Tag Archives: New York Knicks

It’s been a few weeks since I blogged about the possibility of the Knicks getting ‘Melo (here, if you missed it or want to read it again).  Well, the guys on local sports radio are still talking about it (and so are the guys on the podcasts I listen to), so I might as well keep going.

Add him, Knicks.  Like, yesterday.

From the people who don’t think it makes sense for the Knicks to acquire him, I hear two general themes: (1) that he isn’t “efficient” on offense, and (2) that he isn’t very good on defense.  I’ll address them in turn.

He Isn’t “Efficient” On Offense: As the argument goes, Carmelo takes a bunch of bad shots, and is a “ball-stopper.”  The guys who make this argument back it up with some new-age statistics.  I’d respond with some statistics of my own, but, in my experience, people typically aren’t interested in reading nerds argue about basketball statistics and, well, I’m having enough trouble recruiting readers as it is.  So I’ll stay away from a heavy statistical argument.

Here’s the deal: the Nuggets were 17-65 the season before Carmelo arrived.  Now, they’re consistently one of the top-10 offensive teams in the league, as measured by total points scored.  (Last year – #3; 2008-09 – #6)  During each of those seasons, Carmelo was their leading scorer.

So… either Carmelo is “efficient” on offense, or Nene and the Birdman have been operating at a level of “efficiency” never seen before, in order to make up for his deficiencies.  I don’t need complicated statistics to tell me which of those two things has been going on in Denver.

He Isn’t Very Good On Defense: Some Knicks fans believe that Carmelo, on the defensive end, represents a significant dropoff from Wilson Chandler. To hear them talk about it, you’d think that Wilson Chandler plays D like Scottie Pippen, and Carmelo gets all of his points by cherry-picking.

Talking about defense is tricky, for at least two reasons: (1) it’s harder to measure statistically than offense, and (2) even when watching a game, it’s easier to identify good offense than good defense – the difference between “good defense” and “bad defense” on a given possession can be imperceptible to a casual observer, like, for example, a good defender getting his hand within 2 inches of a shot and a bad defender getting within 4 inches of a shot.

Frankly, I haven’t sat down with hours of video comparing Carmelo and Wilson Chandler reacting on defense in similar situations.  So, maybe I’m just missing something.  But I’ve seen enough of Wilson Chandler to know that he’s no Scottie Pippen, and I’ve seen enough of Carmelo to know that, whatever his defensive shortcomings may be, he’s spent his entire NBA career as the best player on a playoff team.  (And he won the national championship during his only year at Syracuse.)  If he’s not playing any defense, opposing coaches are doing a pretty lousy job taking advantage of that.

And the statistics, for what they’re worth, undermine the argument that Chandler is a significantly better defender than Carmelo.  Chandler, for his career, averages .7 steals per game, .9 blocks per game, and 5.3 rebounds per game.  (As my coach always said, rebounding is a part of defense, because getting a rebound takes an opportunity away from the other team to score.)  Carmelo, for his career, averages 1.1 steals per game, .5 blocks per game, and 6.3 rebounds per game. Consider that Carmelo plays more minutes per game, and it’s about a statistical wash.

Yes, I understand that the Knicks would be giving up more than just Wilson Chandler, but Chandler, from what I’m hearing, would be the main piece.  Landry Fields is good, and draft picks are nice to have, but those things shouldn’t hold up a trade for Carmelo Anthony.

At bottom, there are two fundamental reasons to get Carmelo: the first is that he’s one of only a handful of players in the league – there are, what, 10 of them? – with a track record of consistently being the primary scorer on a high-scoring offense.  Wilson Chandler… not so much.  The second is that, when your team has Mike D’Antoni as its coach and Amar’e Stoudamire as its big man, nobody’s going to confuse you for the Bad Boy Pistons on the defensive end.  Your formula is to score a whole bunch o’ points, and play just enough defense to hold your opponents to about 105 points per game.  Carmelo fits — he improves the team on offense, and, even if he does nothing else on D, his offensive prowess provides the Knicks with the luxury of plugging defensive-minded players like Turiaf into the lineup for more minutes.

Make the trade, Knicks.

Leave a Comment:

Continuing with the theme of talking ’bout the Knicks, because all 4 of my readers seem to like talking ’bout the Knicks…

It looks like the Knicks are good for the first time in a while, and, now that they’re good, it’s a good time to look back on the lost decade and see what we can learn about basketball from the debacle that just occurred in MSG for more than 10 years.  (Some may say that 31 games into a season is too early to declare a team a success — especially when that team is currently the 6th seed in the Eastern Conference.  To those people, I say that each of the top 7 guys on the Knicks has proven that he has two legs and a pulse, and that alone is a vast improvement over the recent Knicks teams. Whatever else one thinks about the Knicks, there’s clearly some kind of improvement taking place here.)

To me, there are three main lessons:

1.  Don’t sign lousy players to expensive, long-term contracts. I know that sounds kind of obvious, but the lesson is often overlooked, and not only by the Knicks.  To all of the NBA GM’s reading this blog right now (ahem), let me make this simple for you… the only guys worth big money for multiple years are proven stars who are at or near their peak.  Not guys who strung together a few good games in a row (e.g. Jerome James).  Not role players (e.g. Jared Jefferies).  Not players on the wrong side of the peak of their career (e.g. Allan Houston).  Not guys who might be good if they lose 30 pounds (e.g. Eddie Curry).  Hell.  I might be good if I lose 30 pounds.

Look, people.  If you’re going to have a bad team, you want to be young, and cheap.  That way, the guys you have will get better, and you’ll have room to bring in other guys.  If you’re going to have an expensive team, you want to be good immediately.  If you’re bad, and you have guys with big contracts, and you don’t have young players with talent, well, then you’re just stuck.  And then you might be bad for a looonnng time. You simply can’t afford to tie up big money on guys who haven’t proven themselves capable of being a top player on a good team.

2.  Coaching, at the NBA level, is overrated.  The Knicks had a few accomplished coaches during their decade of disaster.  For starters, they had Larry Brown, whose resume is 14 pages long has a bunch of impressive accomplishments on it. And they had Isiah, who coached the Pacers to some success, and Mike D’Antoni, who has won Coach of the Year before. None of these guys was able to turn things around. Things only started to get turned around when Felton started dishing, Gallo started swishing, and Amar’e started dunking on defenders’ faces.

To be clear, good coaching might be what separates the great teams from the good ones, or the good ones from the average ones. But a good coach can’t make a bad team a contender, so, if you’re bad, it makes much more sense to spend money on new players than it does to spend money on an expensive coach.

3. When in doubt, draft the guy who played four years in college. One of the few things the Knicks got right during the lost decade was drafting David Lee. They got him at #30. Then, this year, they got Landry Fields at #39. Both of them were four-year college players. I don’t think it’s a coincidence.

Am I missing anything, Knicks fans? Getting anything wrong? If so, I hope you’ll add your thoughts in the comments section.

2 Comments:

  • Ewing4Ever

    I think the other lessons are that you are better off hitting rock bottom than trying to rebuild on the fly and that you should trade all of your first draft picks, because that is the easiest way (i.e. Lee and Fields) to add talent

  • employer identification number

    Couldnt agree more with that, very attractive article

Leave a Comment: