# Bring back Spree! Boycott the Knicks!



## Rashidi (Oct 2, 2003)

Layden is a moron. How could he trade the Knicks best player (and 2nd best SG) for a player that can rebound? Van Horn is so much more inconsistent than Sprewell. Heck, I'll prove it to you.

Here are Sprewell's numbers for his last 6 games.

11/14 vs Jazz
6 points, 2-13 FG

11/18 vs Nuggets
8 points, 3-11 FG

11/21 vs Cavs
31 points, 11-21 FG

11/22 vs Clippers
14 points, 5-14 FG

11/25 vs Pacers
0 points, 0-8 FG

11/26 vs Knicks
5 points, 2-11 FG

I can't believe Scott Layden had the audacity to trade this consistent NBA superstar for an inconsistent nobody like Van Horn. In fact, let's check their season averages to see just how badly Spree obliterates Van Horn.

Former NY superstar Sprewell
15.6 ppg
4.8 rpg
3.6 apg
1.4 spg
0.2 bpg
14.21 eff
(numbers do not include tonights mvp performance)

Current inconsistent NY cracker scrub KVH
16.8 ppg
7.4 rpg
1.9 apg
1.1 spg
0.4 bpg
14.10 eff

I am boycotting the Knicks this year. This is clearly the stupidest trade in franchise history. How can the Knicks win if they keep trading their aging stars away for younger and bigger players?


----------



## Lurch (Nov 3, 2003)

"Van Horn is so much more inconsistent than Sprewell. Heck, I'll prove it to you."


Huh!!!!!  

" Here are Sprewell's numbers for his last 6 games."

11/14 vs Jazz
6 points, 2-13 FG

11/18 vs Nuggets
8 points, 3-11 FG

11/25 vs Pacers
0 points, 0-8 FG


11/26 vs Knicks
5 points, 2-11 FG



The stats you posted showed Van Horn Averging more points and rebounds.


----------



## Rashidi (Oct 2, 2003)

Huh? What are you talking about? How dare you insinuate that some scrub is better than Superstar Spree? Van Horn is so inconsistent. All you have to do is look back to NJ vs Indiana in the first round. Look at the choke job Van Horn did in game 5. And he choked even bigger against Boston in the Conference Finals in game 6. The Nets made the NBA Finals despite the inadequacy of their SF. I bet you 10 bucks that they would have beat the Lakers 4-0 if they had Spree instead of losing 0-4 with Van Horn. Then the ultra clutch Kenyon Martin would be a happy man.


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

Rashidi stop making these sarcastic threads. They are becoming very annoying. You proved your point that you believe in what the Knicks are trying to do. If you are going to make one of these why don't you just throw every single one into one thread instead of making a million threads like this one.


----------



## Rashidi (Oct 2, 2003)

So tell me something...

Which part is more annoying?

The stinging sarcasm? The frequency of the threads? Or the fact that I'm right?


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

You see the problem with this is, when the Knicks go on a 5 game losing streak (and we know they will), you will dissapear with these stupid threads and not say a thing. Then when they win again you will do this all over again. 

Do you want a cookie for being right 40% of the time, cause their record is still 6-9?


----------



## Rashidi (Oct 2, 2003)

Also, considering that the Van Horn for Spree trade is the biggest story of the season for the Knicks this year, I see this as a valid post, and whether you like it or not, it includes valid points, like Sprewell's consistent stat line. Very few of my sarcastic posts have failed to address a significant point, and they usually lead to a debate of some sort. And I am under the impression that that is what this message board is about, basketball debate. So as long as my posts effectively stir up controversey and debate, then it really doesn't concern me if people find them annoying or not, because they have done their job.

Besides, am I REALLY being sarcastic? All I am doing is repeating stuff that the media has told us before the season or during the season. The media said Van Horn is a bum. The media also said Mutombo was going to be about as useful as Chris Dudley. Who am I to be skeptical about what the media thinks?


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

Fair enough, though the timing of your posts are highly questionable. 

You seem to only post things like this when good stuff happens, but when bad stuff happens...

Nevermind, keep doing what you're doing. Forgive me for getting bent out of shape over nothing.


----------



## Rashidi (Oct 2, 2003)

> You see the problem with this is, when the Knicks go on a 5 game losing streak (and we know they will), you will dissapear with these stupid threads and not say a thing. Then when they win again you will do this all over again.


Of course they will go on a 5 game losing streak. As long as the rest of the east goes on 6 game losing streaks (and we know they will) the sarcastic posts will remain.

