bleacherreport: Knicks Will Win 2014 Atlantic Division

Durins Baynes · Post #41 » by **Durins Baynes** » Tue Aug 27, 2013 3:31 am

That looks bad, but it's misleading because intervening events negated 29/35 votes. Nobody expected Rondo to miss over half the season, while Avery Bradley missed 32 games, and KG another 14. Don't get me wrong, I find Bradley to be overrated, and part of the reason for the error was that commentators didn't predict the degree to which the Celtics would coast/age, but some of those guys probably didn't have the Knicks far behind. The 76ers on the other hand were supposed to be good because of Bynum- who never played for them. It's also not unusual for a few commentators to throw in a wild darkhorse prediction. The Nets were 5 games worse than you in spite of a bad coach who clearly held them back. The Knicks were the beneficiaries of some bad luck on the part of those 3 teams (injuries mostly), but were still not as good as 54 wins suggested (see their 17-13 Western conference record), they just benefitted from a weak East. Next year the East will be a bit better, so they'll benefit less from it.

omerome · Post #42 » by **omerome** » Tue Aug 27, 2013 3:42 am

Durins Baynes wrote:That looks bad, but it's misleading because intervening events negated 29/35 votes. Nobody expected Rondo to miss over half the season, while Avery Bradley missed 32 games, and KG another 14. Don't get me wrong, I find Bradley to be overrated, and part of the reason for the error was that commentators didn't predict the degree to which the Celtics would coast/age, but some of those guys probably didn't have the Knicks far behind. The 76ers on the other hand were supposed to be good because of Bynum- who never played for them. It's also not unusual for a few commentators to throw in a wild darkhorse prediction. The Nets were 5 games worse than you in spite of a bad coach who clearly held them back. The Knicks were the beneficiaries of some bad luck on the part of those 3 teams (injuries mostly), but were still not as good as 54 wins suggested (see their 17-13 Western conference record), they just benefitted from a weak East. Next year the East will be a bit better, so they'll benefit less from it.

So you're using the injury excuse as to why the Knicks benefited? The Knicks suffered with injuries of their own too. But hey, let's not mention that because it's "not a big deal", right?

Post #43 » by **Jeff Van Gully** » Tue Aug 27, 2013 3:49 am

omerome wrote:
Durins Baynes wrote:That looks bad, but it's misleading because intervening events negated 29/35 votes. Nobody expected Rondo to miss over half the season, while Avery Bradley missed 32 games, and KG another 14. Don't get me wrong, I find Bradley to be overrated, and part of the reason for the error was that commentators didn't predict the degree to which the Celtics would coast/age, but some of those guys probably didn't have the Knicks far behind. The 76ers on the other hand were supposed to be good because of Bynum- who never played for them. It's also not unusual for a few commentators to throw in a wild darkhorse prediction. The Nets were 5 games worse than you in spite of a bad coach who clearly held them back. The Knicks were the beneficiaries of some bad luck on the part of those 3 teams (injuries mostly), but were still not as good as 54 wins suggested (see their 17-13 Western conference record), they just benefitted from a weak East. Next year the East will be a bit better, so they'll benefit less from it.

So you're using the injury excuse as to why the Knicks benefited? The Knicks suffered with injuries of their own too. But hey, let's not mention that because it's "not a big deal", right?

don't you know? the knicks were completely healthy all season. and they didn't get younger and healthier this offseason. one of their starters isn't currently coaching the nets because he almost died of exhaustion on the court.

and carmelo's injury-prone, but that's only important when he wants it to be.

Durins Baynes · Post #44 » by **Durins Baynes** » Tue Aug 27, 2013 3:51 am

The Celtics injuries were more significant, and old teams with no depth struggle more to survive major injuries (especially to the only viable point guard on the team).

kane · Post #45 » by **kane** » Tue Aug 27, 2013 3:55 am

Durins Baynes wrote:The Celtics injuries were more significant, and old teams with no depth struggle more to survive major injuries (especially to the only viable point guard on the team).

