dk7th wrote:

tkf wrote:

knicks1248 wrote:

tkf wrote:

nixluva wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:Better players for the vet min? Maybe slightly.
I'm looking at the total win shares (from basketball-reference.com) and adjusting them based on if the player's WS/48 was at the league average (.1)
So, Felton contributed 2.0 win shares and his WS/48 was .048. So if he had played the same minutes but at a level of average productivity, he would have had (.1/.048)*2.0 win shares, which equals 4.2. I then did the same for Bargnani.

MEH! All this shows me is that we had HORRID coaching and did not maximize the production of our players. Not to mention the injuries which didn't help. However, most of all this team really needed better decision making on who should be playing and how this team should be playing. An underperforming player like Felton should not be allowed to bring the whole team down.

We watched this team play some of the most PUTRID BB in the league given the talent on the roster. Guys were not used to the best of their abilities and would be bumping into each other, standing and watching, not executing properly and had no recognition of time and score. I mean it was a total disaster. Forget about JR being allowed to act like an ass. A huge let down in coaching and leadership.

There is much more that can be done with much of the same players. I like the potential of guys like Cole, Tyler, Shump, THJ and Murry as well. If you add a decent FA to that mix it's a good start. We could see a deal for Tyson made in order to get a pick. If Fish is smart he'll look to use Bargs more like a C which was surprisingly his best role last year. When Tyson went down Bargs did a very good job holding down the C spot. he's a very good man defender against C's and did show some improvement in help D. Bargs in the Triangle might really help his game as well. It's not all doom and gloom.

yea, I can't wait to see guys like tyler, cole , shump and THJ alongside a nice vet. I mean those guys have soooooooo much potential. I can see 52 wins.. i am pumped... add in a healthy BARGS and hell, who knows what the heck can happen..

ok, I tried it, enough of that.. I just can't do it.. can't put on the homer hat... just don't work.. LOL

so let me ask you this, what do you see in those guys that makes you believe they will give this franchise a good start? this is why I wanted to sign guys like DJ augustine last year, guys who are still somewhat young but have proven worth in a rotation in the league.. none of those guys so far have proven they are rotation worthy. Let me retract, other than THJ and he still a bit shakey defensively, I don't see a rotation player in that group... shumpert was one, but he has a lot to prove... critical year for him if you ask me..

Boris Diaw is the perfect example of how a player with his skill set can only be maximize in a certain systems. HE played like Crap under Mike Woodson, In fact during the Exit interviews in ATL, MIKe woodson told him he needs him to shoot more, he told mike woodson I don't want play for you and the system you run, he was thrown in as and extra in a trade with the suns for Joe Johnson.

Under MDA's pass first system in thrived playing all 5 positions and helping the team to 60 wins, then was traded to the bobcats, where Paul silas wanted him to shoot more, Once again his numbers plummeted, and he almost dissapperead, after excepting a Buy out
he Goes to the spurs has a awsome year in the pass first system and was a major major factor in the championship.

Don't ever tell me a coach and a system isn't the reason players are succesful

I was a season ticket holder when diaw was drafted by Atlanta, his game was so raw, he played under stotts for a year and woodson for just one year.. he didn't play great under either coach as his game and body was still developing, he was a tall, lanky kid with not much confidence in his offense. not sure how you can put this on woodson..

under dantoni, his skill set was exposed and used properly, but diaw was also older, bigger, had some NBA years under his belt...

but I don't get your point.. MDA and the spurs system is completely different yet he thrived under both? remember diaw also had a problem with his weight and getting in shape, that has hurt him a bit in his career..

what is the point with shumpert? he played well under dantoni defensively actually, under woodson he seemed to regress... yet woodson was the defensive guru supposedly...

