Best modern 10-man Knicks rotation

[durantbird]

Pick ten players, you can use their best season wearing Knicks uniform (at least 50% of the season playing for the Knicks).
Assemble your best 10-man rotation best suited in your eyes to compete in modern-game environment.

My pick:
Jalen Brunson / John Starks
Walt Frazier / Allan Houston
OG Anunoby / Mikal Bridges
Karl Anthony Towns / Kristaps Porzingis
Patrick Ewing / Willis Reed

Potential candidates:
Dave DeBusscherre, Anthony Mason, Carmelo Anthony, Bernard King, Amar'e Stoudemire, Stephon Marbury, Latrell Sprewell, Charlie Ward, Tyson Chandler, Marcus Camby, Larry Johnson, Julius Randle

[Dr Positivity]

Walt Frazier / Jalen Brunson
Mikal Bridges / Charlie Ward / John Starks
OG Anunoby / (Bridges)
Karl-Anthony Towns / Dave DeBusschere
Willis Reed / Patrick Ewing

[penbeast0]

Givens are Walt Frazier, Reed and Ewing in some order (I have Patrick first), and probably Brunson. DeBusschere had a very modern game but just wasn't terrible efficient as a shooter though a great defender who defended 2-5 (even played some 2 in Detroit).

Guerin, Monroe, Mark Jackson all contenders for backup PG; Michael Ray Richardson is the most talented if you can trust him. Ward didn't really generate enough offense for me, though his defense was very good.

Starks, Allen Houston, maybe Bridges plus Monroe or Guerin off the bench at the 2.

Bernard King should get some love at the 3 but no one's mentioned him.

Similarly thug life Oakley, Larry Johnson, or Anthony Mason should be on the bench for enforcer duties behind whoever starts.

[Doctor MJ]

So I'm going to do something a touch sentimental here:

Walt Frazier / Jalen Brunson
Dick Barnett / Bernard King
Bill Bradley / OG Anunoby
Dave DeBusschere / Kristaps Porzingis
Willis Reed / Patrick Ewing

So yeah, that's the core 5 of the '69-70 Knicks, and I don't want to argue too hard that each and every one of them is utterly irreplaceable, but I do want to emphasize that it was how they played as a 5-man unit that made the '69-70 Knicks easily the greatest franchise team in history relative to their competition, and the style of play they were known for is a precursor to the Triangle and Kerr's Warrior.

If they could train up on 3 point shooting and have at least 4 of them solid from there, I think they'd be great.

Now, trying to match that lineup's style of play with guys who aren't experienced playing like that is bad news, so for my 2nd 5 man lineup, I picked a more standard super-team lineup.

Brunson, King & Ewing are the 3 best Knicks after their Golden Age, OG & KP add solid D to the perimeter & interior while also spacing the floor.

[falcolombardi]

So I'm going to do something a touch sentimental here:

Walt Frazier / Jalen Brunson
Dick Barnett / Bernard King
Bill Bradley / OG Anunoby
Dave DeBusschere / Kristaps Porzingis
Willis Reed / Patrick Ewing

So yeah, that's the core 5 of the '69-70 Knicks, and I don't want to argue too hard that each and every one of them is utterly irreplaceable, but I do want to emphasize that it was how they played as a 5-man unit that made the '69-70 Knicks easily the greatest franchise team in history relative to their competition, and the style of play they were known for is a precursor to the Triangle and Kerr's Warrior.

If they could train up on 3 point shooting and have at least 4 of them solid from there, I think they'd be great.

Now, trying to match that lineup's style of play with guys who aren't experienced playing like that is bad news, so for my 2nd 5 man lineup, I picked a more standard super-team lineup.

Brunson, King & Ewing are the 3 best Knicks after their Golden Age, OG & KP add solid D to the perimeter & interior while also spacing the floor.

