A few days ago the following article was posted by Mike Kurylo of Knickerblogger:
Kurylo’s column was in response to an article in Pro Basketball News – Courtside View: Knicks said to be improving, but are they really? – that argued the Knicks have not really gotten better in Mike D’Antoni’s first season as head coach. The following paragraph from this article specifically attracted Kurylo’s attention.
The Knicks have improved from 21st in scoring last season (96.9 ppg) to fourth this season (105.6 ppg) but they have dropped from 22nd in points allowed (103.5 ppg) to 28th (108.2 ppg) and their point differential of -2.6 ppg ranks in the bottom third of the league (22nd), only a few spots better than last season (-6.6 ppg, 25th). The Knicks were last in field-goal percentage differential last season (-.036) and they are last again this season (-.038). Although Lee has emerged as a nightly double-double threat, the Knicks have markedly declined overall on the boards, dropping from 18th in rebounding differential (-.1) to 27th (-3.9). A team that consistently gets out-shot and out-rebounded obviously has no realistic chance to be successful, no matter how many points it scores or how many players post career high individual numbers.
The primary issue Kurylo raised upon presenting this paragraph is that the author focused on points-per-game, rather than points-per-possession. The former ignores pace and consequently it doesn’t accurately reflect the quality of a team. Having read both the article in Pro Basketball News and Kurylo’s discussion, I thought I would spend today’s column reflecting on the dispute.
The Knicks Have Improved
Let me begin with another quote from the Pro Basketball News article:
“….the Knicks are not much better than they were when Isiah Thomas ran the show; Thomas had a .402 winning percentage in his first season on New York’s bench, virtually identical to the .406 winning percentage that D’Antoni has posted so far in his first season in New York.”
As Kurylo notes, such a comparison is cherry-picking at its worst. D’Antoni did not inherit the Knicks from 2004-05. The team he inherited from Isiah Thomas posted a 23-59 record last season.
And if we compare the 2007-08 team to the Knicks in 2008-09, it’s clear this team has improved.
In 2007-08 the Knicks scored 101.2 points per 100 offensive possessions and allowed 108.1 points per 100 defensive possessions. So the Knicks efficiency differential – offensive efficiency minus defensive efficiency – was -6.9. Obviously this is bad. In fact, it was the worst differential for the Knicks since these numbers could be fully calculated (complete calculations go back to 1973-74).
Now that we have established what D’Antoni inherited, let’s make a proper comparison. After 71 games in 2008-09 the Knicks have posted the following numbers:
Offensive Efficiency: 105.2 points per 100 possessions
Defensive Efficiency: 107.8 points per 100 possessions
Efficiency Differential: -2.6
Looking at these numbers it’s clear the Knicks have improved on offense and defense. Consequently it’s not surprising that this team has already surpassed last year’s wins.
Why Have the Knicks Improved?
Much of what I said was already noted in Kurylo’s column. Now let me offer something more.
We can see in the efficiency differential numbers that the Knicks are better. What we want to know, though, is why. And to answer this question, we should look at the performance of the individual players.
As I have noted in the past, Wins Produced translates the efficiency differential story from the team to the players. And when we look at the players currently on the Knicks via Wins Produced, one can see who is responsible for this team’s improvement.
Table One: The New York Knicks after 71 games in 2008-09
Table One presents the standard views offered in this forum. First we have how many wins the Knicks could expect if we made the assumption that what we saw last year from these players would be seen in 2008-09 (by the way — as I noted a few days ago –this exercise should not be thought of as a complete forecast). This initial view suggests that Knicks should have already won 24 games this year.
We then have a second view which looks at how many wins the Knicks should expect given the performance of these players in 2008-09. This view suggests the Knicks should have 29 victories after 71 games this season.
If we put both views together we can see that the Knicks might have improved because a) the team has changed its roster; and b) some players on this roster have improved.
The Roster Moves
The many roster moves the Knicks have made began in the off-season and continued into the regular season. Looking at these moves, here are the players who played for the Knicks last year who did not appear this season (or in the case of Eddy Curry not very much): Renaldo Balkman, Mardy Collins, Eddy Curry, Jamal Crawford, Jerome James, Fred Jones, Stephon Marbury, Randolph Morris, Zach Randolph, and Malik Rose. These players played 11,792 minutes last year and produced 8.8 wins. These numbers give us a 0.036 WP48 [Wins Produced per 48 minutes]. Average is 0.100, so these players were collectively below par (although Balkman and Randolph were above average).
The players added to this roster – who are still on the team – include the following: Chris Duhon, Danilo Gallinari, Al Harrington, Larry Hughes, and Chris Wilcox. These five have played 5,629 minutes and produced 6.0 wins for a WP48 of 0.051. When we look at the performance of the specific players, only Duhon [2,563 minutes, 6.2 Wins Produced, 0.115 WP48] has been above average (and as noted last September, Duhon’s performance is not surprising). Despite the addition of Duhon, the roster moves the Knicks have made have not made much difference. The players added are not much different from the players lost.
One should add, though, that the loss of Curry (at least he is lost to the team on the court), Crawford, and Marbury should have harmed the Knicks. At least, if you believe scoring matters, the loss of these scorers should have cost the Knicks in the win-loss columns. But that is not what has happened (and no, it’s not because the team added Harrington and Hughes).
