Malcolm wrote:Here are the main stats for 2009 NBA Champion Lakers:

Bryant (SF) 36 minutes, 26.8 points, per 24.5
Gasol (PF) 37 minutes, 18.9 points, per 22.3
Bynum (C) 29 minutes, 14.3 points, per 20.0
Odom (PF) 30 minutes, 11.3 points, per 16.6
Ariza (SF) 24 minutes, 8.9 points, per 15.5
Fisher (PG) 30 minutes, 9.9 points, per 12.1

And here for 2016 Knicks:

Anthony (SF) 35 minutes, 22.5 points, per 21.0
Porzingis (PF) 27 minutes, 13.7 points, per 19.6
Williams (PF) 12 minutes, 6.9 points, per 18.6
Calderon (PG) 26 minutes, 7.3 points, per 12.7
Lopez (C) 26 minutes, 8.2 points, per 12.6
Afflalo (SG) 31 minutes, 12.4 points, per 10.3

NOTE:

(1) "Average" PER in NBA is 15.0

(2) Championship teams typically need THREE players with 20+ PER. Who can step up for Knicks (?)

(3) Lakers won with a PG whose stats not much better than Calderon's.

(4) Lopez and Afflalo are below average so far.

(5) Williams playing only 12 minutes.

PER is not a stat that people take too seriously and I think that we can all agree that we are not the lakers.

mreinman wrote:PER is not a stat that people take too seriously and I think that we can all agree that we are not the lakers.

Malcolm wrote:

bigbasketballs wrote:

Malcolm wrote:(2) Championship teams typically need THREE players with 20+ PER. Who can step up for Knicks (?)

This season?

That a real question?

no, of course not. but it's about how to get there from here . . .

You forgot Galloway who is posting a positive per roughly 60 games into his NBA career.

As to looking for someone to post a 20+ per your candidates are Melo, Pozingis, Galloway and likely a players who don't play for the Knicks presently.

The Knicks don't have a roster that can "step up" into championship caliber.

If this is a propose a trade or free agent thread, you weren't very clear about it.

I think as we move along and shorten the rotation a bit it could eventually work out much better than it looks right now. There is still more untapped potential in this roster IMO. Players can play better than they have so far. Will they do that? It's hard to say this early. Gonna be fun to watch.

nixluva wrote:I did a very similar comparison in a previous thread. It really is a very basic way of looking at the kind of production you want to see from your starters. It doesn't have to be a perfect stat. It covers what it does well enough for a general comparison to be made. It doesn't mean that we will have to match the historical levels from our top 3. If we can get better production from other players in the top 6 rotation spots it can make up for not having 3 20+ PER level players.

I think as we move along and shorten the rotation a bit it could eventually work out much better than it looks right now. There is still more untapped potential in this roster IMO. Players can play better than they have so far. Will they do that? It's hard to say this early. Gonna be fun to watch.

nixluva wrote:I did a very similar comparison in a previous thread. It really is a very basic way of looking at the kind of production you want to see from your starters. It doesn't have to be a perfect stat. It covers what it does well enough for a general comparison to be made. It doesn't mean that we will have to match the historical levels from our top 3. If we can get better production from other players in the top 6 rotation spots it can make up for not having 3 20+ PER level players.

I think as we move along and shorten the rotation a bit it could eventually work out much better than it looks right now. There is still more untapped potential in this roster IMO. Players can play better than they have so far. Will they do that? It's hard to say this early. Gonna be fun to watch.

Now, give me the same PER from Williams over twice the minutes . . . and an average 15.0+ PER from Lopez and Afflalo . . . and aren't the Knicks closer to a 6 seed level team (?)