assist numbers (see the disparity between Rondo's home and away assist totals). I do think the usage-assist rate is an interesting and useful stat, but you seem to be putting a ton of stock into something that is not recorded the same way unilaterally. Obviously catch-and-shoots, alley-oops and the like are no-brainers. But there are plenty of times a player will receive a nice pass, make a smooth dribble move around a defender to score and it could easily go either way. There is a lot of human judgment involved in these numbers, whereas other statistics like blocks, points, rebounds, and even steals (which is also sometimes subjective in determing which player to credit) are much more black and white.

Really? Is this all you have to answer to what he said?

I wasn't trying to refute his point, so yes it is. If I was, that post would have been a straw man argument anyway, I wasn't challenging the overall usefulness of the ratio. My post was specifically directed at Dk7Th constant use of this metric, as pure assist numbers do not capture all the ways a player sets up opportunities for his teammates. He seems to use this ratio as the be-all, end-all when evaluating players, even when it is irrelevant. As stated above, I think it is a useful ratio, and I'm not in anyway implying that this is the reason Melo has a poor ratio(that would be ridiculous), he has a poor ratio because he doesn't look for his teammates. I simply don't think this metric is the golden standard that Dk does.

knickscity wrote:

raven wrote:

Dagger wrote:

dk7th wrote:

smackeddog wrote:

dk7th wrote:

smackeddog wrote:

jazz74 wrote:he was also injured during the playoffs while George was perfectly healthy.

Exactly. Unfortunately apparently 'injuries don't count', so if a player lost an arm they should still be performing at their best...

Paul George's playoff stats vs the Knicks:

19.5pts, 37% FG, 27% 3PT, 60%FT

I actually like Paul George, but he got way over-hyped in the playoffs. He had a bad series against us, and was wildly inconsistent vs Miami and Atlanta. Had some great games, but had some stinkers too. He's been anointed as though he's already proven he's a star, when to be honest I think he needs one more season to prove he can put it all together.

he also averaged 5 assists per game, 7 rebounds a game, 27% usage rate coupled with an assist rate of 24% for an elite level ratio of 1.12:1 for a small forward in terms of ball distribution and teamwork. i guess when you don't tell the full story it becomes expedient to your point of view. he is tracking to become a top 5 player in the nba, especially with his zeal for defending the position. and his numbers compare favorably to scottie pippen's numbers.

I'll be honest, I don't know much about those kinds of stats you've posted and don't put much stock in those kinds of stats as a result! (consider me old school, though I'll admit it's based on my gut feeling than any in depth analysis), but I will say Paul George is no Scottie Pippen! Maybe if he keeps improving he can be compared to him, but he's one step back from becoming Trevor Ariza!

The player that killed us, and who people haven't really talked about that much on these boards since that series, was Lance Stephenson- was he playing above his level because he's from NY, or is he capable of playing that well all the time? We could have drafted him a few years ago, though maybe he wouldn't have developed as well due to off the court issues.

well of course he is no scottie pippen but last year was only his third year. yet his numbers are eerily similar at this juncture and he is trending to get better. we'll see if his new contract has an effect on his hunger to improve. something tells me it won't.

so far as the stats i use, relevant and current knowledge is power. you can't look at a player's FG% anymore unless he is a player who never takes 3-pointers. what you have to look at instead is the eFG% which takes into account the 3-point shot.

the other stats are a bit more involved, but look at it this way: the least selfish players are the orchestrating point guards and the best among them have a ratio of around .50 to 1 or even lower. this means that his usage rate is virtually half of his assist rate. the best non-point guards will have a ratio of around 1:1 but most will have a ratio of something more like 1.6 to 1. thanks to the triangle even a chucker like bryant has a career ratio of 1.4 to 1. jordan is a bit better at 1.37 to 1.

bird? a phenomenal 1 to 1 ratio, and that is for a small forward. lebron's is actually under 1 to 1. for non triangle offense players that is absolutely great.

durant is around 1.36 to 1 which is great for a small forward who also happens to score efficiently. and as i mentioned, paul george is closer to 1.2 to 1, which is truly admirable.

so... the higher the ratio is the more selfish the player is in terms of team cohesiveness, and the less likely ones teammates are going to have the necessary confidence to shoot the ball. why? because there will always be a question of if they will see the ball with any regularity or predictability.

both anthony and the italian have ratios of between 2 or 3 to 1. if they want to play a winning brand of basketball both need to bring their ratios down below 2 to 1, and in fact closer to 1.7 to 1.

notes: felton is at .70 to 1 and rose is at .82 to 1. this is no-man's land for putative point guards and so they will need another playmaker out there, playmaker for others that is.

