Posted by gunsnewing:
Posted by tkf:
Posted by tomverve:
Oh come on, this is straightforward logic. Saying you don't win without X is not the same thing as saying that you always win with X. For instance, it's true that you don't get to the Olympics without training hard. That doesn't mean that training hard is enough to get into the Olympics. You're confusing necessary and sufficient conditions.
excellent post, and one other thing herm didn't mention, most of those guys on that double double list, are athletic bigs, who can also block shots and finish strong around the hoop, while Kt is basically a perimeter player, the stats may read the same, but their effect on the game is not the same.....
wow great posts! thats the whole point a PF who scores inside would have a much more positive effect on our team then having a jumpshooting big as our best frontcourt player! Why is this so hard to grasp for some!
Guns it's you who don't get it. NO ONE thinks Kurt is a great player. But if he did everything you wanted him to do he'd be Duncan. Every player in the league has limitations and besides superstars most of them have quite a few.
No one gets rebounds by default. How can you say KT is undersized and a bad athlete and getting rebounds by default sorry that's just ignorant. No one averages double digit rebounds by accident. Especially someone who isn't a great athlete.
On a team with this many incomplete players it's ridiculus to focus on what KT can't do and say that's the main problem. Kt is one of the most consistent players the Knicks have. He is a good rebounder and an OK defender, shoots pretty well and doesn't turn the ball over a lot or have terrible shot selection - he plays within his limitations. Besides Marbury there is no player on the Knicks who can consistently contribute in as many areas. Yes, of course a guy who could do everything KT can do plus more would be better - anyone can figure that out. But that doesn't mean that KT is our major problem as you and some other posters seem to believe.
