holfresh wrote:

dk7th wrote:

CrushAlot wrote:

dk7th wrote:

CrushAlot wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

jrodmc wrote:

dk7th wrote:

jrodmc wrote:

dk7th wrote:my beef is simple: phil jackson felt compelled to sign a:

30-yr-old
low bbiq
inefficient scoring
non-defending
non-playmaking
poorly-conditioned
isolation player
with a huge contract and a no-trade clause
who is breaking down
who has yet to prove he can play in the system the president and coach want to install

never mind about the triangle being for so-called "lesser" players. the triangle relies on all the players, and is for all players.

the plan is clearly half-baked. he claimed he had a playoff team on his hands. he himself admitted the season was "a project gone awry" and that his "experiment has fallen flat on its face."

these are the reasons there's so much argument about which player to draft, should the knicks be so lucky as to have dibs, and which free agents to bring in, should there be any genuine interest among them to come into an extremely sketchy situation.

it's because the design or plan for the future contains a high probability of remaining untenable due to the alleged plan being both inchoate and chaotic, with no clear and strong leadership in place.

You forgot the attention whore, bitch type, playoff-useless rebounding.

Subtitles: I hate Melo, hence I will hate Phil.

It's both simple and clear; a plan and outlook that ignores reality, draft picks, cap space and past comparitive history. If the Knicks make the playoffs, it's fools gold jv nonsense. If the Knicks don't make the playoffs, it's vindication in the opinion that a hallmark player for the franchise is actually an untalented, greedy moron. And that any executive or coach or management type, that is on board with said player, no matter what their background may include, is suffering from alzheimers, insipient insanity, or worse.

But when you have hate, you really need not consider evidence. Other than the fact that you just know that your hate and inner shining light of BB altruism would be much better for all concerned. Because you are not arrogant about your own opinion and tremendous abilities. Despite the fact that real people are doing real NBA things and you are typing endless negative drivel on a fan board.

their record is real, the quotes are real, the contract is real. what are you babbling about this time?

Their resumes are real, their rings are real, the cap space and the draft picks are real, the playoffs were real and the NBA is a real billion dollar industry with lots and lots of real millionaire players, coaches and GM's.

And you are what, again? Oh that's right, typing about being proactively ethical and smarter than people making millions of dollars doing things you can't and don't.

Note that DK is citing the real results here. All you're doing is citing future stuff that you imagine will work well (draft picks, cap space) or past stuff before these guys were Knicks (rings).

Yeah but he is a guy that posted the Knicks weren't worth his time to watch during the 54 win season and that it was 'fools gold' and yet made a point of watching the 37 win team and aimed almost all of his criticism of that team at the foot of one player. This despite Tyson, Shump,Smith, and Felton imploding, Steve Mills taking all authority from Woodson and not making a single move to support his coach or improve his team.

you are misrepresenting my history. i watched the knicks closely during their 54-win campaign, and not so much the following season. you are conflating those two season and my watching habits to defame me.

please stop-- it's ugly behavior.

That is not how I remember it. I remember you posting that they weren't worth your time and that the team winning was 'fools gold'. I don't have the time to find it right now but are you really denying that?

i watched a majority of games that season, and yes i certainly called the team a fool's gold team during the regular season after the first 25 games, asking repeatedly during that time if anybody saw their regular-season success translating to playoff success, ie a competitive 2nd round and beyond. had kidd and sheed remained healthy i would have had a different impression.

nonetheless the responses were always the same: "a win is a win." obviously that sentiment proved vain, as it always does. they were embarrassed by the celtics after wearing black for their alleged funeral, losing home curt advantage. then they were destroyed by the pacers, as happens with woodson-coached squads.

I clearly remember you saying the Knicks should have beaten the Pacers..You gonna argue with ME about that??

i assume i know my own mind and heart better than others do, but i could be wrong. if you're so sure i ever said something like that, i am sure you can find the posts where i did so. meantime my answer is "i never said any such thing."

dk7th wrote:

holfresh wrote:

dk7th wrote:

CrushAlot wrote:

dk7th wrote:

CrushAlot wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

jrodmc wrote:

dk7th wrote:

jrodmc wrote:

dk7th wrote:my beef is simple: phil jackson felt compelled to sign a:

30-yr-old
low bbiq
inefficient scoring
non-defending
non-playmaking
poorly-conditioned
isolation player
with a huge contract and a no-trade clause
who is breaking down
who has yet to prove he can play in the system the president and coach want to install

never mind about the triangle being for so-called "lesser" players. the triangle relies on all the players, and is for all players.

the plan is clearly half-baked. he claimed he had a playoff team on his hands. he himself admitted the season was "a project gone awry" and that his "experiment has fallen flat on its face."

these are the reasons there's so much argument about which player to draft, should the knicks be so lucky as to have dibs, and which free agents to bring in, should there be any genuine interest among them to come into an extremely sketchy situation.

it's because the design or plan for the future contains a high probability of remaining untenable due to the alleged plan being both inchoate and chaotic, with no clear and strong leadership in place.

