[ IMAGES: Images ON turn off | ACCOUNT: User Status is LOCKED why? ]

The Knicks score more efficiently without Curry???
Forum Index  ›  NY Knicks Forum
Page 2 of 2 ‹ Previous 1  2 
« Reply To Topic
Author Thread
Bonn1997
Posts: 58654
Alba Posts: 2
Joined: 2/2/2004
Member: #581
USA
3/18/2007  7:06 PM
Posted by nyk4ever:

I don't understand why everyone is so critical of the people that take digs at Curry. It's not like the opinions are baseless and without any evidence. The Knicks are statistically and VISUALLY a better team when Curry is seated on the bench. There is more defense and a pace that better suits this roster.

It's not like people are saying Michael Jordan has no jumper.
Exactly; threads presenting novel factual information should always be encouraged. I'd love to see some information that would make me less angry about what the four draft picks and two expiring contracts we gave up to get Eddy. I'd love to see a thousand threads on it if the information were factual because I'd feel much better about the team.
AUTOADVERT
djsunyc
Posts: 44929
Alba Posts: 42
Joined: 1/16/2004
Member: #536
3/18/2007  7:14 PM
pts scored per 100 possesions:

on court: 106.9
off court: 110.0

pts given up per 100 possessions: (defense)

on court: 112.0
off court: 106.1

so net point difference per 100 possessions:

on court: -5.1
off court: +3.9
Bonn1997
Posts: 58654
Alba Posts: 2
Joined: 2/2/2004
Member: #581
USA
3/18/2007  7:14 PM
Anything else is coincidental at best.
The offense is better this year with Curry on the bench.
The offense was better last year with Curry on the bench.
The defense is better this year with Curry on the bench.
The defense was better last year with Curry on the bench.
All above stats are based on thousands of minutes.
Remind me why we'd be worse off with Brandon Roy, the three other draft picks, and $8 mil annually less in payroll if we hadn't made the trade? Is it the mere WISH that he turns everything around in year 7?
BigC
Posts: 22672
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 12/14/2004
Member: #829
3/18/2007  8:51 PM
It's hard to say every game is different. This game in particular it worked out without Curry. However you have to look at the players on the court. I think a huge part of the win was Balkman getting more playing time.
BigC's Knick blogs and Knicks highlights after every Knicks game http://fromthebaseline.com/
Anji
Posts: 25523
Alba Posts: 9
Joined: 4/14/2006
Member: #1122
USA
3/18/2007  8:58 PM
Curry plays about 35 minutes a game versus the other teams starting line up. YOu are comparing 100 possions that are not in cruch time against the other teams backups to what Curry does as a starter. How is that fair????


HOw about why were we up 18 in TDOT in the first half with Curry, what went went wrong then????

SMH, Always something with you guys, can't even enjoy a win!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Edited by - anji on 03-18-2007 9:15 PM]
"Really, all Americans want is a cold beer, warm p***y, and some place to s**t with a door on it." - Mr. Ford
Bonn1997
Posts: 58654
Alba Posts: 2
Joined: 2/2/2004
Member: #581
USA
3/18/2007  10:08 PM
Curry plays about 35 minutes a game versus the other teams starting line up. YOu are comparing 100 possions that are not in cruch time against the other teams backups to what Curry does as a starter.
Then why do teams tend to have better #s with their top starters on and worse #s with them off the floor? And what's Cruch time? Is that like a crunch-clutch combo?
TMS
Posts: 60684
Alba Posts: 617
Joined: 5/11/2004
Member: #674
USA
3/19/2007  10:25 AM
Posted by Bonn1997:
Posted by Allanfan20:

He gets the ball, he scores. Nothing much else. He may draw doubles, but it doesn't do much good if he sucks at passing. He may get to the line, but it doesn't mean much if he's mediocre from the line. He may be a beast, but it doesn't mean much if he doesn't move a lot. I said it when he was on the Bulls, I am saying it now. Curry = Overrated and is NOT a player you want to build around.
If you were a GM, what would you give up to get Curry? I don't think scoring specialists have a huge overall impact or are even necessary on a winning team. I think I'd give up 2 early 2nd round picks or maybe 1 late 1st round pick. I'd hesitate with the late 1st rd pick though because you can get a Lee or J Howard.
there isn't a GM in the NBA that would trade Curry for a late 1st round pick or 2 2nd rounders
After 7 years & 40K+ posts, banned by martin for calling Nalod a 'moron'. Awesome.
Anji
Posts: 25523
Alba Posts: 9
Joined: 4/14/2006
Member: #1122
USA
3/19/2007  10:29 AM
Posted by Bonn1997:
Curry plays about 35 minutes a game versus the other teams starting line up. YOu are comparing 100 possions that are not in cruch time against the other teams backups to what Curry does as a starter.
Then why do teams tend to have better #s with their top starters on and worse #s with them off the floor? And what's Cruch time? Is that like a crunch-clutch combo?

