# Detailed Study of Eddy Curry



## TwinkieFoot (Jul 8, 2006)

This article may have already been posted on this board but if not, it's a very interesting piece that weighs the beliefs of both factions concerning Eddy Curry. I think it ultimately says alot though in favor of the Curry supporters but draw your own conclusions. The graphs could not be included from me copy and pasting so maybe it's best if you check out the original aritcle at http://www.knickerblogger.net/?p=358 :


There is real hope that Eddy will develop into a league-leading center,” (Knicks owner James) Dolan said. “If you watched the second quarter of the San Antonio game he was pretty good. That’s Larry’s job … to get him from one quarter to four quarters.” 
New York Daily News
March 02, 2006 

Whether it’s due to the variety of cultures or the sheer number of inhabitants, New Yorkers rarely agree on anything. However, thanks to James Dolan & the Knicks front office, 2006 has given New Yorkers a topic all can agree upon: The New York Knicks suck. While Big Apple residents often have the propensity to overstate their cases, it’s hard to be a contrarian on this issue. At 17 wins and 44 losses, New York is dead last in the NBA standings. Additionally the Knicks have the NBA’s worst salary cap situation. Not only do they currently have the league’s highest salary, but they continue to trade for and sign players to exorbitant long term contracts.

Since their 2000 season ended, the boys in blue & orange have been in a slow & steady decline. It’s no coincidence that the Knicks demise is accompanied by two major events that left them absent of a quality big man. Patrick Ewing was traded to Seattle in the summer of 2000, and Marcus Camby was sent packing over a year later. While I’m not obtuse enough to think that you need a dominant center to win in the NBA, New York’s most successful teams have been lead by the man in the middle. The 70s Knicks wouldn’t have been the same without Willis Reed. Patrick Ewing kept the team afloat in the 80s and 90s. And Marcus Camby almost catapulted them to an improbable Finals victory in 2000. Since then, the Knicks have attempted to fill this void with undersized power forwards like Kurt Thomas and Mike Sweetney. New York’s only playoff appearance in this period was when they had a serviceable (but past his prime) Dikembe Mutombo roaming the paint. 

It’s probably these kinds of thoughts Isiah Thomas had in his head when he signed Eddy Curry for 6 years and $60M. Curry is only 23 years old, and at a listed 6′11 285lbs is no undersized power forward. There is no doubt that once Curry releases the ball, he is an able scorer. In David Crockett’s last KB.Net article, he said of Curry:

You can count nine centers with better offensive production (Shaq, Duncan, both Wallaces, Ilgauskas, Brad Miller, Zo, Okur, and Gadzuric), and all but Gadzuric are a good bit older than Curry.

And this is where the opinions of Curry begin to diverge. Although he doesn’t lack the ability to score, it’s the other aspects of the game that elude Eddy. He seems disinterested on the defensive end, is a timid defensive rebounder, and turns the ball over too often. When Isiah Thomas decided to pursue Eddy Curry, he must have thought that these attributes would change. In fact the quote above shows that the Knicks owner, James Dolan, feels the same way. But is this true? How likely is it that New York’s present center will become their center of the future?

To answer a question like this, we just need to look in the past. To find players similar to Mr. Curry, I limited myself to 23 year olds who were 6′10 or taller. I also limited myself to the last 25 years, or what I would term the modern era of the NBA (1980 or since). This is due to the changes in the game including the ABA/NBA merger, the three point line, gaps in statkeeping (blocks, steals, turnovers), etc. Using this information, we can gauge how likely it is for Curry to become a more productive player. If we look at 23 year old players whose defensive rebounding rates were close to Curry’s (5.0 & 6.2 DREB/40 min) we find that after 3 years those same players on average saw a meager increase of 0.5 defensive rebounds per 40 minutes. Optimists will find comfort in the knowledge that there were a few players who started out as timid as Eddy, and turned into excellent rebounders.

Marcus Camby was an awful rebounder for the Toronto Raptors, which is probably the reason they traded him to New York. In his first two years he averaged 5.5 and 5.3 defensive rebounds per 40 minutes. In New York, his rates steady increased until blossoming as a full time starter in 2001. That year Marcus averaged 9.9 defensive rebounds per 40 minutes, nearly double his average in Toronto. Another player who went from hyalophobe to hyalophile is Jayson Williams. Like Camby, in his first two seasons Williams showed a fear of glass for the Sixers. And just like Marcus, Jayson nearly doubled his defensive rebounding by age 26, snaring 10.0 DREB/40min. 

Camby and Williams show that it’s not impossible for Curry to become a strong rebounder. However if you’re going to start to tout Curry as a future All Star, you might want to preface your statement with something to the effect of being a blind optimist who will be winning the lotto in the near future. By looking at defensive rebounding averages of all players from age 23 to 36 (see graph below), players will hit their peak around the age of 27 and begin to decline at around 32. From this data it might be reasonable to incur that Curry will be at best a league average rebounder for a man of his size, and at worst remain a poor rebounder. 




By using this same technique, we can also analyze his turnover and blocked shot rate. The next two charts reveal that both turnovers and blocked shots decrease steadily as a player ages. That turnovers decrease is a good sign for the Knicks, since it’s a major weakness in Curry’s game. As poster NGLI pointed out, the Knicks young center is prone to being stripped due to keeping the ball too low and is called for offensive charging by bowling over his defenders. If Eddy can improve on his career 3.3 TO/40 minutes, it’d make him a legitimate offensive option, one the Knicks can feed into the post without effectively giving the other team the ball in the process. As for blocked shots, it looks as if it’s a skill a player either has or does not have. I did eyeball a few of the league’s best shot swatters, and their rates do increase. Nonetheless for everyone else it’s just a skill that erodes as a player gets older. 





Armed with this data it’s clear that Eddy Curry will remain a “Baby Shaq” and never become the real deal. The safe money is that he should be able to reduce his turnovers enough to become an offensively productive center. Unfortunately he’ll never be strong on the defensive end, either in rebounding or blocking shots. Now is this the definition of a “league-leading center” that the Knicks front office had in mind when they gave away a couple of first round picks and signed Curry to $60M? That’s something New Yorkers can debate about for the next few years.