You forgot the attention whore, bitch type, playoff-useless rebounding.

Subtitles: I hate Melo, hence I will hate Phil.

It's both simple and clear; a plan and outlook that ignores reality, draft picks, cap space and past comparitive history. If the Knicks make the playoffs, it's fools gold jv nonsense. If the Knicks don't make the playoffs, it's vindication in the opinion that a hallmark player for the franchise is actually an untalented, greedy moron. And that any executive or coach or management type, that is on board with said player, no matter what their background may include, is suffering from alzheimers, insipient insanity, or worse.

But when you have hate, you really need not consider evidence. Other than the fact that you just know that your hate and inner shining light of BB altruism would be much better for all concerned. Because you are not arrogant about your own opinion and tremendous abilities. Despite the fact that real people are doing real NBA things and you are typing endless negative drivel on a fan board.

their record is real, the quotes are real, the contract is real. what are you babbling about this time?

Their resumes are real, their rings are real, the cap space and the draft picks are real, the playoffs were real and the NBA is a real billion dollar industry with lots and lots of real millionaire players, coaches and GM's.

And you are what, again? Oh that's right, typing about being proactively ethical and smarter than people making millions of dollars doing things you can't and don't.

Note that DK is citing the real results here. All you're doing is citing future stuff that you imagine will work well (draft picks, cap space) or past stuff before these guys were Knicks (rings).

Yeah but he is a guy that posted the Knicks weren't worth his time to watch during the 54 win season and that it was 'fools gold' and yet made a point of watching the 37 win team and aimed almost all of his criticism of that team at the foot of one player. This despite Tyson, Shump,Smith, and Felton imploding, Steve Mills taking all authority from Woodson and not making a single move to support his coach or improve his team.

you are misrepresenting my history. i watched the knicks closely during their 54-win campaign, and not so much the following season. you are conflating those two season and my watching habits to defame me.

please stop-- it's ugly behavior.

That is not how I remember it. I remember you posting that they weren't worth your time and that the team winning was 'fools gold'. I don't have the time to find it right now but are you really denying that?

i watched a majority of games that season, and yes i certainly called the team a fool's gold team during the regular season after the first 25 games, asking repeatedly during that time if anybody saw their regular-season success translating to playoff success, ie a competitive 2nd round and beyond. had kidd and sheed remained healthy i would have had a different impression.

nonetheless the responses were always the same: "a win is a win." obviously that sentiment proved vain, as it always does. they were embarrassed by the celtics after wearing black for their alleged funeral, losing home curt advantage. then they were destroyed by the pacers, as happens with woodson-coached squads.

I clearly remember you saying the Knicks should have beaten the Pacers..You gonna argue with ME about that??

i assume i know my own mind and heart better than others do, but i could be wrong. if you're so sure i ever said something like that, i am sure you can find the posts where i did so. meantime my answer is "i never said any such thing."

dk7th wrote:

holfresh wrote:

dk7th wrote:

holfresh wrote:

dk7th wrote:

CrushAlot wrote:

dk7th wrote:

CrushAlot wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

jrodmc wrote:

dk7th wrote:

jrodmc wrote:

dk7th wrote:my beef is simple: phil jackson felt compelled to sign a:

30-yr-old
low bbiq
inefficient scoring
non-defending
non-playmaking
poorly-conditioned
isolation player
with a huge contract and a no-trade clause
who is breaking down
who has yet to prove he can play in the system the president and coach want to install

never mind about the triangle being for so-called "lesser" players. the triangle relies on all the players, and is for all players.

the plan is clearly half-baked. he claimed he had a playoff team on his hands. he himself admitted the season was "a project gone awry" and that his "experiment has fallen flat on its face."

these are the reasons there's so much argument about which player to draft, should the knicks be so lucky as to have dibs, and which free agents to bring in, should there be any genuine interest among them to come into an extremely sketchy situation.

it's because the design or plan for the future contains a high probability of remaining untenable due to the alleged plan being both inchoate and chaotic, with no clear and strong leadership in place.

You forgot the attention whore, bitch type, playoff-useless rebounding.

Subtitles: I hate Melo, hence I will hate Phil.