I think a huge problem with shumpert is shumpert and the fact that maybe he is just an OK player and not paul george 2.0

regardless of what his ceiling is, has he had the opportunity and coaching to develop and expand his game? i agree his biggest problem may be himself but sometimes young guys will sulk in spite of themselves when stuck in a sh!tty situation like the one here in msg. also that knee injury was not nothing.

probably not dk, but the problem I have with that is when MDA left, people were convinced that woodson was not only the right coach for this team, but that MDA was holding the team back...that woodson was a player friendly coach, who would hold people accountable. so seeing shumpert somewhat regress and yes the knee is an issue, somewhat raises red flags for me. because after this team struggled then the turn to woodson as being a horrible coach seemed to increase..

tkf wrote:

martin wrote:

tkf wrote:

knicks1248 wrote:

tkf wrote:

nixluva wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:Better players for the vet min? Maybe slightly.
I'm looking at the total win shares (from basketball-reference.com) and adjusting them based on if the player's WS/48 was at the league average (.1)
So, Felton contributed 2.0 win shares and his WS/48 was .048. So if he had played the same minutes but at a level of average productivity, he would have had (.1/.048)*2.0 win shares, which equals 4.2. I then did the same for Bargnani.

MEH! All this shows me is that we had HORRID coaching and did not maximize the production of our players. Not to mention the injuries which didn't help. However, most of all this team really needed better decision making on who should be playing and how this team should be playing. An underperforming player like Felton should not be allowed to bring the whole team down.

We watched this team play some of the most PUTRID BB in the league given the talent on the roster. Guys were not used to the best of their abilities and would be bumping into each other, standing and watching, not executing properly and had no recognition of time and score. I mean it was a total disaster. Forget about JR being allowed to act like an ass. A huge let down in coaching and leadership.

There is much more that can be done with much of the same players. I like the potential of guys like Cole, Tyler, Shump, THJ and Murry as well. If you add a decent FA to that mix it's a good start. We could see a deal for Tyson made in order to get a pick. If Fish is smart he'll look to use Bargs more like a C which was surprisingly his best role last year. When Tyson went down Bargs did a very good job holding down the C spot. he's a very good man defender against C's and did show some improvement in help D. Bargs in the Triangle might really help his game as well. It's not all doom and gloom.

yea, I can't wait to see guys like tyler, cole , shump and THJ alongside a nice vet. I mean those guys have soooooooo much potential. I can see 52 wins.. i am pumped... add in a healthy BARGS and hell, who knows what the heck can happen..

ok, I tried it, enough of that.. I just can't do it.. can't put on the homer hat... just don't work.. LOL

so let me ask you this, what do you see in those guys that makes you believe they will give this franchise a good start? this is why I wanted to sign guys like DJ augustine last year, guys who are still somewhat young but have proven worth in a rotation in the league.. none of those guys so far have proven they are rotation worthy. Let me retract, other than THJ and he still a bit shakey defensively, I don't see a rotation player in that group... shumpert was one, but he has a lot to prove... critical year for him if you ask me..

Boris Diaw is the perfect example of how a player with his skill set can only be maximize in a certain systems. HE played like Crap under Mike Woodson, In fact during the Exit interviews in ATL, MIKe woodson told him he needs him to shoot more, he told mike woodson I don't want play for you and the system you run, he was thrown in as and extra in a trade with the suns for Joe Johnson.

Under MDA's pass first system in thrived playing all 5 positions and helping the team to 60 wins, then was traded to the bobcats, where Paul silas wanted him to shoot more, Once again his numbers plummeted, and he almost dissapperead, after excepting a Buy out
he Goes to the spurs has a awsome year in the pass first system and was a major major factor in the championship.

Don't ever tell me a coach and a system isn't the reason players are succesful

I was a season ticket holder when diaw was drafted by Atlanta, his game was so raw, he played under stotts for a year and woodson for just one year.. he didn't play great under either coach as his game and body was still developing, he was a tall, lanky kid with not much confidence in his offense. not sure how you can put this on woodson..

under dantoni, his skill set was exposed and used properly, but diaw was also older, bigger, had some NBA years under his belt...

but I don't get your point.. MDA and the spurs system is completely different yet he thrived under both? remember diaw also had a problem with his weight and getting in shape, that has hurt him a bit in his career..

what is the point with shumpert? he played well under dantoni defensively actually, under woodson he seemed to regress... yet woodson was the defensive guru supposedly...

I think a huge problem with shumpert is shumpert and the fact that maybe he is just an OK player and not paul george 2.0

Diaw went from Stotts to Woodson to MDA in consecutive years. To suggest that something magically happened during the summer between Woodson and MDA is a bit misleading. Mostly likely it was the system.