The Eddy Curry Study
March 12th, 2006 by KnickerBlogger | permalink | trackback | 

“There is real hope that Eddy will develop into a league-leading center,” (Knicks owner James) Dolan said. “If you watched the second quarter of the San Antonio game he was pretty good. That’s Larry’s job … to get him from one quarter to four quarters.” 
New York Daily News
March 02, 2006 

Whether it’s due to the variety of cultures or the sheer number of inhabitants, New Yorkers rarely agree on anything. However, thanks to James Dolan & the Knicks front office, 2006 has given New Yorkers a topic all can agree upon: The New York Knicks suck. While Big Apple residents often have the propensity to overstate their cases, it’s hard to be a contrarian on this issue. At 17 wins and 44 losses, New York is dead last in the NBA standings. Additionally the Knicks have the NBA’s worst salary cap situation. Not only do they currently have the league’s highest salary, but they continue to trade for and sign players to exorbitant long term contracts.

Since their 2000 season ended, the boys in blue & orange have been in a slow & steady decline. It’s no coincidence that the Knicks demise is accompanied by two major events that left them absent of a quality big man. Patrick Ewing was traded to Seattle in the summer of 2000, and Marcus Camby was sent packing over a year later. While I’m not obtuse enough to think that you need a dominant center to win in the NBA, New York’s most successful teams have been lead by the man in the middle. The 70s Knicks wouldn’t have been the same without Willis Reed. Patrick Ewing kept the team afloat in the 80s and 90s. And Marcus Camby almost catapulted them to an improbable Finals victory in 2000. Since then, the Knicks have attempted to fill this void with undersized power forwards like Kurt Thomas and Mike Sweetney. New York’s only playoff appearance in this period was when they had a serviceable (but past his prime) Dikembe Mutombo roaming the paint. 

It’s probably these kinds of thoughts Isiah Thomas had in his head when he signed Eddy Curry for 6 years and $60M. Curry is only 23 years old, and at a listed 6′11 285lbs is no undersized power forward. There is no doubt that once Curry releases the ball, he is an able scorer. In David Crockett’s last KB.Net article, he said of Curry:

You can count nine centers with better offensive production (Shaq, Duncan, both Wallaces, Ilgauskas, Brad Miller, Zo, Okur, and Gadzuric), and all but Gadzuric are a good bit older than Curry.

And this is where the opinions of Curry begin to diverge. Although he doesn’t lack the ability to score, it’s the other aspects of the game that elude Eddy. He seems disinterested on the defensive end, is a timid defensive rebounder, and turns the ball over too often. When Isiah Thomas decided to pursue Eddy Curry, he must have thought that these attributes would change. In fact the quote above shows that the Knicks owner, James Dolan, feels the same way. But is this true? How likely is it that New York’s present center will become their center of the future?

To answer a question like this, we just need to look in the past. To find players similar to Mr. Curry, I limited myself to 23 year olds who were 6′10 or taller. I also limited myself to the last 25 years, or what I would term the modern era of the NBA (1980 or since). This is due to the changes in the game including the ABA/NBA merger, the three point line, gaps in statkeeping (blocks, steals, turnovers), etc. Using this information, we can gauge how likely it is for Curry to become a more productive player. If we look at 23 year old players whose defensive rebounding rates were close to Curry’s (5.0 & 6.2 DREB/40 min) we find that after 3 years those same players on average saw a meager increase of 0.5 defensive rebounds per 40 minutes. Optimists will find comfort in the knowledge that there were a few players who started out as timid as Eddy, and turned into excellent rebounders.

Marcus Camby was an awful rebounder for the Toronto Raptors, which is probably the reason they traded him to New York. In his first two years he averaged 5.5 and 5.3 defensive rebounds per 40 minutes. In New York, his rates steady increased until blossoming as a full time starter in 2001. That year Marcus averaged 9.9 defensive rebounds per 40 minutes, nearly double his average in Toronto. Another player who went from hyalophobe to hyalophile is Jayson Williams. Like Camby, in his first two seasons Williams showed a fear of glass for the Sixers. And just like Marcus, Jayson nearly doubled his defensive rebounding by age 26, snaring 10.0 DREB/40min. 

Camby and Williams show that it’s not impossible for Curry to become a strong rebounder. However if you’re going to start to tout Curry as a future All Star, you might want to preface your statement with something to the effect of being a blind optimist who will be winning the lotto in the near future. By looking at defensive rebounding averages of all players from age 23 to 36 (see graph below), players will hit their peak around the age of 27 and begin to decline at around 32. From this data it might be reasonable to incur that Curry will be at best a league average rebounder for a man of his size, and at worst remain a poor rebounder. 




By using this same technique, we can also analyze his turnover and blocked shot rate. The next two charts reveal that both turnovers and blocked shots decrease steadily as a player ages. That turnovers decrease is a good sign for the Knicks, since it’s a major weakness in Curry’s game. As poster NGLI pointed out, the Knicks young center is prone to being stripped due to keeping the ball too low and is called for offensive charging by bowling over his defenders. If Eddy can improve on his career 3.3 TO/40 minutes, it’d make him a legitimate offensive option, one the Knicks can feed into the post without effectively giving the other team the ball in the process. As for blocked shots, it looks as if it’s a skill a player either has or does not have. I did eyeball a few of the league’s best shot swatters, and their rates do increase. Nonetheless for everyone else it’s just a skill that erodes as a player gets older. 





Armed with this data it’s clear that Eddy Curry will remain a “Baby Shaq” and never become the real deal. The safe money is that he should be able to reduce his turnovers enough to become an offensively productive center. Unfortunately he’ll never be strong on the defensive end, either in rebounding or blocking shots. Now is this the definition of a “league-leading center” that the Knicks front office had in mind when they gave away a couple of first round picks and signed Curry to $60M? That’s something New Yorkers can debate about for the next few years.



Your Ad Here

Respond »

13 Responses to “The Eddy Curry Study”


KnickerBlogger Said: 
March 12th, 2006 at 3:39 pm 
Oh and 20 KnickerBlogger Points to the first reader that can find a mention to this site in today’s New York Times. 