Assists is also the most subjective stat in basketball in that it is very easy for scorekeepers to manipulate assist numbers (see the disparity between Rondo's home and away assist totals). I do think the usage-assist rate is an interesting and useful stat, but you seem to be putting a ton of stock into something that is not recorded the same way unilaterally. Obviously catch-and-shoots, alley-oops and the like are no-brainers. But there are plenty of times a player will receive a nice pass, make a smooth dribble move around a defender to score and it could easily go either way. There is a lot of human judgment involved in these numbers, whereas other statistics like blocks, points, rebounds, and even steals (which is also sometimes subjective in determing which player to credit) are much more black and white.

Really? Is this all you have to answer to what he said?

I wonder how the poster feels about Tysons rebounds and how the Garden counts them vs on the road.

And that Rondo comparison is flat out wrong.

What Rondo comparison? First of all, it was an example not a comparison, and the evidence
regarding the difference in the home/away splits is there. Provide counter-evidence if you disagree. Since you randomly mentioned Tyson's rebounds, if you read my post you would know that rebounds can be recorded objectively 95% of the time. Assists require much more judgment. Granted, tip-outs do complicate rebounding totals, but to a far lesser degree. It's a big deal for Chandler because he doesn't actually like to go through the effort to secure the ball so he gets a lot of his rebounds this way. Most dominant centers grab and pull down their rebounds, Tyson's tip out number is an outlier because he doesn't grab rebounds the way other centers usually do, so yes in his case it is up to the mercy of the scorekeeper whether to award him with these half rebounds or not..

knickscity wrote:

Dagger wrote:

knickscity wrote:

raven wrote:

Dagger wrote:

dk7th wrote:

smackeddog wrote:

dk7th wrote:

smackeddog wrote:

jazz74 wrote:he was also injured during the playoffs while George was perfectly healthy.

Exactly. Unfortunately apparently 'injuries don't count', so if a player lost an arm they should still be performing at their best...

Paul George's playoff stats vs the Knicks:

19.5pts, 37% FG, 27% 3PT, 60%FT

I actually like Paul George, but he got way over-hyped in the playoffs. He had a bad series against us, and was wildly inconsistent vs Miami and Atlanta. Had some great games, but had some stinkers too. He's been anointed as though he's already proven he's a star, when to be honest I think he needs one more season to prove he can put it all together.

he also averaged 5 assists per game, 7 rebounds a game, 27% usage rate coupled with an assist rate of 24% for an elite level ratio of 1.12:1 for a small forward in terms of ball distribution and teamwork. i guess when you don't tell the full story it becomes expedient to your point of view. he is tracking to become a top 5 player in the nba, especially with his zeal for defending the position. and his numbers compare favorably to scottie pippen's numbers.

I'll be honest, I don't know much about those kinds of stats you've posted and don't put much stock in those kinds of stats as a result! (consider me old school, though I'll admit it's based on my gut feeling than any in depth analysis), but I will say Paul George is no Scottie Pippen! Maybe if he keeps improving he can be compared to him, but he's one step back from becoming Trevor Ariza!

The player that killed us, and who people haven't really talked about that much on these boards since that series, was Lance Stephenson- was he playing above his level because he's from NY, or is he capable of playing that well all the time? We could have drafted him a few years ago, though maybe he wouldn't have developed as well due to off the court issues.

well of course he is no scottie pippen but last year was only his third year. yet his numbers are eerily similar at this juncture and he is trending to get better. we'll see if his new contract has an effect on his hunger to improve. something tells me it won't.

so far as the stats i use, relevant and current knowledge is power. you can't look at a player's FG% anymore unless he is a player who never takes 3-pointers. what you have to look at instead is the eFG% which takes into account the 3-point shot.