I dont see how the kerr system /knicks system is that similar to the bulls triangle...at all

Knicks played a fast paced and equalitarian ball handling brand of basketball more comparable in very rough terms to somethingh like this year pacers

Bulls/lakers triangle was a star heavy, iso/post up oriented system where the spacing of the triangle was designed around getting space for isolations the pace, distribution of decision making and tendency of using set plays (which invludes cuts) sistematically instead of dinamically

[Doctor MJ]

So I'm going to do something a touch sentimental here:

Walt Frazier / Jalen Brunson
Dick Barnett / Bernard King
Bill Bradley / OG Anunoby
Dave DeBusschere / Kristaps Porzingis
Willis Reed / Patrick Ewing

So yeah, that's the core 5 of the '69-70 Knicks, and I don't want to argue too hard that each and every one of them is utterly irreplaceable, but I do want to emphasize that it was how they played as a 5-man unit that made the '69-70 Knicks easily the greatest franchise team in history relative to their competition, and the style of play they were known for is a precursor to the Triangle and Kerr's Warrior.

If they could train up on 3 point shooting and have at least 4 of them solid from there, I think they'd be great.

Now, trying to match that lineup's style of play with guys who aren't experienced playing like that is bad news, so for my 2nd 5 man lineup, I picked a more standard super-team lineup.

Brunson, King & Ewing are the 3 best Knicks after their Golden Age, OG & KP add solid D to the perimeter & interior while also spacing the floor.

I dont see how the kerr system /knicks system is that similar to the bulls triangle...at all

Knicks played a fast paced and equalitarian ball handling brand of basketball more comparable in very rough terms to somethingh like this year pacers

Bulls/lakers triangle was a star heavy, iso/post up oriented system where the spacing of the triangle was designed around getting space for isolations the pace, distribution of decision making and tendency of using set plays (which invludes cuts) sistematically instead of dinamically

Would you disagree with the assessment that they are both within the category of read & react schemes with lots of passing but no ball dominant facilitator?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[GeorgeMarcus]

Something like...

Ewing / Reed / Chandler
Debusschere / KAT / Oak
OG / King / Bridges
Frazier / Spree / Starks
Brunson / Monroe / MRR

[GeorgeMarcus]

Kinda felt weird leaving Melo off but I don't think he should start, and he was never successful as a bench player

[falcolombardi]

So I'm going to do something a touch sentimental here:

Walt Frazier / Jalen Brunson
Dick Barnett / Bernard King
Bill Bradley / OG Anunoby
Dave DeBusschere / Kristaps Porzingis
Willis Reed / Patrick Ewing

So yeah, that's the core 5 of the '69-70 Knicks, and I don't want to argue too hard that each and every one of them is utterly irreplaceable, but I do want to emphasize that it was how they played as a 5-man unit that made the '69-70 Knicks easily the greatest franchise team in history relative to their competition, and the style of play they were known for is a precursor to the Triangle and Kerr's Warrior.

If they could train up on 3 point shooting and have at least 4 of them solid from there, I think they'd be great.

Now, trying to match that lineup's style of play with guys who aren't experienced playing like that is bad news, so for my 2nd 5 man lineup, I picked a more standard super-team lineup.

Brunson, King & Ewing are the 3 best Knicks after their Golden Age, OG & KP add solid D to the perimeter & interior while also spacing the floor.

I dont see how the kerr system /knicks system is that similar to the bulls triangle...at all

Knicks played a fast paced and equalitarian ball handling brand of basketball more comparable in very rough terms to somethingh like this year pacers

Bulls/lakers triangle was a star heavy, iso/post up oriented system where the spacing of the triangle was designed around getting space for isolations the pace, distribution of decision making and tendency of using set plays (which invludes cuts) sistematically instead of dinamically

Would you disagree with the assessment that they are both within the category of read & react schemes with lots of passing but no ball dominant facilitator?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Not to any particularly higher degree in comparision to bulls in era peers, no

[Doctor MJ]

