Posted by tomverve:
Well, there's no doubt in my mind that the Knicks without Marbury would be better than .000 for the season, or that the Knicks without Q would be worse than .727. The great record without Q may largely be a coincidence-- perhaps he just happens to have been injured during those stretches where the Knicks have played well for a series of games.
Still, on the face of it, the sheer magnitude of the Knicks' winning percentage without Q suggests that it's unlikely to all be due to chance. I like the hard work Q has brought to the team this year, and undoubtedly that hard work has endeared him to a number of fans, but it very well may be that we're better off without him. We're certainly not lacking for replacements at this point anyway. Of course, the way Q has played for us in conjunction with the size and length of his contract makes him very much like a better version of Shandon Anderson for this team-- whether we're better off with or without him, we're likely stuck with him.
Q's had a real bad year I'm hoping a lot of it was the emotional issues he's had to deal with - because if it's all the back - I think it's unlikely to improve.
