Posted by oohah:

Posted by Solace:

Posted by Bonn1997:

Oh and if you don't like this list, produce your own evidence! There is such a thing as *evidence* and it actually makes points much more compelling.

People's issue with the list, is while it would logically state that the Knicks had *some* injury woes, it counters the rose-colored-glasses view that the Knicks are the ONLY team in the league which suffers injuries. That's why people are taking offense and/or ignoring the thread. You've clearly proven that injuries are not a Knicks-only curse.

SOlace, how many of those team do you think had all their big injuries occur consecutively and overlap one another?

The closest was the Wizards and look what happened to them. 7 losses in a row?

oohah

What's worse? Being at full strength for 60 games and then having a bunch of injuries hit you for the final 20 or having them spread throughout the season and *never* being at full strength like many of the other teams high on the list? You could easily make arguments either way.

[Edited by - bonn1997 on 04-14-2007 07:47 AM]

Posted by oohah:

Posted by BlueSeats:

Posted by oohah:

Posted by BlueSeats:

I think you have to look at philly differently too with the complete loss of Iverson and Webber, their headline players, mid stream of the season.

Blue, Webber had no role on the team at all this season and he complained quite a bit about it, and Iverson was traded for Miller (And someone else), so I would hardly call that a "complete" loss.

oohah

C'mon ooh, they were two very significant starters. Webber was playing 30 mpg putting up 11/8.3/3.4 and Iverson is Iverson.

We can blame our season on the loss of 2 bench players and 1 starter, but their loss of 2 headline starters (for far more games) is not worth mentioning?

I never said they weren't worth mentioning. But I disagree that Iverson was "lost". He was traded for Andre Miller, a very capable and well rounded traditional point guard, and Joe Smith a capable veteran PF/Center who was a number #1 pick. Obviously Iverson was the better talent, but as has been pointed out many times by yourself and others, talent isn't everything.

Both those guys were killing the team, and Webber was doing it with intent.

By the way, Webber was not a significant anything to the sixers in '06-'07. He wasn't logging the time you cited nor was he putting up those numbers in Philly. If you look at Webber's game log http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/players/1272/gamelog , you will see that he was playing very badly for the Sixers, was considered to have been dogging it, and was complaining to the media about his role, and had 17 DNP's at the time he was waived. They said he was injured, but it mysteriously healed as soon as he signed with the Pistons. He was not a real part of the team and Delambert had his spot from the jump.

Posted by nixluva:

I think anyone would tell you that multiple injuries to key players at once is more disruptive than losing one player or at most 2 at the same time. Most teams that had 2 key players go down at the same time didn't do very well. NOK went 4-6 while both Paul and West were out and we've seen how Wash. has done without two of their best. The important thing isn't so much the blaming the season on the injuries. THE most important thing is the fact that we saw that this team was getting better and that the future of this team is looking better as well. We all knew this team was going to be at best maybe .500 or so. That's with everything working out well. Now tho I think we can look at this team being able to continue to grow and get better than that.

WHY you say? I think they'll likely improve internally, by getting rid of a player or 2 that don't fit and by adding a player or 2 that makes us better. We've established some basic things that we can build off of. We've identified specific areas that need to be addressed immediately. The bad ending doesn't change the fortunes of the team going forward.

What's worse? Being at full strength for 60 games and then having a bunch of injuries hit you for the final 20 or having them spread throughout the season and *never* being at full strength like many of the other teams high on the list? You could easily make arguments either way.

Posted by oohah:

What's worse? Being at full strength for 60 games and then having a bunch of injuries hit you for the final 20 or having them spread throughout the season and *never* being at full strength like many of the other teams high on the list? You could easily make arguments either way.

The Knicks had to deal with Both situations: Jeffreies for the first couple of months, Frye 11 games with an ankle Sprain, Franics Sprain and Knee from the start. They only really styarted to get healthy in January, then Marbury started hurting, then the whole team went down. Not to mention suspensions.

Injuries are no excuse. Fine. But let's be real Bonn, the Knicks have had an onslaught of injuries. We don't have to use them as an excuse but they have had a ton.

oohah

I was talking about full strength among starting five; that was the subject of the whole thread. It would require an entirely new analysis to include bench players, as other teams have had injuries to bench players too. No one here was willing to produce any evidence for any of their claims about injuries. I viewed this thread as a start in the right direction but was hoping other people would either accept the information in it or actually add new evidence to explain why they don't accept the information in this thread.

I AGREE with you that the Knicks have had their share of injuries. When I posted this thread, I conceded that I was WRONG when I claimed they had had about an average amount of injuries. They're top five have missed enough games to rank them as the fifth most injured eastern conference team, which is a little above average.

175
That's how many games our core rotation will have missed due to injury this season by Wednesday. This does not include games missed by Nate, Collins, James, Cato, Rose or Morris. Just our main 9 guys.


175 games for 9 guys... That's an average of almost 20 games missed per player. That's almost one full quarter of the season lost to injuries (23.7%).

The only team in the league to bit hit harder than us is Milwaukee with 210 missed games from their rotation (skewed upwards from Bobby Simmons's offseason injury giving him 82 missed games).

I AGREE with you that the Knicks have had their share of injuries. When I posted this thread, I conceded that I was WRONG when I claimed they had had about an average amount of injuries. They're top five have missed enough games to rank them as the fifth most injured eastern conference team, which is a little above average.

Posted by oohah:

I AGREE with you that the Knicks have had their share of injuries. When I posted this thread, I conceded that I was WRONG when I claimed they had had about an average amount of injuries. They're top five have missed enough games to rank them as the fifth most injured eastern conference team, which is a little above average.

(I read what you wrote, I just wanted to write what I wanted to write too...)

Hey Bonn man, I know you know about Polls and stats. I wasn't trying to harp on your list, I was just saying that the knicks have to be among the leaders in crazy injury situations.

But looking at your list....Francis was a starter when he went down with a sprain earlier in the season. Frye was a starter when he sprained his ankle missing 11 games. Jeffries was a starter in IT's mind at least and he missed a ton of games. I didn't see them included in the list.

Part of the problem is that their have been so many injuries, you could pick more than 5 guys as the starters.

If I looked at your list I would think the Nets had worse injury problems. No way, not with their HOF backcourt (Carter, Kidd, and especially the super-duper Marcus Williams!) playing just about every game. Also, they have had their 3 all-stars (Jefferson) together for 3/4 of the season. The Knicks had worse injury problems than them.

You can't just count the numbers, you have to see how and when they occurred. The Knicks have had theirs all overlap, in the beginning, and now the end. They have also had guys playing injured because they can't afford to lose bodies.

I just want you to be more fair when you conduct your study of marijuana's affects on the psyche...every night before you watch the Daily Show!

oohah

Francis is garbage but if you want to replace Crawford with Francis the total goes up a little. If you also want to replace Q with Jeffries and Lee with Frye, it goes down a little and we're back to roughly the number I listed. No system of of analyzing injuries is going to be perfect. That DOESN'T mean, however, that posters get to just dismiss any relevant stat that is inconsistent with their views.

Francis is garbage but if you want to replace Crawford with Francis the total goes up a little. If you also want to replace Q with Jeffries and Lee with Frye, it goes down a little and we're back to roughly the number I listed. No system of of analyzing injuries is going to be perfect. That DOESN'T mean, however, that posters get to just dismiss any relevant stat that is inconsistent with their views.