I dont see how the kerr system /knicks system is that similar to the bulls triangle...at all

Knicks played a fast paced and equalitarian ball handling brand of basketball more comparable in very rough terms to somethingh like this year pacers

Bulls/lakers triangle was a star heavy, iso/post up oriented system where the spacing of the triangle was designed around getting space for isolations the pace, distribution of decision making and tendency of using set plays (which invludes cuts) sistematically instead of dinamically

Would you disagree with the assessment that they are both within the category of read & react schemes with lots of passing but no ball dominant facilitator?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Not to any particularly higher degree in comparision to bulls in era peers, no

So the fact that the players themselves talk about how different it was to play in the triangle because of the way you’re called to read and react in both player and ball movement does t seem meaningful to you?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[falcolombardi]

Would you disagree with the assessment that they are both within the category of read & react schemes with lots of passing but no ball dominant facilitator?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Not to any particularly higher degree in comparision to bulls in era peers, no

So the fact that the players themselves talk about how different it was to play in the triangle because of the way you’re called to read and react in both player and ball movement does t seem meaningful to you?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It is meaningful and somethingh worth questioning myself on this topic? Of course

Do i change opinions everytime a player says somethingh i disagree with? Not quite, i try not to rely on appeal of authority too much

Players say a lot of thoughts you and me would and do disagree with strongly, and you often have criticized them for it regarding how being a good player doesnt mean they are right in their basketball analysis plenty of times before

Plenty if not most players would say allen iverson was much better than manu ginobili and i dont think you change your opinion of either player based only on that any more than a player has to change their opinion if they happen to disagree with bem taylor or zack lowe at somethingh either

[OldSchoolNoBull]

So the fact that the players themselves talk about how different it was to play in the triangle because of the way you’re called to read and react in both player and ball movement does t seem meaningful to you?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Here it might be worth mentioning that one of the reasons the Bulls implemented the triangle to begin with is because Jerry Reinsdorf is a native New Yorker and had been a fan of those Holzman Knick teams, and upon hiring Jerry Krause to run the team, told him that he wanted to build a team that played like that. I believe that that is why one of Krause's first moves was to hire Tex Winter as an assistant, I believe that is why he hired Phil Jackson(who had played on those Knick teams) out of the Continental Basketball Association, and I believe Doug Collins not utilizing the triangle is why he was fired in favor of Jackson.

[Doctor MJ]

Not to any particularly higher degree in comparision to bulls in era peers, no

So the fact that the players themselves talk about how different it was to play in the triangle because of the way you’re called to read and react in both player and ball movement does t seem meaningful to you?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It is meaningful and somethingh worth questioning myself on this topic? Of course

Do i change opinions everytime a player says somethingh i disagree with? Not quite, i try not to rely on appeal of authority too much

Players say a lot of thoughts you and me would and do disagree with strongly, and you often have criticized them for it regarding how being a good player doesnt mean they are right in their basketball analysis plenty of times before

Plenty if not most players would say allen iverson was much better than manu ginobili and i dont think you change your opinion of either player based only on that any more than a player has to change their opinion if they happen to disagree with bem taylor or zack lowe at somethingh either

Ah, interesting. So let me draw a distinction here:

There are some things where the actual primary source experience of those who are actually on the hardwood is of paramount importance to me in trying to understand what happened, and there are other things where it isn't.

The experience of playing for a coach, or in a system, or with a teammate, or against an opponent, and all the qualitative stuff that goes with it? I take this very seriously.

The ability for those on the hardwood to take that experience and map it into an accurate and precise measure of how valuable a given player was on the court? I don't take seriously at all, any more than I take seriously the ability for human beings to crunch numbers on a massive scale in their head in a competition against computers.

The nature of what we're discussing then has a huge impact on how much stock I put into what players have to say, and that split between what a) they are truly the experts in, and b) what they aren't but still assume they are, is at the heart of why it's often so hard to convince sporting decision makers that they need to get religion on analytics.