It's both simple and clear; a plan and outlook that ignores reality, draft picks, cap space and past comparitive history. If the Knicks make the playoffs, it's fools gold jv nonsense. If the Knicks don't make the playoffs, it's vindication in the opinion that a hallmark player for the franchise is actually an untalented, greedy moron. And that any executive or coach or management type, that is on board with said player, no matter what their background may include, is suffering from alzheimers, insipient insanity, or worse.

But when you have hate, you really need not consider evidence. Other than the fact that you just know that your hate and inner shining light of BB altruism would be much better for all concerned. Because you are not arrogant about your own opinion and tremendous abilities. Despite the fact that real people are doing real NBA things and you are typing endless negative drivel on a fan board.

their record is real, the quotes are real, the contract is real. what are you babbling about this time?

Their resumes are real, their rings are real, the cap space and the draft picks are real, the playoffs were real and the NBA is a real billion dollar industry with lots and lots of real millionaire players, coaches and GM's.

And you are what, again? Oh that's right, typing about being proactively ethical and smarter than people making millions of dollars doing things you can't and don't.

Note that DK is citing the real results here. All you're doing is citing future stuff that you imagine will work well (draft picks, cap space) or past stuff before these guys were Knicks (rings).

Yeah but he is a guy that posted the Knicks weren't worth his time to watch during the 54 win season and that it was 'fools gold' and yet made a point of watching the 37 win team and aimed almost all of his criticism of that team at the foot of one player. This despite Tyson, Shump,Smith, and Felton imploding, Steve Mills taking all authority from Woodson and not making a single move to support his coach or improve his team.

you are misrepresenting my history. i watched the knicks closely during their 54-win campaign, and not so much the following season. you are conflating those two season and my watching habits to defame me.

please stop-- it's ugly behavior.

That is not how I remember it. I remember you posting that they weren't worth your time and that the team winning was 'fools gold'. I don't have the time to find it right now but are you really denying that?

i watched a majority of games that season, and yes i certainly called the team a fool's gold team during the regular season after the first 25 games, asking repeatedly during that time if anybody saw their regular-season success translating to playoff success, ie a competitive 2nd round and beyond. had kidd and sheed remained healthy i would have had a different impression.

nonetheless the responses were always the same: "a win is a win." obviously that sentiment proved vain, as it always does. they were embarrassed by the celtics after wearing black for their alleged funeral, losing home curt advantage. then they were destroyed by the pacers, as happens with woodson-coached squads.

I clearly remember you saying the Knicks should have beaten the Pacers..You gonna argue with ME about that??

i assume i know my own mind and heart better than others do, but i could be wrong. if you're so sure i ever said something like that, i am sure you can find the posts where i did so. meantime my answer is "i never said any such thing."

How many arguments did we have about this..My point was that the Knicks exceeded your expectations being the second seed when you predicted they would seed 3-7, which you also denied saying until I found it..Then you argued that Woodson coaching was the reason the Knicks lost to the Pacers..It was my contention that the Pacers were the better team..Still don't ring a bell?

aaahh yes the seeding versus actual value quandary. yes that is exactly right, good job! you see, there is the regular season, or what i call the jayvee season, on the one hand... and on the other hand you have the playoffs which is really the varsity season. as you also know, i do not consider the first round of the playoffs much of an achievement since the playoff format allows half the teams in-- the very definition of mediocrity. that said, there are teams that get a better record during the regular season that are simply not as good as their record indicates when brought under a "playoff lens."

it was under the "playoff lens" that i made the comments about fool's gold and was constantly asking the same question: "does this look like a strong playoff team, one that can be competitive in the second round?" my concerns and questions were confirmed with the greatest clarity, reinforcing that i have some valuable insights into this game and league.

the counterargument-- not really an argument but a response borne of myopia and lazy thinking-- was "a win is a win."

thanks again for the reminder, including the memory of a distinct lack of props that should have come my way if anyone around here had the cojones. that's a problem with many posters... in my experience. it's a shame, really.

still, being the generous sort i can't help but share my thoughts.

dk7th wrote:

holfresh wrote:

dk7th wrote:

holfresh wrote:

dk7th wrote:

CrushAlot wrote:

dk7th wrote:

CrushAlot wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

jrodmc wrote:

dk7th wrote:

jrodmc wrote:

dk7th wrote:my beef is simple: phil jackson felt compelled to sign a:

30-yr-old
low bbiq
inefficient scoring
non-defending
non-playmaking
poorly-conditioned
isolation player
with a huge contract and a no-trade clause
who is breaking down
who has yet to prove he can play in the system the president and coach want to install

never mind about the triangle being for so-called "lesser" players. the triangle relies on all the players, and is for all players.

the plan is clearly half-baked. he claimed he had a playoff team on his hands. he himself admitted the season was "a project gone awry" and that his "experiment has fallen flat on its face."

these are the reasons there's so much argument about which player to draft, should the knicks be so lucky as to have dibs, and which free agents to bring in, should there be any genuine interest among them to come into an extremely sketchy situation.

it's because the design or plan for the future contains a high probability of remaining untenable due to the alleged plan being both inchoate and chaotic, with no clear and strong leadership in place.

