Knicks Core vs. Nets Core

Magilla_Gorilla · Post #301 » by **Magilla_Gorilla** » Mon Oct 26, 2009 12:54 pm

wwtsm wrote: Is David Lee really that much better than Troy Murphy? Not really. Compare the stats.

Murphy had a huge year production wise last season. I didn't realize he put up such good numbers.

TKF · Post #302 » by **TKF** » Mon Oct 26, 2009 1:37 pm

TheBluest wrote:
StutterStep wrote:
TKF wrote:and I think, some of the same flaws that has kept nate as a 6th man, and what may down the line on a team that wins, may make harris a 6th man.. ala jason terry.. and really that is not a bad thing at all...

[/THREAD]

That is my point. TheBluest can you agree to that?

Devin will never be a 6th Man until his age dictates he should be. If anything he might get moved to play the 2 but he is a sure fire starter. END OF DISCUSSION

But will devin be a lead guard and player for a winning team? that is the question bluest...

TKF · Post #303 » by **TKF** » Mon Oct 26, 2009 1:42 pm

KnicksGod wrote:
wwtsm wrote:
RutgersBJJ wrote:it is clearly the Knicks if you are able to include Lee and Nate in this. It is still the Knicks if you only include one of them too. I am actually surprised. We have seen Lopez a bunch this pre-season and I don't see ANY improvement from last year. I wonder if he is a player like Bogut who came into the league as a polished prospect who had already reached his potential. I don't like Devon Harris, and I don't see how a ball-dominant average shooting "pg" can work with Lebron.

I don't worry about the Nets. They are the Nets for a reason. I don't worry about Miami either. They have Wade, but Beasley has proved himself to be a SF, and the rest is weak. I worry about Lebron staying with Cleveland, and us having to compete with Chicago for FAs like Bosh, Amare, and Dirk.

I don't know how you can take yourself seriously after writing something like this. Harris is a ball dominant point guard? Nate is ball dominant, is 5'9 and can't play point guard. The only advantage Lee has over Lopez is a few rebounds a game, and Lopez is already far better than him. CDR, T-Will and Lee are all legit, and we don't know if any one of our guys besides Chandler is gonna pan out. Cmon man.

Difference is, Nate is a 6th man on the Knicks. Harris is the main cog on the Nets and therefore he's the reason that all these people say that the Nets' core is so great. But he's pretty badly overrated. I won't say severely overrated because he gets his numbers and plays D, but he's somewhere between moderately to highly overrated. And worst of all, he's a point who doesn't really run the show. That's a significant drawback. Nate is not the Knicks' starting point guard.

I think Rutgers' post is pretty insightful actually. His statement about Lopez coming into the league as a polished player who does not have a lot of room for growth is one that I endorse. I think that's going to be right. Will Lopez improve? Yes. But I don't think he's got a very high ceiling. I think Lopez' ratio of quality to potential is about as close as it could be for any 2nd year player. Lee has improved dramatically since a rookie. Let's see how much Lopez improves in his second, third and fourth seasons. I would not say Lopez is "far better" than Lee. Just to use stats as a baseline analysis, how can you say that a big who goes for 13 and 8 is "far better" than a big who goes for 16 and 11?

Also, you make a statement which is even harder to figure: You call CDR and T-Will "legit" and then say that the only Knick who we know will pan out is Chandler. So CDR and T-Will are more "legit" than Gallinari? What reason do you have to say that exactly?

Sounds like you've got the usual garden-variety anti-Knick analysis. All the prospects on other teams are great, all of the prospects on the Knicks are destined for failure. Players with good numbers on the Knicks should be disregarded, players with decent numbers on other teams are much better than their numbers. The typical anti-Knick bias.

exactly. I mean what are the basis for that argument? anyway, people will tell you to look at the stats, but then turn around and say a guy like lopez is way better than lee, although lee's stats clearly pound lopez stats into the ground... I don't know, as you said, sounds like the usual garden-variety anti knick analysis as you said.. very well put..

