2010/11 NBA Dec |OT| of http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u7lMXXaUaIo PEACE
- Thread starter reilo
- Start date
- Status
Blackface said:
I didn't compare them to the Lakers. We're talking about how relevant your piece of information is at that point of the season.
Bosh was a good player, yeah. So what? He left. Keep living a memory, that'll make your days of following Reggie Evans less painful.
My definition of a franchise player for the past 10 years is not Marbury. We've had Amare Stoudemire, Allan Houston and Latrell Sprewell. Spree and AH20 weren't superstars, but how are they any less than Bobcats' best players today? How were the Knicks irrelevant since 1999 (a Finals' appearance, the second of the decade) when they were a regular in the playoffs for the first half of the decade.
All BS, keep relying on Calderon to emulate Derrick Rose's game cos that's all you had last night after he realized his wings were crap and he wasn't very good at it.
Sharp said:
Credibility? On a video game forum? Get off your high horse. You are not writing some Ph.D. dissertation here. What a joke.
I love how people keep bringing the whole decade when they clearly weren't watching basketball 10 years ago. 'Til 2004, Knicks were slightly above average.
Slightly above average being the best that the Raptors, Bobcats, etc, EVER achieved.
There are knicks fans saying the regular season doesn't matter or that shit will be boring until we make it to the finals? I didn't know we were saying these things?Sharp said:
Saying it feels good to be winning games=lakers fans now? Really? If this is the case then all fans are like lakers fans.
Blackface said:
He could start with his <6rpg center, you know, not the Knick who is averaging over 9 boards a game.
I'm living a memory of meaningful games. You know, the kind you could have had if you didn't have your best moments with Vince Carter missing important shots.
captmcblack
Member
No Sharp, especially because in this thread it doesn't matter what kind of logic or expectations you present.
Literally nothing short of the Knicks going 82-0 and winning 2 championships in the same year would make the people in this thread accept the Knicks as anything but a terrible team. No matter how rationally I post about the Knicks, and whatever number of stats or facts or non-insane comments I, or anyone else posts about the Knicks, all you get back is "knicks suck". So I don't mind if I can get some happiness right now from the beginning of this season, given that every season I've watched since I was 17 years old has started and finished worse. You can call it "pathetic" and discredit my fandom if you want, but it won't mean shit to me.
Also, question about the advanced statistic "strength of schedule" - does SOS adjust itself if a team considered bad strengthens and becomes a powerhouse? Like say if the Bobcats, GSW and Raptors went on a streak and became teams over .500...would SOS change to reflect that those teams no longer objectively suck? If SOS fluctuates like that, wouldn't it not be the best stats to use to measure how "good" a team's wins were? Or is this another thing where baseball > basketball because it can never be measured quantitatively without flaws?
Literally nothing short of the Knicks going 82-0 and winning 2 championships in the same year would make the people in this thread accept the Knicks as anything but a terrible team. No matter how rationally I post about the Knicks, and whatever number of stats or facts or non-insane comments I, or anyone else posts about the Knicks, all you get back is "knicks suck". So I don't mind if I can get some happiness right now from the beginning of this season, given that every season I've watched since I was 17 years old has started and finished worse. You can call it "pathetic" and discredit my fandom if you want, but it won't mean shit to me.
Also, question about the advanced statistic "strength of schedule" - does SOS adjust itself if a team considered bad strengthens and becomes a powerhouse? Like say if the Bobcats, GSW and Raptors went on a streak and became teams over .500...would SOS change to reflect that those teams no longer objectively suck? If SOS fluctuates like that, wouldn't it not be the best stats to use to measure how "good" a team's wins were? Or is this another thing where baseball > basketball because it can never be measured quantitatively without flaws?
MorisUkunRasik
Member
This much time should not be wasted discussing a team that destined to watch the second round from their couches.
Blackface said:
My bad, I forgot they currently suck and I'm not allowed to talk about playoffs history with fans who tune out of basketball after round 2. Especially if they're teenagers whose best memory is some regular season Bosh moment and have started watching ball when they bought NBA 2K6.
Gabyskra said:
lets talk about playoff history
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kw6V9MPzTJs
like when the Raptors kicked the Knicks out of it in 2001.
The bottom line with these guys is that they hate that the knicks have had a bigger following than their teams even when their teams were doing better. During this decade some of you have gotten hyped draft picks and had Chris Bosh's, but the knicks still had a bigger following. The knicks have a lot of true fans and this just bothers you guys.
