yellowboy90 wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

yellowboy90 wrote:So why don't that stat guys make some statistical claim as to why the combination won't be better. I personally think we'll be fine overall because they actually have depth at the position. What I do worry about is turnovers but defense might be better. I mean the last two years the knicks have been slightly better on D with Ty off the floor. Besides k-mart, who played sparingly at times, and cole, who didn't play that much, the knicks have not had any defensive stall worth backing Tyson up over the pass two years. So maybe the sum will be greater. Who knows but I have not really seen any good reason why. I saw some good discussion why they might be worse on D at the starting pg spot but I do not think anyone argues that Calderon net value isn't better than Felton, maybe I missed it.

There are a lot of stats I've cited: WS, on/off +/-, points per 100 possessions. Tyson is better than either one or both of them in each of the important stats. What info. exactly are you looking for?

I am sorry I did not see you cite overall stats on why Tyson is better than Cole/Dal. I did see you say offensively he is better and saw you cite why Felton is better than Calderan.

fishmike wrote:

nixluva wrote:In a vacuum Tyson is better. Based on passed stats Tyson surely looks better. I do think that Cole has a chance to be every productive in the Triangle. Of course there are no stats to back that up cuz he hasn't really played much and not at all in the Triangle. I'm just basing off what i've seen of Cole and Tyson and I think Cole can be productive in the Triangle if given minutes. Losing Tyson may not be the negative that some think it will be. Then when you add in Smith, STAT and Bargs there's enough talent there to function well in the Triangle. The defense is another issue altogether. We'll have to see how Fish structures the D. I'm not expecting a strong defensive team but they've got to find a way to at least be decent.

yea.. but the stat guys like to gloss over the FACT that Tyson's last 3 years he misses more and more games each year, each of the last 3 years his PPG and FG%s have gone down as well. The same guys that say "we are a 37 win team" but treat Tyson and Felton like they were the same players they were 2 years ago. They arent.

I did find this advanced stat though... since researching Tyson and Felton I have noticed a trend. Each year they get older.

Bonn1997 wrote:

CrushAlot wrote:

fishmike wrote:

nixluva wrote:In a vacuum Tyson is better. Based on passed stats Tyson surely looks better. I do think that Cole has a chance to be every productive in the Triangle. Of course there are no stats to back that up cuz he hasn't really played much and not at all in the Triangle. I'm just basing off what i've seen of Cole and Tyson and I think Cole can be productive in the Triangle if given minutes. Losing Tyson may not be the negative that some think it will be. Then when you add in Smith, STAT and Bargs there's enough talent there to function well in the Triangle. The defense is another issue altogether. We'll have to see how Fish structures the D. I'm not expecting a strong defensive team but they've got to find a way to at least be decent.

yea.. but the stat guys like to gloss over the FACT that Tyson's last 3 years he misses more and more games each year, each of the last 3 years his PPG and FG%s have gone down as well. The same guys that say "we are a 37 win team" but treat Tyson and Felton like they were the same players they were 2 years ago. They arent.

I did find this advanced stat though... since researching Tyson and Felton I have noticed a trend. Each year they get older.

Also, since the Indy series in the spring of 13, Tyson has been a malcontent and attempted to sabotage the coach. Not a good look for a guy paid to be a leader and solid locker room guy. Glad the legend of Tyson is in Dallas.

Yeah, I'm definitely not attached to Tyson but I wanted something better than this if we were going to trade him and his big expiring contract.

We also traded away maybe the worst starting PG in the league and his contract, and a gun charge hovering over him. We got a nice mix of experience and youth in return. Not a blockbuster deal but one that might pay dividends down the road.

Bonn1997 wrote:

CrushAlot wrote:

fishmike wrote:

nixluva wrote:In a vacuum Tyson is better. Based on passed stats Tyson surely looks better. I do think that Cole has a chance to be every productive in the Triangle. Of course there are no stats to back that up cuz he hasn't really played much and not at all in the Triangle. I'm just basing off what i've seen of Cole and Tyson and I think Cole can be productive in the Triangle if given minutes. Losing Tyson may not be the negative that some think it will be. Then when you add in Smith, STAT and Bargs there's enough talent there to function well in the Triangle. The defense is another issue altogether. We'll have to see how Fish structures the D. I'm not expecting a strong defensive team but they've got to find a way to at least be decent.

yea.. but the stat guys like to gloss over the FACT that Tyson's last 3 years he misses more and more games each year, each of the last 3 years his PPG and FG%s have gone down as well. The same guys that say "we are a 37 win team" but treat Tyson and Felton like they were the same players they were 2 years ago. They arent.

I did find this advanced stat though... since researching Tyson and Felton I have noticed a trend. Each year they get older.