You forgot the attention whore, bitch type, playoff-useless rebounding.

Subtitles: I hate Melo, hence I will hate Phil.

It's both simple and clear; a plan and outlook that ignores reality, draft picks, cap space and past comparitive history. If the Knicks make the playoffs, it's fools gold jv nonsense. If the Knicks don't make the playoffs, it's vindication in the opinion that a hallmark player for the franchise is actually an untalented, greedy moron. And that any executive or coach or management type, that is on board with said player, no matter what their background may include, is suffering from alzheimers, insipient insanity, or worse.

But when you have hate, you really need not consider evidence. Other than the fact that you just know that your hate and inner shining light of BB altruism would be much better for all concerned. Because you are not arrogant about your own opinion and tremendous abilities. Despite the fact that real people are doing real NBA things and you are typing endless negative drivel on a fan board.

their record is real, the quotes are real, the contract is real. what are you babbling about this time?

Their resumes are real, their rings are real, the cap space and the draft picks are real, the playoffs were real and the NBA is a real billion dollar industry with lots and lots of real millionaire players, coaches and GM's.

And you are what, again? Oh that's right, typing about being proactively ethical and smarter than people making millions of dollars doing things you can't and don't.

Note that DK is citing the real results here. All you're doing is citing future stuff that you imagine will work well (draft picks, cap space) or past stuff before these guys were Knicks (rings).

Yeah but he is a guy that posted the Knicks weren't worth his time to watch during the 54 win season and that it was 'fools gold' and yet made a point of watching the 37 win team and aimed almost all of his criticism of that team at the foot of one player. This despite Tyson, Shump,Smith, and Felton imploding, Steve Mills taking all authority from Woodson and not making a single move to support his coach or improve his team.

you are misrepresenting my history. i watched the knicks closely during their 54-win campaign, and not so much the following season. you are conflating those two season and my watching habits to defame me.

please stop-- it's ugly behavior.

That is not how I remember it. I remember you posting that they weren't worth your time and that the team winning was 'fools gold'. I don't have the time to find it right now but are you really denying that?

i watched a majority of games that season, and yes i certainly called the team a fool's gold team during the regular season after the first 25 games, asking repeatedly during that time if anybody saw their regular-season success translating to playoff success, ie a competitive 2nd round and beyond. had kidd and sheed remained healthy i would have had a different impression.

nonetheless the responses were always the same: "a win is a win." obviously that sentiment proved vain, as it always does. they were embarrassed by the celtics after wearing black for their alleged funeral, losing home curt advantage. then they were destroyed by the pacers, as happens with woodson-coached squads.

I clearly remember you saying the Knicks should have beaten the Pacers..You gonna argue with ME about that??

i assume i know my own mind and heart better than others do, but i could be wrong. if you're so sure i ever said something like that, i am sure you can find the posts where i did so. meantime my answer is "i never said any such thing."

How many arguments did we have about this..My point was that the Knicks exceeded your expectations being the second seed when you predicted they would seed 3-7, which you also denied saying until I found it..Then you argued that Woodson coaching was the reason the Knicks lost to the Pacers..It was my contention that the Pacers were the better team..Still don't ring a bell?

aaahh yes the seeding versus actual value quandary. yes that is exactly right, good job! you see, there is the regular season, or what i call the jayvee season, on the one hand... and on the other hand you have the playoffs which is really the varsity season. as you also know, i do not consider the first round of the playoffs much of an achievement since the playoff format allows half the teams in-- the very definition of mediocrity. that said, there are teams that get a better record during the regular season that are simply not as good as their record indicates when brought under a "playoff lens."

it was under the "playoff lens" that i made the comments about fool's gold and was constantly asking the same question: "does this look like a strong playoff team, one that can be competitive in the second round?" my concerns and questions were confirmed with the greatest clarity, reinforcing that i have some valuable insights into this game and league.

the counterargument-- not really an argument but a response borne of myopia and lazy thinking-- was "a win is a win."

thanks again for the reminder, including the memory of a distinct lack of props that should have come my way if anyone around here had the cojones. that's a problem with many posters... in my experience. it's a shame, really.

still, being the generous sort i can't help but share my thoughts.