2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011 (the current season we are in)Gabyskra said:
Can you count up the number of total season represented in there? But if you want to go back eleven, twelve or thirteen years, then, ugh sure.
Or hell, how about we go back to last season? What about 2009? 2008? Should I keep going?
And yeah, some of the worst times my franchise endured was when they were winning 50 games. What horror!
Rodeo Clown
All aboard! The Love train!
Hooray! We'll now have two players who can play decent defense. League on notice!
Don't compare the rest of us the Member formerly known as Trax. I don't call you charslite do I?Gabyskra said:
But yeah, the Knicks have started off better and finished worse several times this decade. The team isn't coming off a bad year, its coming off a bad decade and its signature wins were shooting at a level they won't touch again all season long when Chicago's coach wouldn't let Rose back into the game in the 4th and against a New Orleans team with a gimped Chris Paul that was also missing David West.
Pop bottles.
reilo said:
2011 being the current season does not help your point considering how it's going.
Knicks have sucked ass since the 2005 season 'til 2010, what's your point, who's denying the facts? It was horrible. It means less to someone who has started watching the game in 1992.
Feel free to pimp up your backup PG and Wes Matthews' contract, you might need them more than you think.
Good to hear. One of those guys I'll root for the rest of their careers.Rodeo Clown said:
Yep, Knicks started sucking since 2005. Yep. Only since 2005. Not that they won less than 40 games the three seasons prior or anything.Gabyskra said:
Trust us: nobody here gives a shit how big the Knicks "following" is.charsace said:
It's actually more hilarious when you realize that Knicks fans keep on pouring money into Dolan's pockets while he pines to re-hire Isiah as GM, and their big summer 2010 free agent signings were 1) a non-max guy they paid the max, and 2) a PG that the Bobcats didn't want.
I consider an intelligent fanbase to be one that bails on its team when they're laughably incompetent, not one that rewards terrible leadership by continuing to buy tickets.
captmcblack
Member
Hey guys, Knicks suck. Okay.
Anyone can answer me this?
"Also, question about the advanced statistic "strength of schedule" - does SOS adjust itself if a team considered bad strengthens and becomes a powerhouse? Like say if the Bobcats, GSW and Raptors went on a streak and became teams over .500...would SOS change to reflect that those teams no longer objectively suck? If SOS fluctuates like that, wouldn't it not be the best stats to use to measure how "good" a team's wins were? Or is this another thing where baseball > basketball because it can never be measured quantitatively without flaws?"
I know everyone in here digs the basketball sabermetrics and non-standard statistical measurements/inferences, so I was wondering what the word is here.
Anyone can answer me this?
"Also, question about the advanced statistic "strength of schedule" - does SOS adjust itself if a team considered bad strengthens and becomes a powerhouse? Like say if the Bobcats, GSW and Raptors went on a streak and became teams over .500...would SOS change to reflect that those teams no longer objectively suck? If SOS fluctuates like that, wouldn't it not be the best stats to use to measure how "good" a team's wins were? Or is this another thing where baseball > basketball because it can never be measured quantitatively without flaws?"
I know everyone in here digs the basketball sabermetrics and non-standard statistical measurements/inferences, so I was wondering what the word is here.
reilo said:
So what? Blazers sucked for a while too after the Jailblazers. It wasn't until 2009 that they had a >.500 record. From 2003 to 2009, no playoffs. It just happens. Even to the Celtics, look at the 90s. Same for post-Jordan Bulls, it took a while. Basketball is cyclical, except when your best outlook is to hope that Gerald Wallace miraculously is traded for a superstar.
Wow, Knicks fans are so butthurt :lol
For the record, I was comparing you to Lakers fans lite because (1) there are a lot of you, (2) every win is the greatest thing ever and every player involved in it deserves All-Star consideration, and (3) every time there's a loss everyone panic and starts looking for things to blame. I was saying "with zero credibility" because the Lakers have shown time and time again that they can back up their fans' shit talking with their play, especially in the playoffs. The Knicks have not really earned that luxury. I called it "a little pathetic" because of that other New York franchise whose standards are so much higher.
Oh, BTW--the reason there aren't a lot of Bulls fans who post here isn't because they don't have a large fanbase, it's because in Chicago most people don't really care about how the team is doing, only know that their teams are awesome because it's Chi-town, fuck yeah, represent etc.
