newyorknewyork wrote:

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?

Maybe the emotion of the argument you had with TKF is getting the better of you because you are being overly critical of Spree. He guarded the opponents best perimeter players on a nightly bases. And pretty much acted as the play making PG for the team on offense due to the lack of play making capabilities from our other guards.

Spree cooked up Jamal Mashburn so badly in our playoff run vs the Heat they traded him for Eddie Jones.

he is letting his emotions take him to places that are beyond ridiculous. He just said sprewell wasn't a two way player. He clearly hasn't seen him play... And yes sprewell also ran PG for the knicks when they went with the big lineup... he also guarded SF's who were much bigger than he was.. the guy was truly an all around player..Kind of like a bigger Westbrook... I love those types of player swho play with endless energy and great intensity...

newyorknewyork wrote:

mreinman wrote:

newyorknewyork wrote:

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?

Maybe the emotion of the argument you had with TKF is getting the better of you because you are being overly critical of Spree. He guarded the opponents best perimeter players on a nightly bases. And pretty much acted as the play making PG for the team on offense due to the lack of play making capabilities from our other guards.

Spree cooked up Jamal Mashburn so badly in our playoff run vs the Heat they traded him for Eddie Jones.

He was a tough defender but how come all advanced metrics paint him as a pretty awful offensive player. Do you not buy into advanced stats?

Melo needs to be surrounded with players who are more efficient than him not far less.

Advance stats are helpful but they aren't the final authority on a players impact on a team. There is no way you could have watched the Knicks during those yrs and not see the positive impact that Sprewell had on the team. So obviously the things he did positively far outweighed the negative. Defensively Spree and Camby covered so much ground and set the tone, Offensively Spree and LJ were the play makers from the perimeter and out of the paint.

His perimeter defense, play making, scoring, and fire, by an extremely large margin helped lead to a finals run in NY as well as a WCF run with the Wolves which didn't get out of the first rd the previous like 10 yrs with Garnett.

you beat me to it... right after leaving the knicks he was critical to garnett getting to the WCF.. good catch..

tkf wrote:

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+?

Good one.

Yet how awesome was your all time fav AI jacking up 27 a game for his stellar 31 points? Does it fit yet. Yank harder and maybe it will.

Sambakick wrote:

tkf wrote:

gunsnewing wrote:H20
LJ
Ewing
Camby

I loved watching all of these guys.. Houston was underrated if you ask me.. LJ was so much better than his numbers would suggest.... one of my favorite knicks of all time..

What does Allan Houston have over Melo? Melo has every shot in the Houston arsenal. Yet Houston is the underrated one? Did he rebound like Melo? Did he get more assists? Was he a better defender?

Ask tkf why Starbury is better Knick than Melo. It's truly enlightening.

mreinman wrote:

tkf wrote:

mreinman wrote:

dk7th wrote:

mreinman wrote:

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!

15.7 shots (anthony is 19.7) at that TS is beyond horrible. How would you like Felton to take 16 shots a game? Would we say "at least its not 20"?

"was a great slasher"? That all great if it turns into efficient play.

I "like" sprewell too because of his high motor but what I "like" does not necessarily translate into a great player. I like lil Nate too.

Barkley was fat and I liked him. I don't see that Anthony is in shape or out of shape, I do know that he is not a naturally chiseled dude. Many players are ripped and they suck. Its all about the play and almost everything is quantifiable. It was not back then and GM's were very ill informed.

I don't but this "conference finals" argument at all. How was his play during that playoff run? Not good. Bad players can be on good teams and vice versa.

Sprewell was not even close to melo's efficiency (and Melo's is not great).

Unfortunately, back in the old knick days, they did not rely or know about advanced stats and very much overrated many players because of this.

Please look at Sprewells playoff numbers before saying how integral he was. Forget about his almost negative Win Shares, take a look at his TS, FGA and PER! They are atrocious and his 1.6 : 1 usg : assist rate in the playoffs does not even come close to making up for it.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/s/sprewla01.html

well i started my response by saying i like two-way players and sprewell was that.

the larger issue is whether you regard sprewell as a negative-sum, zero-sum, or positive-sum player. i think he was a bit above zero-sum. melo so far as been closer to zero-sum.

lastly, the old walsh meme: a player is good at one price and bad at another.

check out how much we paid sprewell back then, adjust for inflation, and let me know who has proven to be the "gooder" player

Sprewell was a one way player not a two way.