Improving Players
If the improvement is not primarily from the roster moves then we have to look at the performance of the individual players who remained. The Knicks only have the following five players from last year’s team still on the roster (and actually playing): Wilson Chandler, David Lee, Jared Jeffries, Quentin Richardson, and Nate Robinson. These five posted the following numbers last year: 8,090 minutes played, 14.7 Wins Produced, and 0.087 WP48. This season, after 71 games, this quintet has played 9,467 minutes, produced 23.6 Wins Produced, and posted a 0.119 WP48. When we look at the individual players we see that Wilson Chandler is actually offering a bit less. And Jeffries is about the same. But Lee, Richardson, and Robinson are doing more.
Of these, the biggest improvement in per-minute production is seen in the play of Nate Robinson. And as Table Two indicates, this improvement can be tied to increased production with respect to shooting efficiency, rebounds, steals, and assists. In sum, Robinson has gotten better in a number of areas.
Table Two: Evaluating Nate Robinson
Like Robinson, Lee’s WP48 is higher this year than it was last year (although not what it was two years ago). Lee’s increase in Wins Produced, though, is nearly as big as the increase we see from Robinson. Lee produced 12.7 wins last year in 2,356. This year, assuming he continues to play 35 minutes a game, Lee will produce 17.1 wins in 2,864 minutes. So Lee will offer more than four additional wins, and much of this addition is simply due to the fact that Lee is finally getting more than thirty minutes of playing time per game.
Putting the Picture Together and Looking to the Future
Let’s go back to the beginning. Projecting to the end of the 2008-09 season we see that the Knicks will improve by about 10 wins this year. Despite numerous roster moves, it’s not the players coming and going that have really produced this change. Most of the change in wins can simply be tied to the improved play of Robinson (which happens with young players) and the increased playing time for David Lee.
These two players, along with Duhon, produce almost all of the wins on the Knicks. This trio – who are scheduled to make about $10.5 million next season (after making $9.2 million this year) — are the only above average players currently on the roster. Unfortunately the Knicks are scheduled to pay $60 million more to a collection of players who really have not helped this year. So without further roster changes it seems unlikely the Knicks are going to improve much more.
Of course, given what we have seen over the past few months, further roster changes are quite likely. One suspects that this team will be somewhat different at the start of the 2009-10 season. And it’s well-positioned (as are a number of other teams) for the 2010 free agent market. So the improvement we have seen this year – and yes, this team is definitely better – can continue into the future. That is if this team is able to find additional players who can produce wins.
- DJ
The WoW Journal Comments Policy
Our research on the NBA was summarized HERE.
The Technical Notes at wagesofwins.com provides substantially more information on the published research behind Wins Produced and Win Score
Wins Produced, Win Score, and PAWSmin are also discussed in the following posts:
Simple Models of Player Performance
What Wins Produced Says and What It Does Not Say
Introducing PAWSmin — and a Defense of Box Score Statistics
Finally, A Guide to Evaluating Models contains useful hints on how to interpret and evaluate statistical models.
Hi, thanks for the Knick update. And your previous response to my question about Bernard King. My question is do you think Donnie Walsh is any good as a GM. I have read your stuff on coaches, but haven’t seen anything yet on the GM’s, althought you may already have covered it. I am a die hard Knick devotee, good to hear there are some decent players, not all duds. Just curious what you think of Walsh. And again thanks for the Bernard info, even if it broke my heart a little. I loved him, but the numbers don’t lie. Thank you
Without looking at anything else, it’s hard to imagine how someone can see a change from a -6.6 ppg differential to a -2.6 ppg differential and not see that as a fairly substantial improvement.
It’s amazing that Robinson is an above average rebounder, even for a PG. He’s like 5’7!
It’s worth noting that in Mike D’Antoni’s time with the Phoenix Suns, the first season of the Seven Seconds or Less Suns also had the lowest offensive efficiency, by a lot. It was also the only season in his time there where Steve Nash wasn’t the starting point guard.
It’s incredible that the Knicks may not re-sign David Lee.
Dave,
What do you t hink of Bill Simmons column on basketball stats, http://sports.espn.go.com/espnmag/story?id=4011524
Not much. There is clearly an incentive for decision-makers in the NBA to encourage people in the media to write stories about how “new methods” are revolutionizing decision-making in the NBA. But I just don’t see, though, much evidence of any revolution. We will talk about this in the next book. I really think the story Bill Simmons tells (like many of his stories) is lacking in accuracy.
We also have to remember that the Knicks are going to make a run at LeBron and His Gang of Merry Free Agents in 2010. There’s a reason most people aren’t seeing the improvement right away.
New York isn’t aiming for the short-term here. The improvement from the Isiah years, and the albeit slim possibility of the 8th seed in the playoffs, are just bonuses for them.
Given a collection of players, Wins Produced is supposed to predict the amount of team wins. But can it also predict efficiency differential? I always thought that was a surprise we have to wait and find out. There’s a link between team wins and ED, sure, but isn’t it kinda fuzzy compared to WP and actual wins? Or is there some fancy mathematical relationship I don’t know about? (I don’t know about a great many things, so that’s ok, but I’m curious)
I was going to say dumb luck or having clutch players vs. not could throw a wrench in the works but then that’s the case for WP too. I remember reading somewhere that a team can have up to a seven game swing off its pythagorean just due to really bad (or good) luck.
