Knicks · Is Sam/Cole ≥ Tyson? (page 4)

Bonn1997 wrote:

yellowboy90 wrote:So why don't that stat guys make some statistical claim as to why the combination won't be better. I personally think we'll be fine overall because they actually have depth at the position. What I do worry about is turnovers but defense might be better. I mean the last two years the knicks have been slightly better on D with Ty off the floor. Besides k-mart, who played sparingly at times, and cole, who didn't play that much, the knicks have not had any defensive stall worth backing Tyson up over the pass two years. So maybe the sum will be greater. Who knows but I have not really seen any good reason why. I saw some good discussion why they might be worse on D at the starting pg spot but I do not think anyone argues that Calderon net value isn't better than Felton, maybe I missed it.

There are a lot of stats I've cited: WS, on/off +/-, points per 100 possessions. Tyson is better than either one or both of them in each of the important stats. What info. exactly are you looking for?

I am sorry I did not see you cite overall stats on why Tyson is better than Cole/Dal. I did see you say offensively he is better and saw you cite why Felton is better than Calderan.

In a vacuum Tyson is better. Based on passed stats Tyson surely looks better. I do think that Cole has a chance to be every productive in the Triangle. Of course there are no stats to back that up cuz he hasn't really played much and not at all in the Triangle. I'm just basing off what i've seen of Cole and Tyson and I think Cole can be productive in the Triangle if given minutes. Losing Tyson may not be the negative that some think it will be. Then when you add in Smith, STAT and Bargs there's enough talent there to function well in the Triangle. The defense is another issue altogether. We'll have to see how Fish structures the D. I'm not expecting a strong defensive team but they've got to find a way to at least be decent.

yellowboy90 wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

yellowboy90 wrote:So why don't that stat guys make some statistical claim as to why the combination won't be better. I personally think we'll be fine overall because they actually have depth at the position. What I do worry about is turnovers but defense might be better. I mean the last two years the knicks have been slightly better on D with Ty off the floor. Besides k-mart, who played sparingly at times, and cole, who didn't play that much, the knicks have not had any defensive stall worth backing Tyson up over the pass two years. So maybe the sum will be greater. Who knows but I have not really seen any good reason why. I saw some good discussion why they might be worse on D at the starting pg spot but I do not think anyone argues that Calderon net value isn't better than Felton, maybe I missed it.

There are a lot of stats I've cited: WS, on/off +/-, points per 100 possessions. Tyson is better than either one or both of them in each of the important stats. What info. exactly are you looking for?

I am sorry I did not see you cite overall stats on why Tyson is better than Cole/Dal. I did see you say offensively he is better and saw you cite why Felton is better than Calderan.

Oh I don't think Felton is better than Caleron overall. He might be slightly less bad than Calderon on defense though.
There isn't one "overall stat" to cite, and it's particularly hard to compare 1 vs. 2 players, especially when you don't know the proportion of playing time the two players will get. If you were to tally how many times Tyson comes out ahead of Cole and comes out ahead of Dal and then tally the number of times they each come out ahead of him on all the major stats, it wouldn't look good for us though.

nixluva wrote:In a vacuum Tyson is better. Based on passed stats Tyson surely looks better. I do think that Cole has a chance to be every productive in the Triangle. Of course there are no stats to back that up cuz he hasn't really played much and not at all in the Triangle. I'm just basing off what i've seen of Cole and Tyson and I think Cole can be productive in the Triangle if given minutes. Losing Tyson may not be the negative that some think it will be. Then when you add in Smith, STAT and Bargs there's enough talent there to function well in the Triangle. The defense is another issue altogether. We'll have to see how Fish structures the D. I'm not expecting a strong defensive team but they've got to find a way to at least be decent.

yea.. but the stat guys like to gloss over the FACT that Tyson's last 3 years he misses more and more games each year, each of the last 3 years his PPG and FG%s have gone down as well. The same guys that say "we are a 37 win team" but treat Tyson and Felton like they were the same players they were 2 years ago. They arent.