Diaw practically says so himself

http://grantland.com/features/boris-diaw-tony-parker-san-antonio-spurs-nba-playoffs-2014/

no what I am saying is that there are other factors, like diaw being in his third year. .are you telling me there was a problem with terry stotts system? if so what was his system then martin? what is more misleading is trying to just paint diaw as a system guy to help exonerate the lack of success that shumpert has had so far... there is no denying that MDA helped diaw grow offensively, but I will not say that had MDA had diaw in year one, we would have seen a drastically different player than we saw under stotts and woodson. remember MDA really doesn't like to play rookies.. diaw was very, very raw.. did you even watch him play his rookie year?

I will admit atlanta may have been sort of a mess, but I think it was a combination of both that and diaw just being young, raw, and just not ready....

This is utter BULLISH!!! MDA doesn't have any such dislike for playing rookies. This is just fans making stuff up. MDA just favors smart players period. Diaw was recognized by MDA as a player who could do multiple things on the floor and thus he was used in many ways that enhanced Diaw's game. People hate on MDA but in truth Pop switched to using a lot of what MDA does a few years back in addition to also using some Triangle stuff and any style of BB that is team oriented. It's not a secret that Pop started using some of MDA's stuff.

The important thing to understand is that many NBA players NEED a system in order to really maximize their talent. If you don't have a CP3 or Nash running your team then it puts more players into the role of making more BB decisions which they may not be able to make or to be creative with the ball, which they also may not be able to do. The reason why some of these young Knicks might do better as i'm suggesting is that in a system like the Triangle it's designed for players with limitations.

Shump for example will be put in better situations offensively since he would be able to learn how to be functional off the ball, rather than just watching Melo or JR dance with the ball. It's so important that any team executes a multifaceted offense that will allow them to play good defense as well because the floor is balanced and they take good shots.

CrushAlot wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

yellowboy90 wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:Actually, it looks like those were Shumpert's #s. My vision must be off! Felton's were almost the same though. He contributed 2.2 win shares and an average player that played the same number of minutes would have contributed 4.2 actually. I just did the math now.

Avg player or avg pg? Des it matter. Also, those wins add up when you exchange average players for Martin, Beno, and Metta as well.

Sure, the point is replacing any one or two bad players with an average player won't make a big difference. Replacing an average player with a very good (but not outstanding) player won't make a huge difference either. Using the win share approach, if you added Melo to an exactly .500 team, the team would have gone about 45-37 or 46-36.

Nuggets won 26 more games in Melo's rookie season.

And then their winning percentage went up by about .100 points as soon as he got off the team!
For the record, neither that nor your 26 game stat is relevant. There are too many confounding factors.

nixluva wrote:

tkf wrote:

martin wrote:

tkf wrote:

knicks1248 wrote:

tkf wrote:

nixluva wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:Better players for the vet min? Maybe slightly.
I'm looking at the total win shares (from basketball-reference.com) and adjusting them based on if the player's WS/48 was at the league average (.1)
So, Felton contributed 2.0 win shares and his WS/48 was .048. So if he had played the same minutes but at a level of average productivity, he would have had (.1/.048)*2.0 win shares, which equals 4.2. I then did the same for Bargnani.

MEH! All this shows me is that we had HORRID coaching and did not maximize the production of our players. Not to mention the injuries which didn't help. However, most of all this team really needed better decision making on who should be playing and how this team should be playing. An underperforming player like Felton should not be allowed to bring the whole team down.

We watched this team play some of the most PUTRID BB in the league given the talent on the roster. Guys were not used to the best of their abilities and would be bumping into each other, standing and watching, not executing properly and had no recognition of time and score. I mean it was a total disaster. Forget about JR being allowed to act like an ass. A huge let down in coaching and leadership.