Rockice_8 · Post #304 » by **Rockice_8** » Mon Oct 26, 2009 3:50 pm

Harris > Nate
Lopez > Lee

Nate can't even beat out DuDu for a starting spot, I wonder if Harris was a Knick if he'd be starting. Nate has a better shot than Harris thats it. How can you take shots at a guy that gets into the lane at will putting pressure on opposing bigs. Saying he flops to get calls is crazy he's looking to finish not to flop. He had a ton of three point plays last year. Nate is undersized and can't defend his position he's nothing more than streaky scorer.

Give me Lopez anyday of the week over Lee. Lopez is a 20 year old two way center. Lee is a hustle player getting his points on his hustle and knack for the ball. Lopez as a rook was in the top 10 in blocks with over 2 a game while Lee might not have had two blocks all year. Lee is the better rebounder. I've seen alot of people giving Lee the edge in range but that is not true Lopez has equal if not better range then Lee. Lopez is posting up drawing double teams does Lee even have a post game? I would love to see you run your offense through Lee in the post not gonna happen.

I know Lee put up better numbers then Lopez and Nate put up close to what Harris put up but would anyone really trade Harris or Lopez to get Nate and Lee NO NO NO. If you would then you don't know basketball. Isiah wouldn't even do that. Not to metion the system they play in inflates number a little. You can try to make an arguement for Lee and Nate but that fact is Lopez and Harris are better players.

stuporman · Post #305 » by **stuporman** » Mon Oct 26, 2009 3:54 pm

Garden variety?...More like garbage variety!

TheBluest · Post #306 » by **TheBluest** » Mon Oct 26, 2009 4:01 pm

TKF wrote:
TheBluest wrote:
StutterStep wrote:[/THREAD]

That is my point. TheBluest can you agree to that?

Devin will never be a 6th Man until his age dictates he should be. If anything he might get moved to play the 2 but he is a sure fire starter. END OF DISCUSSION

But will devin be a lead guard and player for a winning team? that is the question bluest...

He has before.... in Dallas for a season and a half. Started and led the team to a 67-15 record(started 61 of those games) following yr started and led the team to a 27-12record(before being traded) I really don't get the questioning. Or are we now going to redefine what winning is or change the parameters if New Jersey signs a free agent or two.

TheBluest · Post #307 » by **TheBluest** » Mon Oct 26, 2009 4:07 pm

TKF wrote:
KnicksGod wrote:
wwtsm wrote:
I don't know how you can take yourself seriously after writing something like this. Harris is a ball dominant point guard? Nate is ball dominant, is 5'9 and can't play point guard. The only advantage Lee has over Lopez is a few rebounds a game, and Lopez is already far better than him. CDR, T-Will and Lee are all legit, and we don't know if any one of our guys besides Chandler is gonna pan out. Cmon man.

Difference is, Nate is a 6th man on the Knicks. Harris is the main cog on the Nets and therefore he's the reason that all these people say that the Nets' core is so great. But he's pretty badly overrated. I won't say severely overrated because he gets his numbers and plays D, but he's somewhere between moderately to highly overrated. And worst of all, he's a point who doesn't really run the show. That's a significant drawback. Nate is not the Knicks' starting point guard.

I think Rutgers' post is pretty insightful actually. His statement about Lopez coming into the league as a polished player who does not have a lot of room for growth is one that I endorse. I think that's going to be right. Will Lopez improve? Yes. But I don't think he's got a very high ceiling. I think Lopez' ratio of quality to potential is about as close as it could be for any 2nd year player. Lee has improved dramatically since a rookie. Let's see how much Lopez improves in his second, third and fourth seasons. I would not say Lopez is "far better" than Lee. Just to use stats as a baseline analysis, how can you say that a big who goes for 13 and 8 is "far better" than a big who goes for 16 and 11?

Also, you make a statement which is even harder to figure: You call CDR and T-Will "legit" and then say that the only Knick who we know will pan out is Chandler. So CDR and T-Will are more "legit" than Gallinari? What reason do you have to say that exactly?