I question the legitimacy of comparing the Knicks from last year to the Knicks of this year to begin with!
The Knicks of last year were the most dysfunctional professional sports team I have ever seen.
There were never ending off the court issues (and some “in court” issues LOL), hostilities in the locker room, total disrespect for the coach etc…
I know you tend not to put much weight on these kinds of things, but if ever there was an exception, last year was it.
I think a more valid comparison of Isiah’s results to D’Antoni’s results is to compare the Knicks from the prior year. However, even that comparison may not be fair. The Knicks were in playoff contention and only 5 games under .500 after getting off to a slow start. They were playing .500 ball for an extended period of time before a series of critical injuries decimated the team and they went into a nosedive.
I don’t think these Knicks are any better than Isiah’s Knicks so far.
The major improvements are related to moving bad salaries and creating an environment where the players will perform to their potential and are more likely to improve with time.
Thinking about the players out vs. player in issue for the Knicks, and the fact that these exchanges didn’t make much difference — lets not forget that the main point seems to have been to trade for shorter contracts. Obviously, when you are trading unproductive players, it’s a big plus to take on the guy w/ the shorter contract!
The Knickerblogger article did not “refute” anything; “Mike K” neither understands basic journalistic conventions (such as spelling numbers smaller than 10–i.e., “four” instead of “4″–or taking the time to actually spell people’s names correctly) nor does he understand my PBN article. I compared D’Antoni’s season one to Isiah’s season one because D’Antoni only has been in New York for one season. After year two we will be able to see if the Knicks are better or worse than they were in year two of Isiah’s coaching tenure with the Knicks. Meanwhile, the Knicks have steadily regressed this season in terms of winning percentage (started out 6-3, went downhill ever since), rebounding and defense. The reason that I cited ranking for ppg differential instead of the raw number is that regardless of what the raw number is, if two thirds of the league outperforms your team in this category then you simply are not going to have a very good record. The Knicks are still easily a bottom tier team in point differential.
I find it most interesting that successful NBA coaches who I have personally interviewed–specifically Gregg Popovich and Mike Brown–have a completely different take on the value and application of basketball statistics than the one found here or at Knickerblogger. It is even more interesting that anyone would seriously believe that an economist or an amateur writer better understands why NBA teams win and lose games than coaches who have “been in the trenches” for years.
My detailed refutation of the Knickerblogger post can be found by clicking on my name.
DF,
I am amazed you cannot look at this year’s Pistons compared to last year’s Pistons and know that Billups is a better player than Iverson, but you can compare D’Antoni’s first season in NY to Thomas’s first season in NY and draw a single meaningful conclusion. Clearly the numbers must support the conclusion you wanted to reach.
And you can’t compare year 2 of Isiah to D’Antoni, why? Because in Year 2 they start tuning the coach out? In your interview with Gregg Popovich – where you discussed basketball with Gregg Popovich and asked questions to Gregg Popovich and worded your questions to not seem like an idiot to Gregg Popovich so that Gregg Popovich would not unleash that trademark Gregg Popovich sarcasm – did you ask how the Spurs have done so well since they began tuning him out in Year 2? When you were interviewing Mike Brown – coach of the Cavaliers’ Mike Brown who was formerly the Assistant Coach of the Spurs Mike Brown and knows Gregg Popovich whom you also interviewed and informed that you interviewed Mike Brown so that Gregg Popovich knew you were a serious journalist, publishing articles at quick timeout crap spot, that can be found with this link – did Mike Brown mention how Cleveland has managed the best record in the East despite his players tuning him out?
Or maybe, just maybe, Isiah was such a joke of a coach and GM that he was being tuned out in year 2 and most coaches with a modicum of ability don’t have that problem. And, if that is the case, D’Antoni still represents an upgrade.
While we are at it, why don’t we compare D’Antoni’s first year coaching a team built by Isiah with Larry Brown’s first year coaching a team built by Isiah. Maybe we’ll reach the conclusion D’Antoni is a better coach than that Hall-of-Famer.
Or maybe, what you are really getting at is that there is little difference between employing widely-recognized poor coaches and widely-recognized great coaches. Winning and losing is largely dependent upon the talent level of the team. Interesting premise. You work the term ‘deck chairs’ into that analysis and you may have something.
You keep holding blog authors up to journalistic ideals. Blogs do not require journalistic skills. If anything, journalists have abhorred blogs because those that have become most popular have done so while eschewing journalistic discipline. If you wanted to pretend to be a journalist, knock yourself out, but don’t hoist your game of pretend on others.
Tball:
I can’t compare year two of Isiah to year two of D’Antoni because year two of D’Antoni does not yet exist. That is evident to everyone except you and the folks at Knickerblogger. The mainstream media that you have suddenly become so enamored with has been suggesting all season that D’Antoni has turned the Knicks around; when I watch the Knicks and look at the numbers it is obvious that the Knicks have yet to accomplish anything that they did not do under Isiah. Could they eventually become better? Sure–and if they do become better then I will write about it. What is happening now is that Isiah is an unpopular figure while D’Antoni is a personable, popular figure, so media members who did not like dealing with Isiah are spinning things to say that the Knicks have improved. The Knicks’ defensive and rebounding numbers are terrible and it is obvious to any intelligent person who watches them play that they struggle mightily in those areas. Of course, I would not expect you or someone representing a site with “Knick” in the name to take an intelligent, objective view of the Knicks.
As for your other rambling remarks, you talk awfully big for someone who does not even use his real name and clearly has absolutely no understanding of basketball whatsoever. Don’t blame me that top notch NBA coaches think that the stat nonsense that you are so enamored with is largely irrelevant.
Your comments about blogs are funny, because many newspapers are largely going out of business due to the superior coverage provided by various internet sites (including blogs); many people who used to be top NBA writers for newspapers are now bloggers (including Sam Smith, formerly of the Chicago Tribune). Not that I have to prove anything to an anonymous fool like you, but my work has been published in both “mainstream” media and at my blog. I’m sure that you wish you could formulate an intelligent question to ask Coach Popovich, let alone be fortunate enough to have the opportunity to do so. My website that you scorn contains interviews with Hall of Fame coaches and players, so it is easy to understand why you are so jealous.
With one game remaining in their season, the Knicks own the second worst record in the East, which is exactly the same spot that they occupied at the end of last season. Overall, only seven teams have fewer wins than the Knicks; last season, four teams had fewer wins than the Knicks and one team (the Clippers) matched the Knicks’ win total.
The Knicks are tied for 28th-29th in defensive field goal percentage and they are tied for 27th-28th in rebounding differential. Their performances in those categories have been declining throughout the year. The Knicks’ won/loss record, their porous defense and their weak rebounding are three strong indicators that the team is not improving.
It is one thing to believe/argue/suggest that the Knicks are properly employing a strategy of creating cap room that may enable them to become a better team in the future; it is quite another thing to believe/argue/suggest that the Knicks have in any meaningful fashion demonstrated that they are a better team right now than they were when Isiah Thomas coached them.
I concluded my PBN article about the Knicks with these words:
“The Knicks have not had a winning record since 2000-01. They have been bad for a long time and it may take a while before they are good again. No one should rush to judgment after D’Antoni’s first season with the franchise but there are two interesting dynamics to watch with the Knicks, namely what roster changes new team president Donnie Walsh makes in the next year or two and whether or not D’Antoni is willing/able to coax a better defensive performance out of this team.
“Defense” may be a four letter word to D’Antoni but if the Knicks want to spell a certain 12 letter word — “championship” — for the first time since 1973 then defense will have to become a part of their collective vocabulary, as should be obvious by watching the teams who currently sit atop the Eastern Conference, Cleveland and defending NBA champion Boston.”
I can understand why diehard Knicks fans at a Knicks website would not be comforted by what I wrote but it is odd and amusing for a supposedly objective, stat based website to take the side of the fan site in this dispute.
By the way, contrary to what Berri wrote, my PBN article did not say anything about the 2004-05 season; Isiah’s first season as Knicks coach was 2006-07. My article compared D’Antoni’s first season (2008-09) to Isiah’s first season as New York’s coach (2006-07) but it also spent just as much time comparing this season’s Knicks to last season’s Knicks:
“The Knicks have improved from 21st in scoring last season (96.9 ppg) to fourth this season (105.6 ppg) but they have dropped from 22nd in points allowed (103.5 ppg) to 28th (108.2 ppg) and their point differential of -2.6 ppg ranks in the bottom third of the league (22nd), only a few spots better than last season (-6.6 ppg, 25th). The Knicks were last in field-goal percentage differential last season (-.036) and they are last again this season (-.038). Although Lee has emerged as a nightly double-double threat, the Knicks have markedly declined overall on the boards, dropping from 18th in rebounding differential (-.1) to 27th (-3.9). A team that consistently gets out-shot and out-rebounded obviously has no realistic chance to be successful, no matter how many points it scores or how many players post career high individual numbers.”
Knickerblogger is run by someone who does not understand journalistic conventions (he declared that I wrote out “four” instead of “4″ as part of some nefarious plan to trick readers) and is so sloppy that the completely missed the point of my article and in his “rebuttal” he misspelled my name repeatedly. He is a passionate fan of his team and that perhaps explains his “enthusiasm.” Why exactly Professor Berri jumped into this particular fray with his own “contribution” of incorrect information (his assertion that I compared this year’s Knicks to the 2004-05 team) is something readers of this site should ask themselves; the accusation that my article “cherry picks” data does not withstand a most cursory reading of the piece.
DF,
The reason db jumped in and the reason Knickerblogger commented is that your use of statistics slips somewhere between convenient and absurd. You complain about others not respecting the rules of journalism (ignoring the fact they do not hold themselves out as journalists), but you throw about statistics haphazardly, without any clear thought for the real information contained in the numbers. I don’t think you’d have heard a peep from anyone if you’d written your blather without citing numbers you clearly cannot comprehend.
From last season to this season, the Knicks improved their point differential from -6.6 to -2.6. That is huge, regardless of where they moved in the rankings. Another year to year improvement of 4 points would put the team in the positive, and teams in the positive generally sport winning records. This season, all six EC teams with positive differentials are going to the post season.