Ted Nelson Said: 
March 12th, 2006 at 7:25 pm 
It’s a pretty long shot that Eddy ever becomes an All-NBA type all around player, but on the right roster he could be a major offensive contributor for a contender. To become this kind of a team the Knicks need to find an intelligent PG/combo guard who can pass it to the right guy at the right time in the right place and preferably be able to guard the one or the two on D, and either a 4 and a 5 who can defend and pass or maybe a 4/5 who can do both. A stopper on the wing wouldn’t hurt either.
I mean a rotation only requires 8 or 9 guys and in Marbury, Francis, Frye, and Curry (or even 3 of the 4) you have enough offensive firepower to compensate for some guys who can’t “create their own shot” but are intelligent, efficient with their shots, move the ball well, and play D. 

Matt Bernhardt Said: 
March 13th, 2006 at 3:31 pm 
does New York Sun count?

www.nysun.com/article/28291 

KnickerBlogger Said: 
March 13th, 2006 at 3:36 pm 
Nope, but nice try Matt. Funny thing is that it’s not in the online version, only the print one. 

CourtsideTimes.Net Said: 
March 13th, 2006 at 4:21 pm 
[…] If you haven’t noticed, our man main KD has started a nice summary of the Sunday columns from around the league, which is a handy way to look at conventional wisdom across the NBA landscape. Or perhaps some unconventional wisdom: Knicks blogger (and SI.com contributor) Mike Kurylo doesn’t see great things in Eddy Curry’s future, and he’s got the graphs to back the pessimism up. […] 

Bolo the Clown Said: 
March 13th, 2006 at 4:37 pm 
Do I have to do everything myself?

www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2006/03/11/sports/20060312_score_graphic.html 

KnickerBlogger Said: 
March 13th, 2006 at 5:20 pm 
Bolo 20 KB points to you! Don’t spend them all in one place. 

Also thanks for finding the online version! 

tomverve Said: 
March 13th, 2006 at 10:49 pm 
“Armed with this data it’s clear that Eddy Curry will remain a “Baby Shaq” and never become the real deal. The safe money is that he should be able to reduce his turnovers enough to become an offensively productive center. Unfortunately he’ll never be strong on the defensive end, either in rebounding or blocking shots.”

I think you state that a bit strongly. The evidence indicates that it’s not likely that Curry will become a strong rebounder or shot blocker, but it doesn’t categorically rule it out. (Personally, I think there is hope for Curry to bump his rebound rate up to around 16 or so instead of the current 14, but I doubt he’ll ever be much of a shotblocker.)

As for the approach used in this article, it’s interesting, but I wonder if there are better ways to approach it than just lumping together every player over 6′10″ at age 23. For instance, on the face of it it seems like the trends might be different for pogostick players like Camby or Gadzuric as opposed to bulldozers like Curry. Likewise, stratifying players by PER might show different trends for different PER levels. 

dave crockett Said: 
March 14th, 2006 at 11:20 am 
Who is this David Crawford guy, and what’s he doing taking credit for my blog entry? ;-) 

KnickerBlogger Said: 
March 14th, 2006 at 4:06 pm 
And me with egg on my face 

Kevin Said: 
March 14th, 2006 at 5:52 pm 
My word is fetus - well hopefully that means there is development left.

Two issues on the study. 

1. Jayson Williams was a rookie who played 500 minutes. Maybe not the best sample to determine what kind of player he would become (Camby as a rookie played 1897 minutes at 22 vs Curry at 1808). Camby’s rates were 10% higher than Curry (whose numbers have dropped since he joined the league). Camby is an unusual player and may have had a harder time finder correct usage and therefore his early numbers reflect usage/positional issues not ability.

2. concerned about selection bias. Did the rate improve because some stiff at 23 wasn’t playing at 27. If you start with 27 year olds, and see how they did at 23.

I don’t think Curry will work hard enough to get significantly better, especially after getting a six year $10 MM per contract. With that said, his rebounding is up a little this year. 

Young T Said: 
March 15th, 2006 at 5:12 am 
Curry’s problem, is firstly that he doesn’t love basketball and so he has no great passion for the game. There have been successful players like this, such as Latrell Sprewell, but generally its a bad omen.

Second, as Malcolm Gladwell pointed out in his exchange with Bill Simmons, he’s probably scared of really putting in the effort in case he doesn’t succeed. As Gladwell says, if you don’t try, and fail, you have an excuse. If you try hard, and then fail, that’s very hard to deal with.

So basically what you’re dealing with is a player who, despite all his talent and intimidating prescence, simply does not have the determination or work ethic to become an elite player, nor the passion to become a champion. With a guaranteed contract to boot, its hard to see where Curry is going to get the motivation to become a league-leading player. None of this is to say he can’t improve, but someone or something is going to have to fire a rocket up his ***!

My word was “jeers”, which is all I have right now for the Knicks! 

PTC Said: 
March 31st, 2006 at 3:10 am 
My view on Curry.

First I want to state up front that my view here is elastic and evolving. I’m going to get into some ideas that I haven’t fully wrapped my head around and so this is more of a stream of ideas than a formal post.

I started thinking about this awhile ago, but why is it that a player expect to be great get’s more grief than a player expected to suck…that actually does suck.

If we rated all players on a scale of 1-10. It seems to me that if a player is scouted as a 10 and turns out to be a 6 we all call him a bum and talk about why his results aren’t helping the team. But we never knock the guy who was scouted as a 2, becomes a 2, and does almost nothing to positively impact us.

In other words, we don’t blame Rick Brunson for “just being” Rick Brunson, but we destroy Curry for being Curry. What if the problem isn’t with Curry, but with the scouting and projection process that built him up to something he isn’t and will never be? Who’s fault is that?

I guess the counter to that thinking is that if we carried my logic through we would never knock any player because whatever a player is is what he should be. Under that idea no player would ever have incentive to get better and so on. It would also make projecting either impossible or irrelevant.

But I think that what it would do would be to build a proper amount of risk into future investments. It would make a team less likely to overspend on what amounts to a throw of the dice. The team might miss out on Gerald Wallaces’ but it prevent the team from spending 10 mil on Eddy Curry.

My view is that our frustration toward X player should only be as much as we see a regression not a FAILURE to progress to where we think he should. Now maybe that lets players off the hook for coasting and maybe it doesn’t, but it seems to be a less frustrating and more fair way to evaluate these matters.