The question of "Oh you think you know basketball better than NBA players?", is one I'd answer "There's much NBA players know better about basketball than I do, but there are particular niches that are more academic/intellectual/analytic where the methods that need to be used to drive optimization tend to require a more white collar background, or at least the willingness to partner with an open mind with the white collar folks."

But let me also say, I think there's probably space for us to better understand each other that acknowledges both what the players say and what you say.

When you talk about setting up isolations, that means setting up the stars, right? Meanwhile, it's the role players who tend to talk most about how unusual the triangle was for them.

Ron Artest talked about the triangle being like having to memorize a million plays - which is absolutely not how you're supposed to see the triangle as a player, but if you struggle to understand the core principles, well then every time you make the wrong move and get corrected can feel like another "play".

Here's a great set of role player interviews on the subject:

Inside the Triangle: what players told me
Six Bulls and one opponent share what makes the offense great

I won't quote all the stuff, but just to give the gist:

The triangle, similar to the Princeton offense, similar to Jerry Sloan’s offense, there’s a purpose of why you do what you do. And it’s activated by the defense. If the defense plays you one way, you have an opportunity to do something else. The ball movement is dictated by the defense. It’s really remarkable.

So ball movement, player movement, and you’re going to get a pretty good shot. That’s what the triangle is all about. It’s greatest attribute is against pressure. The more pressure that you put on the defense and the defense puts on us, the better the offense is.

By the way, if you do catch the ball in the post, you are a passer first before you’re a scorer. It’s just that movement of the ball that’s going to generate the shot. Who knows who’s going to get a shot? But you’re going to get a good shot.

I think what's so noteworthy about this to me is the fact that Cartwright was the starting center on the Bulls playing the Triangle, but on the Lakers Shaq was the center, and Shaq obviously was never a pass-first guy in his basketball life.

So if you look to explain "the Triangle" in terms of what Shaq did playing under Phil Jackson, I think it gives the wrong idea. Jackson's stars had the freedom to break the Triangle as they saw fit, and while it's not like this never frustrated Jackson (he wrote a whole book venting about Kobe after all), Jackson also understood that he was looking to build around his outlier talents and that that meant his "Triangle" looked very different dependent on his stars and their preference.

Now, I do think that Jordan specifically buying in to the Triangle was an essential part of the transition from the Collins years, and helped unlock Pippen & Grant as all-star level performers, so while Jordan certainly could break out of the team offense at any time, he really did get behind a scheme where he was less ball-dominant than before.

With Shaq & Kobe though, I'd say they never actually bought in to the Triangle to the same degree, so the team success of Jackson on the Lakers was less about "the Triangle" and more about a) both Shaq & Kobe being incredibly talented on a level beyond any Bull other than Jordan, b) Jackson being a legendary coach already who when he joined the team had the stature to get Shaq temporarily excited about getting in better shape and taking defense seriously, c) Jackson specifically being the coach of Kobe's role model, which gave him more credibility when pushing Kobe to be more of a team player, and d) Jackson really being ahead of the curve when it came to recognizing great role players who could thrive in a read & react scheme.

Not that the Triangle wasn't there in LA, as we absolutely saw various guys struggle with it - some who flamed out (including previous all-stars like Glen Rice & Gary Payton), and others like Artest who never figured out how to make effective decisions in it and left fans thinking "No!" whenever they did the wrong thing but who had enough other strengths to make themselves indispensable n Jackson's eyes.

[Doctor MJ]

So the fact that the players themselves talk about how different it was to play in the triangle because of the way you’re called to read and react in both player and ball movement does t seem meaningful to you?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Here it might be worth mentioning that one of the reasons the Bulls implemented the triangle to begin with is because Jerry Reinsdorf is a native New Yorker and had been a fan of those Holzman Knick teams, and upon hiring Jerry Krause to run the team, told him that he wanted to build a team that played like that. I believe that that is why one of Krause's first moves was to hire Tex Winter as an assistant, I believe that is why he hired Phil Jackson(who had played on those Knick teams) out of the Continental Basketball Association, and I believe Doug Collins not utilizing the triangle is why he was fired in favor of Jackson.

