Posted by codeunknown:

Posted by PresIke:

Does the term "middle ground" mean anything to you?

How did the Jazz play considerably worse? They fought back into the game and had strong performances from their two stars. The main thing they did worse than usual was give up points, but that's because the Knicks were doing a good job on offense, which the team has also shown the ability to. Even so, defensively there was visibly more effort in contesting shots.

Of course, the team has not done it consistently, and played as bad as any Knick team in memory, but the few games we've won or played well in cannot be dismissed as irrelevant either.

I think you are underestimating the offensive ability of the team. Problem is that the guards are not/have not been consistent. However, the evidence is beginning to accumulate that when the Knicks get strong play from their guards (more often dependent on Crawford, because usually Curry scores more and Marbury less) they can win games, even against good competition.

I suggested the other day that this may have a residual effect on their defensive play because by being involved on offense they may have more desire to play D.

Have the Knicks not shown the ABILITY to hustle and play well enough to beat good teams?

Did you watch the first 3 games of the season?

[Edited by - PresIke on 11-27-2007 01:12 AM]

You seem confused and, as usual, you started with your mantra. The fact that the Knicks had a good win tonight is not being disputed. For your edification, check Arkrud's original post.

The fact that good guard play gives us better odds of winning is also not being disputed. That we're not likely to recieve it frequently was suggested by Arkrud's sarcastic "stars aligned" comment.

For the record, the Knicks have not shown the ability to beat goodd teams consistenly. So that should put an end to that line of questioning. When it happens, its enough of a surprise to evoke a "stars aligning" comment.

Have you watched the 9 losses this season? Did you watch last season? Do you even know who's in charge here and what his record is?

Yeah, I am confused. I'm confused how one can go from listing reasons why the win should be not be seen as due to the Knicks good play, including the statement:

the opposition plays considerably worse than it usually does

to then writing:

The fact that the Knicks had a good win tonight is not being disputed.

Which is exactly what you just did in the previous post.

My interpretation, and what I believe most associate with the line "when stars are aligned" is that this means on very rare occasion, which seems to be intended at discrediting the team for its accomplishment, however small. Very rare or rare occurrence, is also not synonymous with inconsistent, which I agree has been a staple of this team. I've suggested that if we had guards, either the current batch or new ones, who could demonstrate consistency then the team will benefit. One can see some potential scenarios, as I mentioned earlier, that might work for getting Steph and Craw to be at least more consistent than they have been.

I did not suggest that they have beaten good teams consistently, but that they have shown the ABILITY to do so and that ability is what appears to be completely ignored and what leads to generalizations like "the Knicks can only beat good teams when stars aligned."

Posted by PresIke:

Posted by codeunknown:

Posted by PresIke:

Does the term "middle ground" mean anything to you?

How did the Jazz play considerably worse? They fought back into the game and had strong performances from their two stars. The main thing they did worse than usual was give up points, but that's because the Knicks were doing a good job on offense, which the team has also shown the ability to. Even so, defensively there was visibly more effort in contesting shots.

Of course, the team has not done it consistently, and played as bad as any Knick team in memory, but the few games we've won or played well in cannot be dismissed as irrelevant either.

I think you are underestimating the offensive ability of the team. Problem is that the guards are not/have not been consistent. However, the evidence is beginning to accumulate that when the Knicks get strong play from their guards (more often dependent on Crawford, because usually Curry scores more and Marbury less) they can win games, even against good competition.

I suggested the other day that this may have a residual effect on their defensive play because by being involved on offense they may have more desire to play D.

Have the Knicks not shown the ABILITY to hustle and play well enough to beat good teams?

Did you watch the first 3 games of the season?

[Edited by - PresIke on 11-27-2007 01:12 AM]

You seem confused and, as usual, you started with your mantra. The fact that the Knicks had a good win tonight is not being disputed. For your edification, check Arkrud's original post.

The fact that good guard play gives us better odds of winning is also not being disputed. That we're not likely to recieve it frequently was suggested by Arkrud's sarcastic "stars aligned" comment.

For the record, the Knicks have not shown the ability to beat goodd teams consistenly. So that should put an end to that line of questioning. When it happens, its enough of a surprise to evoke a "stars aligning" comment.

Have you watched the 9 losses this season? Did you watch last season? Do you even know who's in charge here and what his record is?