the other stats are a bit more involved, but look at it this way: the least selfish players are the orchestrating point guards and the best among them have a ratio of around .50 to 1 or even lower. this means that his usage rate is virtually half of his assist rate. the best non-point guards will have a ratio of around 1:1 but most will have a ratio of something more like 1.6 to 1. thanks to the triangle even a chucker like bryant has a career ratio of 1.4 to 1. jordan is a bit better at 1.37 to 1.

bird? a phenomenal 1 to 1 ratio, and that is for a small forward. lebron's is actually under 1 to 1. for non triangle offense players that is absolutely great.

durant is around 1.36 to 1 which is great for a small forward who also happens to score efficiently. and as i mentioned, paul george is closer to 1.2 to 1, which is truly admirable.

so... the higher the ratio is the more selfish the player is in terms of team cohesiveness, and the less likely ones teammates are going to have the necessary confidence to shoot the ball. why? because there will always be a question of if they will see the ball with any regularity or predictability.

both anthony and the italian have ratios of between 2 or 3 to 1. if they want to play a winning brand of basketball both need to bring their ratios down below 2 to 1, and in fact closer to 1.7 to 1.

notes: felton is at .70 to 1 and rose is at .82 to 1. this is no-man's land for putative point guards and so they will need another playmaker out there, playmaker for others that is.

Assists is also the most subjective stat in basketball in that it is very easy for scorekeepers to manipulate assist numbers (see the disparity between Rondo's home and away assist totals). I do think the usage-assist rate is an interesting and useful stat, but you seem to be putting a ton of stock into something that is not recorded the same way unilaterally. Obviously catch-and-shoots, alley-oops and the like are no-brainers. But there are plenty of times a player will receive a nice pass, make a smooth dribble move around a defender to score and it could easily go either way. There is a lot of human judgment involved in these numbers, whereas other statistics like blocks, points, rebounds, and even steals (which is also sometimes subjective in determing which player to credit) are much more black and white.

Really? Is this all you have to answer to what he said?

I wonder how the poster feels about Tysons rebounds and how the Garden counts them vs on the road.

And that Rondo comparison is flat out wrong.

What Rondo comparison? First of all, it was an example not a comparison, and the evidence
regarding the difference in the home/away splits is there. Provide counter-evidence if you disagree. Since you randomly mentioned Tyson's rebounds, if you read my post you would know that rebounds can be recorded objectively 95% of the time. Assists require much more judgment. Granted, tip-outs do complicate rebounding totals, but to a far lesser degree. It's a big deal for Chandler because he doesn't actually like to go through the effort to secure the ball so he gets a lot of his rebounds this way. Most dominant centers grab and pull down their rebounds, Tyson's tip out number is an outlier because he doesn't grab rebounds the way other centers usually do, so yes in his case it is up to the mercy of the scorekeeper whether to award him with these half rebounds or not..

Rondo "disparity" was less than 1 assist on the road, and two years ago he averaged more on the road than he did at home in 2011-2012.

You made the claim, not me, but here's the data pick any year you want.

http://espn.go.com/nba/player/splits/_/id/3026/rajon-rondo

Even more ironic is that most players do play better at home, isnt that what home court is for?

Since you produced the data I can't argue, I've heard it said quite a few times so I took it to be true, guess I was wrong about that. My argument still stands about assists being subjective though. As I said before I know that does not invalidate the usage to assist ratio, I was bored so I felt like bringing it up because it's DK7th's holy grail.

smackeddog wrote:

holfresh wrote:

Melo has been winning games the last 10 years..He has been to the playoffs every year of his career..Name the other NBA player who has accomplished that, I don't expect a response...When he played with an all star in Billups, he got to the WCF..Go figure..Efficient Kobe could not make the playoffs alone much less win in the playoffs by himself...Efficient Durant lost in the second round 4-1 to Memphis not playing with another all star...Efficient Wade couldn't make the playoffs without another star playing with him...Efficient/two way KG couldn't do it alone in Minny...Efficient Paul Pierce couldn't do it alone...The formula seems to be a few stars, but stay buried in advanced stats...

True, but you're wasting your time- the most frequent anti-Melo posters continuously move the goal posts whenever you make any points other than the fact that he is evil and sucks.

Melo got to the playoffs every year? Oh that was because of his team mates- just a coincidence that he's been to the playoffs every year.

