I don't trust these polls like this. It's hard to really gauge what they're using for criteria in this kind of ranking. I just think they're making this crap up cuz nothing is supported by any of the facts.

The magazine has the Philadelphia Phillies ranked 122nd out of 122 teams, the New York Knicks ranked 121st, and your Redskins ranked 120th, meaning last in the NFL.

(Of course, you can’t apply analytics to intangibles, which is why this whole enterprise is not at all fair.)

Now, it’s not entirely clear how franchises are being ranked, at least in the paper copy of the magazine. The introduction explains that the magazine “unleashed our experts — ESPN reporter Kevin Seifert (NFL), ESPN Insiders Kevin Pelton (NBA) and Craig Custance (NHL), former Mets stats guru Ben Baumer (MLB) and an army of researchers — on all 122 teams in a quest to rank each on the strength of its analytics staff, its buy-in from execs and coaches, its investment in biometric data, and how much its approach is predicated on analytics.”

I read an article that somewhat discredits this idea that the Knicks are anti Analytics.

That blurb includes, as far as I can discern, the following pros and cons regarding the Knicks' approach to analytics:

Pro:

- The Knicks have a veteran analytics department headed by Mike Smith

- The Knicks were at the forefront of investing in tracking systems like SportVU and Catapult

- The Knicks still have at least one stat-friendly executive in Mark Warkentien, the guy who once hired Dean Oliver for the Nuggets

Con:

- Phil Jackson is a noted traditionalist

- The 2014-2015 Knicks suck ass

I see investments and staff that convey analytic intentions, with the counterpoint to each of them being "but Phil Jackson, so nah." Jackson didn't fire any of those people or dismantle their departments when he took over, so what's the issue?

Pelton points directly to this New York Times interview by Harvey Araton, something we gnawed upon back when it came out. He concentrates on a portion in which Jackson questions aloud if the emphasis on threes and spacing is truly the essence of smart basketball, but doesn't mention this part:

Jackson argued that the triangle was not an inflexible system. As much as he disliked the emerging overreliance on the 3-point shot, he saw the game moving in that direction, and "we did more with it during the last two championships in L.A." Now, he said, he would even endorse a 4-point shot being implemented a few feet behind the 3-point line.

Traditional? This dude wants fours!

http://www.postingandtoasting.com/2015/2/24/8103531/are-the-knicks-really-so-averse-to-analytics

mreinman wrote:Leading the league in long mid range shots was a very bad sign for a team that may claim to have a focus on analytics

Yeah, the player acquisitions and the strategy on the court make me think that ESPN correctly has the Knicks at 121 out of 122.