Yeah, I am confused. I'm confused how one can go from listing reasons why the win should be not be seen as due to the Knicks good play, including the statement:

the opposition plays considerably worse than it usually does

to then writing:

The fact that the Knicks had a good win tonight is not being disputed.

Which is exactly what you just did in the previous post.

My interpretation, and what I believe most associate with the line "when stars are aligned" is that this means on very rare occasion, which seems to be intended at discrediting the team for its accomplishment, however small. Very rare or rare occurrence, is also not synonymous with inconsistent, which I agree has been a staple of this team. I've suggested that if we had guards, either the current batch or new ones, who could demonstrate consistency then the team will benefit. One can see some potential scenarios, as I mentioned earlier, that might work for getting Steph and Craw to be at least more consistent than they have been.

I did not suggest that they have beaten good teams consistently, but that they have shown the ABILITY to do so and that ability is what appears to be completely ignored and what leads to generalizations like "the Knicks can only beat good teams when stars aligned."

There is no reason for this to take so much clarification. It eludes me as to why you're having so much difficulty understanding that the "stars can align" and it be a good win at the same time. In fact, the stars aligning is a direct reference to the incredible infrequency of good play we've seen so far. There is a degree of sarcastic hyperbole in the phrase, but to quibble over how frequently the stars actually align seems like an irrelevant sticking point. That coupled with your notion that we're seeing an amazing new 4-game trend, which would go against the overwhelming evidence of years of inconsistent guard play, adds to what seems like insecurity/unfounded optimism on your part.

Posted by nixluva:
Like anyone else I was upset and down about the losing, but I kept saying that this team was much better and would eventually play better. that's not to say that i'm expecting them to do something beyond what I already expected of them, only you guys are suggesting that. WHY, cuz you seem to always read more into what i'm saying that what is actually written. Go ahead and find where i've written anything more than what i've said this team should be since day one for this team.

Posted by fishmike:

we shot like 52% against a team coming off a back to back. I need to see more than one good game. Show me a good MONTH

One good game or one good stretch is the story of our roster.

Posted by PresIke:

Posted by codeunknown:

Posted by PresIke:

Posted by codeunknown:

Posted by PresIke:

Does the term "middle ground" mean anything to you?

How did the Jazz play considerably worse? They fought back into the game and had strong performances from their two stars. The main thing they did worse than usual was give up points, but that's because the Knicks were doing a good job on offense, which the team has also shown the ability to. Even so, defensively there was visibly more effort in contesting shots.

Of course, the team has not done it consistently, and played as bad as any Knick team in memory, but the few games we've won or played well in cannot be dismissed as irrelevant either.

I think you are underestimating the offensive ability of the team. Problem is that the guards are not/have not been consistent. However, the evidence is beginning to accumulate that when the Knicks get strong play from their guards (more often dependent on Crawford, because usually Curry scores more and Marbury less) they can win games, even against good competition.

I suggested the other day that this may have a residual effect on their defensive play because by being involved on offense they may have more desire to play D.

Have the Knicks not shown the ABILITY to hustle and play well enough to beat good teams?

Did you watch the first 3 games of the season?

[Edited by - PresIke on 11-27-2007 01:12 AM]

You seem confused and, as usual, you started with your mantra. The fact that the Knicks had a good win tonight is not being disputed. For your edification, check Arkrud's original post.

The fact that good guard play gives us better odds of winning is also not being disputed. That we're not likely to recieve it frequently was suggested by Arkrud's sarcastic "stars aligned" comment.

For the record, the Knicks have not shown the ability to beat goodd teams consistenly. So that should put an end to that line of questioning. When it happens, its enough of a surprise to evoke a "stars aligning" comment.

Have you watched the 9 losses this season? Did you watch last season? Do you even know who's in charge here and what his record is?

Yeah, I am confused. I'm confused how one can go from listing reasons why the win should be not be seen as due to the Knicks good play, including the statement:

the opposition plays considerably worse than it usually does

to then writing:

The fact that the Knicks had a good win tonight is not being disputed.

Which is exactly what you just did in the previous post.

My interpretation, and what I believe most associate with the line "when stars are aligned" is that this means on very rare occasion, which seems to be intended at discrediting the team for its accomplishment, however small. Very rare or rare occurrence, is also not synonymous with inconsistent, which I agree has been a staple of this team. I've suggested that if we had guards, either the current batch or new ones, who could demonstrate consistency then the team will benefit. One can see some potential scenarios, as I mentioned earlier, that might work for getting Steph and Craw to be at least more consistent than they have been.