I also don't disappear after losses. You may note that I addressed the horrible game they played against Indiana with one of my posts. Though I wonder if you questioning my loyalty to the team by saying I will disappear, and essentially referring to me as a bandwagoner, was that your own form of sarcasm?


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

Not really. 

What I am saying is that you will not write the sarcastic post after a loss. I know you will still post about the Knicks as you are a Knick fan. I know you are not a bandwagoner.

It's just you have made so many of these types of threads that I got annoyed that's all.


----------



## Rashidi (Oct 2, 2003)

> Do you want a cookie for being right 40% of the time, cause their record is still 6-9?


Here are the east playoff seedings.
1st Pacers (12-5)
2nd Sixers (8-8)
3rd Hornets (11-5)
4th Pistons (10-6)
5th Bucks (7-7)
6th Raptors (7-7)
7th Nets (6-7)
8th Celtics (6-8)
*9th Knicks (6-9)*
10th Wizards (6-9)
11th Hawks 5-11)
12th Cavs (4-11)
14th Heat (4-11)
13th Bulls (4-12)
15th Magic (1-14)

Those Knicks are a half game out of a playoff spot that is held by a team they have beaten twice this season. I think it is fairly safe to say that all the teams 11th and lower are not going to catch the Knicks.

It's also obvious that the Bucks won't be able to keep it up forever. They've had a really easy schedule so far. They have only played a west team 4 times, and they were only the Jazz twice, the Nuggets, and the Sonics. They have not played the Lakers, Spurs, Kings, or T'Wolves like the Knicks have.

By the way, the Knicks are playing .500 ball against those elite west teams, if I've done my math correctly.


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

The Bucks have played the Lakers. They lost to them but they played them. They actually played them closer than the Knicks did. 

Not to mention the Bucks have beat the Knicks twice head to head, since you are using the Celtics as a reference.


----------



## Perennial All Star (Aug 13, 2003)

I dont want Spree back anyway.I'll only take him for shandon or some scrubs.Van Horn is better as of now.and younger.stop with these annoying,retarded sarcastic threads.nobody cares if u appreciate eisely,layden,spoon,harrington,doleac or anderson.keep it to yourself!or at least stop makin these damn threads!


----------



## Rashidi (Oct 2, 2003)

> nobody cares if u appreciate eisely,layden,spoon,harrington,doleac or anderson.


What do you mean appreciate them? I hate these guys, as has been stated in numerous posts I've made.

Getting back to my original arguement, not only is Sprewell vastly better, he also intangibles galore that can't be measured in stats.

Like his defense. He has been a great perimeter defender throughout his career. Just look at how good the defense he played on Allan Houston was down the stretch.


----------



## Rashidi (Oct 2, 2003)

> or at least stop makin these damn threads!


Nobody is forcing you to read them, nor is anybody forcing you to respond to them.

If you don't like these damn threads, then why are you damn posting on them?


----------



## truth (Jul 16, 2002)

*rashidi*

the best and worst thing about your posts are ,you bring up very interesting stats that you think support your arguements,but you unwittingly actually prove yourself to be DEAD wrong most of the time.....

Case in point...You mention all the great stats that Van Horn has over Spree...But once again you cant see the forrest thru the trees.If I were to play statistician and like you but base my rationale on objectivity as opposed to subjectivity,i could prove to you that VAN HORN sukks and should never ever play again..

Case in point...The Knicks have their longest winning streak of the year,and in fact are undefeated since VAN HORN has been injured..So you can come up with your very nice stats of Spree vs Van Horn,but you can NOT argue that the knicks record is MUCH better WITHOUT Van Horn than with him....

So,if you want to play statistician,even you must admit that the Knicks are a much better team without van Horn than with him..The proof is in the pudding..Argue all you want,but the Knicks have a LOSING record when he plays,yet win when he sits...Things that make you go HMMMMMMMMM


----------



## truth (Jul 16, 2002)

*Mr Rashidi*

I think Mr Rashidi has unknowingly proven that you can not judge a players value by his stats....As he correctly points out Van Horn has very good individual stats....In fact better than Sprees...Yet,when Van Horn plays for the knicks they are major losers winning about 30% of their games...When Van Horn is benched it appears the Knicks win every game..

If Rashidi is correct about van Horns numbers,how can it be that the Knicks record is so much better without him????