LIke who???? GUys like Yao Ming and Tim Duncan who play with other great players and are the best in the league. Or Guys like HOward, Brand and Ben Wallace who play with no other Great players on incomplete teams???
"Really, all Americans want is a cold beer, warm p***y, and some place to s**t with a door on it." - Mr. Ford
Bonn1997
Posts: 58654
Alba Posts: 2
Joined: 2/2/2004
Member: #581
USA
3/19/2007  10:36 AM
Posted by Anji:
Posted by Bonn1997:
Curry plays about 35 minutes a game versus the other teams starting line up. YOu are comparing 100 possions that are not in cruch time against the other teams backups to what Curry does as a starter.
Then why do teams tend to have better #s with their top starters on and worse #s with them off the floor? And what's Cruch time? Is that like a crunch-clutch combo?

LIke who???? GUys like Yao Ming and Tim Duncan who play with other great players and are the best in the league. Or Guys like HOward, Brand and Ben Wallace who play with no other Great players on incomplete teams???

Like EVERY SINGLE ONE of the above players you just listed. I already gave the source. 82games.com You can check the stats yourself.
nixluva
Posts: 56258
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 10/5/2004
Member: #758
USA
3/19/2007  11:18 AM
One thing that you guys aren't taking into consideration is that Curry has started all 65 games. The only other guy who's been there has been Steph, also with 65 starts. After that what you have is a lot of change in the starting lineup. What really makes the difference tho is WHO Isiah tends to put on the floor with Curry.

When he's on the floor we usually have Jamal who can't defend a light post, Q is an OK defender but he's usually going up against a top offensive player on the other team and he's not been healthy enough to do what he did last year. Francis who is a bad defender has started 21 games. Frye started 43 games but for most of the year has been lost out there. Isiah has been starting quite a few different lineups with Curry, so there's likely to be less cohesion as well as fewer of our best defensive players on the court with him. Lee, Balkman etc. come off the bench, so our best defenders and rebounder aren't starting. How often do the Knicks start off down double digits? Part of that is the poor execution at the start of games. Both on offense and defense. It's not all Curry. One guy in the back of the defense isn't always gonna be responsible for how the entire team plays on D.

One thing that some of you just don't get is that you have to DEVELOP a team when you have a Center like Curry. He's currently playing with a team that's not yet perfect for how he plays. We don't have the best perimeter shooting. We don't have enough solid PG play, so he doesn't always get the best passes. In general this team may play at a faster pace when he's not on the floor, so there will be more shots taken.

Basically my whole point is that it's not just about Curry. If you look at the way Isiah has used the roster, we've had some AWFUL defensive units on the floor WITH Curry and that's one of the biggest reasons the stats look like they do.
Bonn1997
Posts: 58654
Alba Posts: 2
Joined: 2/2/2004
Member: #581
USA
3/19/2007  12:15 PM
Posted by TMS:
Posted by Bonn1997:
Posted by Allanfan20:

He gets the ball, he scores. Nothing much else. He may draw doubles, but it doesn't do much good if he sucks at passing. He may get to the line, but it doesn't mean much if he's mediocre from the line. He may be a beast, but it doesn't mean much if he doesn't move a lot. I said it when he was on the Bulls, I am saying it now. Curry = Overrated and is NOT a player you want to build around.
If you were a GM, what would you give up to get Curry? I don't think scoring specialists have a huge overall impact or are even necessary on a winning team. I think I'd give up 2 early 2nd round picks or maybe 1 late 1st round pick. I'd hesitate with the late 1st rd pick though because you can get a Lee or J Howard.
there isn't a GM in the NBA that would trade Curry for a late 1st round pick or 2 2nd rounders
That wasn't my question and we don't know what GMs would require in a Curry trade. Let's stick to what we do know: What we would give up if we were GMs to get lazy Eddy
SupremeCommander
Posts: 34114
Alba Posts: 35
Joined: 4/28/2006
Member: #1127
3/19/2007  12:35 PM
Posted by nixluva:

One thing that you guys aren't taking into consideration is that Curry has started all 65 games. The only other guy who's been there has been Steph, also with 65 starts. After that what you have is a lot of change in the starting lineup. What really makes the difference tho is WHO Isiah tends to put on the floor with Curry.