If we are arguing price which where I thought this would end up if the argument went south , I have no idea. I would need an actuary to help figure that out. But that is not what this argument is about though we way overpaid Sprewell at 10 million per.

Btw, I just for the heck of it checked out Melo usg : ast rate in his playoff run with billups, it was 1.6 : 1 (sprewell never came anywhere close to the numbers that Melo had in that playoffs). And, it was 1.2 : 1 in his first year with the knicks. I am by no means that great at the advanced metrics but I am certainly trying to learn as much as I can.

And saying that Melo is zero sum is just wrong and way off base. I am quick to point out the weaknesses that hold him back from greatness but zero sum? C'mon. Let's keep it real.

its funny how you use words like preposterous and then make a post like that.. so are you telling us that sprewell was not a defensive player? you do know he made NBA all second team defense.. right? smh

let me ask you.. have you ever watched sprewell play?

Funny how out to lunch and cloudy you are.

"Sprewell was a one way player"

You really thought I meant offensive? DUDE! You gotta stop making a fool out of yourself.

I see that you are really upset about how this went down and how you are trying to bait me into a 10 page slug fest so that you can attempt to save face.

Not gonna happen. I will stick to hit and runs ...

it was your moronic comment.. if I see a sign that says "one way street" I sure as hell would not think anything other than it has traffic going one way.. now pleas in your basketball book of idiocy explain what you mean by "one way player"..

No need to bait you.. LOL I already checkmated your ass...

jrodmc wrote:

Sambakick wrote:

tkf wrote:

gunsnewing wrote:H20
LJ
Ewing
Camby

I loved watching all of these guys.. Houston was underrated if you ask me.. LJ was so much better than his numbers would suggest.... one of my favorite knicks of all time..

What does Allan Houston have over Melo? Melo has every shot in the Houston arsenal. Yet Houston is the underrated one? Did he rebound like Melo? Did he get more assists? Was he a better defender?

Ask tkf why Starbury is better Knick than Melo. It's truly enlightening.

I have a better question, when will you ever discuss basketball?.. that is the real question...

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.

NardDogNation wrote:

JamesLin wrote:

NardDogNation wrote: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 in assists. 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.

Ok, so which part is not accurate? Sprewell helped getting us to the NBA finals is not? I never said Sprewell one handed took us to the finals. So by your argument, if Carmelo took us to the finals, you're saying I will be lauding Melo for getting us to the Finals as if the 14 other players and coach had nothing to do with it? Who gives a **** if he holds an NBA record as a Knicks? Are you even a NBA fan then? So all your argument so far only states 'James, you're wrong, period and all records are useless in my book'. So, although I have a hard time even respecting you now as a somewhat basketball fan since you disregard NBA record or championship as crap, you still haven't counter argue what is relevant to who's a better Knicks player... so what is it then?

Again, your argument makes no sense. You keep trying to use the fact that Sprewell was on a Finals team to demonstrate that he was a better player than Melo. That is simply stupid. Postseason success isn't an individual accolade, it is a team accolade. Melo NEVER had the caliber of teammate that Sprewell did in New York, so it is inappropriate to bring team success into the discussion. For the record though, I could care less what you do with your respect. I'd just like to see a cogent debate being made.

As for NBA records, again, it is hardly relevant. When comparing two players you need to look at a body of work and not just individual games. I used the Scott Skiles example to demonstrate that point. By your line of reasoning, we should begin to entertain him being in conversations with the greatest PG's of all-time since he accomplished a feat that none of them did. That would be absurd. Jamal Crawford once had a 50 point game as a Knick. Does that make him worthy of being compared to Bernard King, Patrick Ewing, Carmelo Anthony, Earl the Pearl and the like? It would be frivolous to assume so.

Moving forward, you need to define what makes another player better than another. What does that involve in your opinion?

to be fair the playoffs is a true measure of so called star players in most cases... sprewell and Houston didn't have Ewing, and lost LJ... lets not use the excuse of carmelo not having anyone to play with.. he has come up short in the playoffs personally. Sprewell and houston played at a high level.. sports is a result oriented business.. in the end, results are what counts..

so I ask you the same question I asked another poster. what makes carmelo a better player as a knick?