Why be mad at Eddy Curry. Nobody puts a gun to his head to get better. He didn’t force the knicks to give him a stupid contract. If anything Curry has been “himself” every since his rookie year. His contract was based on OUR belief that he would STOP being himself and become another player during the life of the contract. So let’s look at what he actually is.

The guy can score. Contrary to popular belief it is really tough to find a center in this league with that skill. Since you don’t win games 1-0 SCORING is the primary ability in basketball. In fact the only reason to not fill your team with scorers is because you can’t keep them all happy and it costs too much. So in my view his best asset is the most important in basketball.

Next, he sucks at rebounding. This is a huge problem. How much worse is he than the average rebounder? I don’t know but I’ll let Knickerblogger delve into that one. My HUNCH is that he isn’t much worse than your average starting center. He’s much worse than Shaq, but probably better than Jaron Collins….although who knows if even that’s accurate.

Defense? Tough to evaluate. However based on 100 opposition possessions the team gives up 114 points when hes in and 110 when he isn’t. So lets call him mediocre to bad.

My point here is that he’s an imperfect player who shouldn’t have gotten the money he did. But he isn’t Rick Brunson either and Id rather spend my time talking about Curry vs the average center than Curry vs Shaq. Because at the end of the day Curry was only SUPPOSED to be Shaq because a few idiots from the bulls thought he would be and we paid him like he would be and that isn’t his fault.

I would rather evaluate him for what he is and let the chips fall where they may than talk about why he isn’t Shaq and why he can’t rebound. We know why. He doesn’t have the desire. If that lack of desire was caught when the Bulls were going to draft him nobody would care that he lacked desire. But because THEY didn’t suddenly Curry is the poster boy for sucking.

Maybe Curry is only average and maybe that’s ok. Next time we need to be smarter and not give a huge deal to a guy that has only proven to be mediocre. Then we won’t complain about the mediocrity. We’ll accept it for what it is, just like we accept Rick Brunson for being what HE is.

Where we CAN nail Curry is if he ever regresses. Then the kid gloves come off and the bashing can begin in full. That’s the price you pay for being what you are….you can’t regress or else you will get nailed for it.

Anyhow, I don’t know if I even believe all this, like I put at the top this is just something I started thinking about and I don’t have my ideas fully formed on this yet. But it seems a different way of looking at things and I’m always trying to do that when I can.


----------



## Kiyaman (Aug 14, 2006)

Curry contract vs Nene contract which would you rather have? 

Curry made Chicago a very dangerous team to beat his last season there. 

Curry & KG in Minny, or Curry & Kobe in L.A., or Curry & Carmelo in Denver. 
I'm sure that Jason Kidd would LUV to have Curry as his Center when teams force them to play a Halfcourt game.


----------



## TwinkieFoot (Jul 8, 2006)

Kiyaman said:


> Curry contract vs Nene contract which would you rather have?
> 
> Curry made Chicago a very dangerous team to beat his last season there.
> 
> ...


One of the tandems that stood out was Curry for KG which I feel would be a realistic possibility during this season. I think that would be the most formiddable frontcourt in the league because both of their games compliment each other so well. The pressure to rebound isn't as great for Curry with a guy who gets 13rpg on board and Curry is the back to the basket player KG is not and KG the face up player with range that KG is not. In my opinion, we got a bargain in Curry considering what the Nuggets had to pay for Nene. I think they were trying to drive up the market on FA big men in order to make Kenyon Martin a more valueable trading commodity. From what I understand, negotiations are made from comparing the numbers to similar players and contracts to find the market value of guys with those capabilities and negotiate from there. I think after all that, Knick fans should look to appreciate Curry even more.


----------



## Kiyaman (Aug 14, 2006)

TwinkieFoot said:


> One of the tandems that stood out was Curry for KG which I feel would be a realistic possibility during this season. I think that would be the most formiddable frontcourt in the league because both of their games compliment each other so well. The pressure to rebound isn't as great for Curry with a guy who gets 13rpg on board and Curry is the back to the basket player KG is not and KG the face up player with range that KG is not. In my opinion, we got a bargain in Curry considering what the Nuggets had to pay for Nene. I think they were trying to drive up the market on FA big men in order to make Kenyon Martin a more valueable trading commodity. From what I understand, negotiations are made from comparing the numbers to similar players and contracts to find the market value of guys with those capabilities and negotiate from there. I think after all that, Knick fans should look to appreciate Curry even more.


*TwinkieFoot,* great piece. It makes alot of sense when you put it in that perspective because everyone is still wondering about Nene's new contract this offseason. 

By the way Members anything you read that is wrote by Knickerblogger will always be written as a Hatred-Block for Isiah Thomas & James Dolan. Knickerblogger has been building Blocks after Blocks after Blocks on Knick players to build a Hatred Temple to welcome all of his Followers (haters) in each of his articles about the Knicks. :curse: 
He reminds me of HOF Coach Larry Brown 2005-6 season Media articles (Humiliating Players) every time I read something he writes on the Knicks. 
Knickerblogger & Larry Brown never write about a bright side of the Knicks Roster or organization. 
So beware of any of his written articles.  :curse: :clown: 

*Look at the young products of the Chicago Bulls: 
Brand, Brad Miller, Artest, Crawford, Curry, and now Chandelor (3 are All-Stars and the other 3 maybe All-Stars very soon. Nice Roster of Players to have on one team :banana: :clap: :cheers: .).*


----------



## KnickerBlogger (Feb 22, 2005)

Kiyaman said:


> *TwinkieFoot,* great piece. It makes alot of sense when you put it in that perspective because everyone is still wondering about Nene's new contract this offseason.
> 
> By the way Members anything you read that is wrote by Knickerblogger will always be written as a Hatred-Block for Isiah Thomas & James Dolan. Knickerblogger has been building Blocks after Blocks after Blocks on Knick players to build a Hatred Temple to welcome all of his Followers (haters) in each of his articles about the Knicks. :curse:
> He reminds me of HOF Coach Larry Brown 2005-6 season Media articles (Humiliating Players) every time I read something he writes on the Knicks.
> ...


Oh really? Well then answer this: if I'm the one writing things out of bias, how come my article is filled with nothing but facts and your post here is nothing but an angry rant with silly emoticons?


----------



## USSKittyHawk (Jul 22, 2005)

Hey KnickerBlooger, I have to ask you something but in private. Check your PM's when you get a chance.