Only playoff victories count- he sucks if you look at his playoff record. Oh wait a minute, CP3's playoff record is even worse? Erm.. the teams he has played on are worse... no, erm he's been to the playoffs fewer times than Melo, therefore technically the percentage of victories is higher.

Blah, blah, blah

I don't mind debating with people, and I know Melo has a lot of flaws, and a lot of criticisms are valid. Unfortunately all that gets lost in amongst the zealots and their obsession with being 'right'.

+1

Hate is a terrible thing. Especially for coherent conversations on a Knicks fan board.

1) Melo's a first round and out loser. Check.
2) Melo's never won a scoring title, no cool patches on his warmup. Check.
3) Regular seasons don't count.
4) Division Titles don't count.
5) 7.7 rpg in the playoffs don't count.
6) Knicks record and playoff advances each and every year don't count.
7) He's a good free throw shooter, but that doesn't count either.
8) His attitude sucks.
9) His face makes me angry inside.
10) He's not LeBron
11) He's not Kobe
12) He's not CP3
13) Sheeehit, he's not even Gallo!

Please God, make the season start sooner!

smackeddog wrote:

jrodmc wrote:

smackeddog wrote:

holfresh wrote:

Melo has been winning games the last 10 years..He has been to the playoffs every year of his career..Name the other NBA player who has accomplished that, I don't expect a response...When he played with an all star in Billups, he got to the WCF..Go figure..Efficient Kobe could not make the playoffs alone much less win in the playoffs by himself...Efficient Durant lost in the second round 4-1 to Memphis not playing with another all star...Efficient Wade couldn't make the playoffs without another star playing with him...Efficient/two way KG couldn't do it alone in Minny...Efficient Paul Pierce couldn't do it alone...The formula seems to be a few stars, but stay buried in advanced stats...

True, but you're wasting your time- the most frequent anti-Melo posters continuously move the goal posts whenever you make any points other than the fact that he is evil and sucks.

Melo got to the playoffs every year? Oh that was because of his team mates- just a coincidence that he's been to the playoffs every year.

Only playoff victories count- he sucks if you look at his playoff record. Oh wait a minute, CP3's playoff record is even worse? Erm.. the teams he has played on are worse... no, erm he's been to the playoffs fewer times than Melo, therefore technically the percentage of victories is higher.

Blah, blah, blah

I don't mind debating with people, and I know Melo has a lot of flaws, and a lot of criticisms are valid. Unfortunately all that gets lost in amongst the zealots and their obsession with being 'right'.

+1

Hate is a terrible thing. Especially for coherent conversations on a Knicks fan board.

1) Melo's a first round and out loser. Check.
2) Melo's never won a scoring title, no cool patches on his warmup. Check.
3) Regular seasons don't count.
4) Division Titles don't count.
5) 7.7 rpg in the playoffs don't count.
6) Knicks record and playoff advances each and every year don't count.
7) He's a good free throw shooter, but that doesn't count either.
8) His attitude sucks.
9) His face makes me angry inside.
10) He's not LeBron
11) He's not Kobe
12) He's not CP3
13) Sheeehit, he's not even Gallo!

Please God, make the season start sooner!

Don't forget-

14) Denver did badly in the playoffs due to injuries, but injuries to the Knicks and Melo don't count- those are just excuses!
15) He's not Durant
16) Melo designed the Sky Bridges at MSG

Which must be the reason I love the idea of the sky bridges...

smackeddog wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

smackeddog wrote:

holfresh wrote:

Melo has been winning games the last 10 years..He has been to the playoffs every year of his career..Name the other NBA player who has accomplished that, I don't expect a response...When he played with an all star in Billups, he got to the WCF..Go figure..Efficient Kobe could not make the playoffs alone much less win in the playoffs by himself...Efficient Durant lost in the second round 4-1 to Memphis not playing with another all star...Efficient Wade couldn't make the playoffs without another star playing with him...Efficient/two way KG couldn't do it alone in Minny...Efficient Paul Pierce couldn't do it alone...The formula seems to be a few stars, but stay buried in advanced stats...

True, but you're wasting your time- the most frequent anti-Melo posters continuously move the goal posts whenever you make any points other than the fact that he is evil and sucks.

Melo got to the playoffs every year? Oh that was because of his team mates- just a coincidence that he's been to the playoffs every year.

