Knicks · Melo vs. Spree - Who was/is the better Knick? (page 2)

tkf wrote:

gunsnewing wrote:H20
LJ
Ewing
Camby

I loved watching all of these guys.. Houston was underrated if you ask me.. LJ was so much better than his numbers would suggest.... one of my favorite knicks of all time..

I liked LJ and Camby. Ewing personally rubbed me the wrong way for many reasons but was no doubt a GREAT player.

Houston IMHO was the most overrated and overpaid player that we ever had. I did love that shot that he hit to beat the heat.

gunsnewing wrote:H20 was overpaid not overrated. JVG got him to play just enough defense. His ability to post and score from anywhere on the floor and in the clutch should not be underestimated. Spree gets major credit for doing all the dirty work guarding the backcourt and rebounding

Maybe he was clutch but his stats are overall very middling for a starting shooting guard.

The shot was beautiful to watch but not consistent enough. Defense was pretty weak. He was a big let down for what we thought we were getting from Detroit (as was chris childs that year).

NardDogNation wrote:

mreinman wrote:

NardDogNation wrote:

mreinman wrote:I don't believe that dk would say otherwise. I hope that I am not wrong.

Timeout. Is this actually being discussed in another thread? What's the title?

http://www.ultimateknicks.com/forum/topi...

Dude, just don't bother. You could substitute Sprewell for Danny Devito and he'd argue that Devito would be the better ball player. I'm pretty sure he once suggested that Melo was better suited to be a bench player.

Dude, Devito had heart don't discount.

I am enjoying the squirming. I think I may have set off a 5 alarm watching all the scrambling.

gunsnewing wrote:It's been a while I have to look at his shooting numbers before and after 99. Before he was surround by loads of talent. After he carried too much of the load. JVG ran him to the ground

http://www.basketball-reference.com/play...

Funny how mr all time shooter is was inefficient than fat you know who but at least he was only shooting 15.x shots a game.

i like efficiency and neither was efficient but at least sprewell did not take too many shots, and melo does.

i liked that sprewell was a great slasher, and the numbers support the fact that sprewell was excellent at maintaining offensive cohesion even if he was not an efficient scorer, or perhaps he is a net positive because of his ability to maintain if not created offensive cohesion. can't remember if he was any good at dishing off drives or he simply was good at maintaining a passing rhythm but the numbers don't lie.

lastly i like players who are in great shape and have high motors. sprewell was/had both and carmelo has yet to prove to me that he has/is either. we shall see i suppose.

basketball is a team sport so "better" leads us down a slippery slope, unless by better we mean "better teammate."

lastly, sprewell as a knick was integral to the knicks reaching the finals one year and the conference finals the next.

when melo can be an integral part of a conference finals team or a finals participant then he can be in the conversation.

until then... sprewell is the better knick!

mreinman wrote:

NardDogNation wrote:

mreinman wrote:

NardDogNation wrote:

mreinman wrote:I don't believe that dk would say otherwise. I hope that I am not wrong.

Timeout. Is this actually being discussed in another thread? What's the title?

http://www.ultimateknicks.com/forum/topi...

Dude, just don't bother. You could substitute Sprewell for Danny Devito and he'd argue that Devito would be the better ball player. I'm pretty sure he once suggested that Melo was better suited to be a bench player.

Dude, Devito had heart don't discount.

I am enjoying the squirming. I think I may have set off a 5 alarm watching all the scrambling.

Devito did assemble a pretty good team in Space Jam.

mreinman wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:Obviously Melo. I didn't think it was serious enough to merit a poll. I imagine the voting will be about 40 to 1

I thought that it would be far closer because of the way the Sprewell connected to the fan base.

Maybe you are right and it will be a landslide. Lets see.

I can guess who the 1 would be if thats the case

I guess 40-1 was a bad prediction

dk7th wrote:i like two-way players. sprewell was a two-way player and melo hasn't been. maybe that'll change.

i like efficiency and neither was efficient but at least sprewell did not take too many shots, and melo does.

i liked that sprewell was a great slasher, and the numbers support the fact that sprewell was excellent at maintaining offensive cohesion even if he was not an efficient scorer, or perhaps he is a net positive because of his ability to maintain if not created offensive cohesion. can't remember if he was any good at dishing off drives or he simply was good at maintaining a passing rhythm but the numbers don't lie.

lastly i like players who are in great shape and have high motors. sprewell was/had both and carmelo has yet to prove to me that he has/is either. we shall see i suppose.

basketball is a team sport so "better" leads us down a slippery slope, unless by better we mean "better teammate."

lastly, sprewell as a knick was integral to the knicks reaching the finals one year and the conference finals the next.

when melo can be an integral part of a conference finals team or a finals participant then he can be in the conversation.

until then... sprewell is the better knick!

15.7 shots (anthony is 19.7) at that TS is beyond horrible. How would you like Felton to take 16 shots a game? Would we say "at least its not 20"?

"was a great slasher"? That all great if it turns into efficient play.

I "like" sprewell too because of his high motor but what I "like" does not necessarily translate into a great player. I like lil Nate too.

Barkley was fat and I liked him. I don't see that Anthony is in shape or out of shape, I do know that he is not a naturally chiseled dude. Many players are ripped and they suck. Its all about the play and almost everything is quantifiable. It was not back then and GM's were very ill informed.

I don't buy this "conference finals" argument at all. How was his play during that playoff run? Not good. Bad players can be on good teams and vice versa.

Sprewell was not even close to melo's efficiency (and Melo's is not great).

Unfortunately, back in the old knick days, they did not rely or know about advanced stats and very much overrated many players because of this.

Please look at Sprewells playoff numbers before saying how integral he was. Forget about his almost negative Win Shares, take a look at his TS, FGA and PER! They are atrocious and his 1.9 : 1 usg : assist rate in the playoffs as a knick does not even come close to making up for it.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/play...

newyorknewyork wrote:Sprewell and Melo are actually perfect compliments to each other. I wish they were able to play together.

Seriously?

mreinman wrote:

dk7th wrote:i like two-way players. sprewell was a two-way player and melo hasn't been. maybe that'll change.

i like efficiency and neither was efficient but at least sprewell did not take too many shots, and melo does.

i liked that sprewell was a great slasher, and the numbers support the fact that sprewell was excellent at maintaining offensive cohesion even if he was not an efficient scorer, or perhaps he is a net positive because of his ability to maintain if not created offensive cohesion. can't remember if he was any good at dishing off drives or he simply was good at maintaining a passing rhythm but the numbers don't lie.

lastly i like players who are in great shape and have high motors. sprewell was/had both and carmelo has yet to prove to me that he has/is either. we shall see i suppose.

basketball is a team sport so "better" leads us down a slippery slope, unless by better we mean "better teammate."

lastly, sprewell as a knick was integral to the knicks reaching the finals one year and the conference finals the next.

when melo can be an integral part of a conference finals team or a finals participant then he can be in the conversation.

until then... sprewell is the better knick!

15.7 shots (anthony is 19.7) at that TS is beyond horrible. How would you like Felton to take 16 shots a game? Would we say "at least its not 20"?

"was a great slasher"? That all great if it turns into efficient play.

I "like" sprewell too because of his high motor but what I "like" does not necessarily translate into a great player. I like lil Nate too.

Barkley was fat and I liked him. I don't see that Anthony is in shape or out of shape, I do know that he is not a naturally chiseled dude. Many players are ripped and they suck. Its all about the play and almost everything is quantifiable. It was not back then and GM's were very ill informed.

I don't but this "conference finals" argument at all. How was his play during that playoff run? Not good. Bad players can be on good teams and vice versa.

Sprewell was not even close to melo's efficiency (and Melo's is not great).

Unfortunately, back in the old knick days, they did not rely or know about advanced stats and very much overrated many players because of this.

Please look at Sprewells playoff numbers before saying how integral he was. Forget about his almost negative Win Shares, take a look at his TS, FGA and PER! They are atrocious and his 1.6 : 1 usg : assist rate in the playoffs does not even come close to making up for it.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/play...

well i started my response by saying i like two-way players and sprewell was that.

the larger issue is whether you regard sprewell as a negative-sum, zero-sum, or positive-sum player. i think he was a bit above zero-sum. melo so far as been closer to zero-sum.

lastly, the old walsh meme: a player is good at one price and bad at another.

check out how much we paid sprewell back then, adjust for inflation, and let me know who has proven to be the "gooder" player

mreinman wrote:

newyorknewyork wrote:Sprewell and Melo are actually perfect compliments to each other. I wish they were able to play together.

Seriously?

Absolutely, Spree's defense and play making is just what Melo needs as a co-wing man. Melo's bully ball, rebounding, and 3pt stroke is just what Spree needs as a co-wing man.

newyorknewyork wrote:Sprewell and Melo are actually perfect compliments to each other. I wish they were able to play together.

We might have something close to that in Shumpert if we are patient and help him excel in his role

But I don't look at it as who's better, i look at it as who's the better fit in how were going to play

gunsnewing wrote:

newyorknewyork wrote:Sprewell and Melo are actually perfect compliments to each other. I wish they were able to play together.

We might have something close to that in Shumpert if we are patient and help him excel in his role

Shumpert doesn't have the handle, play making, or scoring ability. I would be happy if Shump turned into Raja Bell. Sprewell is asking for to much. Jr Smith on the other hand has the tools, but don't have the hunger.

dk7th wrote:

mreinman wrote:

dk7th wrote:i like two-way players. sprewell was a two-way player and melo hasn't been. maybe that'll change.

i like efficiency and neither was efficient but at least sprewell did not take too many shots, and melo does.

i liked that sprewell was a great slasher, and the numbers support the fact that sprewell was excellent at maintaining offensive cohesion even if he was not an efficient scorer, or perhaps he is a net positive because of his ability to maintain if not created offensive cohesion. can't remember if he was any good at dishing off drives or he simply was good at maintaining a passing rhythm but the numbers don't lie.

lastly i like players who are in great shape and have high motors. sprewell was/had both and carmelo has yet to prove to me that he has/is either. we shall see i suppose.

basketball is a team sport so "better" leads us down a slippery slope, unless by better we mean "better teammate."

lastly, sprewell as a knick was integral to the knicks reaching the finals one year and the conference finals the next.

when melo can be an integral part of a conference finals team or a finals participant then he can be in the conversation.

until then... sprewell is the better knick!

15.7 shots (anthony is 19.7) at that TS is beyond horrible. How would you like Felton to take 16 shots a game? Would we say "at least its not 20"?

"was a great slasher"? That all great if it turns into efficient play.

I "like" sprewell too because of his high motor but what I "like" does not necessarily translate into a great player. I like lil Nate too.

Barkley was fat and I liked him. I don't see that Anthony is in shape or out of shape, I do know that he is not a naturally chiseled dude. Many players are ripped and they suck. Its all about the play and almost everything is quantifiable. It was not back then and GM's were very ill informed.

I don't but this "conference finals" argument at all. How was his play during that playoff run? Not good. Bad players can be on good teams and vice versa.

Sprewell was not even close to melo's efficiency (and Melo's is not great).

Unfortunately, back in the old knick days, they did not rely or know about advanced stats and very much overrated many players because of this.

Please look at Sprewells playoff numbers before saying how integral he was. Forget about his almost negative Win Shares, take a look at his TS, FGA and PER! They are atrocious and his 1.6 : 1 usg : assist rate in the playoffs does not even come close to making up for it.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/play...

well i started my response by saying i like two-way players and sprewell was that.

the larger issue is whether you regard sprewell as a negative-sum, zero-sum, or positive-sum player. i think he was a bit above zero-sum. melo so far as been closer to zero-sum.

lastly, the old walsh meme: a player is good at one price and bad at another.

check out how much we paid sprewell back then, adjust for inflation, and let me know who has proven to be the "gooder" player

Sprewell was a one way player not a two way.

If we are arguing price which where I thought this would end up if the argument went south , I have no idea. I would need an actuary to help figure that out. But that is not what this argument is about though we way overpaid Sprewell at 10 million per.

Btw, I just for the heck of it checked out Melo usg : ast rate in his playoff run with billups, it was 1.6 : 1 (sprewell never came anywhere close to the numbers that Melo had in that playoffs). And, it was 1.2 : 1 in his first year with the knicks. I am by no means that great at the advanced metrics but I am certainly trying to learn as much as I can.

And saying that Melo is zero sum is just wrong and way off base. I am quick to point out the weaknesses that hold him back from greatness but zero sum? C'mon. Let's keep it real.

gunsnewing wrote:

newyorknewyork wrote:Sprewell and Melo are actually perfect compliments to each other. I wish they were able to play together.

We might have something close to that in Shumpert if we are patient and help him excel in his role

Shumpert has always been extremely and consistently inefficient so they are very similar. At least Shumpert is smart enough not to shoot 16 shots a game. Wouldn't that suck?

mreinman wrote:

NardDogNation wrote:

mreinman wrote:

NardDogNation wrote:

mreinman wrote:I don't believe that dk would say otherwise. I hope that I am not wrong.

Timeout. Is this actually being discussed in another thread? What's the title?

http://www.ultimateknicks.com/forum/topi...

Dude, just don't bother. You could substitute Sprewell for Danny Devito and he'd argue that Devito would be the better ball player. I'm pretty sure he once suggested that Melo was better suited to be a bench player.

Dude, Devito had heart don't discount.

I am enjoying the squirming. I think I may have set off a 5 alarm watching all the scrambling.

I suppose you can say that I sold him short, lol.