Bonn1997 wrote:

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.

Do you go by stats other than wins produced? I'm not saying you shouldn't look at wins produced but win shares and per 100 ratings are usually given more credibility.
You can find a huge amount of info. on the debate about whether wins produced over-values rebounds just by Google searching the topic. But, at the very least, it gives more weight to rebounding than the other formulas do, and the position-adjustment kills Sprewell because he didn't rebound like an SF and hurts Houston because he was a bad rebounder. If you look at the other advanced stats, Spree and Houston don't look as bad, though they still don't look great either.

I don't just go by WP's and I am not sold on any as an end all.

I know that WP's was changed and I have read the WOW defense as to why.

I try to look at all the data that I can find. WP's also does not go back further than 2001 (at least I could not find it) while WS's do.

Spree's WS's as a knick in the regular season is .073, playoffs .070 (worse than Felton).

Though obviously a really silly comparison but what the heck - Anthony 172 regular season and 115 playoffs (not good).

DK, made an interesting argument about USG : AST rate. Do WS's undervalue this? I have been trying to keep an eye on this as well.

I also find it interesting that with the increasing popularity and focus and advanced stats, there are people that will not even look at them and attempt to understand them and how they correlate to actual player value.

jrodmc wrote:

NardDogNation wrote:

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.

+1
Loved Spree, own several jerseys. Loved the neverending, neversweat motor, the resilience and the way he turned a bad (choking) into a positive (going to the Finals). But seriously, Spree joined a team that had gone to the playoffs every year for a decade straight. For two seasons, with just him, we were out.

Melo comes here and joins a franchise that hadn't been to the varsity season in 6 years. A franchise that had to have owner/GM intervention from the commissioner.

I hated that Spree got traded. It was a stupid move. I probably hate it more that tkf likes Spree too.

Ewing - at least this makes some semblance of sense.

LJ. He likes LJ better than Melo. What, one 4 point play? What, exactly did he do in the Finals? What exactly makes him better? His back brace? His unintelligble gibberish at the end of game interview? His stellar defensive play? The fact he had absolutely less lift in his legs as a Knick than Anthony Mason?
Camby - did you like how he folded constantly like a two dollar bill on those rice krispy knees?
H2O - Apparently disappearing in 2nd halfs is something that makes you endearable to the Melohate crowd.

I'm still waiting for the Starbury Knick GOAT conversation.

I was a huge Sprewell fan too back in the day. The rebel persona that he embodied is appealing to most average Joe's. At the same time, he didn't seem to be like an ******* because when he spokenhe was seemingly mild-mannered, articulate, etc. Best of all, he cursed out James Dolan, which would've made him a favorite of mine regardless of everything else. But he's not better than Melo. Even at his best, Sprewell was a fringe all-star in the league. I think that actually made him more endearing to us because that meant he had to give 100% effort, 100% of the time to get recognition. And that was exactly what he did.

Its irrelevant to the topic but I actually liked the Van Horn deal, lol. I thought we should've gotten a little more but we needed to get younger and bigger that season. We used Keith poorly but the man had game and was still in his prime. He was better than anything I've ever seen from Gallo, who I thought was going to be Keith 2.0

dk7th wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

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.

Do you go by stats other than wins produced? I'm not saying you shouldn't look at wins produced but win shares and per 100 ratings are usually given more credibility.
You can find a huge amount of info. on the debate about whether wins produced over-values rebounds just by Google searching the topic. But, at the very least, it gives more weight to rebounding than the other formulas do, and the position-adjustment kills Sprewell because he didn't rebound like an SF and hurts Houston because he was a bad rebounder. If you look at the other advanced stats, Spree and Houston don't look as bad, though they still don't look great either.

bonn1997 can you tell me which among the advanced stat formulae that fold in numerous variables does the following:

1)devalues defensive rebounds
2)devalues points based on volume shooting

WP's overvalues defensive rebounds so that is not what you want to look at.

I don't think you can devalue points based on volume shooting. Taking 10, 20, 30 shots can all be great depending on the efficiency of those shots.

Is 15 shots at 38% better than 20 shots at 46%? that is all factored into WS's.