Only playoff victories count- he sucks if you look at his playoff record. Oh wait a minute, CP3's playoff record is even worse? Erm.. the teams he has played on are worse... no, erm he's been to the playoffs fewer times than Melo, therefore technically the percentage of victories is higher.

Blah, blah, blah

I don't mind debating with people, and I know Melo has a lot of flaws, and a lot of criticisms are valid. Unfortunately all that gets lost in amongst the zealots and their obsession with being 'right'.

Passive aggressive? Why not address specific people and specific comments? This doesn't really add anything. I disagree with holfresh but respect that he's addressing specific points rather than just doing generic complaining.

I'm not talking about you, I quite like debating stuff with you because we have different perspectives on sabremetrics (or whatever you call them!) but there's no point in getting in a debate with TKF or dK7th (3G4G seems to have gone after realising he could no longer post about how great the Nuggets were after their stinker of an offseason) at this point because they genuinely don't listen or take anything on board, they just move the goalposts and refuse to acknowledge any point made. Read my sig for an example!

It's mindnumbingly futile and has been going on for years now- I don't get what the obsession is with being proved 'right'.

It means we never get any interesting Melo threads, because they just end up going down the path of "Melo sucks and is evil" and then I end up complaining about it- nothing ever changes, there's never any progress- it's like the same fight over and over and over and over again.

And it's a shame, because those two posters spend all their time only talking about Melo, we don't really get to hear what they think about other, fresher issues, where maybe they are less rigid in their views.

yes read the sig but try to digest the entire quote: "if i said they were a 7th seed before the season started then okay fine that's what i said. then they ended up getting the second seed... only to get destroyed as though they were a 7th seed all along. so my pre-season prediction of 7th seed-- if i even made such a prediction-- proved correct where the rubber meets the road."

the meaning changes just a tad, doesn't it? paraphrasing, it means that, although they captured the second seed for the playoffs, that they performed like a 7th seed once they faced playoff competition.

honestly, don't bother sigging what i say if you are going to edit out the parts that actually make my argument completely sensible. paraphrasing, it means don't edit out stuff that makes an interlocutor look like he is saying something wrong when he actually isn't.

for what it's worth, it isn't just melo that is the problem here. felton is also a problem, as is woodson, as is smith. unfortunately, these are the main personnel that dolan has attracted.

smackeddog wrote:

dk7th wrote:

smackeddog wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

smackeddog wrote:

holfresh wrote:

Melo has been winning games the last 10 years..He has been to the playoffs every year of his career..Name the other NBA player who has accomplished that, I don't expect a response...When he played with an all star in Billups, he got to the WCF..Go figure..Efficient Kobe could not make the playoffs alone much less win in the playoffs by himself...Efficient Durant lost in the second round 4-1 to Memphis not playing with another all star...Efficient Wade couldn't make the playoffs without another star playing with him...Efficient/two way KG couldn't do it alone in Minny...Efficient Paul Pierce couldn't do it alone...The formula seems to be a few stars, but stay buried in advanced stats...

True, but you're wasting your time- the most frequent anti-Melo posters continuously move the goal posts whenever you make any points other than the fact that he is evil and sucks.

Melo got to the playoffs every year? Oh that was because of his team mates- just a coincidence that he's been to the playoffs every year.

Only playoff victories count- he sucks if you look at his playoff record. Oh wait a minute, CP3's playoff record is even worse? Erm.. the teams he has played on are worse... no, erm he's been to the playoffs fewer times than Melo, therefore technically the percentage of victories is higher.

Blah, blah, blah

I don't mind debating with people, and I know Melo has a lot of flaws, and a lot of criticisms are valid. Unfortunately all that gets lost in amongst the zealots and their obsession with being 'right'.

Passive aggressive? Why not address specific people and specific comments? This doesn't really add anything. I disagree with holfresh but respect that he's addressing specific points rather than just doing generic complaining.

I'm not talking about you, I quite like debating stuff with you because we have different perspectives on sabremetrics (or whatever you call them!) but there's no point in getting in a debate with TKF or dK7th (3G4G seems to have gone after realising he could no longer post about how great the Nuggets were after their stinker of an offseason) at this point because they genuinely don't listen or take anything on board, they just move the goalposts and refuse to acknowledge any point made. Read my sig for an example!

