Posted by nixluva:

Posted by islesfan:

Posted by rocknick:

Obviously my post touched a nerve with you. Old folks used to have a saying that apparently applies here but I'm not trying to make enemies. So back to your question - I can explain it in terms of wins and losses. The Knicks in the mid-80s had season win totals of 24, 23, 24 three yrs straight surpassing these last 3 abyssmal years record-wise.



[Edited by - rocknick on 10-16-2007 1:08 PM]

33-24-33 isn't much better. And those teams had Ewing to build around, which they eventually did.

This team hit rock bottom and is on the way back up, but all you can see is the final record and you totally ignore the team actually getting better from within and by additions. No one would be satisfied with this team not having a winning record, but for you to look at the last 3 years and totally ignore that practically the entire roster has been turned over and that we have a team full of good young talent, is mind boggling. What kind of fan only looks at the negative side of how his team progresses?

It seems you're only going by the win/loss record and past stats, to evaluate what the team should be capable of and then basing an opinion on that. You want us to believe that this team is only capable of being a 33 win team, simply because that's how it turned out last year. You think its fine to ignore any other issues and to only go on the record from the previous year and thus determine that this year can't be much different, cuz many of the same players are here. Forget that the last 2 years we've had many developing players and a coach that tanked a season. None of those things played any part in this team's poor performance. You don't think it's possible for a team to actually get better due to more experience, training, stability and consistency. To develop more chemistry and better execution from playing longer together. None of that means anything to you when evaluating the team. This is why you're opinion is a joke.

Posted by islesfan:
Go back and check the records on the Knicks opponents at the time they played the Knicks, the way I did.

You'll find that something ridiculous like 28 of 35 of those opponents were at or under .500 when they Knicks played them.

Posted by RemBee76:

Thanks for mentioning that "ridiculously easy schedule" Isles. That’s a chestnut that we should really put to bed right now. A quick analysis reveals that it isn't really the case. Take the period between the three game winning streak at the end of December to the end of February when both Lee and Crawford were out with injury.

The combined record of our opponents during that time (this is the record they had at the time we played them) was 641-710. Rather lopsided, true, but due in large part to playing some teams at the bottom of the east with truly spectacularly bad records like Boston and Milwaukee.

A more accurate measure might be looking at teams with .500 or better records. 15 of the 33 opponents had .500 or better records. Not so ridiculously easy, but not hard, true. But 17 of those 33 teams ended up eventually making the playoffs. So the picture that emerges is one that you would likely find at any time in the season….we played some good teams, and we played some bad teams, and like any team playing .500 ball, we lost some and won some.

It is true that our schedule at the start of January was very easy on us. We had a stretch of six games where we didn’t play a playoff contender or a team that was .500 or better (we were 4-2 during that stretch). But after that 5 of 9 of our opponents were .500 or better, 6 of 9 were playoff clubs. In the month of January the Knicks ended up 8 under .500 after starting the month 7 under.

Then in February our schedule was actually pretty tough. 6 of 11 teams were .500 or better, but 7 of 11 were playoff contenders. Further, we had only 4 home games that month. Defying the idea that our improvement was due to an easy schedule, the Knicks actually played that month +1, ending up 7 under .500.

There is, of course, a more fundamental error in reasoning when the easy schedule is cited. If the Knicks were truly as bad as the 33 wins, as some claim, then how could any team really be considered an easy win? You would think most were a struggle, yet the Knicks came out of that period playing .500 ball.

Of course, all this analysis would be unnecessary if some just watched the Knicks with eyes unclouded by hate, but some are just incapable of doing so.

Posted by RemBee76:

Posted by islesfan:
Go back and check the records on the Knicks opponents at the time they played the Knicks, the way I did.

You'll find that something ridiculous like 28 of 35 of those opponents were at or under .500 when they
Knicks played them.

Read my post, I did just that.

18 of 33 teams I counted during that period were below .500, this due largely to a pack of easy games at the start of January. But again, if the improvement of play was only due to schedule, why were the Knicks one better than .500 over the tough month of February?

Why can't you and do you refuse to answer my very simple question.


I'll kindly ask again


Why were we 3-13 in the Division when our division suffered injuries and roster changes equally?


It doesn't involve a whole lot of calculating records during the season that's why I asked. I dumbed this down and kept it simple for you and anyone else for the matter.

Posted by islesfan:
That's exactly what you did and we all know it.

Posted by RemBee76:

Posted by islesfan:
That's exactly what you did and we all know it.

What are we now, 5? You going to run off to your Mommy because Rembee gave you a boo-boo?

My analysis was straight up, but you don't want to face it. Better to make up some BS spin to hide the truth from yourself. Really, does the fact that the Nets were 1 game below .500 when we met them really matter anyway, aren't they still the Nets? What team in the league has seen the Nets on their schedule for the last 5 years and thought "easy win"?

And again, you can't deny that the end of January and all of February were tough, yet the Knicks continued to improve.

Martin thinks the improvement was small. He is probably right. But it was improvement. And it goes a long way to invalidating the notion that citing a record when 2 months of it were played without Crawford, Lee, Richardson and sometime Marbury, with Steve Francis running the show, is not a more accurate measure of progress than looking at the two and a half months when the improvement on the court was noticeable.

Thats exactly true, and you know it. So there.

Posted by newyorknewyork:

Why does it allways have to be black or white, when in the reality its probably gray.