There is much more that can be done with much of the same players. I like the potential of guys like Cole, Tyler, Shump, THJ and Murry as well. If you add a decent FA to that mix it's a good start. We could see a deal for Tyson made in order to get a pick. If Fish is smart he'll look to use Bargs more like a C which was surprisingly his best role last year. When Tyson went down Bargs did a very good job holding down the C spot. he's a very good man defender against C's and did show some improvement in help D. Bargs in the Triangle might really help his game as well. It's not all doom and gloom.

yea, I can't wait to see guys like tyler, cole , shump and THJ alongside a nice vet. I mean those guys have soooooooo much potential. I can see 52 wins.. i am pumped... add in a healthy BARGS and hell, who knows what the heck can happen..

ok, I tried it, enough of that.. I just can't do it.. can't put on the homer hat... just don't work.. LOL

so let me ask you this, what do you see in those guys that makes you believe they will give this franchise a good start? this is why I wanted to sign guys like DJ augustine last year, guys who are still somewhat young but have proven worth in a rotation in the league.. none of those guys so far have proven they are rotation worthy. Let me retract, other than THJ and he still a bit shakey defensively, I don't see a rotation player in that group... shumpert was one, but he has a lot to prove... critical year for him if you ask me..

Boris Diaw is the perfect example of how a player with his skill set can only be maximize in a certain systems. HE played like Crap under Mike Woodson, In fact during the Exit interviews in ATL, MIKe woodson told him he needs him to shoot more, he told mike woodson I don't want play for you and the system you run, he was thrown in as and extra in a trade with the suns for Joe Johnson.

Under MDA's pass first system in thrived playing all 5 positions and helping the team to 60 wins, then was traded to the bobcats, where Paul silas wanted him to shoot more, Once again his numbers plummeted, and he almost dissapperead, after excepting a Buy out
he Goes to the spurs has a awsome year in the pass first system and was a major major factor in the championship.

Don't ever tell me a coach and a system isn't the reason players are succesful

I was a season ticket holder when diaw was drafted by Atlanta, his game was so raw, he played under stotts for a year and woodson for just one year.. he didn't play great under either coach as his game and body was still developing, he was a tall, lanky kid with not much confidence in his offense. not sure how you can put this on woodson..

under dantoni, his skill set was exposed and used properly, but diaw was also older, bigger, had some NBA years under his belt...

but I don't get your point.. MDA and the spurs system is completely different yet he thrived under both? remember diaw also had a problem with his weight and getting in shape, that has hurt him a bit in his career..

what is the point with shumpert? he played well under dantoni defensively actually, under woodson he seemed to regress... yet woodson was the defensive guru supposedly...

I think a huge problem with shumpert is shumpert and the fact that maybe he is just an OK player and not paul george 2.0

Diaw went from Stotts to Woodson to MDA in consecutive years. To suggest that something magically happened during the summer between Woodson and MDA is a bit misleading. Mostly likely it was the system.

Diaw practically says so himself

http://grantland.com/features/boris-diaw-tony-parker-san-antonio-spurs-nba-playoffs-2014/

no what I am saying is that there are other factors, like diaw being in his third year. .are you telling me there was a problem with terry stotts system? if so what was his system then martin? what is more misleading is trying to just paint diaw as a system guy to help exonerate the lack of success that shumpert has had so far... there is no denying that MDA helped diaw grow offensively, but I will not say that had MDA had diaw in year one, we would have seen a drastically different player than we saw under stotts and woodson. remember MDA really doesn't like to play rookies.. diaw was very, very raw.. did you even watch him play his rookie year?

I will admit atlanta may have been sort of a mess, but I think it was a combination of both that and diaw just being young, raw, and just not ready....

This is utter BULLISH!!! MDA doesn't have any such dislike for playing rookies. This is just fans making stuff up. MDA just favors smart players period. Diaw was recognized by MDA as a player who could do multiple things on the floor and thus he was used in many ways that enhanced Diaw's game. People hate on MDA but in truth Pop switched to using a lot of what MDA does a few years back in addition to also using some Triangle stuff and any style of BB that is team oriented. It's not a secret that Pop started using some of MDA's stuff.

The important thing to understand is that many NBA players NEED a system in order to really maximize their talent. If you don't have a CP3 or Nash running your team then it puts more players into the role of making more BB decisions which they may not be able to make or to be creative with the ball, which they also may not be able to do. The reason why some of these young Knicks might do better as i'm suggesting is that in a system like the Triangle it's designed for players with limitations.