-Kitty


----------



## Kiyaman (Aug 14, 2006)

KnickerBlogger said:


> Oh really? Well then answer this: if I'm the one writing things out of bias, how come my article is filled with nothing but facts and your post here is nothing but an angry rant with silly emoticons?


That's only because I took the time to read alot of your SO-Call Facts which alot of other facts were not included. That showed Bias. In many Forums alot of members know me as an Isiah Thomas Basher when he made his first Knick trade for Norris, and the way he Fired Coach Don Chaney. 
As much as I never liked Isiah Thomas the player comment on Larry Bird back in the daze I still had to give Isiah a big lump of credit for "Jermain O'Neal" and his 3 season coaching of the Indiana Pacers. 

I tore up Rod Thorn for playing patsy for the new owner Rat and his cheap stock broker accountants when Rod ripped apart a Championship Caliber Nets team. I did it with Facts, but I also let it be known that Rod Thorn is to much of a Basketball Genius to be making these move without someone above calling the shots. 

I had to tear into Keven Mchale for not supporting a Championship caliber team to compromise to some of their Star Players wishes on that Timberwolves team which was a big threat in the Western Conference. When Mchale conference with the Players did not go well and a leak in the conference got out to humiliate the player(Sprewell), and the team did not play so well after that, Mchale goes and Fires the Coach like it was Flip fault. 
I could not help but write the Facts, not leaving out anything. However, I still left a bright side to the Timberwolves and Mchale. Something you find hard to do with the Knicks Knickerblogger. 

As much as I wanted to lean hard on the Chicago Bulls organization after the Jordan era I could'nt do it because I felt so sorry for the disbobulated organization in Chicago, especially after talking to several NBA Players who called it a curse to play their after Jordan. They gave up Prime young players like Brand, Brad Miller, Artest, Crawford, Curry, and now Chandelor (whom Coach Byron Scott will put beside West in the frontcourt.). I give the Chicago Bulls prime success the last two season mainly to the return of Scotty Pippin for letting the organization know they had a POOR Coaching Staff. When they changed the coaching staff the young players and rookie players made a name for the Chicago Organization again. 

Knickerblogger, I wonder what your writing on the Knicks will be like this 2006-7 season when the Knicks have a 40+ WIN season. Short stories on each Win, and a long story on each lost. *BIAS*

I put up a Post last season after the Knicks first regular season game against mediocre Boston Celtics called "Decision Making" in alot of major Knick Forums on the web stating Larry Brown sabortaging the Knicks from Training Camp to the first game. That Post stayed alive in some major forums untill the last game of the season. You want facts about the last season Knicks and its players and its organization its all their by members and myself on Larry Brown tactics on the court and in his media role humiliating the Knick organization. 
*Coach Herb Williams would have got 40 Wins out of the Knicks roster last season (20 in the first half of the season and another 20 the second half), because his Job would have been on the line if he did half as bad as Larry Brown.* 

*RESPECT
KIYA*


----------



## KnickerBlogger (Feb 22, 2005)

Kiyaman said:


> Knickerblogger, I wonder what your writing on the Knicks will be like this 2006-7 season when the Knicks have a 40+ WIN season. Short stories on each Win, and a long story on each lost. *BIAS*


First off stop watching Minority Report & trying me for future crimes I haven't committed. 

Second, I don't think you've read that Curry post. Can you show where I had any bias? I just looked at players similar to EC & showed how they develop & I thought my conclusion was fair and even. 

Thirdly, my site has been negative over Isiah's reign, because the results have been poor. The Knicks have gone from a 39 win team to a 33 win team to a 23 win team. If I'm covering a team that has gotten worse 3 straight years, then well my articles are going to be negative. If not then I'm not doing a good job of reporting reality. 

Finally, last year when the Knicks got worse I wrote LESS often. Being a Knick fan, it was too painful to write about that team on most nights.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

there is a fundamental basis of the analylsis of curry that I find quite a bit off.

curry is a bad team defender.

he is actually a pretty good one on one defender. and no distinction is made for that 

shot blocking is almost always done on players that are not your assigned man...that is almost completely a team defense stat.

in rebounding ...the knicks are one of the better rebounding teams in the nba outrebounding opponents by 2.8 a game, like it or not curry has had a part in that .

the knicks lost sweetney and kurt thomas their 2 best rebounders from a team that was outboarded by 2.0 a game.

thats 4.8 swing with supposedly soft curry and frye manning the post, instead of 2 considered very good rebounding kurt thomas and mike sweetney.

something neither(curry or frye) gets nearly enough credit for because they dont have big individual rebounding #s ...the knicks tend to rebound as a unit with the bigs boxing out on the defensive end and letting their very good rebounding perimeter players taking in boards(qrich , qwoods, Dlee, francis...even Jc was sticking his nose in their for boards by season's end...although he wasn't really all season). but they were very important in the knicks turning around their rebounding deficit.

I think there is more fault with how he is used rather than his skills.

from march 1st on he avg. 13.3 on .636 shooting .3 assists and 1.9 turnovers a game as opposed to before then 13.7 2.8 turnovers a game .3 assists on .530 shooting.

to me i prefer the eddy from march 1st on.

less double teams , easier shots because they stopped running the offense through him ...less decisions , he was still scoring about the same but much more efficiently with less turnovers .

the difference is they let the guards set him up who are much better decision makers, set him up and eddy and the knicks are better for it....even if it was at the end of the season when it didn't matter anymore...but hopefully next season will be better for last season's knowledge.


----------



## Futurama_Fanatic (Jul 21, 2005)

KnickerBlogger said:


> First off stop watching Minority Report & trying me for future crimes I haven't committed.
> 
> Second, I don't think you've read that Curry post. Can you show where I had any bias? I just looked at players similar to EC & showed how they develop & I thought my conclusion was fair and even.
> 
> ...


i know what you are saying but look at the clippers. they went from 39 wins to 27 wins to 28 wins to 47 wins. sometimes a team takes a few years to develop.


----------



## Kiyaman (Aug 14, 2006)

*Here are some FACTS written about Curry from someone else who read the Article above:* 


And Kiya makes a good point, a lot of the players from the "Baby Bulls' era haven't improved much since Curry and Chandler's first year. In fact, of the young players on that team, Curry and Crawford are the only two that have shown improvement. Some of gone downhill, like Marcus Fizer, others remained role players, Trenton Hassell and Fred Hoiberg for example, and others like Eddie Robinson and AJ Guyton are out of the league.

That tells me a few possible things. One possibility was the quality of the players wasn't very high. In the case of Crawford, Curry, and Chandler, and even Fizer at the time, that was not the general consensus.

The other possibility was the coaching wasn't so great, so the players didn't develop that well. That's why the coaching staff was dumped at the start of 03-04. That same season was when Curry's minutes and production improved. That's the same season Crawford started to break out. Now this might seem like a coincidence, but it's too coincidental.

So give Curry a little slack. He's had about 2 years of good coaching since he came out of HS. Even last season, when he had good post coaching, the overall team was a mess.

Curry was the 6th leading scoring C in the league last year in a horrible season, 4th if go per 48. Almost every single C in the those ranks with him makes about the same amount of money. Yes he was 20th in rebounding, but the Knicks were a good rebounding team last year, so that wasn't a big issue. He was 9th in FG%. He was 19th in efficiency, but not out of the realm of most starting C's in the league making the same money. His big weakness was shotblocking, where he performed poorly. All in all how does that earn a C-/D? You want to say B-/C+ maybe, but a D? Right now Curry is a top 15 center in the league, which puts him in the middle of the pack. With solid coaching for possibly the first time, it's reasonable he will be a top 10 C. And his contract lines up with that.

As for not being able to keep Curry and Frye, that's ridiculous. Frye was just rookie, so while he might not be a defensive monster it's too early to make judgements about his career. Plus, Frye is obviously a PF given his jumpshot and style of play. He is just starting to play better with his back to the basket. Lastly, did you know that statisitically (check 82games.com) the one position where the Knicks were NOT outplayed by opponents last season was the C position? Maybe Curry's apparent defensive weaknesses have more to do with the guards not being able to contain dribble penetration.


----------



## ShuHanGuanYu (Feb 3, 2005)

ClippersRuleLA said:


> i know what you are saying but look at the clippers. they went from 39 wins to 27 wins to 28 wins to 47 wins. sometimes a team takes a few years to develop.


The difference is that the Clippers actually built a team. New York made trades on a whim to satisfy whatever reject-lust Isaiah or whoever was displaying that day. He stockpiled players that had once been stars or had once been able to contribute with seemingly zero regard to actually having a plan to build a team. And it's so obvious that now he would have a collection of individually talented players, with no possible way to put them together to form a winning squad. Who knows, maybe next year will be different. But I've lost hope for the Knicks, they'll have to earn the respect back.


----------



## Kiyaman (Aug 14, 2006)

KnickerBlogger said:


> First off stop watching Minority Report & trying me for future crimes I haven't committed.
> 
> Second, I don't think you've read that Curry post. Can you show where I had any bias? I just looked at players similar to EC & showed how they develop & I thought my conclusion was fair and even.
> 
> ...





> You can count nine centers with better offensive production (Shaq, Duncan, both Wallaces, Ilgauskas, Brad Miller, Zo, Okur, and Gadzuric), and all but Gadzuric are a good bit older than Curry.


Your opinion on the above centers having better offense production than Curry, I only see Shaq, Duncan, Okur, and Brad Miller in my opinion that shows a better offense production than Curry. Ilgauskas may put in some big numbers at times but it is only on certain oponents. 
Curry is a Back to the Basket scorer inwhich the league is very few of (KG could use a Center Like Curry on the Timberwolves that could score with his back to the basket, KG will rebound and defend.), so dont be suprise if you see alot of PF/SF David Lee playing alongside of Curry this season. 




> And this is where the opinions of Curry begin to diverge. Although he doesn’t lack the ability to score, it’s the other aspects of the game that elude Eddy. He seems disinterested on the defensive end, is a timid defensive rebounder, and turns the ball over too often. When Isiah Thomas decided to pursue Eddy Curry, he must have thought that these attributes would change. In fact the quote above shows that the Knicks owner, James Dolan, feels the same way. But is this true? How likely is it that New York’s present center will become their center of the future?


 
Opinions on Curry change drastically for the better during his last season with the Chicago Bulls. 
Its not hard to imagine Curry being 10 times better than his contract with the right coaching staff behind him. Coach Mark Aquire is building a name for himself as a Big Man Coach, what Aquire and Herb Williams could do for Curry this offseason and Training camp by helping Curry with his footing, positioning, and passing out of the double team may be the boost these two coaches need for a coaching career in the NBA. Curry was rarely used for defensive purposes in Chcago with Chandelor taking the defensive job and positioning. So yes, Curry do need some coaching in the defensive department on how to stay out of foul trouble. 

Alot of other Players you mentioned in the article had to learn how to play their strengths and Skillz within a NBA system different from their college Zone system. Shaq did not play into any coaches system untill Coach Phil Jackson got a hold of him. 
And the Knicks had THREE great Centers 60s Reed, 80's Cartwright, 90's Ewing. 
Ewing did not come into his game and learn how to use his stregths & Skillz within a system untill he played and entire season with C-Bill Cartwright on the Knicks (the same season Mark Jackson won the rookie of the year). 

*Your site sees what you see because you are the BIG-CHEESE and the only one allowed to chose the TOPICS.* 
The 39 Win Knicks was Isiah Thomas destruction of tearing down a New team with new players and trading the players before they got a chance to get on a first name basis with their teammates. 
The 33 WIN Knicks was Isiah trying to replace all of Laydumb Players. 
The 23 WIN Knicks were SABORTAGE by a Coach who tried to be the Knicks G.M.. 

After the Knicks 2004-5 33 Win season it was easy to figure out what the Knicks needed in that offseason. A Dominate Center, a PF to replace K-Thomas, and a pass first PG, to have a 500% season.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

ShuHanGuanYu said:


> The difference is that the Clippers actually built a team. New York made trades on a whim to satisfy whatever reject-lust Isaiah or whoever was displaying that day. He stockpiled players that had once been stars or had once been able to contribute with seemingly zero regard to actually having a plan to build a team. And it's so obvious that now he would have a collection of individually talented players, with no possible way to put them together to form a winning squad. Who knows, maybe next year will be different. But I've lost hope for the Knicks, they'll have to earn the respect back.



thats bull.

if the clippers were really intent on building a team they would never have let QRich or Odom go , they have been for the most part more concerned with the bottom line.

last offseason they did the smart thing in aquiring cassell and mobley, but to say that was their plan all along when its known far and wide for their penny pinching is very untrue.


