nykshaknbake wrote:Please address the points in my post. Thank you.

martin wrote:

nykshaknbake wrote:That's pretty obtuse, Martin. The team was struggling and you and everyone on this board knows it. When the Yankees lost 6 in a row just recently people weren't like oh they are 3 games over 0.500, they are playing well. Recent trends have value and they would have been hard pressed to finish the season above 0.500 the way things were going. On a related issue that's why good teams call timeout when the other team is on a run. Even if they're still ahead. They don't say well we have more points all is well. Again, trends. Though perhaps some think this is controversial.

martin wrote:

nykshaknbake wrote:Dude, that trend was for the majority of the season. It wasn't some little blip on the screen. That trend is more informative of the state of the team right before the trade than the overall record. Stat was already wearing down and was not able to play at the same level of explsiveness as the begining of the season. Things were not going to magically improve. There was not going to be a 13-1 run.

Another example is over the Knicks history in the NBA we were above 0.500 untill several years ago. Does that mean we were just fine untill that point, becaise our overall record was above 0.500?

martin wrote:

nykshaknbake wrote:

martin wrote:

nykshaknbake wrote:The thing is even when we had that core we were stil disjointed and actually on a pretty steady decline since the start of the season. We were running stat into the ground to try to stay above water and we got just what we deserved when he broke down in the playoffs.

martin wrote:^ The biggest difference in how Miami, Chicago, Boston built their teams over what NY has done... all of them had about 4-5 players who had played together for 2+ years before they added the superstars. Knicks traded away those 4-5 players in Gallo, Chandler, Moz, Felton, AR for Melo/Billups.

NY adds Melo to a core of some combo of above list, we got a real team that competes for EC immediately, no doubt IMHO.

Team was > .500 when the trade went down. that's fact.

Team was 10 or 11 above and was slowing drifting down to like 2 above. That's a downward trend and a more relevant FACT.

results don't matter? only trends? team could have just as likely reversed slow-down as they had done previously in the season. That's the way of a 82-game season for every team. Ups, Downs, etc.

For every 3-8 downward spiral there follows a 13-1 run?

The biggest trend over the course of the season before the trade is that they were constantly over .500. Period.

did the 3-8 predict the 13-1 run?

your point is that you would like to predict an outcome based on a small, isolated trend rather than look at a bigger picture. What more is there to address?

Teams can likely go on an upward trend without notice and have done so repeatedly, ie 13-1 after 3-8. But if you want to characterize a big picture, it's always better to look at the full picture instead of a point in time.

To put it another way: If you were getting a surgery with a 1% mortality rate overall and your surgeon had performed 10,000 of these and had a 0.5% mortality rate overall but his last 40 patietns had died would you stick with him?

martin wrote:

nykshaknbake wrote:Please address the points in my post. Thank you.

martin wrote:

nykshaknbake wrote:That's pretty obtuse, Martin. The team was struggling and you and everyone on this board knows it. When the Yankees lost 6 in a row just recently people weren't like oh they are 3 games over 0.500, they are playing well. Recent trends have value and they would have been hard pressed to finish the season above 0.500 the way things were going. On a related issue that's why good teams call timeout when the other team is on a run. Even if they're still ahead. They don't say well we have more points all is well. Again, trends. Though perhaps some think this is controversial.

martin wrote:

nykshaknbake wrote:Dude, that trend was for the majority of the season. It wasn't some little blip on the screen. That trend is more informative of the state of the team right before the trade than the overall record. Stat was already wearing down and was not able to play at the same level of explsiveness as the begining of the season. Things were not going to magically improve. There was not going to be a 13-1 run.

Another example is over the Knicks history in the NBA we were above 0.500 untill several years ago. Does that mean we were just fine untill that point, becaise our overall record was above 0.500?

martin wrote:

nykshaknbake wrote:

martin wrote:

nykshaknbake wrote:The thing is even when we had that core we were stil disjointed and actually on a pretty steady decline since the start of the season. We were running stat into the ground to try to stay above water and we got just what we deserved when he broke down in the playoffs.

martin wrote:^ The biggest difference in how Miami, Chicago, Boston built their teams over what NY has done... all of them had about 4-5 players who had played together for 2+ years before they added the superstars. Knicks traded away those 4-5 players in Gallo, Chandler, Moz, Felton, AR for Melo/Billups.

NY adds Melo to a core of some combo of above list, we got a real team that competes for EC immediately, no doubt IMHO.

Team was > .500 when the trade went down. that's fact.

Team was 10 or 11 above and was slowing drifting down to like 2 above. That's a downward trend and a more relevant FACT.

results don't matter? only trends? team could have just as likely reversed slow-down as they had done previously in the season. That's the way of a 82-game season for every team. Ups, Downs, etc.

For every 3-8 downward spiral there follows a 13-1 run?