Sounds like you've got the usual garden-variety anti-Knick analysis. All the prospects on other teams are great, all of the prospects on the Knicks are destined for failure. Players with good numbers on the Knicks should be disregarded, players with decent numbers on other teams are much better than their numbers. The typical anti-Knick bias.

exactly. I mean what are the basis for that argument? anyway, people will tell you to look at the stats, but then turn around and say a guy like lopez is way better than lee, although lee's stats clearly pound lopez stats into the ground... I don't know, as you said, sounds like the usual garden-variety anti knick analysis as you said.. very well put..

No it's not quite like that. Let me provide an example

Right now as of today as a small forward who is a better player

Gallo or Thaddeus Young

You'd have to say Young but which player would you rather have moving forward with a core?

I'm not quite sure if I picked a core between the two teams although I may pick the Nets because of their balance at all 5 positions although Knicks might have a couple better players at certain positions.

stuporman · Post #308 » by **stuporman** » Mon Oct 26, 2009 4:08 pm

Lead? Yea, cuz if it wasn't for Harris the Mavs wouldn't have won, right? :lol:

Let's redefine 'lead' while we're at it, too.

TKF · Post #309 » by **TKF** » Mon Oct 26, 2009 4:09 pm

He has before.... in Dallas for a season and a half. Started and led the team to a 67-15 record(started 61 of those games) following yr started and led the team to a 27-12record(before being traded) I really don't get the questioning. Or are we now going to redefine what winning is or change the parameters if New Jersey signs a free agent or two.

Led? so where was dirk? come on man.. LOL... so I guess dallas was so upset with his success leading the team, they traded him?

TKF · Post #310 » by **TKF** » Mon Oct 26, 2009 4:12 pm

No it's not quite like that. Let me provide an example

Right now as of today as a small forward who is a better player

Gallo or Thaddeus Young

You'd have to say Young but which player would you rather have moving forward with a core?

I'm not quite sure if I picked a core between the two teams although I may pick the Nets because of their balance at all 5 positions although Knicks might have a couple better players at certain positions.

the difference is, we are banking on gallo's upside to trump Young. In this case, most of us don't believe that lopez uspide is that high....

TheBluest · Post #311 » by **TheBluest** » Mon Oct 26, 2009 4:12 pm

TKF wrote:
He has before.... in Dallas for a season and a half. Started and led the team to a 67-15 record(started 61 of those games) following yr started and led the team to a 27-12record(before being traded) I really don't get the questioning. Or are we now going to redefine what winning is or change the parameters if New Jersey signs a free agent or two.

Led? so where was dirk? come on man.. LOL... so I guess dallas was so upset with his success leading the team, they traded him?

Panic trade. Avery Johnson never wanted it to happen and check the owner. Same set of players and haven't done better since his departure.

Will Nate ever be part of a winning team period and I'm talking .500 forget playoffs?

TKF · Post #312 » by **TKF** » Mon Oct 26, 2009 4:14 pm

TheBluest wrote:
TKF wrote:
He has before.... in Dallas for a season and a half. Started and led the team to a 67-15 record(started 61 of those games) following yr started and led the team to a 27-12record(before being traded) I really don't get the questioning. Or are we now going to redefine what winning is or change the parameters if New Jersey signs a free agent or two.

Led? so where was dirk? come on man.. LOL... so I guess dallas was so upset with his success leading the team, they traded him?

Panic trade. Avery Johnson never wanted it to happen and check the owner. Same set of players and haven't done better since his departure.

Will Nate ever be part of a winning team period and I'm talking .500 forget playoffs?

Devin was like a third option on that team, heck even terry finished out a lot of those games. When he is a complimentary player, he can do fine, just like guys like nate, crawford, etc.. But when being asked to be the man, to run the team, I think the questions are fair. Can he play the way he plays being the primary scorer and ball handler, and still be effective enough to win... the same knock we have on guys like nate...