----------



## ShuHanGuanYu (Feb 3, 2005)

Da Grinch said:


> thats bull.
> 
> if the clippers were really intent on building a team they would never have let QRich or Odom go , they have been for the most part more concerned with the bottom line.
> 
> last offseason they did the smart thing in aquiring cassell and mobley, but to say that was their plan all along when its known far and wide for their penny pinching is very untrue.


There were question marks surrounding both players. Odom had recently been in trouble with the law and showed no signs of wanting to step up and be a leader of the team. It is also well known that Quentin Richardson was overpaid on his deal. 

You don't build a team by dishing out contracts left and right just to keep your players, you do it by giving the *right* contracts to the *right* players and waving goodbye to the rest. Yes, there was penny pinching in the past. But if your logic is correct then they would not have matched the total $101 million dollar contracts to Elton Brand and Corey Maggette. They are in a better place now for not giving contracts to Q and Odom, so your argument does not stand.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

ShuHanGuanYu said:


> There were question marks surrounding both players. Odom had recently been in trouble with the law and showed no signs of wanting to step up and be a leader of the team. It is also well known that Quentin Richardson was overpaid on his deal.
> 
> You don't build a team by dishing out contracts left and right just to keep your players, you do it by giving the *right* contracts to the *right* players and waving goodbye to the rest. Yes, there was penny pinching in the past. But if your logic is correct then they would not have matched the total $101 million dollar contracts to Elton Brand and Corey Maggette. They are in a better place now for not giving contracts to Q and Odom, so your argument does not stand.


Lamar odom used to organize summer workouts with clipper players for comraderie and chemistry ...and he would do it in L.A. he even got the extremely disinterested darious miles to show.

if thats not leadership i dont know what is....the guys they kept instead have had less than perfect records as far as leadership goes...brand used to play out of shape and got into a fight with a teammate in a hotel lobby....corey maggette has griped about his role on the team.

its not well known Q Rich is overpaid, he got the MLE ...thats the median(average) salary in the nba ....unless Qrich is substantially less than the avg. player in the nba , thats just an incorrect statement.

i dont remember Odon being in trouble with the law right before his deal with the heat , I remember him failing a drug test given by the league ...not the same thing.


are they really in a better place for not doing that ?

they gave the MLE to mobley and traded jaric and a 1st for cassell ...so basically they could have had them all ...its not like they couldn't have used the players that dont fit to trade them for players that do. or simply kept them and had a really good bench or traded to upgrade a starter , against the suns that may have been enough to get past them.

as a rule more talent is better than less talent.


----------



## KnickerBlogger (Feb 22, 2005)

ClippersRuleLA said:


> i know what you are saying but look at the clippers. they went from 39 wins to 27 wins to 28 wins to 47 wins. sometimes a team takes a few years to develop.


The Hawks are on their 8th year of losing. The Warriors are on their 12th. 

Getting back to the pertinent point, you would have been an awfully bad writer saying positive things about those teams in let's say 2004. It's not impossible that the Knicks can become a competetive team again (like the Clips), but it's just as likely (or from my POV more than likely) that they're going to be like the Hawks or Warriors.


----------



## KnickerBlogger (Feb 22, 2005)

Kiyaman said:


> *Your site sees what you see because you are the BIG-CHEESE and the only one allowed to chose the TOPICS.*


Damn straight. I pay for the site. I've coded the site. I spend hours on hours writing for the site. And I did it because I didn't think my point was being represented in the news, tv, etc. So feel free to start your own site. You can grab a domain for $9 a year, and find cheap hosting.



> The 33 WIN Knicks was Isiah trying to replace all of Laydumb Players.


Here's the lineup for the Jan 1st team, this is right before the team colapsed. 7 of 10 players were brought in by Zeke. The other 3: Houston, Kurt Thomas, and Sweetney. Hard to blame this season on Layden.

Allan Houston 32 3 8 2 7 0 0 0 1 1 3 1 0 1 0 8
Stephon Marbury 41 10 19 4 10 7 10 0 4 4 8 3 0 5 2 31
Nazr Mohammed 35 7 13 0 0 4 6 4 9 13 1 2 2 1 3 18
Kurt Thomas 38 3 8 0 0 0 0 1 9 10 1 0 0 2 4 6
Tim Thomas 37 5 14 0 2 4 4 1 3 4 2 0 0 3 5 14
Trevor Ariza 12 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 4 2
Anfernee Hardaway 13 0 3 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
Moochie Norris 7 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 0
Mike Sweetney 13 1 6 0 0 1 4 2 2 4 0 0 0 2 1 3
Jerome Williams 12 1 2 0 0 3 3 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 2 5


----------



## ShuHanGuanYu (Feb 3, 2005)

Da Grinch said:


> Lamar odom used to organize summer workouts with clipper players for comraderie and chemistry ...and he would do it in L.A. he even got the extremely disinterested darious miles to show.
> 
> if thats not leadership i dont know what is....the guys they kept instead have had less than perfect records as far as leadership goes...brand used to play out of shape and got into a fight with a teammate in a hotel lobby....corey maggette has griped about his role on the team.


Really now? That's all it takes to be a leader, eh? Organize summer workouts? Lamar was a let-down on the court, and didn't really improve his game in his first years as a Clipper. Off the court, he was suspended twice for violating the anti-drug policies of the NBA. He also gained a reputation for not working hard enough in practice to ever better his game. Plus, probably not to his fault, he was injured a lot. If you would take all those and put them together to equal max money, great wonderful awesome. But understand that many are not willing to take on that kind of risk. Then add to that the fact that Lamar Odom came out and told the media he didn't want the Clippers to match the offer. I think it was that he would do anything to get out of there. 



Da Grinch said:


> its not well known Q Rich is overpaid, he got the MLE ...thats the median(average) salary in the nba ....unless Qrich is substantially less than the avg. player in the nba , thats just an incorrect statement.