By comparison, the Magic were a .500 two seasons ago, improved their differential by 4 (see how I don’t spell it out in my non-journalistic effort) and became a solid playoff team. This season they improved their differential by a point and a half and they are a championship contender. The Trailblazers improved their differential by 5 this season and some are calling them the strongest challengers to the Lakers in the West. Larry Brown only improved Charlotte’s differential by 3.5 (maybe the HOF’er isn’t an improvement on Sam Vincent?). Phoenix’s differential fell by 4 points this year. 4 points is meaningful.
From the quote department: “The reason that I cited ranking for ppg differential instead of the raw number is that regardless of what the raw number is, if two thirds of the league outperforms your team in this category then you simply are not going to have a very good record.” Why utilize this stat to determine if the team has a very good record? Why not just look at their record?
The Knicks have forged ahead while divorcing itself of much of the overpriced talent Isiah heaped on the team. In another year, when they can start thinking about adding talent rather than simply subtracting salary, the team will be much better for it. It is amazingly difficult to reduce team salary obligations and improve, but the Knicks have done it.
And again, you only site numbers that support your purpose. FG% differential and rebounding differential. Look at the whole picture. Last season’s Knicks had a turnover differential, an assist differential, and a steal differential of more than one per game. This year they got approximately to even in all categories. They improved their 3pt FG% differential, moving from -0.03 to +0.01 and combined that with an increase of about 800 3pt FGA. Thus, while their FG% differential did not improve, their 2pt FG% differential improved and their 3pt FG% differential improved (you’ll need more calculating power than your fingers and toes to appreciate that one).
And lets not forget wins. Wins are a useful stat. Wins help decide which teams go to the playoffs. Teams that win more games are considered better than teams that win fewer games. Gregg Popovich, for whom stat is a four letter word, notices wins. If you were to ask Gregg Popovich (while you were playing journalist dress up), he would tell you he doesn’t care about ppg differential ranking (where you hang your ‘Knicks have not improved’ hat). If you were to ask Gregg Popovich, who you have personally interviewed, if good teams win more games than bad teams, he would answer affirmatively. This year’s Knicks squad is winning more than last year’s Knicks squad. This year’s Knicks squad is better than last year’s Knicks squad.
Again, why not compare Larry Brown’s first season to D’Antoni’s and tell us which coach does a better job?
Tball:
The Knicks have barely budged in ppg differential rankings from last season (25th) to this season (23rd)–and they have been performing steadily worse in this category down the stretch. In order to be a playoff team or have a winning record, it is necessary to outscore the opposition. The Knicks fail to do this on a regular basis. If you think that moving from 25th to 23rd in the league in this crucial category represents real improvement then you are the one who does not understand numbers. The Knicks are not close to having a positive differential and there is no reason to believe that they will have a positive differential next season unless they make significant changes (which they may very well do but my article was not about predicting the future but merely an evaluation of their current performance, something that I made quite clear).
I looked at ppg differential, fg% differential and rebounding because those are the stats that winning NBA coaches look at most frequently. It is funny how guys like you and Berri simply blithely dismiss the knowledge of NBA coaches who are actually in the trenches. If Popovich or Brown just showed up at one of Berri’s academic conferences and proclaimed not only that they know more about economics than he does, would anyone take them seriously? That is essentially what Berri is doing–interjecting himself into discussions about NBA analysis despite not only having no firsthand knowledge of the subject but also having a blatant and arrogant disrespect for the accumulated wisdom of top NBA coaches and GMs.
Isiah Thomas led the Knicks to 33 wins in his first season as the team’s coach. D’Antoni’s Knicks are two wins short of that total with one game remaining. D’Antoni’s Knicks are near the bottom of the league in ppg differential and rebounding differential. To this point, there is no indication that the Knicks have improved their status. That does not mean that they don’t have the right plan or that they may not improve at some indeterminate point in the future. Also, while the Knicks do have more wins than they did last season, the overall trend of the season is downward not only in ppg diff and rebounding diff but also in wins (10-19 since the All-Star break).
I did not make any predictions or assertions in my article about how good the Knicks may eventually become under D’Antoni and I explicitly cautioned that it would not be fair to cast a verdict on the D’Antoni era at this early date. My main point is that, contrary to what the mainstream media wants you to believe, the Knicks have not in fact turned the corner just yet. D’Antoni inherited a non-playoff team and the Knicks are still most assuredly a non-playoff team.
Your comments about what might happen if the Knicks sign more players and continue to improve their ppg diff remind me of the old joke about a team being one player away from being a contender–with that player being Shaquille O’Neal (or whoever the top player in the NBA is at the time the joke is told). If the Knicks are putting all of their eggs in the basket of that one player being LeBron James, though, they should think long and hard about just how likely it is that he would leave the best team in the league to play for a team as bad as the Knicks are. James plays for a defensive minded coach with a championship pedigree who understands what it takes to win in the NBA and James knows that ultimately his legacy hinges on how many championships he wins.
Tball:
I did not compare D’Antoni to Larry Brown because my article was not about “which coach does a better job.” Nowhere in my article can you find that idea expressed directly or indirectly. My article is primarily about refuting the popularly believed sentiment that the Knicks have already turned the corner in terms of their on court production.