It's mindnumbingly futile and has been going on for years now- I don't get what the obsession is with being proved 'right'.

It means we never get any interesting Melo threads, because they just end up going down the path of "Melo sucks and is evil" and then I end up complaining about it- nothing ever changes, there's never any progress- it's like the same fight over and over and over and over again.

And it's a shame, because those two posters spend all their time only talking about Melo, we don't really get to hear what they think about other, fresher issues, where maybe they are less rigid in their views.

yes read the sig but try to digest the entire quote: "if i said they were a 7th seed before the season started then okay fine that's what i said. then they ended up getting the second seed... only to get destroyed as though they were a 7th seed all along. so my pre-season prediction of 7th seed-- if i even made such a prediction-- proved correct where the rubber meets the road."

the meaning changes just a tad, doesn't it? paraphrasing, it means that, although they captured the second seed for the playoffs, that they performed like a 7th seed once they faced playoff competition.

honestly, don't bother sigging what i say if you are going to edit out the parts that actually make my argument completely sensible. paraphrasing, it means don't edit out stuff that makes an interlocutor look like he is saying something wrong when he actually isn't.

for what it's worth, it isn't just melo that is the problem here. felton is also a problem, as is woodson, as is smith. unfortunately, these are the main personnel that dolan has attracted.

I wasn't trying to misrepresent you- the whole quote wouldn't fit in the sig- I do find the quote a classic! Something about you hedging your bets, and portraying each contradictory scenario as you being correct!

i know the whole quote won't fit-- so if you can't fit it then edit it differently so you don't come across as vindictive and dishonest. okay?

moreover: sorry but i have learned to see things from a nuanced point of view. things like a player being a good value at one price and a bad value at another, for instance. do you remember who said that? and about whom? i do. also, you would agree that gauging the fitness of a team for the playoffs is a bit more nuanced that the seeding would imply, right? or then why would higher seeds succumb to lower seeds? would you agree that the bulls did not really "upset" the nets and that the pacers did ot really "upset" the knicks? you would agree to all these propositions, right? yes you would.

and from there it is quite plausible that when i say a second seed got a genuine scare by a seventh seed and then overwhelmed by a 3rd seed, that this "rubber meets the road" reality, this litmus test for a team, this thing we call the playoffs, puts a lie to the notion that they were a "legitimate" second seed.

dk7th wrote:

smackeddog wrote:

dk7th wrote:

smackeddog wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

smackeddog wrote:

holfresh wrote:

Melo has been winning games the last 10 years..He has been to the playoffs every year of his career..Name the other NBA player who has accomplished that, I don't expect a response...When he played with an all star in Billups, he got to the WCF..Go figure..Efficient Kobe could not make the playoffs alone much less win in the playoffs by himself...Efficient Durant lost in the second round 4-1 to Memphis not playing with another all star...Efficient Wade couldn't make the playoffs without another star playing with him...Efficient/two way KG couldn't do it alone in Minny...Efficient Paul Pierce couldn't do it alone...The formula seems to be a few stars, but stay buried in advanced stats...

True, but you're wasting your time- the most frequent anti-Melo posters continuously move the goal posts whenever you make any points other than the fact that he is evil and sucks.

Melo got to the playoffs every year? Oh that was because of his team mates- just a coincidence that he's been to the playoffs every year.

Only playoff victories count- he sucks if you look at his playoff record. Oh wait a minute, CP3's playoff record is even worse? Erm.. the teams he has played on are worse... no, erm he's been to the playoffs fewer times than Melo, therefore technically the percentage of victories is higher.

Blah, blah, blah

I don't mind debating with people, and I know Melo has a lot of flaws, and a lot of criticisms are valid. Unfortunately all that gets lost in amongst the zealots and their obsession with being 'right'.

Passive aggressive? Why not address specific people and specific comments? This doesn't really add anything. I disagree with holfresh but respect that he's addressing specific points rather than just doing generic complaining.

I'm not talking about you, I quite like debating stuff with you because we have different perspectives on sabremetrics (or whatever you call them!) but there's no point in getting in a debate with TKF or dK7th (3G4G seems to have gone after realising he could no longer post about how great the Nuggets were after their stinker of an offseason) at this point because they genuinely don't listen or take anything on board, they just move the goalposts and refuse to acknowledge any point made. Read my sig for an example!