I did find this advanced stat though... since researching Tyson and Felton I have noticed a trend. Each year they get older.

fishmike wrote:

nixluva wrote:In a vacuum Tyson is better. Based on passed stats Tyson surely looks better. I do think that Cole has a chance to be every productive in the Triangle. Of course there are no stats to back that up cuz he hasn't really played much and not at all in the Triangle. I'm just basing off what i've seen of Cole and Tyson and I think Cole can be productive in the Triangle if given minutes. Losing Tyson may not be the negative that some think it will be. Then when you add in Smith, STAT and Bargs there's enough talent there to function well in the Triangle. The defense is another issue altogether. We'll have to see how Fish structures the D. I'm not expecting a strong defensive team but they've got to find a way to at least be decent.

yea.. but the stat guys like to gloss over the FACT that Tyson's last 3 years he misses more and more games each year, each of the last 3 years his PPG and FG%s have gone down as well. The same guys that say "we are a 37 win team" but treat Tyson and Felton like they were the same players they were 2 years ago. They arent.

I did find this advanced stat though... since researching Tyson and Felton I have noticed a trend. Each year they get older.

Also, since the Indy series in the spring of 13, Tyson has been a malcontent and attempted to sabotage the coach. Not a good look for a guy paid to be a leader and solid locker room guy. Glad the legend of Tyson is in Dallas.

CrushAlot wrote:

fishmike wrote:

nixluva wrote:In a vacuum Tyson is better. Based on passed stats Tyson surely looks better. I do think that Cole has a chance to be every productive in the Triangle. Of course there are no stats to back that up cuz he hasn't really played much and not at all in the Triangle. I'm just basing off what i've seen of Cole and Tyson and I think Cole can be productive in the Triangle if given minutes. Losing Tyson may not be the negative that some think it will be. Then when you add in Smith, STAT and Bargs there's enough talent there to function well in the Triangle. The defense is another issue altogether. We'll have to see how Fish structures the D. I'm not expecting a strong defensive team but they've got to find a way to at least be decent.

yea.. but the stat guys like to gloss over the FACT that Tyson's last 3 years he misses more and more games each year, each of the last 3 years his PPG and FG%s have gone down as well. The same guys that say "we are a 37 win team" but treat Tyson and Felton like they were the same players they were 2 years ago. They arent.

I did find this advanced stat though... since researching Tyson and Felton I have noticed a trend. Each year they get older.

Also, since the Indy series in the spring of 13, Tyson has been a malcontent and attempted to sabotage the coach. Not a good look for a guy paid to be a leader and solid locker room guy. Glad the legend of Tyson is in Dallas.

Yeah, I'm definitely not attached to Tyson but I wanted something better than this if we were going to trade him and his big expiring contract.

Bonn1997 wrote:

CrushAlot wrote:

fishmike wrote:

nixluva wrote:In a vacuum Tyson is better. Based on passed stats Tyson surely looks better. I do think that Cole has a chance to be every productive in the Triangle. Of course there are no stats to back that up cuz he hasn't really played much and not at all in the Triangle. I'm just basing off what i've seen of Cole and Tyson and I think Cole can be productive in the Triangle if given minutes. Losing Tyson may not be the negative that some think it will be. Then when you add in Smith, STAT and Bargs there's enough talent there to function well in the Triangle. The defense is another issue altogether. We'll have to see how Fish structures the D. I'm not expecting a strong defensive team but they've got to find a way to at least be decent.

yea.. but the stat guys like to gloss over the FACT that Tyson's last 3 years he misses more and more games each year, each of the last 3 years his PPG and FG%s have gone down as well. The same guys that say "we are a 37 win team" but treat Tyson and Felton like they were the same players they were 2 years ago. They arent.

I did find this advanced stat though... since researching Tyson and Felton I have noticed a trend. Each year they get older.

Also, since the Indy series in the spring of 13, Tyson has been a malcontent and attempted to sabotage the coach. Not a good look for a guy paid to be a leader and solid locker room guy. Glad the legend of Tyson is in Dallas.

Yeah, I'm definitely not attached to Tyson but I wanted something better than this if we were going to trade him and his big expiring contract.

We also traded away maybe the worst starting PG in the league and his contract, and a gun charge hovering over him. We got a nice mix of experience and youth in return. Not a blockbuster deal but one that might pay dividends down the road.