Also, at some point Berri might consider correcting his assertion that I compared the 2009 Knicks to the 2005 Knicks, since anyone who reads my article will easily see that this is a misrepresentation of what I wrote.
DF,
If your post is not about which coach did a better job, then why reach back into Isiah’s first year? Why does it matter that it is a coach’s first year? And again, if you are only allowed to compare D’Antoni’s season to other Knick coach’s first years, why not compare it to Brown’s first year? Other than the similarity of record, what makes Isiah’s first year a compelling point of comparison?
Looking at ‘rankings’ of ppg differential and dismissing the values associated is nothing more than narrow-minded foolishness. The Nuggets improved from 8th in the conference to second. That would seem like a huge leap, until you recognize it is only the result of an additional four wins. If you fail to look at the values with the rankings, you are advancing nothing more than self-delusion.
If the Knicks make as big a leap next year as they made this year in ppg differential, they will be in the playoffs.
Again, show me the quote where Popovich says he looks at a team’s ppg differential. You say he and Mike Brown look at these numbers. I say you are full of crap. If they did, they wouldn’t admit it. Ppg differential is great for ranking a team’s performance, but I don’t think either coach gives a damn about ranking teams. That’s the stuff of pundits and observers; it doesn’t help you win a game.
I’m not suggesting the Knicks are hedging on LeBron. Their lack of success in recent years has been the direct result of signing mediocre players to star contracts, giving themselves little flexibility or options for improvement. With smart team management, they can improve the same way. None of the top 8 teams in the East ascended by signing a free agent MVP candidate/winner. The Knicks don’t have to sign LeBron to improve. The Knicks can ascend by improving their talent level, which can be done by being smarter with free agent contracts and keeping their draft picks.
Tball:
My article is about the fact that the Knicks have not “improved” to the extent that pundits suggested (particularly early in the season). It is not necessary or relevant to compare D’Antoni to every single coach in Knicks history or to the first season by every coach in Knicks history. The relevant comparison is to the previous regime. D’Antoni’s Knicks in his first season are roughly the same quality as Isiah’s Knicks in his first season. What the Knicks will or won’t do moving forward is speculation.
The Knicks are at or near the bottom of the league in several meaningful defensive and rebounding categories. They did not do anything remotely equivalent to moving up to being the second seed in their conference in any category.
What possible reason do you have to believe that the Knicks will substantially improve their point differential ranking next season? It is a lot easier to move up a few spots when you are near the bottom of the rankings than to actually improve the point differential from a negative to a positive. The Knicks still gave up a lot more points than they scored and they were still a losing team. Something will have to change personnel-wise and/or in terms of strategy for the Knicks to even get to .500.
Neither Popovich nor Brown are “numbers guys,” which in and of itself is an interesting piece of information considering that Popovich has won four titles and Brown has already guided the Cavs to the NBA Finals in 2007 and the league’s best record in 2009. Both of them told me that field goal percentage defense is the first stat that they look at. Popovich also said that he looks at rebounding and turnovers because those categories are more “controllable” than whether or not his team makes shots. I did not say that Brown and Popovich specifically look at ppg differential, though I know that other coaches focus a lot on point differential (for instance, former Coach of the Year and current TV analyst Hubie Brown has been a huge proponent of this stat for decades and often mentions it during telecasts). My own research of NBA champions since 1990 shows that NBA championship teams tend to rank very highly in ppg diff and defensive field goal percentage.
Whether or not the Knicks can or will improve in the future has nothing to do with the fact that thus far they have yet to accomplish anything more than they did when Isiah was the coach. That may not be a comforting thought to Knicks fans or Isiah bashers but that is the reality.
By the way, I notice that Berri has still not bothered to correct his erroneous statement that my article compared the 2009 Knicks to the 2005 Knicks.
DF,
So we are comparing regimes, not coaches? The Knicks in Brown’s season (one year before Isiah’s first) are just as comparable to this year’s Knicks. Why not compare those regimes? All you are really doing is picking a convenient year in the last few that is useful to your argument. There is no rational, unbiased explanation for it.
You said, “I looked at ppg differential, fg% differential and rebounding because those are the stats that winning NBA coaches look at most frequently.” Then you started dropping names. Popovich never said he looks at differential (ppg or fg%). Brown never said he looks at differential (ppg or fg%). Again, you cite the numbers that are convenient to your argument, then you hold out those foolish enough to speak with you as supporters of your insanity, all the while they support none of it.
Really, your own research shows you that teams that win championships score a lot more than their opponents? Wow. Time to pull together that white paper. This sounds like Pulitzer material!
Champions lead in many statistics. Ppg differential is important, critical, but looking at which stats champions carry is, at best, inconclusive.
You said winning coaches look at these stats, then dropped the names of Popovich and Brown, although you weren’t implying these coaches support the numbers. Misleading, but not inaccurate appears to be your defense. Similarly, db did not say you compared the 2009 Knicks to the 2005 Knicks. He simply said ” D’Antoni did not inherit the Knicks from 2004-05.” That is not an inaccurate statement.
Tball:
I did not write one word about the Knicks of 2005 in my article, so for Berri to lead with that statement is completely inaccurate and misleading in the context that he made it; he is clearly indicating that I compared the 2009 Knicks to the 2005 Knicks, when I did nothing of the sort: anyone who reads my article can plainly see that I only compared the 2009 Knicks to the 2008 and 2007 squads.
