by Stop Mike Lupica on November 28 at 9:13AM
I just read Mike Moreau's Guide To Fixing the Knicks, as found via this Posting and Toasting entry. FYI, Seth, those swamp rabbits are actually quite scary. One of them tried to assassinate President Carter back in the 70's. Dr. Abbott also linked to this Hoopsworld article (he's been on a "How to fix the disaster that is Isiah Thomas" kick lately), so it has gotten some attention in the blogsphere. Despite what Dr. Abbott wrote, this article is not quite that convincing.
I like HoopsWorld, and don't want to come off as negative, but I will now attempt to debunk some of the ideas presented here, as I think they are off base. I will try to do so without the vitriol that I sometimes (often) spew when dealing with... articles that deal with the Knicks. Please bare with me.
1. Bench Randolph.
His first major suggestion? Upon using the nine games of data that we have, Moreau has determine and concluded that Eddy Curry and Zach Randolph can't work together, and decided... to bench Zach Randolph!
A couple of problems I have with this. One, I think it's too early to give up on the Curry/Randolph tandem. Give them at least 40 games, half a season, then let me know if it can't work. How silly would it have been for the Nuggets to give up on Iverson/Anthony after only 10 games?
Moreau has some sort of beef with Randolph's effort. I'm not sure I understand that one at all; Randolph has been the hardest working Knick since he got here. As is sometimes the case when a guy gets traded from a losing franchise, he views this as a fresh start (yes, even though the Knicks haven't been better than Portland over the past three years), and has been working late at practice, and playing hard on the court. You can definitely criticize the efforts of Curry, Marbury, and Crawford, but criticizing Randolph's effort seems a bit off. He's only had a double-double in 8 out of the 9 games he's played. Work harder, you fat bum!
Secondly, even if you think they must be split, benching Randolph in favor of Curry makes no sense. Moreau must be basing this on stats, not on actually watching the games. Curry can't rebound; Randolph is a Top-5 rebounder right now (not bad for a guy whose "effort...was a disgusting display"). Also, there is a logic fallacy here; Moreau sees two players who look similar, play sort of similar, and have similar stats, and decides that they are the same.
Not quite. While neither is a great blocker, Randolph is a better defender. For starters, he has averaged twice as many steals per games as Curry (0.9 vs. 0.4) over the past four seasons, and that fully speak to his quick hands playing defense. Deflections on entry passes don't count in the stats, but Randolph has gotten his hands on a lot of passes this season, far more than Curry. Randolph fouls less than Curry. He can guard his man on the perimeter (Curry, on the other hand, gets killed by guys like Brad Miller and Mehmet Okur, who shoot from the perimeter). He averages three times as many assists over the last four years as Curry (2.0 vs. 0.6!). And that was on a bad team with fewer options.
Benching Zach in favor of Curry makes little sense. By the way... Eddy Curry is fat. Fine. But Randolph is just big. He's not that out of shape. Again, not the same thing.
2. Start David Lee.
Moreau's second suggestion? The same as every other white Knicks fan... start David Lee. The Great Lee will save the Knicks, if only the stupid Isiah would play him!
You see, David Lee is 8 foot tall, shoots fireballs out his ass, has arms like Dhalsim, and is capable of doing it all!
Oh, wait... no, no he's not. In fact, with Zach Randolph out on bereavement, Lee started two games. His stats? 8-25 shooting (40%), with 18 points total (9 ppg). He did average 9.5 rpg, but that's pretty standard for Lee; you can get that number of rebounds from Lee coming off the bench. He has zero moves on offense, other than the putback dunk, and filling the lane or getting under the basket when the defender on him leaves him to double Curry or Randolph (which they will, since... Lee is not an offensive threat).
Oh, yeah... his defense is atrocious. He got torched by Haslem in his first start, not a good sign.
David Lee is a great rebounder, and a solid role player. He's awesome coming off the bench, a terrific 6th man who doesn't get enough credit in that category. He's also a sweet deal at under $1,000,000 a year.
But he's not a starter. Not until he plays better defense, or gets some offense to go with his rebounding. Until then, he's a short Ben Wallace without the defense. Which is not very pretty.
In the interest of being fair, Lee did perform superb in his third start (the only other start he has made), going 8/12 FGs against the Kings. Of course he had 49 minutes of playing time that game, so he had a chance to put up good stats. And the Kings are a team without what you would call a "good" PF. Or even "average".
Besides, I'm not sure how replacing Zach Randolph, who is just as good a rebounder as Lee, but who play offense significantly better, and defense no worse, with Lee, is an upgrade.
3. Run more plays for Crawford and Marbury.
Moreau's third suggestion? Crawford and Marbury need to have more plays run for them.
