Posted by newyorknewyork:
One side says that the knicks only started playing at a 500. clip before injuries only because the schedule was easy. And we folded not becuase of injuries but because the schedule got tougher. Completely ignoring injuries. Then vise versa the other side says it wasn't because of scheduling it was because of injuries. Completly putting off the thought that the scheduling had any impact.
I acknowledged that the start of January was an easy stretch of games, only to have my entire analysis misrepresented.
Yes, I dismiss the fact that the schedule had a significant impact because the Knicks played just as well, if not better, through a tougher February. You also look at the schedule and there was little to no correlation between wins/losses and the record of the opponent. The Knicks more often lost to teams they shouldn’t have while beating teams ranked higher.
Overall, I happen to think that when a team starts out two months playing 7 below .500 then follows that with two months of .500 ball they have improved. That would seem obvious, and one would only be overanalyzing the schedule in a misguided attempt to disprove the obvious.
As to the Black and White comment, that’s par for the course on any board where people give opinions, where there are points and counter-points. I wouldn’t expect anyone to try and sum up the entire picture in one post. I’ve stated here too many times to count that if the team doesn’t make the playoffs this year Isiah should be gone. I’ve stated numerous times that I don’t like the Randolph trade, that Isiah isn’t a good enough coach for a championship level team, that Curry needs to improve his conditioning, his defense, and his passing out of the post.
Yet somehow I make an attempt to disprove a clearly mistaken notion and I’m labeled a “lover” by a poster claiming impartiality.
Go figure.
Its like a groupie website, or bitter ex-wives club. -Sebstar