Old teams as in KG and PP and I'm sure they discovered the fountain of youth in Brooklyn... Sorry but PP's tank is empty and KG is running dry

Boarder Patrol · Post #46 » by **Boarder Patrol** » Tue Aug 27, 2013 3:57 am

Durins Baynes wrote:I assume this has been gone over a lot already, so I'll summarise. The Nets are better than you at... hmm, probably every position in the starting 5. Then they have a better bench too. Plus all their pieces fit together really well, as yours do not. You could argue Chandler over Lopez, I think it depends on the rest of your roster which you'd take, and as a 3 Melo would be better than Pierce obviously... but Melo is your 4, and he can't compare to KG as a 4. KG might be only getting 30mpg next season, and playing 70 games, but that'll be because the Nets are blowing teams out of the water the rest of the time and can afford to rest him. Come playoffs KG will get more minutes. Just not seeing the argument for the Knicks, unless Kidd is a terrible coach.

All five positions? Knicks have the better three in Melo, better two in JR (no argument for JJ really), and as you said its a tie between the Cs when both are healthy. Brook is playing on a bending screw and Tyson is always banged up so this could go either way. 2.5 = 5?

As far as benches go, Jet is, sad to say, washed up

, Livingston is a scrub and Evans is a great rebounder but a complete liability in every other facet of the game. Blatche and AK are obviously great.

Knicks have TWO capable backup point guards in Pablo and Beno. Whether or not Shump or JR starts, we likely have the best backup SG out there (save Manu). Metta is no AK but a perfectly good backup 3, and if Amare/Kmart share minutes or games and allow each other to rest they form one of the best backup C tandems in the league.

As far as fit goes, I don't see how you can vouch for the Nets on this when their starters averaged a total usage of 127% last season. How will everyone deal with getting 27% less chances?

And Woodson easily out coaches Kidd in year one until proven otherwise.

omerome · Post #47 » by **omerome** » Tue Aug 27, 2013 4:06 am

Durins Baynes wrote:The Celtics injuries were more significant, and old teams with no depth struggle more to survive major injuries (especially to the only viable point guard on the team).

But I thought all last year people were constantly harping on the fact that the Knicks were the oldest team in NBA history.

You're greatly diminishing the injuries the Knicks went through. Here's what I remember:

- They lost Rasheed Wallace in December
- Didn't have Shumpert until January and it took him months to recover basketball wise
- Pretty much didn't have Camby at all because of his foot
- Lost Felton for a while because of his hand injuries
- Didn't have Amar'e much because of a recovering knee
- Lost Chandler for a while because of various injuries (knee/neck)
- Melo was also dealing with various injuries (sore knee in particular)
- Kidd was dealing with back spasms and just being very old
- Lost Kurt Thomas because of a foot injury towards the end of the season

And that's not significant? That old team still did what hardly anyone expected them to do, and that's win their division and hold the second seed in the conference.

The Celtics with Rondo last season weren't that good. Stop living in the past. The 2012-2013 Celtics weren't a good team, with or without Rondo.

Bill Pidto · Post #48 » by **Bill Pidto** » Tue Aug 27, 2013 4:08 am

I know I said this last year, and the year before that, and the year before that, and probably the year before that... but I've never been this excited for the season to start.

Durins Baynes · Post #49 » by **Durins Baynes** » Tue Aug 27, 2013 4:23 am

Talking about Melo as a superior 3 is meaningless, because he plays the 4 on your team, and KG is an objectively better 4 even at his current age.

The only 2 significant players who the Knicks couldn't afford to lose last year were Melo and Chandler. The Knicks losing Chandler for 16 games is basically a wash with the Celtics losing KG for 14. Both those loses hurt, but they hurt both teams about the same. When Melo was out the Knicks had a losing record, so his injuries objectively hurt. But losing your only viable point guard for more than half the season is more significant than any of the other injuries either team had, none of which were game changers for the outcomes. The Celtics were so desperate at point they were starting Courtney Lee as their 1. That's pathetic.