CrushAlot wrote:

fishmike wrote:

nixluva wrote:In a vacuum Tyson is better. Based on passed stats Tyson surely looks better. I do think that Cole has a chance to be every productive in the Triangle. Of course there are no stats to back that up cuz he hasn't really played much and not at all in the Triangle. I'm just basing off what i've seen of Cole and Tyson and I think Cole can be productive in the Triangle if given minutes. Losing Tyson may not be the negative that some think it will be. Then when you add in Smith, STAT and Bargs there's enough talent there to function well in the Triangle. The defense is another issue altogether. We'll have to see how Fish structures the D. I'm not expecting a strong defensive team but they've got to find a way to at least be decent.

yea.. but the stat guys like to gloss over the FACT that Tyson's last 3 years he misses more and more games each year, each of the last 3 years his PPG and FG%s have gone down as well. The same guys that say "we are a 37 win team" but treat Tyson and Felton like they were the same players they were 2 years ago. They arent.

I did find this advanced stat though... since researching Tyson and Felton I have noticed a trend. Each year they get older.

Also, since the Indy series in the spring of 13, Tyson has been a malcontent and attempted to sabotage the coach. Not a good look for a guy paid to be a leader and solid locker room guy. Glad the legend of Tyson is in Dallas.

Not a stats guy, but I'm pretty realistic. There's a reason Dalembert has been on five different teams the past five years. Five different coaches felt he wasn't up to par for whatever reason. Also, shouldn't this thread be Tyson/Aldrich vs. Dalembert/Adlrich. Tyson's presence had me bearing on whether Aldrich's spot on the team. I'm good with the trade by the way. I just think we should expect a dip in production from the center position and more career nights from opposing point guards.

Bonn1997 wrote:

CrushAlot wrote:

fishmike wrote:

nixluva wrote:In a vacuum Tyson is better. Based on passed stats Tyson surely looks better. I do think that Cole has a chance to be every productive in the Triangle. Of course there are no stats to back that up cuz he hasn't really played much and not at all in the Triangle. I'm just basing off what i've seen of Cole and Tyson and I think Cole can be productive in the Triangle if given minutes. Losing Tyson may not be the negative that some think it will be. Then when you add in Smith, STAT and Bargs there's enough talent there to function well in the Triangle. The defense is another issue altogether. We'll have to see how Fish structures the D. I'm not expecting a strong defensive team but they've got to find a way to at least be decent.

yea.. but the stat guys like to gloss over the FACT that Tyson's last 3 years he misses more and more games each year, each of the last 3 years his PPG and FG%s have gone down as well. The same guys that say "we are a 37 win team" but treat Tyson and Felton like they were the same players they were 2 years ago. They arent.

I did find this advanced stat though... since researching Tyson and Felton I have noticed a trend. Each year they get older.

Also, since the Indy series in the spring of 13, Tyson has been a malcontent and attempted to sabotage the coach. Not a good look for a guy paid to be a leader and solid locker room guy. Glad the legend of Tyson is in Dallas.

Yeah, I'm definitely not attached to Tyson but I wanted something better than this if we were going to trade him and his big expiring contract.

Because you think he is worth more than his perceived value throughout the league.

BigDaddyG wrote:

CrushAlot wrote:

fishmike wrote:

nixluva wrote:In a vacuum Tyson is better. Based on passed stats Tyson surely looks better. I do think that Cole has a chance to be every productive in the Triangle. Of course there are no stats to back that up cuz he hasn't really played much and not at all in the Triangle. I'm just basing off what i've seen of Cole and Tyson and I think Cole can be productive in the Triangle if given minutes. Losing Tyson may not be the negative that some think it will be. Then when you add in Smith, STAT and Bargs there's enough talent there to function well in the Triangle. The defense is another issue altogether. We'll have to see how Fish structures the D. I'm not expecting a strong defensive team but they've got to find a way to at least be decent.

yea.. but the stat guys like to gloss over the FACT that Tyson's last 3 years he misses more and more games each year, each of the last 3 years his PPG and FG%s have gone down as well. The same guys that say "we are a 37 win team" but treat Tyson and Felton like they were the same players they were 2 years ago. They arent.

I did find this advanced stat though... since researching Tyson and Felton I have noticed a trend. Each year they get older.

Also, since the Indy series in the spring of 13, Tyson has been a malcontent and attempted to sabotage the coach. Not a good look for a guy paid to be a leader and solid locker room guy. Glad the legend of Tyson is in Dallas.