You spend so much time criticizing me for comparing the 2009 Knicks to the 2007 Knicks but if you actually read the article you will see that I spent just as much–if not more–space comparing the 2009 Knicks to the 2008 Knicks as well; after mentioning that the Knicks’ record this year is comparable to the Knicks’ record in 2007 I then proceeded to compare the 2009 Knicks to the 2008 Knicks in several categories and found that the 2009 Knicks are performing poorly defensively and on the glass. The guy from Knickerblogger did not like my article because he apparently hates Isiah and wants to dream that the Knicks have actually already improved in a meaningful way; you did not like my article because you either did not understand it and/or have simply decided to disagree with everything I write because I dared to challenge Berri’s take on the Pistons/Nuggets.
In my Knicks article, I did not say that I am evaluating the team solely and exclusively based on what Popovich and Brown think. In this thread, you asked why I chose the numbers that I did and I said that leading NBA coaches look at these numbers. I mentioned Brown and Popovich specifically regarding defensive field goal percentage. This does not mean that every single NBA coach looks at exactly the numbers that I cited in the article. Some coaches (like Hubie Brown) focus on ppg differential.
I examined multiple stats in the Knicks article to provide a broader look at how the team is performing.
Brown and Popovich “support” defensive field goal percentage. In the Knicks article, I used field goal percentage differential (which obviously incorporates defensive field goal percentage) because I knew that if I cited only defensive field goal percentage then some people might counter that D’Antoni’s philosophy is simply to outshoot the other team, not necessarily to just hold down the opponent’s shooting percentage. Of course, the Knicks actually shot poorly (.445, 27th) and had a poor defensive field goal percentage (.480, 28th), so whatever their philosophy is in that regard they were not successful.
Are you really not able to understand these distinctions?
DF,
D’Antoni did not inherit the Knicks from 2004-05. Why do you dispute this?
I do note the comparisons, but the fact is you introduced a comparison to 2007 simply because comparing wins from this season and last was not helpful to your argument. It was a biased approach, seizing data that supported your point rather than taking a balanced view.
I loved this – “Brown and Popovich “support” defensive field goal percentage. In the Knicks article, I used field goal percentage differential (which obviously incorporates defensive field goal percentage).” Really? You chose a number you like and propped it up because it incorporates a number Brown and Popovich “support”? Not sure if you noticed, but WoW utilizes FG%. Brown and Popovich support FG% evaluation. Maybe you are ready to become a disciple of WoW.
So go ahead and evaluate the Knicks on FG% differential. The Knicks’ their 2pt FG% differential improved and their 3pt FG% differential improved. If you like FG% differential and Popovich and Brown support defensive FG% (which is used to calculate FG% differential and gives you license to think about these numbers), then why not praise D’Antoni’s ability to make these improvements? Are you really not able to appreciate the improvements?
Tball:
The problem with the 2005 reference is the sentence that preceded it, which implies a comparison that I never made in the article. Are you so stupid that you cannot make that simple connection and everything has to be spelled out for you?
Here are the Knicks wins totals for the past three years:
33
23
32
I fail to see evidence of improvement.
The funny thing is that everyone who tries to “refute” my article focuses on how much the Knicks “might” improve in the future, which reinforces the very point of my article: they have not yet improved.
The Knicks are a poor rebounding team and a poor defensive team by any measure. I could “choose” any number and those facts would not change. I “chose” the numbers that I–and many coaches–believe to be most relevant, in order to support a case that no one has yet refuted: the Knicks are not better now than they were when Isiah coached them.
It is also worth noting that the Knicks got worse, not better, as the season progressed.
Top NBA improvements over last year:
Heat +28 wins
Cavs +21 wins
Trailblazers +13 wins
Hawks +10 wins
Knicks +9 wins
Bucks +8 wins
Lakers +8 wins
Magic +7 wins
Nuggets +4 wins
All of these teams performed better than last season. How simplified does the math need to be for you to see the improvement? Do the Heat not seem any better because they won the championship a few years ago? They seem to be in the same boat:
44
15
43
I guess this year’s most improved team has not shown any improvement. If anything, Spoelstra has underperformed Riley’s first year at the helm.
Is the FG% discussion not working for you that now you don’t want to mention it in response?
And again, what winning coaches have cited the stats you are using to support your argument? Which ones have said they look at rebounding differential? Which ones have said they look at ppg differential? Which ones have said they look at FG% differential? I’ve heard plenty of head coaches say rebounding is important or defense is important, but please tell me which coaches have said these numbers (rb differential, FG% differential, ppg differential)are “most relevant”. So far, you’ve only cited to Hubie Brown, who is a quality commentator and a mediocre coach, and Brown and Popovich who have never stated these numbers are most relevant.
Tball:
The Heat’s “improvement” had a lot to do with essentially tanking the end of last season and then adding two top draft picks, plus making a midseason trade for a low post presence. In Wade’s last game before the team shut him down last season he had 24 points and eight assists as the Heat lost by three to an Atlanta team that eventually pushed the Celtics to seven games in the playoffs. Wade could have played more and the Heat could have won more games but they decided that rather than possibly make the playoffs as a low seed it would be more prudent to improve their draft status. Prior to the season, I predicted that the Heat would win at least 40 games and be widely lauded as an “improved” team even though their improvement would not truly be nearly as dramatic as it seems.