TheBluest · Post #313 » by **TheBluest** » Mon Oct 26, 2009 4:14 pm

TKF wrote:
No it's not quite like that. Let me provide an example

Right now as of today as a small forward who is a better player

Gallo or Thaddeus Young

You'd have to say Young but which player would you rather have moving forward with a core?

I'm not quite sure if I picked a core between the two teams although I may pick the Nets because of their balance at all 5 positions although Knicks might have a couple better players at certain positions.

the difference is, we are banking on gallo's upside to trump Young. In this case, most of us don't believe that lopez uspide is that high....

Is that Classic Knick fans underrating players? There have been plenty of us on this board wrong about other players on other teams.

I understand the logic wanting Gallo over Young and it makes sense, but you can't fault other fans for thinking Lopez has upside.

TKF · Post #314 » by **TKF** » Mon Oct 26, 2009 4:16 pm

TheBluest wrote:
TKF wrote:
No it's not quite like that. Let me provide an example

Right now as of today as a small forward who is a better player

Gallo or Thaddeus Young

You'd have to say Young but which player would you rather have moving forward with a core?

I'm not quite sure if I picked a core between the two teams although I may pick the Nets because of their balance at all 5 positions although Knicks might have a couple better players at certain positions.

the difference is, we are banking on gallo's upside to trump Young. In this case, most of us don't believe that lopez uspide is that high....

Is that Classic Knick fans underrating players? There have been plenty of us on this board wrong about other players on other teams.

I understand the logic wanting Gallo over Young and it makes sense, but you can't fault other fans for thinking Lopez has upside.

No. we are not faulting them. Just don't agree that his upside is that high? we may be wrong, but so far, I guess most are sticking with that thought...

TheBluest · Post #315 » by **TheBluest** » Mon Oct 26, 2009 4:26 pm

TKF wrote:
TheBluest wrote:
TKF wrote:the difference is, we are banking on gallo's upside to trump Young. In this case, most of us don't believe that lopez uspide is that high....

Is that Classic Knick fans underrating players? There have been plenty of us on this board wrong about other players on other teams.

I understand the logic wanting Gallo over Young and it makes sense, but you can't fault other fans for thinking Lopez has upside.

No. we are not faulting them. Just don't agree that his upside is that high? we may be wrong, but so far, I guess most are sticking with that thought...

The likely hood either player improves their game tilts in Lopez's favor over Lee. How much.. is up for debate, but for those using his first yr as a basis for improvement I don't see the fault. If Hill were to do what Lopez did in his rookie yr this season we'd pumped up.

TheBluest · Post #316 » by **TheBluest** » Mon Oct 26, 2009 4:35 pm

TKF wrote:
TheBluest wrote:
TKF wrote:
Led? so where was dirk? come on man.. LOL... so I guess dallas was so upset with his success leading the team, they traded him?

Panic trade. Avery Johnson never wanted it to happen and check the owner. Same set of players and haven't done better since his departure.

Will Nate ever be part of a winning team period and I'm talking .500 forget playoffs?

Devin was like a third option on that team, heck even terry finished out a lot of those games. When he is a complimentary player, he can do fine, just like guys like nate, crawford, etc.. But when being asked to be the man, to run the team, I think the questions are fair. Can he play the way he plays being the primary scorer and ball handler, and still be effective enough to win... the same knock we have on guys like nate...

He averaged 30mi/gm as a starter sorry he gets credit for what he did there during that yr and a half. He should have been a third option it was his first yr as a starter. Kidd is currently a 3rd-5th option. When Nash was there he was a 3rd option behind Dirk and Finley. If Harris was a higher option he would have then been pegged as he is now, an overrated flailing chucker....LOL!

Will O.J. Mayo lead his team to be a winning team as a lead point or 2 guard?

Will Kevin Durant lead his team to be a winning team ditto?

Even if Harris were to do it then the argument is he's Gilbert Arenas and still overrated?

If the Bulls miss the playoffs this yr which they very well could, would this make Derrick Rose overrated?