Not a stats guy, but I'm pretty realistic. There's a reason Dalembert has been on five different teams the past five years. Five different coaches felt he wasn't up to par for whatever reason. Also, shouldn't this thread be Tyson/Aldrich vs. Dalembert/Adlrich. Tyson's presence had me bearing on whether Aldrich's spot on the team. I'm good with the trade by the way. I just think we should expect a dip in production from the center position and more career nights from opposing point guards.

Those PG's will be blowing by Jose but at least we'll actually have more active bigs behind him. Our pick and roll defense shouldn't be abused like it has been so frequently if Fish lives up to the hype. Between Woody, Felton, JR, Amare, Bargs, and Tyson they had no idea what to do.

The only guys who showed anything were Prigs, Shump(only because he can fight over) Melo, Tyler, Aldrich, and Earl Clark. K-Mart can be good but he seems to fall in line with the lazy culture.

Dagger wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

CrushAlot wrote:

fishmike wrote:

nixluva wrote:In a vacuum Tyson is better. Based on passed stats Tyson surely looks better. I do think that Cole has a chance to be every productive in the Triangle. Of course there are no stats to back that up cuz he hasn't really played much and not at all in the Triangle. I'm just basing off what i've seen of Cole and Tyson and I think Cole can be productive in the Triangle if given minutes. Losing Tyson may not be the negative that some think it will be. Then when you add in Smith, STAT and Bargs there's enough talent there to function well in the Triangle. The defense is another issue altogether. We'll have to see how Fish structures the D. I'm not expecting a strong defensive team but they've got to find a way to at least be decent.

yea.. but the stat guys like to gloss over the FACT that Tyson's last 3 years he misses more and more games each year, each of the last 3 years his PPG and FG%s have gone down as well. The same guys that say "we are a 37 win team" but treat Tyson and Felton like they were the same players they were 2 years ago. They arent.

I did find this advanced stat though... since researching Tyson and Felton I have noticed a trend. Each year they get older.

Also, since the Indy series in the spring of 13, Tyson has been a malcontent and attempted to sabotage the coach. Not a good look for a guy paid to be a leader and solid locker room guy. Glad the legend of Tyson is in Dallas.

Yeah, I'm definitely not attached to Tyson but I wanted something better than this if we were going to trade him and his big expiring contract.

Because you think he is worth more than his perceived value throughout the league.

I dont know man.. his advanced stats from three years ago look really good.

CrushAlot wrote:

fishmike wrote:

nixluva wrote:In a vacuum Tyson is better. Based on passed stats Tyson surely looks better. I do think that Cole has a chance to be every productive in the Triangle. Of course there are no stats to back that up cuz he hasn't really played much and not at all in the Triangle. I'm just basing off what i've seen of Cole and Tyson and I think Cole can be productive in the Triangle if given minutes. Losing Tyson may not be the negative that some think it will be. Then when you add in Smith, STAT and Bargs there's enough talent there to function well in the Triangle. The defense is another issue altogether. We'll have to see how Fish structures the D. I'm not expecting a strong defensive team but they've got to find a way to at least be decent.

yea.. but the stat guys like to gloss over the FACT that Tyson's last 3 years he misses more and more games each year, each of the last 3 years his PPG and FG%s have gone down as well. The same guys that say "we are a 37 win team" but treat Tyson and Felton like they were the same players they were 2 years ago. They arent.

I did find this advanced stat though... since researching Tyson and Felton I have noticed a trend. Each year they get older.

Also, since the Indy series in the spring of 13, Tyson has been a malcontent and attempted to sabotage the coach. Not a good look for a guy paid to be a leader and solid locker room guy. Glad the legend of Tyson is in Dallas.

that was the worst. +1000 on this post. Thought he was soooo overrated when he got here. Then he pretty much opened my eyes during the 54 win season. He was very good, and most of all he had an impact. His horrific play against Indy so turned me off, and he did nothing to bounce back last year. I know he had personal stuff but he simply added nothing. See ya, have a nice day. No WAY losing him is a step back. If this was last year OK.. yea, coming off the 54 wins. But Tyson was part of the decline, not part of the solution.

fishmike wrote:

Dagger wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

CrushAlot wrote:

fishmike wrote:

nixluva wrote:In a vacuum Tyson is better. Based on passed stats Tyson surely looks better. I do think that Cole has a chance to be every productive in the Triangle. Of course there are no stats to back that up cuz he hasn't really played much and not at all in the Triangle. I'm just basing off what i've seen of Cole and Tyson and I think Cole can be productive in the Triangle if given minutes. Losing Tyson may not be the negative that some think it will be. Then when you add in Smith, STAT and Bargs there's enough talent there to function well in the Triangle. The defense is another issue altogether. We'll have to see how Fish structures the D. I'm not expecting a strong defensive team but they've got to find a way to at least be decent.

yea.. but the stat guys like to gloss over the FACT that Tyson's last 3 years he misses more and more games each year, each of the last 3 years his PPG and FG%s have gone down as well. The same guys that say "we are a 37 win team" but treat Tyson and Felton like they were the same players they were 2 years ago. They arent.

I did find this advanced stat though... since researching Tyson and Felton I have noticed a trend. Each year they get older.

Also, since the Indy series in the spring of 13, Tyson has been a malcontent and attempted to sabotage the coach. Not a good look for a guy paid to be a leader and solid locker room guy. Glad the legend of Tyson is in Dallas.

Yeah, I'm definitely not attached to Tyson but I wanted something better than this if we were going to trade him and his big expiring contract.

Because you think he is worth more than his perceived value throughout the league.

I dont know man.. his advanced stats from three years ago look really good.

His advance stats offensive have looked good every year. My problem is that over the past two years it doesn't seem like he makes a significant difference on D. That doesn't make sense when you are a defensive specialist.

My hope is that Cole's per 36 numbers translate if given major minutes. That would blow Tyson production out the water if he keeps his TOs down and FTs up.

I don't see a lot of difference. All three are top rebounders and pretty good shot blockers. And they all stink on offense. Chandler and SamD are getting older and slower. Cole is already slow. The only major difference is that Tyson will usually miss a significant number of games during the season. Big Sam and Cole usually stay healthy.

Ira wrote:I don't see a lot of difference. All three are top rebounders and pretty good shot blockers. And they all stink on offense. Chandler and SamD are getting older and slower. Cole is already slow. The only major difference is that Tyson will usually miss a significant number of games during the season. Big Sam and Cole usually stay healthy.

What does Cole being "slow" have to do with him being effective in the Triangle? Cole can rebound and defend the rim. He's shown a glimpse of his ability in the Triangle. I Think Cole can be a very good player for this team in the system we're playing in now. Chandler IMO was not going to be a great fit in this system. He's never had to handle the ball as much as he would in the Triangle.

I think Cole is more of a traditional center, where chandler kinda floats around and doesn't bang down low on defense the way he used to.
This last season I was more confident about our defense in the middle with Cole in the game.

Cole's offense has looked pretty horrific at times to me. I don't really see the potential there. To me he seems like a solid backup to provide some energy. I guess we'll see.

nixluva wrote:In a vacuum Tyson is better. Based on passed stats Tyson surely looks better. I do think that Cole has a chance to be every productive in the Triangle. Of course there are no stats to back that up cuz he hasn't really played much and not at all in the Triangle. I'm just basing off what i've seen of Cole and Tyson and I think Cole can be productive in the Triangle if given minutes. Losing Tyson may not be the negative that some think it will be. Then when you add in Smith, STAT and Bargs there's enough talent there to function well in the Triangle. The defense is another issue altogether. We'll have to see how Fish structures the D. I'm not expecting a strong defensive team but they've got to find a way to at least be decent.

Well said. Agreed.

Finestrg wrote:

nixluva wrote:In a vacuum Tyson is better. Based on passed stats Tyson surely looks better. I do think that Cole has a chance to be every productive in the Triangle. Of course there are no stats to back that up cuz he hasn't really played much and not at all in the Triangle. I'm just basing off what i've seen of Cole and Tyson and I think Cole can be productive in the Triangle if given minutes. Losing Tyson may not be the negative that some think it will be. Then when you add in Smith, STAT and Bargs there's enough talent there to function well in the Triangle. The defense is another issue altogether. We'll have to see how Fish structures the D. I'm not expecting a strong defensive team but they've got to find a way to at least be decent.

Well said. Agreed.

+1 After 2 years of Tyson's disapearing act in the playoffs and then his long injury last season I am happy he is gone.
Hard to build something when one of the key cogs to the foundation is so consistently unreliable.