It's mindnumbingly futile and has been going on for years now- I don't get what the obsession is with being proved 'right'.

It means we never get any interesting Melo threads, because they just end up going down the path of "Melo sucks and is evil" and then I end up complaining about it- nothing ever changes, there's never any progress- it's like the same fight over and over and over and over again.

And it's a shame, because those two posters spend all their time only talking about Melo, we don't really get to hear what they think about other, fresher issues, where maybe they are less rigid in their views.

yes read the sig but try to digest the entire quote: "if i said they were a 7th seed before the season started then okay fine that's what i said. then they ended up getting the second seed... only to get destroyed as though they were a 7th seed all along. so my pre-season prediction of 7th seed-- if i even made such a prediction-- proved correct where the rubber meets the road."

the meaning changes just a tad, doesn't it? paraphrasing, it means that, although they captured the second seed for the playoffs, that they performed like a 7th seed once they faced playoff competition.

honestly, don't bother sigging what i say if you are going to edit out the parts that actually make my argument completely sensible. paraphrasing, it means don't edit out stuff that makes an interlocutor look like he is saying something wrong when he actually isn't.

for what it's worth, it isn't just melo that is the problem here. felton is also a problem, as is woodson, as is smith. unfortunately, these are the main personnel that dolan has attracted.

I wasn't trying to misrepresent you- the whole quote wouldn't fit in the sig- I do find the quote a classic! Something about you hedging your bets, and portraying each contradictory scenario as you being correct!

i know the whole quote won't fit-- so if you can't fit it then edit it differently so you don't come across as vindictive and dishonest. okay?

moreover: sorry but i have learned to see things from a nuanced point of view. things like a player being a good value at one price and a bad value at another, for instance. do you remember who said that? and about whom? i do. also, you would agree that gauging the fitness of a team for the playoffs is a bit more nuanced that the seeding would imply, right? or then why would higher seeds succumb to lower seeds? would you agree that the bulls did not really "upset" the nets and that the pacers did ot really "upset" the knicks? you would agree to all these propositions, right? yes you would.

and from there it is quite plausible that when i say a second seed got a genuine scare by a seventh seed and then overwhelmed by a 3rd seed, that this "rubber meets the road" reality, this litmus test for a team, this thing we call the playoffs, puts a lie to the notion that they were a "legitimate" second seed.

I think you take yourself, and sports a bit too seriously sometimes. I don't know how you can't look at what you wrote and not see the funny side of it- nothing vindictive (I talk a lot of crap on these boards, as I'm sure you've gathered by now!).

Everything is subjective, including your opinions. You seem to be trying to pass them off as a serious objective science, while being biased and subjective- it's a bit frustrating and it takes some of the enjoyment out of a debate, at least for me.

I would argue the playoff Knicks were decimated by injuries, but you only acknowledge injuries when it come to Denver's playoff performance. Do you think the Bulls without Rose are just the same and have the same expectations as a bulls team with Rose? Are we a seventh seed team with an injured, ill Tyson, an injured Amare, an injured K-Mart, a broken down Kidd, an injured Camby, a retired Sheed, a retired Kurt Thomas, an injured JR and an injured Melo? Hell yes! We actually would agree on something there.

Also The Pacers didn't massacre us either- we almost got a game 7.

dk7th wrote:

holfresh wrote:

dk7th wrote:

smackeddog wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

smackeddog wrote:

holfresh wrote:

Melo has been winning games the last 10 years..He has been to the playoffs every year of his career..Name the other NBA player who has accomplished that, I don't expect a response...When he played with an all star in Billups, he got to the WCF..Go figure..Efficient Kobe could not make the playoffs alone much less win in the playoffs by himself...Efficient Durant lost in the second round 4-1 to Memphis not playing with another all star...Efficient Wade couldn't make the playoffs without another star playing with him...Efficient/two way KG couldn't do it alone in Minny...Efficient Paul Pierce couldn't do it alone...The formula seems to be a few stars, but stay buried in advanced stats...

True, but you're wasting your time- the most frequent anti-Melo posters continuously move the goal posts whenever you make any points other than the fact that he is evil and sucks.

