Posted by tomverve:

Posted by nyk4ever:

I don't understand, maybe I'm missing something. The Knicks Adjusted FG%, which takes into consideration all offensive misses(2pt shots, 3pt shots, Free Throws) places the Knicks at 22nd in the league with a .481 Adjusted FG% This means the Knicks were missing a hell of alot of shots and had more opportunities for offensive rebounds.

Suppose that on average, team A misses 20 shots per game and gets offensive rebounds on 10 of those.
Suppose that on average, team B misses 50 shots per game and gets offensive rebounds on 20 of those.

Just looking at the offensive rebound totals, one might think team B is a much better offensive rebounding team; after all, they grab twice as many offensive boards per game as team A. But of course team B also gets a lot more opportunities to get offensive boards in the first place, so maybe their higher o-rebound totals don't imply that they're the better offensive rebounding team in terms of actual ability.

To eliminate this problem we can just look at what percentage of offensive rebounding opportunities each team actually converts into offensive rebounds. You can think of this measure as telling us how many offensive rebounds each team grabs for every 100 opportunities. So the differences in opportunities are leveled out by looking at the percentage and all that remains is ability to convert those opportunities into actual rebounds.

Team A's offensive rebound rate is 10/20 = 50%. Team B's is 20/50 = 40%. So for every 100 offensive rebounding opportunities, on average team A will grab 50 and team B will grab 40. We conclude that team A is actually the better offensive rebounding team. Make sense?

The Knicks had an offensive rebound rate last season of .312. That means that they converted 31.2% of their offensive rebound opportunities, or that for every 100 missed shots the Knicks grabbed an average of 31.2 offensive boards. That number ranked 4th in the NBA.

Its like saying after we drafted Patrick Ewing, he should come off the bench because he would be better in the second unit because he was more defensive minded, etc.

Posted by joec32033:

Its like saying after we drafted Patrick Ewing, he should come off the bench because he would be better in the second unit because he was more defensive minded, etc.

Frye is no Ewing. Frye probably won't be as good at the end of his career as Ewing was when he first came out of college.

Ewing also came out of college as an absolute BEAST of a defender. His offense surprised alot of people, especially Hubie Brown-who said in the NBA Ewing's offense was better than his defense at first.

Posted by King1:

I am saying Frye should start, but he will be more effective when he is on the floor with Jamal and Q, instead of Francis and Steph.