The biggest trend over the course of the season before the trade is that they were constantly over .500. Period.

did the 3-8 predict the 13-1 run?

your point is that you would like to predict an outcome based on a small, isolated trend rather than look at a bigger picture. What more is there to address?

Teams can likely go on an upward trend without notice and have done so repeatedly, ie 13-1 after 3-8. But if you want to characterize a big picture, it's always better to look at the full picture instead of a point in time.

martin wrote:

nykshaknbake wrote:No that's not it. I had a large sample in which to predict outcomes that spanned the majority of the time period in question. I'm not sure how that equates to a small isolated trend. Your argument is that the team would have gone on another 13-1 run. From watching the team and knowing the battered state of our superstar it would be highly unlikely. That late in the season you have a better idea of what is going to happen than the beginning which is a more volatile period. This fact makes a long trend like the one I was referencing even more valuable. WIde swings are somewhat common in the begining of a season. Look at the Rays and Red Sox this year. I think you're being intentionally obtuse.

To put it another way: If you were getting a surgery with a 1% mortality rate overall and your surgeon had performed 10,000 of these and had a 0.5% mortality rate overall but his last 40 patietns had died would you stick with him?

martin wrote:

nykshaknbake wrote:Please address the points in my post. Thank you.

martin wrote:

nykshaknbake wrote:That's pretty obtuse, Martin. The team was struggling and you and everyone on this board knows it. When the Yankees lost 6 in a row just recently people weren't like oh they are 3 games over 0.500, they are playing well. Recent trends have value and they would have been hard pressed to finish the season above 0.500 the way things were going. On a related issue that's why good teams call timeout when the other team is on a run. Even if they're still ahead. They don't say well we have more points all is well. Again, trends. Though perhaps some think this is controversial.

martin wrote:

nykshaknbake wrote:Dude, that trend was for the majority of the season. It wasn't some little blip on the screen. That trend is more informative of the state of the team right before the trade than the overall record. Stat was already wearing down and was not able to play at the same level of explsiveness as the begining of the season. Things were not going to magically improve. There was not going to be a 13-1 run.

Another example is over the Knicks history in the NBA we were above 0.500 untill several years ago. Does that mean we were just fine untill that point, becaise our overall record was above 0.500?

martin wrote:

nykshaknbake wrote:

martin wrote:

nykshaknbake wrote:The thing is even when we had that core we were stil disjointed and actually on a pretty steady decline since the start of the season. We were running stat into the ground to try to stay above water and we got just what we deserved when he broke down in the playoffs.

martin wrote:^ The biggest difference in how Miami, Chicago, Boston built their teams over what NY has done... all of them had about 4-5 players who had played together for 2+ years before they added the superstars. Knicks traded away those 4-5 players in Gallo, Chandler, Moz, Felton, AR for Melo/Billups.

NY adds Melo to a core of some combo of above list, we got a real team that competes for EC immediately, no doubt IMHO.

Team was > .500 when the trade went down. that's fact.

Team was 10 or 11 above and was slowing drifting down to like 2 above. That's a downward trend and a more relevant FACT.

results don't matter? only trends? team could have just as likely reversed slow-down as they had done previously in the season. That's the way of a 82-game season for every team. Ups, Downs, etc.

For every 3-8 downward spiral there follows a 13-1 run?

The biggest trend over the course of the season before the trade is that they were constantly over .500. Period.

did the 3-8 predict the 13-1 run?

your point is that you would like to predict an outcome based on a small, isolated trend rather than look at a bigger picture. What more is there to address?

Teams can likely go on an upward trend without notice and have done so repeatedly, ie 13-1 after 3-8. But if you want to characterize a big picture, it's always better to look at the full picture instead of a point in time.

you are correct, the wild swings were over (both positive and negative) and the team balanced out to just a few games over .500. One can assume that the full trend would be about the same: .500.

martin wrote:

nykshaknbake wrote:Truly, I'm glad that you do agree that we would have been below 0.500 given how much the team was struggling. We had a nice converstaion but it turns out we were eye to eye the whole time. CHeers.

martin wrote:

nykshaknbake wrote:No that's not it. I had a large sample in which to predict outcomes that spanned the majority of the time period in question. I'm not sure how that equates to a small isolated trend. Your argument is that the team would have gone on another 13-1 run. From watching the team and knowing the battered state of our superstar it would be highly unlikely. That late in the season you have a better idea of what is going to happen than the beginning which is a more volatile period. This fact makes a long trend like the one I was referencing even more valuable. WIde swings are somewhat common in the begining of a season. Look at the Rays and Red Sox this year. I think you're being intentionally obtuse.