TKF · Post #317 » by **TKF** » Mon Oct 26, 2009 4:45 pm

The likely hood either player improves their game tilts in Lopez's favor over Lee. How much.. is up for debate, but for those using his first yr as a basis for improvement I don't see the fault. If Hill were to do what Lopez did in his rookie yr this season we'd pumped up.

you keep questioning weither or not fans should be happy? that is not what we are saying. the nets can be happy, so would we, but that is not the issue here. right now lee is producing at a level of some of the upper tier PF's in this league.... Lopez is not performing close to the level of a Howard, Duncan, or gasol. those are the benchmark bigs in this league.... lee is still developing a jumper, can you gauge how much better that will make him as opposed to lopez upside? do you honestly see lopez as a 18/12 type player? dude that is a tall order for anyone...

wwtsm · Post #318 » by **wwtsm** » Mon Oct 26, 2009 4:50 pm

I don't think Lopez has too much room to improve either. I don't really see him being a 20/10 guy. But he's years younger than Lee, plays defense, and will ultimately have a better offensive game. Plus, he's a 7 footer and could be one of the best 5 centers in the league next year by default.

Post #319 » by **K_ick_God** » Mon Oct 26, 2009 4:52 pm

TheBluest wrote:
The likely hood either player improves their game tilts in Lopez's favor over Lee. How much.. is up for debate, but for those using his first yr as a basis for improvement I don't see the fault. If Hill were to do what Lopez did in his rookie yr this season we'd pumped up.

I can't disagree with what you say here. It's fair.

If Lopez improves from his rookie year to his fourth year as much as Lee did, then he'd probably be one of the two or three best centers in the league. I don't think he has that kind of upside to his game. I don't have statistical analysis or some objective measure to prove this guess. It's based on just eyeballing the guy's game and seeing what he does do well (NBA caliber understanding of the game, footwork, poise, skills that are already at an NBA level) and does not do well (mobility on either end, diversity to his offensive arsenal, special NBA skills).

If Hill was at 13 and 8 this season, we'd be delighted, you are right. But they're on opposite ends of the spectrum. We knew Hill was a project with raw talents who is relatively new to the game and will take some time to reach his ceiling. Lopez came in as an NBA ready center who has already developed his game. Even if Hill never reaches Lopez's status as a good NBA player, his growth potential *seems* bigger. We don't know where the needle will eventually land with Hill but it's easier to project Lopez. Could he surprise me and end up being a top 2 or 3 center? It's possible but I don't see it.

TheBluest · Post #320 » by **TheBluest** » Mon Oct 26, 2009 4:54 pm

TKF wrote:
The likely hood either player improves their game tilts in Lopez's favor over Lee. How much.. is up for debate, but for those using his first yr as a basis for improvement I don't see the fault. If Hill were to do what Lopez did in his rookie yr this season we'd pumped up.

you keep questioning weither or not fans should be happy? that is not what we are saying. the nets can be happy, so would we, but that is not the issue here. right now lee is producing at a level of some of the upper tier PF's in this league.... Lopez is not performing close to the level of a Howard, Duncan, or gasol. those are the benchmark bigs in this league.... lee is still developing a jumper, can you gauge how much better that will make him as opposed to lopez upside? do you honestly see lopez as a 18/12 type player? dude that is a tall order for anyone...

I anticipate Lee's productivity compared with other power forwards... reflects he'll be compensated adequately to them this off-season? Lopez first yr mind you.... he was a freaking rookie... is comparable to what Howard did, comparable to what Bynum did, comparable to what Biendrins did in their first and second yrs. Lopez is developing his post as much as Lee is developing his jumper. Defensively Lopez is progressing faster than a player of Lee's caliber. Lopez needs to be on Howard's Level... ok Is Lee on Garnett's or even say Chris Webber's level.... both perimeter bigs later in their career? Lopez was 13/8/2 as a rook. If Jordan Hill did this would you cap him out? Basically you're boxing him in as peaking in 2yrs yet trying to talk as if Lee has room to grow into improving.

LOL smiley face