Knicks morning news (2018.08.13) knickerblogger.net

2. Frank should be the starting PG with Burke 2nd string. Why? In KP-Knox-THJ, we have 3 scorers who are versatile enough to threaten defenses. I’m not suggesting that’s a great core, just that it’s a good start. If we can defenders at the 1 and 5 to add to that in the starting lineup, then build quality depth- we may not even have to press for a “max player”. In steps MitchRob & Ntilikina. They have to develop. Moving Burke to the bench helps improve depth. And we have young pieces like Dotson, Trier, Hezonja, and Vonleh to look at for future spots at well. Of course this is contingent on KP getting healthy. Again, I’m not saying it’s great- but we may be slightly ahead of the rebuilding curve with what we have now- especially if MitchRob and Ntilikina develop.


To begin the season, Kanter starts. But at some point I’d like to see MitchRob eat into his minutes. As far as Burke, he’s likely to start- he’s earned it. But I think his role will be the same and can be maximized whether he starts or not. With Fizdale as coach, the Knicks may be playoff bound faster than we expect. Not this season, but soon

My claim: Porzingis has performed significantly worse than a top-10 pick’s expected two-year max VORP. Given his age, there’s a possibility that in the future he will surpass the expected VORP of a player drafted where he was, but this is speculative. Everyone else has been a scrub in terms of marginal value, except Fields, who had a flash in the pan rookie year and then also became pretty scrubbish. (The irony of Fields being the best performer relative to expected value, when Z-man has made a commentating career disparaging role players like Fields, Faried, DeJuan Blair and others.)

This argument, which I made, describes the current value of Porzingis on a basketball court but I readily admit that it is inconclusive because Porzingis’s career is ongoing. I admit this even though our 7’3″ Carmelo clone just suffered an ACL injury that will sideline him for 12 months! My point is that the Knicks have not demonstrated draft or asset superiority in a way that leads to positive knowledge.

Everything comes from the belief that the Knicks have been better at drafting, and he asks detractors to prove that his belief isn’t true. (Or, at best, he appeals to common sense, which is not persuasive.) He prioritizes that belief or common sense over VORP, which is not perfect, but (jesus christ how many times am I going to write this) better than unsubstantiated faith-based claims.

2. If you are arguing they get fewer rebounds but the extra spacing from being an outside threat does not impact the offense positively enough to offset the loss of rebounding, that’s at reasonable position. However, you are then arguing that every team in the NBA has been foolish for moving in that direction and is compounding the foolishness by now asking Cs to play the same way.

It’s hard to measure the value of anything in basketball properly (quite easy to pretend you can though) but it’s obvious that when KP has to guard some small sharp shooting PF on the perimeter, it’s having a positive impact on the other team’s offense given that KP won’t be in the paint swatting away shots by their slashers, cutters, and drivers. He’s also getting fewer rebounds. Same when he’s dragging some big outside.

SGs tend to be small, play on the perimeter, and don’t get to handle the ball as often as PGs. So it’s kind of tough to accumulate a lot of positive boxscore stats. What they do tend to well is shoot and space the floor. That’s why despite advanced stats models saying most of them aren’t very good, coaches keep playing them. Their value accrues to their teammates boxscores in the same way a great pass adds to the efficiency of the player receiving it. The thing is, we have assists in the boxscore to measure passing value. We don’t have spacing and defense in the boxscore to measure just how good Klay Thompson is.