I did not suggest that they have beaten good teams consistently, but that they have shown the ABILITY to do so and that ability is what appears to be completely ignored and what leads to generalizations like "the Knicks can only beat good teams when stars aligned."

There is no reason for this to take so much clarification. It eludes me as to why you're having so much difficulty understanding that the "stars can align" and it be a good win at the same time. In fact, the stars aligning is a direct reference to the incredible infrequency of good play we've seen so far. There is a degree of sarcastic hyperbole in the phrase, but to quibble over how frequently the stars actually align seems like an irrelevant sticking point. That coupled with your notion that we're seeing an amazing new 4-game trend, which would go against the overwhelming evidence of years of inconsistent guard play, adds to what seems like insecurity/unfounded optimism on your part.

An amazing 4 game trend? Where did I say or even imply such thing? Nowhere. I implied that there was good play and signs of potential for a way of play that might allow for a decrease in inconsistency, but even acknowledged that there are parts of the team that make this a challenge.

It's unfortunate you had to resort to an ad hominem attack, and disappointing when my intent through challenging the "stars aligned" comment and other similar statements was to facilitate meaningful discussion about the Knicks as a team that goes beyond oversimplifications. An interest in dialogue is a sign of insecurity? Who made you the God of all interpretation regarding the Knicks or how we see terminology used? I understand the frustration being a Knick fan, because I am one as well, my friend. If I happen to see signs of potential good but not ignore the history or reasons for concern either (as I have critiqued the team and Isiah's coaching/GMing, in case you didn't notice), how is that an example of "unfounded optimism?"

So, remind me again why I'm the one that's insecure here?

[Edited by - PresIke on 11-27-2007 11:47 PM]

[Edited by - PresIke on 11-27-2007 11:49 PM]

Its odd that you would talk about going beyond oversimplifications when both your interpretation of the "stars aligned" comment and the Knicks play during the 4 wins is simplistic, at best, and a shallow attempt to hedge the "middle ground," at worst. For some reason, the simplest leaps require pages and pages of clarification for you. When I pointed out the real intent of Arkrud's post, you scrapped to argue other made-up nonsense, like my supposed "underestimation" of the Knick offense. Before you excitedly muster up the courage to paint my arguments as ad hominem, which of course they aren't, try and reconcile your failed attempt to attack my "hater platform" on that false accusation. So you don't make the same mistake again, you should realize that I predicted 41 wins and that the majority of those wins, I believe, will come from stretches of superior offense.

I think the "stars aligned" business has already been put to rest - your claim that "stars aligning" is not synonymous with inconsistency, while disregarding the obvious sarcastic hyperbole of the post, is really quite absurd. Do you believe that Arkrud was claiming that the Knicks will beat a good team only every million years, when the stars actually happen to align? Or was it merely a sigh of relief, punctuated by a guarded but hopeful "It was a good win. Let's see if this can happen more often." You claimed that this was an attempt to somehow "diminish" the win. I'd be lying if I said that didn't strike me as strange and compulsive. There are times when the team should be defended against undue criticism but Arkrud's post falls far short of that mark.

In terms of "the potential" that you saw during the 4 wins, how appropriate do you think it is to project a possible "decrease in inconsistency" when the potential, that we all know exists, manifested similarly during last season's disaster? Given the addition of Randolph, I'd say the Knicks have, in fact, failed our a priori expectations. And, so far, they have not put together a streak of play indicative of long-term success, even by conservative criteria. Again, potential, by definition, isn't always realized. Playing up miniscule, isolated peaks of great play is equivalent to unreasonably culling a dataset. In other words, while great play in 4 isolated games out of 13 has significance in determining the individual game ceiling of the team, it has no bearing on a temporal performance distribution and is, therefore, unlikely to be an accurate gauge of where the team will stabilize. Even in the best of circumstances. So, if the aim is to look for where this team may end up, you'd at the very least look for a continuum of good play, rather than fawn over over minute, scattered glimpses, characteristic of even the worst teams. With that said, you should now have a good understanding of why your "decrease in inconsistency" remark is a weak statement if you're grounding that belief on peak play observed in 4 games, 1 of which they lost.

Lets also clarify how much of a decrease in consistency you think we may or may not see. After all, we might actually agree on the win count and then what we'd really be delving into is a rather irrelevant optimism vs. pessimism debate. I hope this helps you better understand my position.

[Edited by - codeunknown on 11-28-2007 02:30 AM]