Posted by nixluva:
You have to start somewhere after the mess that was left last year. We had to establish something in the way of a team identity where there wasn't one. It's not a simple thing to jump from nothing to the highest levels with a team that was pretty much put together last year. What did we have something like 11 new players. We also came into this year with a couple of rooks and they turned out really nice.
No one is ignoring the negatives that still exist with this team. We all know that they have a long way to go. My problem with some of you is that you refuse to acknowledge any of the positive things that had started to show themselves this year and get obscured by the way this season has ended. This team started off slow, but after that inital period where they struggled to find themselves, they really did start to play better, even if they didn't always win. That's a start!
This is the part of the article that should be looked at and acknowledged:
"The Knicks firmly believe the world would view them differently had they not been racked by injuries. Between Feb. 27 and March 10, they lost Jamal Crawford, David Lee and Richardson to injuries that eventually ended their seasons. The three were among the Knicks’ top six scorers, their two leading rebounders and their best playmaker.
From Dec. 18 to March 3, the Knicks went 19-16. Their record never approached .500, but they occupied eighth place in the Eastern Conference on March 10 and remained in the playoff race until the past two weeks, when the injuries became too much to overcome.
That, Richardson said, is why this team should not be viewed as “the same old Knicks.”
In a period of about 12 days this team lost 3 of it's best players and that came at a time when this team had a chance to peak. They had just had their 1st winning month and Mar. had more home games. They had a chance to pick up a good amount of wins in that time period. This totally changed the way this season is perceived. BUT they kept playing hard, even tho they lost many of the games, they still fought in most of the games they played. Many of the games were lost in the last minutes. They stayed united and didn't give up. That's a very positive sign for this team going forward.
I'm not sure what the point is in selecting the absolute best stretch of the season and making it look like it means something but let's take a closer look at that glorious 19-16 stretch.
They lost the 2 games preceding that stretch and lost the game after that stretch so to be fair in the best stretch of their season, they were .500.
In that 19-16 stretch, they played 9 opponents who were over .500 at the time and 27 opponents who were under .500 at the time. Included in those 9 opponents who were over .500 at the time was a Lakers team that had Kobe suspended a few hours before gametime. In other words it was probably the weakest part of their schedule.
Before that 19-16 stretch, to start the season they played 13 quality opponents (14 if you want to count Toronto who was under .500 at that point) and 13 subpar teams. The Knicks were 9-17 during that stretch.
Since that 19-16 stretch they have played 9 opponents who were over .500 at the time and 8 opponents who were under .500 at the time. The quality of their opponents along with their lack of effort in 6 bad home losses against sub .500 teams (Seattle, NOK, Portland, Orlando, Philly and Minn) has a lot more to do with their 4-13 record since.
So during the Knicks absolute easiest part of their schedule, which included 27 under .500 teams, they went 19-16. In the other parts of their schedule when their competition was more evenly divided between above .500 teams (22) and below .500 teams (21), the Knicks went 13-30.
This is what should be looked at and acknowledged. But we know it won't.
If it didn’t work in Phoenix with Nash and Stoutamire... it’s just not a winning formula. It’s an entertaining formula, but not a winning one. - Derek Harper talking about D'Antoni's System
4/12/2007 1:42 PM