Melo got to the playoffs every year? Oh that was because of his team mates- just a coincidence that he's been to the playoffs every year.

Only playoff victories count- he sucks if you look at his playoff record. Oh wait a minute, CP3's playoff record is even worse? Erm.. the teams he has played on are worse... no, erm he's been to the playoffs fewer times than Melo, therefore technically the percentage of victories is higher.

Blah, blah, blah

I don't mind debating with people, and I know Melo has a lot of flaws, and a lot of criticisms are valid. Unfortunately all that gets lost in amongst the zealots and their obsession with being 'right'.

Passive aggressive? Why not address specific people and specific comments? This doesn't really add anything. I disagree with holfresh but respect that he's addressing specific points rather than just doing generic complaining.

I'm not talking about you, I quite like debating stuff with you because we have different perspectives on sabremetrics (or whatever you call them!) but there's no point in getting in a debate with TKF or dK7th (3G4G seems to have gone after realising he could no longer post about how great the Nuggets were after their stinker of an offseason) at this point because they genuinely don't listen or take anything on board, they just move the goalposts and refuse to acknowledge any point made. Read my sig for an example!

It's mindnumbingly futile and has been going on for years now- I don't get what the obsession is with being proved 'right'.

It means we never get any interesting Melo threads, because they just end up going down the path of "Melo sucks and is evil" and then I end up complaining about it- nothing ever changes, there's never any progress- it's like the same fight over and over and over and over again.

And it's a shame, because those two posters spend all their time only talking about Melo, we don't really get to hear what they think about other, fresher issues, where maybe they are less rigid in their views.

yes read the sig but try to digest the entire quote: "if i said they were a 7th seed before the season started then okay fine that's what i said. then they ended up getting the second seed... only to get destroyed as though they were a 7th seed all along. so my pre-season prediction of 7th seed-- if i even made such a prediction-- proved correct where the rubber meets the road."

the meaning changes just a tad, doesn't it? paraphrasing, it means that, although they captured the second seed for the playoffs, that they performed like a 7th seed once they faced playoff competition.

honestly, don't bother sigging what i say if you are going to edit out the parts that actually make my argument completely sensible. paraphrasing, it means don't edit out stuff that makes an interlocutor look like he is saying something wrong when he actually isn't.

for what it's worth, it isn't just melo that is the problem here. felton is also a problem, as is woodson, as is smith. unfortunately, these are the main personnel that dolan has attracted.

Two things..How does losing,"getting destroyed" by Indy(series 4-2) in the second round now make the Knicks a "7th seed" when Indy made it to the ECF and lost 4-3 to the Champs??..The original premise of my argument was that you predicted they would come in between 3rd (if you are an outright optimist)seed, which you yourself admittedly were not, and the 7th seed...They turned out to be the 2nd seed in the East, so why the phoney outrage when they didn't make it to the ECF??? They far exceeded your expectations...

hope for an ecf or expect an ecf? truth be told i am not sure if it isn't an admixture. guess you'll have to do the research to "prove" something. any outrage i may-- or may not-- have expressed may be due merely to my having my worst fears confirmed: lack of cohesion, resilience, versatility, defense.

so let me ask YOU: did they exceed your expectations?

I don't put as much stock into the regular season...54 wins was good but style of play was more important to me..I was actually disappointed with the showing against Indy..I do think the Indy was the better team but when the refs didn't call the Hibbert body block when Melo on drives, I think that defined the Series..If Melo can't get calls in the lane then u gonna lose..But I thought that Indy was better ...I maintain we need more than one star to compete at that level...We had the best player on the court but Indy had the next 4 best players...Indy played much better defense and is a better defensive team...Playoffs are where defense matters..

holfresh wrote:U can pick apart the game of any NBA player including LeBron..Penetration and drawing fouls to get to the line is part of his game..You had so many critical things to say about Melo in that Series, yet he was still our best player against Indy..So what does that say about how the rest of the team performed yet you give them no mention..

surface fault is with smith, melo, woodson, felton.

i make a distinction between "most valuable" and "best" when considering a team sport. the most valuable player is he who is best at making others around him better in the face of adversity. so if a defense keys on you then you MUST find other ways to have an impact. draw fouls, create turnovers, raise your assists, rebound above your average.