I won't even touch this one. I think this is one of the few things that most Knicks fans and Knick bashers agree upon. Running the offense through the guards... that's not the move!
What I will offer is a suggestion of my own suggestion. Do the opposite.
They should be split, if anything. One problem with the Knicks is that they are too good of a rebounding team in some ways. The guards, in particularly, are all really good rebounders - Marbury, Crawford, and especially Richardson. They are also really good at getting into the paint, and drawing fouls.
But sometimes (or often) they get into the paint, and don't get the calls. Let's say Crawford throws a bad pass, or misses a layup after getting into the paint... the result is that the other team has two guards upcourt now; the guy Crawford beat, and the point guard. The Knicks only have Marbury back. If Richardson was following the play, trying to grab a board (as he is prone to doing), there is now a chance of a three on one break the other way.
This happens quite a bit. Teams fast break on the Knicks for two reasons: one, they turn the ball over a lot, but two, the Knicks are crashing the boards and the paint too much (and don't have enough players back on defense).
Think of the Warriors for a second. The Warriors have around two three-point shooters on the court almost every play. If they miss, they tend to give up the rebound (they are tied for 22nd in rebounding right now), but they almost never give up fast breaks. That's because they have two guys back on almost every play.
The Knicks might be better if they benched one of their guards. They tried that with Steph, and we all know how that worked out. But Crawford is made for the 6th man role - he's poor defensively, but team him up with a defensive minded second unit (and maybe Curry) and he can carry the load offensively.
I think the move here might be to add Fred Jones to Quentin Richardson and Marbury in the starting lineup, essentially adding another three-point shooter to stretch the opposing defense, and another defensive minded player.
Fred Jones' steals per minute is quite impressive. He has 10 steals this season, despite only playing 154 minutes. I doubt you will find a higher steal per minute ratio among players with at least 10 steals this season. When he's on the court the other team practically gives him the ball (literally... Chris Duhon passed him an inbounds just last week). He reminds me of that guy from an episode of The X-Files; this guy could get in your eye's floating blind spot (a trick he "learned from the Viet Cong", so you couldn't see him even if he was right in front of you. Sometimes I think that character was based on watching Fred Jones.
All non-sequitors aside, check this stat out: The Knicks' defense has given up 28.7 points per game in the first quarter this season. Yes, most teams give up more points early in the game, but that's significantly higher than normal.
In other quarters: 2nd: 23.0 ppg. 3rd: 23.2 ppg. 4th: 25.4 ppg.
Clearly the fact that the Knicks bench is so strong (and defensive-oriented, with Jared Jeffries, Renaldo Balkman, Nate Robinson and Fred Jones) accounts for the low 2nd and 3rd quarter totals. But the fact is the starters, particularly early in the game, are just getting beat too much. Adding Fred Jones (or Renaldo Balkman, as many have called for) to the starting lineup might help the Knicks cut down on that number.
Personally I would push for moving Crawford out, keeping Q-Rich (inefficient shooting aside) and adding Fred Jones into the starting lineup over Balkman, because Balkman's propensity for foul trouble might cause him to miss key time down the stretch, and Balkman's chasing rebounds might lead to opposing team's getting fast breaks.
These suggestions aren't necessary, though. The reality is that this "let's fix the Knicks" thing is getting a little out of control. I know that the media coverage has proven beyond a doubt that Isiah Thomas is so dumb, his head would fall off if it wasn't attached to the turkey, but come on now... let's take a second a remember that Isiah Thomas is a former basketball player, Top-50 all time, someone who has forgotten more about basketball than any of the so-called "experts", including Moreau or myself (note: I would never classify myself as an expert, and Moreau, to his credit, has not done so, either). I'm not saying that something isn't wrong with the Knicks - it is, as evidenced by their underachieving so far. But I think Isiah knows more about what's really wrong with the team than any of us on the outside, so rather than to offer up suggestions on how to fix the Knicks, I'll stick with my motto all along: Show me progress (i.e. a .500 record and a playoff berth) or, if not, then you can justify the firing of Isiah Thomas.
Leave a comment
I like HoopsWorld, and don't want to come off as negative, but I will now attempt to debunk some of the ideas presented here, as I think they are off base. I will try to do so without the vitriol that I sometimes (often) spew when dealing with... articles that deal with the Knicks. Please bare with me.
1. Bench Randolph.
His first major suggestion? Upon using the nine games of data that we have, Moreau has determine and concluded that Eddy Curry and Zach Randolph can't work together, and decided... to bench Zach Randolph!
A couple of problems I have with this. One, I think it's too early to give up on the Curry/Randolph tandem. Give them at least 40 games, half a season, then let me know if it can't work. How silly would it have been for the Nuggets to give up on Iverson/Anthony after only 10 games?