Hahaha, ok then. Do me a favor. Go and post in the NBA General thread "Is Q overpaid?". Then bring me the results. I dare ya. 



Da Grinch said:


> are they really in a better place for not doing that ?
> 
> they gave the MLE to mobley and traded jaric and a 1st for cassell ...so basically they could have had them all ...its not like they couldn't have used the players that dont fit to trade them for players that do. or simply kept them and had a really good bench or traded to upgrade a starter , against the suns that may have been enough to get past them.


It's easy to say in hindsight everything they could have done and just claim it would have worked out how you say it would have. However, I have one fact on my side: Western Conference Finals. Yes, you can say "Oh, well they might have gotten there if they'd have kept Lamar and Q". Yeah, you could say that. But it's no fact. Western Conference Finals, that's a fact, even if they have more talent than they did then.



Da Grinch said:


> as a rule more talent is better than less talent.


Really? How's that workin for New York? I think most fans would disagree with you on that statement. It takes a lot more than just talent to win games. Talk to Stromile Swift, Darius Miles, etc.


----------



## Kiyaman (Aug 14, 2006)

KnickerBlogger said:


> Damn straight. I pay for the site. I've coded the site. I spend hours on hours writing for the site. And I did it because I didn't think my point was being represented in the news, tv, etc. So feel free to start your own site. You can grab a domain for $9 a year, and find cheap hosting.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




I have to agree with you on your site and the reason you put it up, 
I am not saying that you dont have a great IQ on B-Ball because you do. 
However, your anger or disappointment on the Knicks show in your writing to lead someone to say, "is this guy a Knicks Fan!" or "this guy is bias on the Knicks Organization". 

I have to agree with you on Isiah Thomas "Decision Making" gets all the credit for a 39 WIN season and a 33 WIN season. Because the Best Knick Roster that Laydumb put together was his last one, and they looked like a 2nd round Postseason roster in the Eastern Conference compared to the Pacers, Nets, and Detroit (the three best in the conference that season). Isiah Thomas came in and traded half of that roster before he knew where his office or G.M. seating location in Madison Square Garden. LOL. 
So yes' Isiah gets 100% all the credit for the Knicks failure. But..... 
After that 33 WIN season Isiah knew he was walking on a thin line with the Knicks organization so on draft night Isiah drafted three NBA ready players plus traded for Q.Richardson, and had Jackie Butler and Ariza working out hard at the start of the offseason with Assistant coach Mark Aquire. 
C/PF-Butler
C/PF-Frye
PF/SF-Lee
SF/SG-Q.Rich
SF/SG-Ariza
SG/PG-Nate 
That is SIX good bench players that Isiah had after the 2005 draft. 
*Starting-5 * 
Marbury, Crawford, Tim Thomas, Taylor, James


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

ShuHanGuanYu said:


> Really now? That's all it takes to be a leader, eh? Organize summer workouts? Lamar was a let-down on the court, and didn't really improve his game in his first years as a Clipper. Off the court, he was suspended twice for violating the anti-drug policies of the NBA. He also gained a reputation for not working hard enough in practice to ever better his game. Plus, probably not to his fault, he was injured a lot. If you would take all those and put them together to equal max money, great wonderful awesome. But understand that many are not willing to take on that kind of risk. Then add to that the fact that Lamar Odom came out and told the media he didn't want the Clippers to match the offer. I think it was that he would do anything to get out of there.


the organizing of workouts were sure alot more than brand or maggette had done....also think about it the guy is having summer workouts ...how at the same time is he not working hard enough ...does that make sense...he sure didn't look out of shape unlike brand at certain points of his career...and the Heat who have a far better reputation in talent evaluation thought he was worth every penny and a year later they flipped him for shaq, and now they are defending champs, defend this decision if you want but keeping Odom was the good idea , letting him go for nothing was a bad one...and the idea that the clips wont keep a player who doesn't want to be there is hogwash because they are the 1st to keep a player for the qualifying offer in mike olawakandi. Hindsight is one thing but every1 knew they offered brand 1st so they would match so they could have Odom because they knew the clips were to cheap to keep both...that in itself is an indictment of the clips because they fell for it.

the clips also failed to match for Qrich and a year later the suns got kurt thomas and a 1st rounder for him .

i never said the clips should have kept them forever but its dumb to let good assets go for nothing , even the pacers just let peja go for a trade exception which they just used to get al harrington a month later.

but if you want to keep on believing this was the best possible idea even thought the recent past has shown ...1 each had value and 2 the clips could use more talent be my guess.


----------



## ShuHanGuanYu (Feb 3, 2005)

Again, you keep bringing up everything that happened after the fact. If you are sitting in the Clippers front office and you have to make the decision whether or not to give Odom a max contract after the things you have seen, I think you'd reevaluate your policy to pretty much dish out the dollars to anyone and everyone. Odom wasn't looking good at that time. It wasn't just that he "didn't want to play there", he was publicly bashing them in the media. That is not cause alone to not match, but when wrapped up with the other things about him I can't say I'd have matched that contract either.

Either way, it doesn't matter. My intention is not to defend the Clippers front office. My intention was to say that we have a wonderful piece of evidence why dishing out money for anyone with talent does not work when trying to build a team: New York Knicks.

That said, I hope NY turns it around and have said that several times in here.


----------



## 0oh_S0o_FreSh!! (Jun 3, 2006)

ShuHanGuanYu said:


> There were question marks surrounding both players. Odom had recently been in trouble with the law and showed no signs of wanting to step up and be a leader of the team. It is also well known that Quentin Richardson was overpaid on his deal.
> 
> You don't build a team by dishing out contracts left and right just to keep your players, you do it by giving the *right* contracts to the *right* players and waving goodbye to the rest. Yes, there was penny pinching in the past. But if your logic is correct then they would not have matched the total $101 million dollar contracts to Elton Brand and Corey Maggette. They are in a better place now for not giving contracts to Q and Odom, so your argument does not stand.



That burger in ur Av is making me hungry shuhanguanyu... :biggrin: 


















just to cool this thread off a bit


----------



## ShuHanGuanYu (Feb 3, 2005)

BiG_DeuCE said:


> That burger in ur Av is making me hungry shuhanguanyu... :biggrin:
> 
> just to cool this thread off a bit


hehe, there's plenty to share! :cheers:


----------

