Posted by PresIke:

Based upon what evidence can you convince anyone that he "sucks and there is no way around it"? I think some of you should just admit that your view is not based strongly on sufficient evidence other than "he sucks" which comes across like some kind of personal grudge. As Oldfan has indicated I think some of you just hate Kurt Thomas, for whatever reason.

Do we not recall the days when he was called Psycho Kurt? I never said the guy was exactly the same as Oak, but to say he is a terrible defender is a rather assinine statement.

Statistics can tell us a lot of things, but they don't tell the entire story. Kevin Garnett, who is considered one of the best defenders in the NBA is "giving up" a 50% FG against his opponents. How can that be? I wonder if some of you Al-Kurta members got your information from the writer of KnickerBlogger.com who loves statistics, but relies on them a bit much when supporting some of his arguments.

Here are links to 2 articles he wrote regarding PF defenders, one of which is specifically about Kurt Thomas.

Dirk, The Daring Defender? - http://www.knickerblogger.net/archive/2005_01_23_kb.htm

My Post vs. NY Post - http://www.knickerblogger.net/archive/2004_12_26_kb.htm

While 82games.com is a fantastic site, we can probe deeper and see that these statistics can lie (like the famous book "How to Lie With Statistics"). A lot of these statistics are strongly based upon coaching and one's teamates' ability to defend. Duncan (who the author refers as the "best defender") may be a great defender, but the Spurs are also run like a machine. The entire team is excellent defensively. Bruce Bowen and Ginobli are very strong perimeter defenders preventing Duncan from having to constantly come off of his man, and Malik Rose is also good.

Instead Kurt is surrounded by HORRIBLE defenders making him look weaker, as I mentioned in the initial post. Marbury and Jamal allow an incredible amount of lane penetration from their opponents. This forces the Knicks' fowards and centers to come off their men and help, which is one of the reasons he and Nazr foul so much and allow their men open looks...leading to higher FG percentages.

If you ACTUALLY WATCH THE GAMES, as has been commented on by several professional observers during games (i.e. Mike Breen who can be critical of players as well), Kurt is a strong one on one defender most of the time. Is he athletic? No. But he is physical. I don't see how you can argue that he is "soft." Where is your evidence to support this point? Have watched the Knicks over the years, man? Remember his play against Alonzo Mourning in the 1999 Miami series?

Posted by KnickerBlogger:


KT's not a great defender. He's not a shot blocker. Nor is he a shut down defender. His man-to-man defense has slipped in the last few years. As a high post pick & roll guy, he doesn't get many offensive boards. Also his post game has evaporated. I cringe every time he decides to go into the post, to put up that weak turn around jumper.

As for these "professional observers" I recall during one Knick game, the announcers saying that Kurt Thomas should be voted on to a All Defensive Team. Thinking that KT is more deserving than one of Duncan, Rasheed, Brand, Kirilenko, Bowen, Chandler, or Prince makes me wonder how credible these "professionals" are.

Knickerblogger, thanks for responding. I do want to be clear here, I never intended my argument to be that Kurt is a "great defender," I just believe that he is not as bad as some have suggested. I think he is a quality defender, especially in comparison to the rest of the Knicks' starting lineup. I can see the argument for his defense slipping, but I don't think he is anywhere near to being poor in this category.

Of course, Duncan, Kirilenko, Rasheed, Prince and Chandler are better, my point about the statistics was that they don't tell the whole story (i.e. why Kevin Garnett has an opponents field goal percentage of 50). Do I expect the Knick announcers to be biased? Yes, (especially in light of Marv Albert's depatrute from the MSG booth) but that doesn't mean everything they say is false. It's not necessarily a slippery slope.

If you checked my earlier comments, I already stated that KT has no post game, or move to the basket and offensive game (the mid-range jumper) hurts his offensive rebounding. My question was whether this would be as much of a problem if the team was structured to compliment his game, as any good team should be. Most players in the NBA have some kind of flaw. If we had a SF that played significant minutes who actually knew how to rebound, especially offensively we might have less complaints about Kurt. Or how about a Center who had a REAL post game? Or A SG who penetrated more?

The point is the Knicks' problem is not ONE player. It's easy for anyone to point a finger at a given player as the reason why this team is playing so horribly now, (a popular thing in the papers and Knick forums lately, which I believe is a sign of frustration, and search for scapegoats) but this is a structural thing more than anything. KT probably doesn't belong on the team as it stands, and probably should be traded to a team that has a strong post player already ASAP because by the time we will be able to use him he will be too old, but let's not treat the guy like a loser.

[Edited by - presike on 02/07/2005 07:20:03]

I think Isiah was smart to resign him, we'd really be in trouble without him this year.

Posted by KnickerBlogger:

If the Knicks can't sell him as the last piece to someone's championship, then I'd rather he come off the bench in favor of Sweetney. Let the Knicks see what they have in Mike. Let the guards play inside-out with Sweetney's post up game. Let Kurt provide the Knicks' second team with a viable scorer. Let him ease the burden from offensively challenged Jamison Brewer.

Posted by KnickerBlogger:

PresIke - I read your original post, and I agree on most everything. The Knicks problems are not the fault of Kurt Thomas. It's easy to see why he's unpopular:

1. The Knicks have 2 wins in 2005.
2. He's taking away minutes from the Knicks best young player.
3. He's not fantastic at anything.
4. His flaws are obvious.
5. He doesn't compliment the rest of the team (I can't imagine many PFs that would - outside of Duncan).
6. His skills are eroding (look at his per minute stats - almost everything is down).
7. He has the third longest contract on the team.

I wouldn't want NY to trade him for a song either. He doesn't fit in with their plans neither now nor in the future. He'd be a great role player for a team looking to win a championship with a weak bench (Phoenix I'm looking at you). Nonetheless his large contract might scare off a team like that (Phoenix - I'm still looking at you).

If the Knicks can't sell him as the last piece to someone's championship, then I'd rather he come off the bench in favor of Sweetney. Let the Knicks see what they have in Mike. Let the guards play inside-out with Sweetney's post up game. Let Kurt provide the Knicks' second team with a viable scorer. Let him ease the burden from offensively challenged Jamison Brewer.

Posted by KnickerBlogger:

Let's just say that the Knicks are unable to trade Thomas by the deadline. Then would you start him down the stretch in hopes of keeping his value up until you work on a deal this summer?

I wouldn't. The reason being that Kurt's trade value shouldn't decline if you claim to be giving minutes to Sweetney as part of the rebuilding process, and not due to his declining skills. Big men are always in demand in this league, and Kurt's hard working personality will help to keep his value high.