Hmmmmm...maybe his Defense stinks...Maybe,the knicks offense is actually worse with him in the game....I cant say for sure.....Or maybe as most statisticians will tell you the sample size we are looking at is too small to prove conclusive either way..You tell me


----------



## The True Essence (May 26, 2003)

i like how we won three straight with Keith not playing. were 3-9 with him.


----------



## truth (Jul 16, 2002)

*Van Horn*

by the way,i was not being critical of Van horn..I have no opinion on him,its way too early..I was just trying to make a point that one could make a case by the numbers that the Knicks are better without him starting even though he has put up decent numbers


----------



## Northpole (Aug 31, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>PennyHardaway</b>!
> i like how we won three straight with Keith not playing. were 3-9 with him.


 The Knicks were 3-7 with him. He didn't play against L.A. or Detroit.


----------



## The True Essence (May 26, 2003)

yes thats right. 

and yeah rashidi, you didnt bring up his turnover stats or his field goal percentage


----------



## Rashidi (Oct 2, 2003)

FG% and Turnovers count towards EFF, which I did list. And his FG% is the same as Spree's anyway, so what point is there in listing it?

Van Horn
16.8 ppg
7.4 rpg
1.9 apg
1.1 spg
0.4 bpg
.385 FG%
3.7 tpg
*14.10 EFF*

Sprewell
14.9 ppg
4.6 rpg
3.8 apg
1.3 spg
0.2 bpg
.385 FG%
1.8 tpg
*13.53 EFF*

Sprewell and Van Horn have similar EFFs, but Spree has it in the wrong places. The Knicks needed REBOUNDING because they were the worst REBOUNDING team in the league. Sprewell was the worst REBOUNDING SF in the league, while Van Horn is currently among the best REBOUNDING SF in the league.

And please, this is perhaps the least sensible comment I have heard in some time.



> Yet,when Van Horn plays for the knicks they are major losers winning about 30% of their games...When Van Horn is benched it appears the Knicks win every game..


Wait for the Knicks to play 10 games without Van Horn before you say such stupid things. Gee, the Knicks are 1-0 in games against Minnesota! Therefore, the Knicks are better than Minnesota! There's a difference between seeing stats for what they are and reading into them. You're doing the former more than the latter.

If the Knicks lose McDyess' first game back, they will have lost 100% of their games with him. Gee, I guess that would mean he doesn't help the team at all?

Gee, Michael Sweetney must suck, because everytime he plays, the Knicks lose. Therefore, Michael Sweetney MUST be the cause of all the Knicks problems, because he logs minutes in most of their losses.
It's half-assed stats like these and the one you are trying to use with Van Horn in some sort of vain effort to say that all stats are worthless.

Here's a stat for you.

Van Horn at home (5 games)
21.0 ppg
8.0 rpg
2.6 apg
1.6 spg
0.2 bpg
4.0 tpg
.457 fg%
.318 3pt%
38.0 mpg

Van Horn on road (5 games)
12.6 ppg
6.8 rpg
1.2 apg
0.6 spg
0.6 bpg
3.4 tpg
.299 fg%
.176 3pt%
36.2 mpg

It's funny, everybody said he couldn't handle the pressure of NY, yet he plays much better there than he has on the road so far.

Here's a better stat

Van Horn in wins
18.3 ppg
9.3 rpg
.321 fg%
18.7 FGA

Van Horn in losses
16.1 ppg
6.6 rpg
.424 fg%
13.1 FGA

When Van Horn shoots less, he has a higher percentage. But when he shoots MORE and plays a bigger role in the offense, the Knicks win. The higher shooting percentage comes from him playing a more secondary role, only taking open shots. The lower shooting percentage comes from him playing more aggressive, which has ignited.

The Knicks are only 3-3 without Van Horn, fyi. Their biggest margin of defeat with him was only 16. Without him, they have lost two games by 20+ points. Gotta love those interesting stats.


----------



## truth (Jul 16, 2002)

*The blind man*

Rashidi,your last name isnt Dolan by ant chance???

my quote
"by the way,i was not being critical of Van horn..I have no opinion on him,its way too early..I was just trying to make a point that one could make a case by the numbers that the Knicks are better without him starting even though he has put up decent numbers and

"Or maybe as most statisticians will tell you the sample size we are looking at is too small to prove conclusive either way..You tell me" end of my quote

I will assume you know what sample size means when you are performing statistical backtests..i could be wrong

secondly,I am sure you are familiar with dependent and independent variables as well as goodness of fit,linear regression and correlation,cause that is what you are attempting to do..I think

All I care about is wins and losses,just like owners should,just like anyone who is affected by the outcome of the game...