Moreau has some sort of beef with Randolph's effort. I'm not sure I understand that one at all; Randolph has been the hardest working Knick since he got here. As is sometimes the case when a guy gets traded from a losing franchise, he views this as a fresh start (yes, even though the Knicks haven't been better than Portland over the past three years), and has been working late at practice, and playing hard on the court. You can definitely criticize the efforts of Curry, Marbury, and Crawford, but criticizing Randolph's effort seems a bit off. He's only had a double-double in 8 out of the 9 games he's played. Work harder, you fat bum!Secondly, even if you think they must be split, benching Randolph in favor of Curry makes no sense. Moreau must be basing this on stats, not on actually watching the games. Curry can't rebound; Randolph is a Top-5 rebounder right now (not bad for a guy whose "effort...was a disgusting display"). Also, there is a logic fallacy here; Moreau sees two players who look similar, play sort of similar, and have similar stats, and decides that they are the same.
Not quite. While neither is a great blocker, Randolph is a better defender. For starters, he has averaged twice as many steals per games as Curry (0.9 vs. 0.4) over the past four seasons, and that fully speak to his quick hands playing defense. Deflections on entry passes don't count in the stats, but Randolph has gotten his hands on a lot of passes this season, far more than Curry. Randolph fouls less than Curry. He can guard his man on the perimeter (Curry, on the other hand, gets killed by guys like Brad Miller and Mehmet Okur, who shoot from the perimeter). He averages three times as many assists over the last four years as Curry (2.0 vs. 0.6!). And that was on a bad team with fewer options.
Benching Zach in favor of Curry makes little sense. By the way... Eddy Curry is fat. Fine. But Randolph is just big. He's not that out of shape. Again, not the same thing.
2. Start David Lee.
Moreau's second suggestion? The same as every other white Knicks fan... start David Lee. The Great Lee will save the Knicks, if only the stupid Isiah would play him!
You see, David Lee is 8 foot tall, shoots fireballs out his ass, has arms like Dhalsim, and is capable of doing it all!
Oh, wait... no, no he's not. In fact, with Zach Randolph out on bereavement, Lee started two games. His stats? 8-25 shooting (40%), with 18 points total (9 ppg). He did average 9.5 rpg, but that's pretty standard for Lee; you can get that number of rebounds from Lee coming off the bench. He has zero moves on offense, other than the putback dunk, and filling the lane or getting under the basket when the defender on him leaves him to double Curry or Randolph (which they will, since... Lee is not an offensive threat).
Oh, yeah... his defense is atrocious. He got torched by Haslem in his first start, not a good sign.
David Lee is a great rebounder, and a solid role player. He's awesome coming off the bench, a terrific 6th man who doesn't get enough credit in that category. He's also a sweet deal at under $1,000,000 a year.
But he's not a starter. Not until he plays better defense, or gets some offense to go with his rebounding. Until then, he's a short Ben Wallace without the defense. Which is not very pretty.In the interest of being fair, Lee did perform superb in his third start (the only other start he has made), going 8/12 FGs against the Kings. Of course he had 49 minutes of playing time that game, so he had a chance to put up good stats. And the Kings are a team without what you would call a "good" PF. Or even "average".
Besides, I'm not sure how replacing Zach Randolph, who is just as good a rebounder as Lee, but who play offense significantly better, and defense no worse, with Lee, is an upgrade.
3. Run more plays for Crawford and Marbury.
Moreau's third suggestion? Crawford and Marbury need to have more plays run for them.
I won't even touch this one. I think this is one of the few things that most Knicks fans and Knick bashers agree upon. Running the offense through the guards... that's not the move!
What I will offer is a suggestion of my own suggestion. Do the opposite.
They should be split, if anything. One problem with the Knicks is that they are too good of a rebounding team in some ways. The guards, in particularly, are all really good rebounders - Marbury, Crawford, and especially Richardson. They are also really good at getting into the paint, and drawing fouls.
But sometimes (or often) they get into the paint, and don't get the calls. Let's say Crawford throws a bad pass, or misses a layup after getting into the paint... the result is that the other team has two guards upcourt now; the guy Crawford beat, and the point guard. The Knicks only have Marbury back. If Richardson was following the play, trying to grab a board (as he is prone to doing), there is now a chance of a three on one break the other way.
This happens quite a bit. Teams fast break on the Knicks for two reasons: one, they turn the ball over a lot, but two, the Knicks are crashing the boards and the paint too much (and don't have enough players back on defense).
Think of the Warriors for a second. The Warriors have around two three-point shooters on the court almost every play. If they miss, they tend to give up the rebound (they are tied for 22nd in rebounding right now), but they almost never give up fast breaks. That's because they have two guys back on almost every play.
