trex_8063 wrote:penbeast0 wrote:trex_8063 wrote:... Unless you're blatantly shifting the goal-posts and judging the Knicks by a stricter standard than the one you use for every other team, this statement is probably at best hyperbole (I would even say "hot-take" hyperbole); and at worst is just flat wrong....
I think I do judge the Knicks by a higher standard than any team outside Los Angeles, though it's not that major. A team is judged by the way they perform relative to their expectations. If I was a Knick fan in New York, I think I'd have been unhappy pretty generally except for the Frazier era and the Ewing era (and, again, my criteria is how happy I would be as a fan . . . one reason why the Wiz are not going to rank very high for me either). I do expect a bit more from big market teams, like the Lakers who I think have exceeded any reasonable expectation. If Indiana and the Knicks are performing at the same level over the course of their history, as a Pacer fan I'm pretty stoked and as a Knick fan I'm disappointed.
I don't think this is a major factor in my analysis but it is there.
Fair enough, this I can understand. I guess part of my incredulous tone [sorry, btw] stemmed from the choice of words ("one of the worst..."), which had me wondering, "just how many teams are in this group of 'the worst' that the Knicks are 'one of'?"
Because even in light of their market/resources, I'd still struggle to see how their franchise history is as poor as that of the TWolves, Clippers/Braves, Bobcats/Hornets, Grizzlies, Hornets/Pelicans, Royals/Kings, Magic, your own Bullets/Wizards, or even the Raptors (despite recent success); probably the Mavericks, too (+/- 1 or 2 others??). In short, it would still leave them ahead of decidedly more than just a handful of teams, and I suspect you don't really disagree there.
There was even a potential contradiction within that original statement: said they're "one of the worst" [out of 30], yet also said you'll not be voting for them only in any of the next three spots (which would seem to imply that you WILL be willing to give them consideration as soon as #12-13 [out of 30]).
Anyway, we can each go our own way on this, and once again I apologize if there was a bit too much venom on my previous post.
Actually I said "one of the most disappointing." Not the same as worst. And, yeah, I'll be looking at them once the Thunder are in . . . along with Portland, Phoenix, Atlanta, etc. They aren't in the same category of bad as the Clippers, the TWolves, or even the Wizards.