mreinman wrote:Found this very interesting (would love to find more data):

http://nykmistakes.blogspot.com/2010/11/how-good-were-houston-and-sprewell.html

How good were Houston and Sprewell?
These two were considered the catalysts for the Knicks in their late 90s run. Yet these two were still on the team during the beginning of the demise in the early 2000s. The Wins Produced numbers only go back to 2001 as of now, but lets look at these two and see what they were able to accomplish. Reminder: Average WP48 is .100

2001:
Allan Houston
.075 WP48
4.5 Wins Produced
2858 Minutes

Latrell Sprewell
.064 WP48
4.0 Wins Produced
3017 Minutes

Houston and Sprewell (8.5 Wins) Rest of Team (39 Wins)

In 2001 Sprewell and Houston were both below avergae performers but were able to contribute 8.5 wins because of the large number of minutes that they played. This story follows a similar pattern.

2002:
Allan Houston
.011 WP48
.7 Wins Produced
2914 Minutes

Latrell Sprewell
-.012 WP48
-.8 Wins Produced
3326 Minutes

Houston and Sprewell (-.1 Wins) Rest of Team (30.4 Wins)

In 2002 the all-star combo produced -.1 Wins. Yes, they actually were a negative on the Knicks season. It should be noted that the rest of the team performed remarkably similar to the previous year. The only difference being Marcus Camby only produced 4.4 Wins as opposed to the 16.9 that he did in 2001, he only played in 29 games in 2002.

2003:
Allan Houston
.042 WP48
2.7 Wins Produced
3108 Minutes

Latrell Sprewell
.052 WP48
3.1 Wins Produced
2859 Minutes

Houston and Sprewell (4.8 Wins Produced) Rest of Team (31.3 Wins Produced)

Again the team performed fairly similar to the way they had performed in the past, except this year Marcus Camby was no longer with the team and the subsequent performace dropped. This is a continual pattern of the Knicks having a fairly decent team around the alleged two superstarts, if these two were actual superstars, then the Knicks would have been a juggernaut. Unfortunately, these two were not very good players.

The reason that the there is a difference in perception and reality regarding these two is that both of them could score the ball. Unfortunately, that is all they could do as neither of them were very good rebounders, they both turned the ball over and neither created a lot of turnover via steals. However, since player performace is driven by points per game and nothing else, these two were thought of as great players. The numbers tell a different story and offer an explanation as to why the Knicks could never get over the hump, the team around Sprewell and Houston was a pretty decent one. Unfortunately the big two were not very big at all.

Nobody seriously considered Houston and Sprewell superstars. They were called all star caliber players. When Camby got hurt or we traded him for Dice, Kurt Thomas became our center. Kurt Thomas was a 6'9 power forward playing center, Othela Harrington and Clarence Weatherspoon were 6'7 power forwards who were nothing special and weren't starting caliber basketball players(Weatherspoon was past it). Sprewell was a natural SG playing the SF position. Ward and/or Eisley weren't starting caliber PGs. We had average backup calibre players starting around Houston and Spree, and an undersized front court. Our best ability with Sprewell and Houston was to push the tempo and run teams off the court to cover for the Spree playing out of position, but Harrington, Weatherspoon and Kurt Thomas weren't up tempo type of players. So not only was the surrounding talent average and undersized they also didn't fit the skill set of the best players.

ToddTT wrote:I'll take my Melo with the ferocity that Spree brought to the game seemingly every quarter.

Although Maybe if Melo just scowled more, my perception would be different. Kinda like pulling a Costanza.

I don't mind Melo smiling or scowling whenever. Whatever floats his boat. I would rather he be more efficient though.

1) He stuck it to Michael Jordan, our nemesis, our obstacle to the championship, on his farewell tour and never let him have the last good (for Jordan) game against our Knicks by guarding MJ like a hawk on mice.
2) He was asked to play hard on PG, SG, SF, PF and never asked a question why (someone said he was a one way player? when were you born?). Carmelo wasn't, ever.
3) He was consistent on scoring but focused more on defense, which our Knicks lacked big time. Carmelo did decent defense from time to time.
4) He helped us overcome #8 seed and made us the FIRST team in NBA history having an 8th seed beat the 1st seed and got us to the NBA finals. Carmelo hasn't gotten us close to the finals as of yet.
5) He holds (now co-holds with Ben Gordon) an NBA record as a Knicks. Anthony doesn't have one.

What has Carmelo Anthony done for us lately?

Sambakick wrote:Anthony has the NBA record for points in Madison Square Garden. That's what he has done lately.

that's not NBA record.. that's MSG record.. and you still haven't countered my above points yet. If scoring one game is what determines greatness for you, then ok, you win.

NardDogNation wrote:

JamesLin wrote:I have to vote for the lesser desired Spree, apparently.

1) He stuck it to Michael Jordan, our nemesis, our obstacle to the championship, on his farewell tour and never let him have the last good (for Jordan) game against our Knicks by guarding MJ like a hawk on mice.
2) He was asked to play hard on PG, SG, SF, PF and never asked a question why (someone said he was a one way player? when were you born?). Carmelo wasn't, ever.
3) He was consistent on scoring but focused more on defense, which our Knicks lacked big time. Carmelo did decent defense from time to time.
4) He helped us overcome #8 seed and made us the FIRST team in NBA history having an 8th seed beat the 1st seed and got us to the NBA finals. Carmelo hasn't gotten us close to the finals as of yet.
5) He holds (now co-holds with Ben Gordon) an NBA record as a Knicks. Anthony doesn't have one.