You were saying Woodson was the reason the Knicks lost the series..You felt the Knicks should have won..You said at the time they were annihilated losing 4-2 to the Pacers and barely survived winning 4-2 against Boston..

dk7th wrote:

yellowboy90 wrote:I have never seen an efficient scorer called inefficient as much as Melo. I am surprised the numbers police never correct this over site(its not an over site though)

that depends on what you consider efficient when it comes to true shooting percentage-- we already know he is a below average shooter in terms of plain old fg%. what percentage is the beginning of efficiency for TS% in your opinion? mine starts at 57%. that's an efficient level. not 56.5 or less, but 57%. anything at +58% you reach proficiency.

and please don't say that i'm quibbling when speaking of tenths of a percentage point-- those tenths of a point represent significant differences the larger the sample size.

whaddaya got, yellowboy?

I don't have an opinion on what percentage is where efficiency begin. There is a exact line every year for the NBA and for positions. I looks at what is real not make an exaggerated emotional number to promote my agenda.

Good day.

Bonn1997 wrote:

yellowboy90 wrote:I have never seen an efficient scorer called inefficient as much as Melo. I am surprised the numbers police never correct this over site(its not an over site though)

His efficiency is a little above average. I wouldn't call him an efficient scorer any more than I'd call a 5'10" guy tall.

He is efficient regardless by NBA standards. So why call him inefficient? You don't have to call a 5'10 guy tall but you shouldn't call him short by normal standards either.

Bonn1997 wrote:

yellowboy90 wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

yellowboy90 wrote:I have never seen an efficient scorer called inefficient as much as Melo. I am surprised the numbers police never correct this over site(its not an over site though)

His efficiency is a little above average. I wouldn't call him an efficient scorer any more than I'd call a 5'10" guy tall.

He is efficient regardless by NBA standards. So why call him inefficient? You don't have to call a 5'10 guy tall but you shouldn't call him short by normal standards either.

Right. The 5'10" guy is neither tall nor short. He is average. Melo is neither efficient nor inefficient. He is average.

If you are above average how are you back to average?

yellowboy90 wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

yellowboy90 wrote:I have never seen an efficient scorer called inefficient as much as Melo. I am surprised the numbers police never correct this over site(its not an over site though)

His efficiency is a little above average. I wouldn't call him an efficient scorer any more than I'd call a 5'10" guy tall.

He is efficient regardless by NBA standards. So why call him inefficient? You don't have to call a 5'10 guy tall but you shouldn't call him short by normal standards either.

thats not what my eyes tell me. we're talking the eye test now, not numbers.

too many poorly chosen/bad shots, around 4-5 per game. if he was more selective and averaged closer to 17 GOOD shots per game he would raise his game to an efficient level, maybe higher and truly elite as a scorer. until then he remains a "volume scorer" which is a euphemism for inefficiency.

again, whaddaya got?

yellowboy90 wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

yellowboy90 wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

yellowboy90 wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

yellowboy90 wrote:I have never seen an efficient scorer called inefficient as much as Melo. I am surprised the numbers police never correct this over site(its not an over site though)

His efficiency is a little above average. I wouldn't call him an efficient scorer any more than I'd call a 5'10" guy tall.

He is efficient regardless by NBA standards. So why call him inefficient? You don't have to call a 5'10 guy tall but you shouldn't call him short by normal standards either.

Right. The 5'10" guy is neither tall nor short. He is average. Melo is neither efficient nor inefficient. He is average.

If you are above average how are you back to average?

Melo is a few thousandths of a point above average in ts%. That's basically average. I purposely picked 5'10 because it's a fraction of an inch above average but not enough to call the guy tall

It's basically efficient. You say Tomato I say... As a knick what is his TS and how many seasons has he played above/below league average or his career avg?

It's efficient if you live in a binary universe where everything is either tall or short, efficient or inefficient, etc.

dk7th wrote:

yellowboy90 wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

yellowboy90 wrote:I have never seen an efficient scorer called inefficient as much as Melo. I am surprised the numbers police never correct this over site(its not an over site though)

His efficiency is a little above average. I wouldn't call him an efficient scorer any more than I'd call a 5'10" guy tall.

He is efficient regardless by NBA standards. So why call him inefficient? You don't have to call a 5'10 guy tall but you shouldn't call him short by normal standards either.

thats not what my eyes tell me. we're talking the eye test now, not numbers.

too many poorly chosen/bad shots, around 4-5 per game. if he was more selective and averaged closer to 17 GOOD shots per game he would raise his game to an efficient level, maybe higher and truly elite as a scorer. until then he remains a "volume scorer" which is a euphemism for inefficiency.

again, whaddaya got?