Also, since the Indy series in the spring of 13, Tyson has been a malcontent and attempted to sabotage the coach. Not a good look for a guy paid to be a leader and solid locker room guy. Glad the legend of Tyson is in Dallas.

Yeah, I'm definitely not attached to Tyson but I wanted something better than this if we were going to trade him and his big expiring contract.

Because you think he is worth more than his perceived value throughout the league.

Dagger wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

CrushAlot wrote:

fishmike wrote:

nixluva wrote:In a vacuum Tyson is better. Based on passed stats Tyson surely looks better. I do think that Cole has a chance to be every productive in the Triangle. Of course there are no stats to back that up cuz he hasn't really played much and not at all in the Triangle. I'm just basing off what i've seen of Cole and Tyson and I think Cole can be productive in the Triangle if given minutes. Losing Tyson may not be the negative that some think it will be. Then when you add in Smith, STAT and Bargs there's enough talent there to function well in the Triangle. The defense is another issue altogether. We'll have to see how Fish structures the D. I'm not expecting a strong defensive team but they've got to find a way to at least be decent.

yea.. but the stat guys like to gloss over the FACT that Tyson's last 3 years he misses more and more games each year, each of the last 3 years his PPG and FG%s have gone down as well. The same guys that say "we are a 37 win team" but treat Tyson and Felton like they were the same players they were 2 years ago. They arent.

I did find this advanced stat though... since researching Tyson and Felton I have noticed a trend. Each year they get older.

Also, since the Indy series in the spring of 13, Tyson has been a malcontent and attempted to sabotage the coach. Not a good look for a guy paid to be a leader and solid locker room guy. Glad the legend of Tyson is in Dallas.

Yeah, I'm definitely not attached to Tyson but I wanted something better than this if we were going to trade him and his big expiring contract.

Because you think he is worth more than his perceived value throughout the league.

fishmike wrote:

Dagger wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

CrushAlot wrote:

fishmike wrote:

nixluva wrote:In a vacuum Tyson is better. Based on passed stats Tyson surely looks better. I do think that Cole has a chance to be every productive in the Triangle. Of course there are no stats to back that up cuz he hasn't really played much and not at all in the Triangle. I'm just basing off what i've seen of Cole and Tyson and I think Cole can be productive in the Triangle if given minutes. Losing Tyson may not be the negative that some think it will be. Then when you add in Smith, STAT and Bargs there's enough talent there to function well in the Triangle. The defense is another issue altogether. We'll have to see how Fish structures the D. I'm not expecting a strong defensive team but they've got to find a way to at least be decent.

yea.. but the stat guys like to gloss over the FACT that Tyson's last 3 years he misses more and more games each year, each of the last 3 years his PPG and FG%s have gone down as well. The same guys that say "we are a 37 win team" but treat Tyson and Felton like they were the same players they were 2 years ago. They arent.

I did find this advanced stat though... since researching Tyson and Felton I have noticed a trend. Each year they get older.

Also, since the Indy series in the spring of 13, Tyson has been a malcontent and attempted to sabotage the coach. Not a good look for a guy paid to be a leader and solid locker room guy. Glad the legend of Tyson is in Dallas.

Yeah, I'm definitely not attached to Tyson but I wanted something better than this if we were going to trade him and his big expiring contract.

Because you think he is worth more than his perceived value throughout the league.

I dont know man.. his advanced stats from three years ago look really good.

His advance stats offensive have looked good every year. My problem is that over the past two years it doesn't seem like he makes a significant difference on D. That doesn't make sense when you are a defensive specialist.

My hope is that Cole's per 36 numbers translate if given major minutes. That would blow Tyson production out the water if he keeps his TOs down and FTs up.

Ira wrote:I don't see a lot of difference. All three are top rebounders and pretty good shot blockers. And they all stink on offense. Chandler and SamD are getting older and slower. Cole is already slow. The only major difference is that Tyson will usually miss a significant number of games during the season. Big Sam and Cole usually stay healthy.

Finestrg wrote:

nixluva wrote:In a vacuum Tyson is better. Based on passed stats Tyson surely looks better. I do think that Cole has a chance to be every productive in the Triangle. Of course there are no stats to back that up cuz he hasn't really played much and not at all in the Triangle. I'm just basing off what i've seen of Cole and Tyson and I think Cole can be productive in the Triangle if given minutes. Losing Tyson may not be the negative that some think it will be. Then when you add in Smith, STAT and Bargs there's enough talent there to function well in the Triangle. The defense is another issue altogether. We'll have to see how Fish structures the D. I'm not expecting a strong defensive team but they've got to find a way to at least be decent.

Well said. Agreed.

+1 After 2 years of Tyson's disapearing act in the playoffs and then his long injury last season I am happy he is gone.
Hard to build something when one of the key cogs to the foundation is so consistently unreliable.