Shump for example will be put in better situations offensively since he would be able to learn how to be functional off the ball, rather than just watching Melo or JR dance with the ball. It's so important that any team executes a multifaceted offense that will allow them to play good defense as well because the floor is balanced and they take good shots.

first of all I was one of the biggest MDA supporters and the guys does not like playing rookies. You can see when he was here, he had what he said out of his own mouth, a "pecking order" and guess who was at the bottom? rookies... he also called jordan hill and toney douglas bad rookies. He didn't play mozgov until shawn williams got a suspension. he played gallo and chandler, but ran the offense through david lee and even one time Al harrington. So no it is not bullish!!!

I am not a MDA hater, check my posting history.. You on the other hand are very sensitive when it comes to dantoni and you lose all objectivity..

Shump for example will be put in better situations offensively since he would be able to learn how to be functional off the ball, rather than just watching Melo or JR dance with the ball.

dude you hope that is the case, you have no clue if that will happen.. you act as if phil and fisher are some magical elixir for shumpert.. YOU don't know that yet!! but we will revisit this when the season starts for sure..

nixluva wrote:When I speak about MDA I am usually taking the position of clearing up misconceptions. I have never said he was perfect or the best coach in the world nor consider that he's never made bad decisions leading to some of his problems. I do in fact have objectivity about him, but since so often i have to clear up incorrect statements about MDA that makes it seem like I've got some kind of crazed crush for him. That's far from the truth but i accept that it comes across that way due to the majority of my posts being in his defense. I can live with that false characterization.

Now with regard to this BULLISH about him not liking rookies, lets just say for the record that MOST TOP coaches that are used to winning don't "prefer" to play novice rookies!!! Who the F do you know in any field prefers to work with rookies unless they're extremely talented and ready to get it done? The real knock has come from the one season when we had Hill and TD and he didn't play them a ton of minutes and it ended with Hill being traded. Not that they didn't play at all, but that in some peoples opinions MDA didn't give up on the season soon enough and play the two of them more. Those same people never actually look at the facts of how the season went and that there was still a chance the team could get it going so there wasn't a reason for MDA to give up on the season early as these people think. The Knicks went 9-6 in December of that year and by January 7 they were just 5 games under .500. It at least seemed that there was a chance they could get to .500 after winning 3 straight so who would give up on a season at that point? However, they lost the nextthst 2 and from that point on Hill started playing more games the rest of the season.

Forget about how MDA played young players in PHX when he had them and he felt they could play at a high enough level. Forget that he played young guys in NY under the same circumstances. Rookies and young players in general need development, but it's also important if you have vets to make sure you give them a chance to win. In our current situation now we'll be able to play young guys more readily since this isn't a win now team anymore if Melo leaves.

smackeddog wrote:

VCoug wrote:

smackeddog wrote:

VCoug wrote:

fitzfarm wrote:

smackeddog wrote:

BigDaddyG wrote:

VCoug wrote:

BigDaddyG wrote:Houston is the best scenario at this point. Parsons asik and picks. Parsons is interested in improving his "brand" so I think NY would appeal to him.

We wouldn't be able to get Parsons because Houston declined his option making him a RFA. That means we would have to agree to a S&T and we can't receive S&T players because we're too far over the cap.

I thought we could still do sign and trades, we just had less leeway in getting the salaries to match?

This new cba is such a head f***!

Wouldn't we not be over the cap if we traded melo??

Even if we took back $0 salary in any Melo deal our cap number would still be $77M, about $13M over the projected cap for next year.

Well we're on $91mil, then minus $23.5mil if Melo opts out, that brings us down to $67.5mil. The luxury tax is $71.7mil, and the aron is $4mil over that, I just don't get if you're allowed to go over the apron to do a S&T, or whether it's just the starting point that matters.

Either way, I'm not a fan of Parsons.

It's not the starting point that matters it's where our cap number ends up after the S&T. So if we're doing a S&T with Melo for Parsons the most we could take back and stay under the apron is around $14M.

Nuts!- but then again, we're assuming Tyson stays on the team- maybe we can trade him and just get a pick back, which knocks off a further $15mil

The Knicks have a chance right here to do the right thing, resigning Melo the Knicks have no chance of ever being a championship level team. He makes just to much money

nixluva wrote:I think Knicks will look to move Tyson early in order to help make a deal for Melo more feasible. It shouldn't be hard to move Tyson at all. So many teams could use a "defensive C"

Its what they are willing to give back. Whats the best we can hope for trash and a late first probably