When he's on the floor we usually have Jamal who can't defend a light post, Q is an OK defender but he's usually going up against a top offensive player on the other team and he's not been healthy enough to do what he did last year. Francis who is a bad defender has started 21 games. Frye started 43 games but for most of the year has been lost out there. Isiah has been starting quite a few different lineups with Curry, so there's likely to be less cohesion as well as fewer of our best defensive players on the court with him. Lee, Balkman etc. come off the bench, so our best defenders and rebounder aren't starting. How often do the Knicks start off down double digits? Part of that is the poor execution at the start of games. Both on offense and defense. It's not all Curry. One guy in the back of the defense isn't always gonna be responsible for how the entire team plays on D.

One thing that some of you just don't get is that you have to DEVELOP a team when you have a Center like Curry. He's currently playing with a team that's not yet perfect for how he plays. We don't have the best perimeter shooting. We don't have enough solid PG play, so he doesn't always get the best passes. In general this team may play at a faster pace when he's not on the floor, so there will be more shots taken.

Basically my whole point is that it's not just about Curry. If you look at the way Isiah has used the roster, we've had some AWFUL defensive units on the floor WITH Curry and that's one of the biggest reasons the stats look like they do.

You're absolutely right on. It matters greatly who is on the court with Curry, because he is one dimensional All he does is playt he post on offense. If you're going to have him on the court, the outher four players had better cover up all of his numerous and notable deficiencies.
DLeethal wrote: Lol Rick needs a safe space
nixluva
Posts: 56258
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 10/5/2004
Member: #758
USA
3/19/2007  12:44 PM
I'm not disagreeing that Curry is not a good defensive player. He has been making some strides in the other areas that he's weak, but I didn't expect everything to come all at once. So far he's at least gotten to the point where teams MUST double him and that's a good thing for this team down the line. If he can continue to work on his passing and recognition of defenses, that would be a HUGE improvement.

The thing is that we finally established some style of play and that was a direct result of having Curry. Now we have a lot of work to do in fashioning alternative looks and yesterday was a glimpse into what that will be. We know that we have defensive players on this roster who will in time form the base of a unit that can change the pace of games. This is what we need, in ADDITION to Curry's game.
TrueBlue
Posts: 29144
Alba Posts: 12
Joined: 9/20/2006
Member: #1172
3/19/2007  12:44 PM
You're absolutely right on. It matters greatly who is on the court with Curry, because he is one dimensional All he does is playt he post on offense. If you're going to have him on the court, the outher four players had better cover up all of his numerous and notable deficiencies.

And there you have it the formula of what makes a franchise player.
LMFAO @ the Bio [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephon_Marbury[/url]
TMS
Posts: 60684
Alba Posts: 617
Joined: 5/11/2004
Member: #674
USA
3/19/2007  12:59 PM
Posted by Bonn1997:
Posted by TMS:
Posted by Bonn1997:
Posted by Allanfan20:

He gets the ball, he scores. Nothing much else. He may draw doubles, but it doesn't do much good if he sucks at passing. He may get to the line, but it doesn't mean much if he's mediocre from the line. He may be a beast, but it doesn't mean much if he doesn't move a lot. I said it when he was on the Bulls, I am saying it now. Curry = Overrated and is NOT a player you want to build around.
If you were a GM, what would you give up to get Curry? I don't think scoring specialists have a huge overall impact or are even necessary on a winning team. I think I'd give up 2 early 2nd round picks or maybe 1 late 1st round pick. I'd hesitate with the late 1st rd pick though because you can get a Lee or J Howard.
there isn't a GM in the NBA that would trade Curry for a late 1st round pick or 2 2nd rounders
That wasn't my question and we don't know what GMs would require in a Curry trade. Let's stick to what we do know: What we would give up if we were GMs to get lazy Eddy

if u wanna play a game of semantics, i wouldn't trade Eddy for any non-lottery picks either.
After 7 years & 40K+ posts, banned by martin for calling Nalod a 'moron'. Awesome.
Bonn1997
Posts: 58654
Alba Posts: 2
Joined: 2/2/2004
Member: #581
USA
3/19/2007  2:44 PM
Posted by TMS:
Posted by Bonn1997:
Posted by TMS:
Posted by Bonn1997:
Posted by Allanfan20:

He gets the ball, he scores. Nothing much else. He may draw doubles, but it doesn't do much good if he sucks at passing. He may get to the line, but it doesn't mean much if he's mediocre from the line. He may be a beast, but it doesn't mean much if he doesn't move a lot. I said it when he was on the Bulls, I am saying it now. Curry = Overrated and is NOT a player you want to build around.
If you were a GM, what would you give up to get Curry? I don't think scoring specialists have a huge overall impact or are even necessary on a winning team. I think I'd give up 2 early 2nd round picks or maybe 1 late 1st round pick. I'd hesitate with the late 1st rd pick though because you can get a Lee or J Howard.
there isn't a GM in the NBA that would trade Curry for a late 1st round pick or 2 2nd rounders
That wasn't my question and we don't know what GMs would require in a Curry trade. Let's stick to what we do know: What we would give up if we were GMs to get lazy Eddy

if u wanna play a game of semantics, i wouldn't trade Eddy for any non-lottery picks either.
Was that really so hard? I wish we would trade him for a lottery pick and have a chance at a versatile, 2 way play.

[Edited by - bonn1997 on 03-19-2007 2:45 PM]
TrueBlue
Posts: 29144
Alba Posts: 12
Joined: 9/20/2006
Member: #1172
3/19/2007  3:24 PM
Posted by Bonn1997:
Posted by TMS:
Posted by Bonn1997:
Posted by TMS:
Posted by Bonn1997:
Posted by Allanfan20:

He gets the ball, he scores. Nothing much else. He may draw doubles, but it doesn't do much good if he sucks at passing. He may get to the line, but it doesn't mean much if he's mediocre from the line. He may be a beast, but it doesn't mean much if he doesn't move a lot. I said it when he was on the Bulls, I am saying it now. Curry = Overrated and is NOT a player you want to build around.
If you were a GM, what would you give up to get Curry? I don't think scoring specialists have a huge overall impact or are even necessary on a winning team. I think I'd give up 2 early 2nd round picks or maybe 1 late 1st round pick. I'd hesitate with the late 1st rd pick though because you can get a Lee or J Howard.
there isn't a GM in the NBA that would trade Curry for a late 1st round pick or 2 2nd rounders
That wasn't my question and we don't know what GMs would require in a Curry trade. Let's stick to what we do know: What we would give up if we were GMs to get lazy Eddy

if u wanna play a game of semantics, i wouldn't trade Eddy for any non-lottery picks either.
Was that really so hard? I wish we would trade him for a lottery pick and have a chance at a versatile, 2 way play.

[Edited by - bonn1997 on 03-19-2007 2:45 PM]

I'd actually trade Curry for 2 non lottery picks if they were in the Top 20 and Top 25.
LMFAO @ the Bio [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephon_Marbury[/url]
SupremeCommander
Posts: 34114
Alba Posts: 35
Joined: 4/28/2006
Member: #1127
3/19/2007  3:26 PM
Posted by TrueBlue:
You're absolutely right on. It matters greatly who is on the court with Curry, because he is one dimensional All he does is playt he post on offense. If you're going to have him on the court, the outher four players had better cover up all of his numerous and notable deficiencies.

And there you have it the formula of what makes a franchise player.

Nope... while I'm embarrassed of my typing on the previous post, I did in fact say he was a one dimensional player. I can't think of a single franchise player who only does one thing. Franchise players typically add defense or rebounding or SOMETHING ELSE to their scoring output.
DLeethal wrote: Lol Rick needs a safe space
TrueBlue
Posts: 29144
Alba Posts: 12
Joined: 9/20/2006
Member: #1172
3/19/2007  3:36 PM
Posted by SupremeCommander:
Posted by TrueBlue:
You're absolutely right on. It matters greatly who is on the court with Curry, because he is one dimensional All he does is playt he post on offense. If you're going to have him on the court, the outher four players had better cover up all of his numerous and notable deficiencies.

And there you have it the formula of what makes a franchise player.

Nope... while I'm embarrassed of my typing on the previous post, I did in fact say he was a one dimensional player. I can't think of a single franchise player who only does one thing. Franchise players typically add defense or rebounding or SOMETHING ELSE to their scoring output.

I was in agreement with you by being sarcastic because many fans feel Curry is Studly while I feel he's a Wuss.
LMFAO @ the Bio [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephon_Marbury[/url]
Page 2 of 2 ‹ Previous 1  2 
« Reply To Topic
The Knicks score more efficiently without Curry???
Forum Index  ›  NY Knicks Forum

©2001-2025 ultimateknicks.comm All rights reserved. About Us.
This site is not affiliated with the NY Knicks or the National Basketball Association in any way.
You may visit the official NY Knicks web site by clicking here.

All times (GMT-05:00) Eastern Time.

Terms of Use and Privacy Policy