Berserk_Raptor · Post #50 » by **Berserk_Raptor** » Tue Aug 27, 2013 4:27 am

lot of things in the article are pretty accurate, btw, what if Knicks end up winning the Atlantic? Bleacherreport will be on a pedestal in this board!

Bill Pidto · Post #51 » by **Bill Pidto** » Tue Aug 27, 2013 4:36 am

Durins Baynes wrote:Talking about Melo as a superior 3 is meaningless, because he plays the 4 on your team, and KG is an objectively better 4 even at his current age.

The only 2 significant players who the Knicks couldn't afford to lose last year were Melo and Chandler. The Knicks losing Chandler for 16 games is basically a wash with the Celtics losing KG for 14. Both those loses hurt, but they hurt both teams about the same. When Melo was out the Knicks had a losing record, so his injuries objectively hurt. But losing your only viable point guard for more than half the season is more significant than any of the other injuries either team had, none of which were game changers for the outcomes. The Celtics were so desperate at point they were starting Courtney Lee as their 1. That's pathetic.

Ok. You've finally convinced me. The New Jersey Nets are better than the New York Knicks. Thank you.

Now go away.

LongTimeLurker · Post #52 » by **LongTimeLurker** » Tue Aug 27, 2013 4:57 am

So which Knicks fan wrote this?

TheGarden · Post #53 » by **TheGarden** » Tue Aug 27, 2013 7:39 am

Holy **** he said KG is better than Melo

Durins Baynes · Post #54 » by **Durins Baynes** » Tue Aug 27, 2013 9:29 am

At playing power forward? Sure is.

Sark · Post #55 » by **Sark** » Tue Aug 27, 2013 9:57 am

Knicks should win the Atlantic again. They're gonna win 59-61 games next year. Book it.

TheGarden · Post #56 » by **TheGarden** » Tue Aug 27, 2013 9:59 am

Durins Baynes wrote:At playing power forward? Sure is.

KG is no longer a PF he can't even defend the pick n roll like he used to

That automatic J has become streaky

Melo is better than Garnett period no matter where you put him or KG Melo will outshine and outplay him

Prime KG hey no argument but today next month and come April/May/June Melo will own KG and the Shooklyn Nets

TheGarden · Post #57 » by **TheGarden** » Tue Aug 27, 2013 10:00 am

Sark wrote:Knicks should win the Atlantic again. They're gonna win 59-61 games next year. Book it.

I got us around 52-55

Gotta account for potential injuries and cold streaks

Durins Baynes · Post #58 » by **Durins Baynes** » Tue Aug 27, 2013 10:02 am

Teams who win that many games tend to be just as good against one conference as the other. You guys were 17-13 v.s the West last year. 59-61 games is also more than a lot of teams who performed much better than you won last year (you had the 7th best SRS in the NBA, that combined with your weak conference is suggestive of a team who probably overperformed in terms of wins). With the Bulls, Nets and even Pacers having all improved, it seems wildly optimistic to say the least.

Durins Baynes · Post #59 » by **Durins Baynes** » Tue Aug 27, 2013 10:05 am

Melo is better at scoring, but being a 4 is about more than just that. Defensively Melo can't really do anything to most 4's, and while having Artest there to switch will help a little, it's still a pretty big problem. The team would be a lot better off if Melo could play the 3, he's not playing there because the coach prefers it, but because the team lacks the talent to play him at the 3.

TheGarden · Post #60 » by **TheGarden** » Tue Aug 27, 2013 12:52 pm

Durins Baynes wrote:Melo is better at scoring, but being a 4 is about more than just that. Defensively Melo can't really do anything to most 4's, and while having Artest there to switch will help a little, it's still a pretty big problem. The team would be a lot better off if Melo could play the 3, he's not playing there because the coach prefers it, but because the team lacks the talent to play him at the 3.

You have literally no **** clue what you're talking about