The Knicks might be better if they benched one of their guards. They tried that with Steph, and we all know how that worked out. But Crawford is made for the 6th man role - he's poor defensively, but team him up with a defensive minded second unit (and maybe Curry) and he can carry the load offensively.
I think the move here might be to add Fred Jones to Quentin Richardson and Marbury in the starting lineup, essentially adding another three-point shooter to stretch the opposing defense, and another defensive minded player.
Fred Jones' steals per minute is quite impressive. He has 10 steals this season, despite only playing 154 minutes. I doubt you will find a higher steal per minute ratio among players with at least 10 steals this season. When he's on the court the other team practically gives him the ball (literally... Chris Duhon passed him an inbounds just last week). He reminds me of that guy from an episode of The X-Files; this guy could get in your eye's floating blind spot (a trick he "learned from the Viet Cong", so you couldn't see him even if he was right in front of you. Sometimes I think that character was based on watching Fred Jones.All non-sequitors aside, check this stat out: The Knicks' defense has given up 28.7 points per game in the first quarter this season. Yes, most teams give up more points early in the game, but that's significantly higher than normal.
In other quarters: 2nd: 23.0 ppg. 3rd: 23.2 ppg. 4th: 25.4 ppg.
Clearly the fact that the Knicks bench is so strong (and defensive-oriented, with Jared Jeffries, Renaldo Balkman, Nate Robinson and Fred Jones) accounts for the low 2nd and 3rd quarter totals. But the fact is the starters, particularly early in the game, are just getting beat too much. Adding Fred Jones (or Renaldo Balkman, as many have called for) to the starting lineup might help the Knicks cut down on that number.
Personally I would push for moving Crawford out, keeping Q-Rich (inefficient shooting aside) and adding Fred Jones into the starting lineup over Balkman, because Balkman's propensity for foul trouble might cause him to miss key time down the stretch, and Balkman's chasing rebounds might lead to opposing team's getting fast breaks.
These suggestions aren't necessary, though. The reality is that this "let's fix the Knicks" thing is getting a little out of control. I know that the media coverage has proven beyond a doubt that Isiah Thomas is so dumb, his head would fall off if it wasn't attached to the turkey, but come on now... let's take a second a remember that Isiah Thomas is a former basketball player, Top-50 all time, someone who has forgotten more about basketball than any of the so-called "experts", including Moreau or myself (note: I would never classify myself as an expert, and Moreau, to his credit, has not done so, either). I'm not saying that something isn't wrong with the Knicks - it is, as evidenced by their underachieving so far. But I think Isiah knows more about what's really wrong with the team than any of us on the outside, so rather than to offer up suggestions on how to fix the Knicks, I'll stick with my motto all along: Show me progress (i.e. a .500 record and a playoff berth) or, if not, then you can justify the firing of Isiah Thomas.
Leave a comment
|
4 Comments
Comments
stopmikelupica
said
I agree with most of your suggestions, Modi.
Limit the minutes - agreed. In fact, Curry and Crawford together on the second team might work. Even if you don't want to mess around with the team that much (and after the Steph episode, it might be best to cool it with the moves), limiting Curry's minutes to the 25-28 mpg range is best, as he is stronger earlier in the game, but fatigues later in the game (more short shots misses in the 4th, just rolling out, etc.). Keep an eye on that in future games... it happens alot.
I'm not high on Jones. In fact, everything I said about Jones could apply to Jeffries; the difference is that Jones is better offensively. But the point is the Knicks might be better served beefing up the defense in the first quarter, and not having to rely as much on their second unit to dig them out of holes ever game.
And I agree that as Marbury goes, so do the Knicks. He and Crawford are the x-factors; Randolph's (and Curry's) play is consistent; it's up to Marbury and/or Crawford to play well for the Knicks to win.
From a psychological standpoint I think jamal could handle coming from the second team. i don't know about Curry though. Lets see what happens the next few games as to where the chemistry is...
SML,
-- i also agree that its too early to give up on Zach-Eddy but at least limit the minutes
-- I agree with a lot of what you said about D-Lee as better as a reserve, however, I still don't think that he is getting enough minutes
-- i don't think I'm quite as high on Fred Jones as you are. d is nice, but shooting is seems awful.
-- the thing is that I'm also for crawford as a 6th man, but ONLY if Eddy is also coming off the bench. i don't want to mess with their chemistry.
-- you already know how i feel about starting Balkman, especially if Q ain't nailing any threes.
-- finally, i like marbury with the ball in his hands more at the start of plays. It gives him more options to be aggressive. When his is, his whole game rises.