Interesting, I didn't know this stuff about Reinsdorf!

[Bad Bart]

So the fact that the players themselves talk about how different it was to play in the triangle because of the way you’re called to read and react in both player and ball movement does t seem meaningful to you?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Here it might be worth mentioning that one of the reasons the Bulls implemented the triangle to begin with is because Jerry Reinsdorf is a native New Yorker and had been a fan of those Holzman Knick teams, and upon hiring Jerry Krause to run the team, told him that he wanted to build a team that played like that. I believe that that is why one of Krause's first moves was to hire Tex Winter as an assistant, I believe that is why he hired Phil Jackson(who had played on those Knick teams) out of the Continental Basketball Association, and I believe Doug Collins not utilizing the triangle is why he was fired in favor of Jackson.

Very interesting stuff here, thanks for the history lesson.

[Verticality]

Carmelo Anthony's reputation has diminished. Not unfairly but still a fall.

[Doctor MJ]

Carmelo Anthony's reputation has diminished. Not unfairly but still a fall.

I should say that I’ve always been low in Melo, and tbe fact that he was competing specifically against King for a spot the way I did it made it real tough.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[tsherkin]

Carmelo Anthony's reputation has diminished. Not unfairly but still a fall.

I should say that I’ve always been low in Melo, and tbe fact that he was competing specifically against King for a spot the way I did it made it real tough.

In-era, everyone wanted to make it Lebron and Melo being Magic and Bird part two. He was just never good enough to make it happen.

Now, he went to Denver and had some BRUTAL competition in the West at that point in his career, which didn't help, but he was a a pretty high time-of-possession guy and wasn't a high-efficiency scorer, nor a playmaker of any worth, nor a particularly good defender. He also resisted playing the PF for a long time. Then he went to New York, shifted to the 4, worked well with PGs (as he had with Billups in Denver) and had basically his best RS performances. He ran into the 2012 Heat, so that one is forgivable. He played pretty rough against Indiana the year after (as was his wont in the playoffs), but he also had very little around him. JR Smith sucked, Felton was Felton, Shump sucked, Kenyon Martin was 35 and Tyson Chandler had never been a scorer.

They added Bargs for some insane reason and then missed the playoffs in 2014. Melo missed half the season and the Knicks missed the playoffs again in 2015... although they were 10-30 when he did play. So many injuries. No talent around him at all. That team was brutal. A good example of how not to architect a team. I cannot believe they managed to pick up Calderon in the Chandler trade, to reunite the two worst defenders from Toronto's mid-2000s squads, lol. They didn't get any better in 2016 or 2017, and that was the end. He was 32, and would be nothing more than a roleplayer after that.

His rep always outweighed his impact. All the guys who love to say stuff like "only the nerds think this guy is good," or "only the nerds don't like this guy" were huge fans of Melo because he loved difficult, contested, long two-pointers and taking 600 years to jab step his way into oblivion before taking the fadeaway.

*shrug*

I dislike the archetype. He was a solid player and a many-time AS for a reason, no doubt, but people always wanted to compare him to James, to make a superstar to offset Lebron, and it just never worked because he was never that level of player.

[metta-tonne]

Think the best deal is

Jalen Brunson/Carmelo Anthony
OG Anuoby/Amare Stoudimire
Walt-Frazier/Bernard King
Kristaps Porzingis/Dave DeBusschere
Patrick Ewing/Willis Reed

So the positions are goofy but Its left start right bench. Going to have Melo somewhere though it’s guardy. Got Brunson and Ewing so uh let’s get versatile defense with Anunoby.