SO WHATS YOUR POINT?????????????????

and dont bring up meaningless random stats


Are you trying to say that EFF is an independent variable that has a high correlation to a dependent variable such as a won lost record??

Are you trying to say there is a high correlation to Van Horn's superior rebounding and the Knicks winning percentage??

Rashidi,I hate to tell you this but

The Knicks have a 6 -10 won lost record=.375, and79.31% of the teams in the NBA have a better record than the highest spending team in the league

If you are going present statistics which are HISTORICAL data points stop making silly subjective statements...The Knicks have a LOSING record...There is NO stat you can show that indicates anything but that and clearly there is no player of any EFF on the Knicks that has made them a good team..As of today they SUKKK


----------



## Rashidi (Oct 2, 2003)

> Are you trying to say that EFF is an independent variable that has a high correlation to a dependent variable such as a won lost record??
> 
> Are you trying to say there is a high correlation to Van Horn's superior rebounding and the Knicks winning percentage??


Could you use smaller and simpler words so the stupid people like myself can understand?




> The Knicks have a 6 -10 won lost record=.375, and79.31% of the teams in the NBA have a better record than the highest spending team in the league
> 
> If you are going present statistics which are HISTORICAL data points stop making silly subjective statements...The Knicks have a LOSING record...There is NO stat you can show that indicates anything but that and clearly there is no player of any EFF on the Knicks that has made them a good team..As of today they SUKKK


And as has been stated many times before, you don't need a winning record to make the playoffs in the east. You keep bringing up their record, when you yourself should abide by the guidelines which you yourself abide by. Are the season standings NOT a small sample size? The Knicks have had a much tougher schedule than most other teams in the league. They have played the world champions, the eastern conference champions, the most talented team in the league, and team with the best record in the league TWICE.

Going into the season most people thought the top 10 was 
1. Lakers
2. Spurs
3. Kings
4. Mavericks
5. Nets
6. T'Wolves
7.Pistons
8. Pacers
9. Hornets
10. Blazers

The Knicks have played 8 games (out of 16) against the top 10 teams in the league. They play the Hornets tomorrow and the Pistons after that. So how exactly can you judge them by their record when other teams have not had to play these teams as many times yet?


----------



## truth (Jul 16, 2002)

*knicks*

I happen to agree with you that the Knicks are going to make the playoffs..But that is just my opinion,just like yours..However,if the season ended today we would miss the playoffs and that is the fact..I also like Van Horn for the Knicks better than Spree...

And yes if the Knicks have lost to teams playing above .550 ball then you make a very good point,but it still indicates the Knicks are not a very good team..And you are definetly right,the sample size or number of games is way too small..

So,are you ready for my next question???We know the east is weak...Lets say the knicks had bostons record 6-8 and the season ended today.....6-8 would be the 8th seed in the east...Its also the 8th worst record in the NBA...Does that mean we make the playoffs,concievably win the NBA championship,and because of our 8th worst record,be in the lottery and possibly get the number 1 pick?????I am gonna post this seperately


----------



## Rashidi (Oct 2, 2003)

> However,if the season ended today we would miss the playoffs and that is the fact.


If the season ended today, the Nets would be the 5th seed (or lower, don't feel like checking standings). It's a meaningless fact right now.



> So,are you ready for my next question???We know the east is weak...Lets say the knicks had bostons record 6-8 and the season ended today.....6-8 would be the 8th seed in the east...Its also the 8th worst record in the NBA...Does that mean we make the playoffs,concievably win the NBA championship,and because of our 8th worst record,be in the lottery and possibly get the number 1 pick?????I am gonna post this seperately


The lottery is reserved for teams that miss the playoffs.

If the Knicks are the worst team to make the playoffs, they still get a high pick. They aren't bad enough to get a decent pick anyway, and if you barely miss the playoffs, then the chances of you getting a #1 selection are around 1%. So I'd much rather make the playoffs and end up with the 15th pick than miss the playoffs and end up with the 14th pick.


----------



## The True Essence (May 26, 2003)

not that it matters but the nets would be second...

and yeah, everything you said was what i believe too.


----------



## Fordy74 (May 22, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Rashidi</b>!
> 
> 
> Just look at how good the defense he played on Allan Houston was down the stretch.


LOL.. Keep up the good work RA..


----------