The Knicks are a totally different case. Their win total and place in the standings has hardly changed. What’s worse, their performance markedly declined in the second half of the season. They have not improved in any meaningful way and the statistics suggest that they are actually heading in the wrong direction. Whether or not they will subsequently add players/change their strategies and thereby improve in the future does not change the fact that they have not improved so far.
You can twist numbers and distort words all you want but you cannot change reality, nor can you convince anyone with common sense that you are right.
If you think that you know more than NBA coaches do and that you are qualified to determine that Hubie Brown was a “mediocre” coach–he won an ABA title and two NBA coach of the year awards–there really is no point in continuing that part of the discussion with you.
DF,
The Knicks are the 5th most improved team in the league. 4th if you want to discount the Heat.
Besides, they had a first year coach, they didn’t have any starting lineup that took the floor for more than 14 games, the teams in the Eastern Conference improved as a whole and were healthier than could be expected, (hold on, I’m scrolling through other Nuggets/Pistons excuses …), David Lee had to get used to starting, Curry – one of their most productive players last season – was out all year, and Zach Randolph was donated with Camby to the ‘we flubbed the Brand thing’ charity. If all of these things weren’t working against them, they might have made a run at a playoff spot.
Reality is they improved by 9 wins. 9 wins is ‘among the league leaders’ improvement.
What is mediocre to you? .500 is mediocre to me. The Pistons were mediocre this season. Hubie Brown has the same career winning percentage as Michael Curry. Give Mike D’Antoni two years and I bet he’ll have two coach of the year awards under his belt as well.
ABA titles are nice. Before Shaq arrived in LA, he’d won championships everywhere he played except college and the NBA.
Doc Rivers, Sam Mitchell, Jack McKinney, Don Chaney, Phil Johnson, Mike Schuler, all won coach of the year awards. I don’t think the award is a divining rod of coaching ability. If anything, it is a media award for a team that did much better than prognosticated, which is frequently more a reflection on the prognostication than the performance. They might as well give Hubie Brown an award for coaching a player (Tree, Posey) with the most surprising impact on a team.
Again, Hubie Brown is a quality commentator and a mediocre coach, and you cannot identify a leading coach that supports the statistics you cherry picked. You also said ‘leading NBA coaches’, so presumably you were not relying solely on Hubie Brown for your validation of your statistical follies.
Tball:
I cannot prove whether or not you are a convicted felon. This is not only a true statement but it is a lot more relevant than Berri’s false assertion that I compared the 2009 Knicks to the 2005 Knicks. Until you can prove that I have not in fact been wasting my time arguing with a convicted felon I see no need to respond to your delusional comments.
DF,
If it makes you feel better, yes, the voids in your logic and reasoning and the vast divide between your basketball knowledge and basketball analytic abilities has been laid bare by a convicted felon.
Glad you could finally be right about something after your impotent efforts to date.
Some things never change:
1) Berri never corrected his inaccurate assertion that I compared the 2008-09 Knicks to the 2004-05 Knicks.
2) Nearly two years into the Walsh-D’Antoni regime, the Knicks have shown little if any signs of improvement and clearly have put all of their eggs in the LeBron basket, as I asserted in my article; Kurylo and Berri had their fun at my expense but everything I said in that article has proven to be true.
DF,
Oooh David, you write so pretty.
Who cares to whom you compared the team. Comparing two different teams with two different rosters because they both happen to have first year coaches and then predicting performance based on that singular fact? Does it really alter the baselessness of the comparison to do it more correctly?
The Kurylo and Berri assertion was that the 2008-09 team was an improvement over the 2007-08 team and nothing that happened in 2004-05 changes that fact. Nothing that has happened since can change that fact.
db didn’t indicate this year’s Knicks team would be an improvement on last year’s team. He indicated in September, based on the roster assembled, they were not going to make an effort to be competitive this year and would not gain anything from their presumed to be quality draft position. Not exactly breaking news, as it was assumed by all media outlets over the last couple of years that NY would assemble ‘talent’ this year with the singular virtue of being easy to disperse for next year (none of those media outlets seem to be crediting your ‘article’ with breaking that story).
Glad you agreed to pick up the tab for their fun. If you promise to keep writing, I’m sure they’ll continue to have fun.
1) My point, which you not surprisingly failed to understand, is that Berri’s “refutation” of my article is based on the false premise that I compared the ’09 Knicks to the ’05 Knicks.
2) The larger issue is two-fold: Is the Walsh-D’Antoni tandem an improvement over Isiah Thomas and, if not, why did Thomas receive much harsher criticism in the media than Walsh-D’Antoni have thus far.
The Walsh-D’Antoni Knicks are not better than the Thomas Knicks were and the top two players currently on the team (Lee, Chandler) were acquired by Thomas. What exactly will the Knicks’ do after LeBron spurns them this summer? Building a team should be based on something more solid than the hope/prayer that the best player in the league will leave the team that had the best record in the league in ’09 (and probably will have the best record at the end of this season) to go to a team with a moribund roster and a style of play that is proven NOT to win championships.