To put it another way: If you were getting a surgery with a 1% mortality rate overall and your surgeon had performed 10,000 of these and had a 0.5% mortality rate overall but his last 40 patietns had died would you stick with him?

martin wrote:

nykshaknbake wrote:Please address the points in my post. Thank you.

martin wrote:

nykshaknbake wrote:That's pretty obtuse, Martin. The team was struggling and you and everyone on this board knows it. When the Yankees lost 6 in a row just recently people weren't like oh they are 3 games over 0.500, they are playing well. Recent trends have value and they would have been hard pressed to finish the season above 0.500 the way things were going. On a related issue that's why good teams call timeout when the other team is on a run. Even if they're still ahead. They don't say well we have more points all is well. Again, trends. Though perhaps some think this is controversial.

martin wrote:

nykshaknbake wrote:Dude, that trend was for the majority of the season. It wasn't some little blip on the screen. That trend is more informative of the state of the team right before the trade than the overall record. Stat was already wearing down and was not able to play at the same level of explsiveness as the begining of the season. Things were not going to magically improve. There was not going to be a 13-1 run.

Another example is over the Knicks history in the NBA we were above 0.500 untill several years ago. Does that mean we were just fine untill that point, becaise our overall record was above 0.500?

martin wrote:

nykshaknbake wrote:

martin wrote:

nykshaknbake wrote:The thing is even when we had that core we were stil disjointed and actually on a pretty steady decline since the start of the season. We were running stat into the ground to try to stay above water and we got just what we deserved when he broke down in the playoffs.

martin wrote:^ The biggest difference in how Miami, Chicago, Boston built their teams over what NY has done... all of them had about 4-5 players who had played together for 2+ years before they added the superstars. Knicks traded away those 4-5 players in Gallo, Chandler, Moz, Felton, AR for Melo/Billups.

NY adds Melo to a core of some combo of above list, we got a real team that competes for EC immediately, no doubt IMHO.

Team was > .500 when the trade went down. that's fact.

Team was 10 or 11 above and was slowing drifting down to like 2 above. That's a downward trend and a more relevant FACT.

results don't matter? only trends? team could have just as likely reversed slow-down as they had done previously in the season. That's the way of a 82-game season for every team. Ups, Downs, etc.

For every 3-8 downward spiral there follows a 13-1 run?

The biggest trend over the course of the season before the trade is that they were constantly over .500. Period.

did the 3-8 predict the 13-1 run?

your point is that you would like to predict an outcome based on a small, isolated trend rather than look at a bigger picture. What more is there to address?

Teams can likely go on an upward trend without notice and have done so repeatedly, ie 13-1 after 3-8. But if you want to characterize a big picture, it's always better to look at the full picture instead of a point in time.

you are correct, the wild swings were over (both positive and negative) and the team balanced out to just a few games over .500. One can assume that the full trend would be about the same: .500.

not so, feel free to re-read and take my words as they are, not what you would like them to be. Same as with the Knicks' record.

nixluva wrote:I'm glad that there are others who use a sense of reason when critiquing this team. So many NY fans are out of touch with the reality of our situation. This entire process got overturned by Dolan, but now we have to just suck it up and deal with reality. This is going to be more of a process now.

We got rid of the guys Donnie and Mike didn't intend to get rid of, so now we have 2 Studs but not much else. We had quality role players, but now we've got to restock the roster. Hopefully Donnie can find some bargains in this deep Free Agent Market. It's rich in role players, but we don't have a lot of money to offer. Still there are so many guys that quite a few will be left with few options and that's what will help us to get a few guys in here. It's all on Donnie now. I trust him.

Papabear Says

Our 2 studs are not as good as Wade and LeCon.

ramtour420 wrote:

Papabear wrote:

nixluva wrote:I'm glad that there are others who use a sense of reason when critiquing this team. So many NY fans are out of touch with the reality of our situation. This entire process got overturned by Dolan, but now we have to just suck it up and deal with reality. This is going to be more of a process now.

We got rid of the guys Donnie and Mike didn't intend to get rid of, so now we have 2 Studs but not much else. We had quality role players, but now we've got to restock the roster. Hopefully Donnie can find some bargains in this deep Free Agent Market. It's rich in role players, but we don't have a lot of money to offer. Still there are so many guys that quite a few will be left with few options and that's what will help us to get a few guys in here. It's all on Donnie now. I trust him.

Papabear Says

Our 2 studs are not as good as Wade and LeCon.

Our 2 studs are bigger and better, when healthy.

better at what?

loweyecue wrote:nyshake: I am still not clear what your point is? Are you saying the trend since the start of the season was Amare breaking down? You said we were on a steadsy decline since the start of the season, decline compared to what?

We peaked at around 10 games over 0.500 and right before the trade ended up at 2 above losing 7 or 8 more than we won. Worse, to try to reverse that we played Amare into the ground. As evidenced by his declining play.

loweyecue wrote:Our play was up and down, 3 out of 5 starters were new in Felton, STAT and Turiaf(Moz). We had a terrible start of the season with Felton having enormous issues running the team. If we didn't rely on Amare or played him lesser minutes we would have gone to the trade dealine with a 30% win record.

Our play was decling as the W/L trend indicated. It's just a statement of fact. That's all. I'm not making a judgement on running Stat into the ground or Felton struggling.