For the record, I was comparing you to Lakers fans lite because (1) there are a lot of you, (2) every win is the greatest thing ever and every player involved in it deserves All-Star consideration, and (3) every time there's a loss everyone panic and starts looking for things to blame. I was saying "with zero credibility" because the Lakers have shown time and time again that they can back up their fans' shit talking with their play, especially in the playoffs. The Knicks have not really earned that luxury. I called it "a little pathetic" because of that other New York franchise whose standards are so much higher.
Yeah, it changes based on how a team does afterwards, ignoring later callups, injury recovery, wear and tear of the season, etc. That's true in baseball's third-order Pythagoreans as well, but individual players rarely have anywhere close to the same impact on the season in baseball so it doesn't matter as much. That said, they are still one of the better stats to analyze how "good" a team's wins were, even if I don't agree with how Hollinger uses it.captmcblack said:
Oh, BTW--the reason there aren't a lot of Bulls fans who post here isn't because they don't have a large fanbase, it's because in Chicago most people don't really care about how the team is doing, only know that their teams are awesome because it's Chi-town, fuck yeah, represent etc.
Yes, the SOS is a rolling strength and takes the team's overall record into consideration.captmcblack said:
For example, if the Knicks beat team X when team X is 3-9 at the time, but you check the SOS two months later when team X is 34-20, then the SOS will take the most current record into consideration.
It'd be pretty nuts if Hollinger created a formula where the SOS reflected the record of the team they played at that moment in time. That'd be one hell of an algorithm.
In that six year span, Portland mustered 41, 41, 32, 27, 21 wins. 41 and 41 would have been good for a top 5 playoff spot in the East.Gabyskra said:
That's what's even more laughable about all of this, the Knicks were at a franchise low during a time that the East was utterly terrible.
SOS does fluctuate.captmcblack said:
But also, some common sense should step in before your start hyping up a win in an empty building when a team's best player is hurt and its second best player is missing.
Even 2007 Cavs-age wouldn't start a fap fest when beating up on the Pacers.
I didn't know this was the same knicks team that we have had this whole decade. Didn't know we still had Isiah and Layden sharing the team president job and that we have 6 head coaches and of course 20+ starters. No wonder why we are one of the top scoring teams. Opponents are having a hard time playing 5 on 10 ball.DY_nasty said:
Your post is shit. Those regimes have nothing to do with the current one. By your logic the bobcats will never win 50 games or a championship.
So a guy that been on the all NBA team multiple times and has finished top 10 in the MVP voting multiple times isn't a max player? News to me.KingGondo said:
What are you talking about?Gabyskra said:
You guys are the ones going around blowing loads over beating the Raptors. Hell, chars even went so far as to call the Raptors 'a decent team' and you've got masud quoting Triano :lol
captmcblack
Member
Thanks guys for answering.
Also, geez...no one is hyping up anything. People are happy to be 12-9, and anytime anyone posts anything along those lines we're reminded about all the reasons why we won - which are curiously never even partially things like "the Knicks played well" and are always "the opponent was terribad" or "this player was out" or something - and told not to post and that we're proclaiming 60-win seasons and shit.
Even on Friday night when I was posting about Paul v. Felton, it was more civilized than this right now...shit, guys. :lol Seriously, we're here. We're here when we suck, we're here if we don't, and we've been here as long as there's been a NBA-Age. dealwithit.gif.
Sharp: Knicks fandom is a lot like Mets or Jets fandom. The only comparable fandoms to Yankees fandom is Lakers/Celtics fandom or something...and even then, it's not really like that at all.
Also, geez...no one is hyping up anything. People are happy to be 12-9, and anytime anyone posts anything along those lines we're reminded about all the reasons why we won - which are curiously never even partially things like "the Knicks played well" and are always "the opponent was terribad" or "this player was out" or something - and told not to post and that we're proclaiming 60-win seasons and shit.
Even on Friday night when I was posting about Paul v. Felton, it was more civilized than this right now...shit, guys. :lol Seriously, we're here. We're here when we suck, we're here if we don't, and we've been here as long as there's been a NBA-Age. dealwithit.gif.
Sharp: Knicks fandom is a lot like Mets or Jets fandom. The only comparable fandoms to Yankees fandom is Lakers/Celtics fandom or something...and even then, it's not really like that at all.
- Status