What has Carmelo Anthony done for us lately?

None of that is relevant to determining who the better player was/is....

I.. I.. don't know how to say this without sounding condescending (I'm really not)... the topic was asking for who's the better Knicks. If help getting us to NBA finals (closest we've ever got to in over 40 years) is not better, nor breaking NBA record as a Knicks, then what is relevant to determine who the better Knicks was/is? I like a good argument followed by a certified statement/fact plz. :)

JamesLin wrote:

mreinman wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:Obviously Melo. I didn't think it was serious enough to merit a poll. I imagine the voting will be about 40 to 1

12-5.

Bonn, I guess you underestimated the emotional judgements of abused knick fans and anti Melo land.

Hey man, I'm not one of those EMOTIONAL diehard knicks fan!!!! Just a diehard knicks fan, that's all...

Do you just detest Melo because of Jeremy Lin?

JamesLin wrote:

NardDogNation wrote:

JamesLin wrote:I have to vote for the lesser desired Spree, apparently.

1) He stuck it to Michael Jordan, our nemesis, our obstacle to the championship, on his farewell tour and never let him have the last good (for Jordan) game against our Knicks by guarding MJ like a hawk on mice.
2) He was asked to play hard on PG, SG, SF, PF and never asked a question why (someone said he was a one way player? when were you born?). Carmelo wasn't, ever.
3) He was consistent on scoring but focused more on defense, which our Knicks lacked big time. Carmelo did decent defense from time to time.
4) He helped us overcome #8 seed and made us the FIRST team in NBA history having an 8th seed beat the 1st seed and got us to the NBA finals. Carmelo hasn't gotten us close to the finals as of yet.
5) He holds (now co-holds with Ben Gordon) an NBA record as a Knicks. Anthony doesn't have one.

What has Carmelo Anthony done for us lately?

None of that is relevant to determining who the better player was/is....

I.. I.. don't know how to say this without sounding condescending (I'm really not)... the topic was asking for who's the better Knicks. If help getting us to NBA finals (closest we've ever got to in over 40 years) is not better, nor breaking NBA record as a Knicks, then what is relevant to determine who the better Knicks was/is? I like a good argument followed by a certified statement/fact plz. :)

Because stuff like that doesn't seem to be accurate or tangent to the conversation. You're lauding Sprewell for getting us to the Finals as if the 14 other players and coach had nothing to do with it. Before New York, what was Sprewell? How well was he in getting the Warriors to the Finals? To the playoffs? Or even a winning record?

And who gives a **** if he holds an NBA record? Scott Skiles holds the record for assists in a game. Does that mean he gets to be put in a conversation with John Stockton? If you really want to play the accolade game, Melo easily outshines Sprewell e.g. most points in a quarter (33), NBA scoring champion, more All-NBA recognitions, more all-star berths, etc. I just don't think that the line of reasoning that you're using holds any real weight in the kind of conversation that you're trying to have.

mreinman wrote:

Swishfm3 wrote:Camby had a much bigger impact in the 99 playoffs than any other Knick.

+1

By a mile

dk7th wrote:i like two-way players. sprewell was a two-way player and melo hasn't been. maybe that'll change.

i like efficiency and neither was efficient but at least sprewell did not take too many shots, and melo does.

i liked that sprewell was a great slasher, and the numbers support the fact that sprewell was excellent at maintaining offensive cohesion even if he was not an efficient scorer, or perhaps he is a net positive because of his ability to maintain if not created offensive cohesion. can't remember if he was any good at dishing off drives or he simply was good at maintaining a passing rhythm but the numbers don't lie.

lastly i like players who are in great shape and have high motors. sprewell was/had both and carmelo has yet to prove to me that he has/is either. we shall see i suppose.

basketball is a team sport so "better" leads us down a slippery slope, unless by better we mean "better teammate."

lastly, sprewell as a knick was integral to the knicks reaching the finals one year and the conference finals the next.

when melo can be an integral part of a conference finals team or a finals participant then he can be in the conversation.

until then... sprewell is the better knick!

good post... as I said, when you look at players outside of offense it opens your mind, good break down DK...

There are few exceptions where great offensive players who do little else trump two way players... but they have to be super elite scorers and super efficient.. Bernard king was one of them... here is a guy that shot over 50% for his career.. absolutely unstoppable... if anyone could justify 20+ shots per game, he is one.... LOL

mreinman wrote:

gunsnewing wrote:

newyorknewyork wrote:Sprewell and Melo are actually perfect compliments to each other. I wish they were able to play together.

We might have something close to that in Shumpert if we are patient and help him excel in his role

Shumpert has always been extremely and consistently inefficient so they are very similar. At least Shumpert is smart enough not to shoot 16 shots a game. Wouldn't that suck?

how could he get 16 shots when chuckmelo is jacking up 20+?