Knicks · Great article on how the NBA has changed...and made players like Melo dinosaurs (page 1)

Very well written and argued. The rule changes of 2004 were the "meteors" that doomed players like Melo to irrelevance.

"The inside game is kaputski." Popovich said last week. "You've got to have downhill players. You've got to have people that can penetrate and kick. You've got to have people who can switch. You've got to have big guys who can play little guys."

"He needs to improve on his perimeter defense such as lateral quickness and footwork. ... Anthony at times can be such a dominant scorer that he can freeze teammates out of a game."

How very prescient.

Next this douche will write an article about how a player who can slam 50 home runs a year is no longer needed on a team.

FireHornacek wrote:Hmm, so a guy who can give you 24 a game is obsolete. Got it.

Next this douche will write an article about how a player who can slam 50 home runs a year is no longer needed on a team.

Chris Carter got cut and no teams wanted him year after he led the league with 42 home runs at age 30

https://www.baseball-reference.com/players/c/cartech02.shtml

FireHornacek wrote:Hmm, so a guy who can give you 24 a game is obsolete. Got it.

Next this douche will write an article about how a player who can slam 50 home runs a year is no longer needed on a team.

If his defense stinks, then he can't play in the National League. That's half the teams.
Then if he strikes out and hits a low average, especially with men on base, then yeah, he is no longer needed.

anrst wrote:

FireHornacek wrote:Hmm, so a guy who can give you 24 a game is obsolete. Got it.

Next this douche will write an article about how a player who can slam 50 home runs a year is no longer needed on a team.

Chris Carter got cut and no teams wanted him year after he led the league with 42 home runs at age 30

https://www.baseball-reference.com/players/c/cartech02.shtml

Uhh, I see you conveniently left out the fact that Carter led the league in strike outs.
Yanks cut him, too, after he had 70 strikeouts in about a month and a half.

Nice try, but you failed.
My position still stands: so a guy who can give you 24 a game is obsolete in the NBA?

Nalod wrote:

FireHornacek wrote:Hmm, so a guy who can give you 24 a game is obsolete. Got it.

Next this douche will write an article about how a player who can slam 50 home runs a year is no longer needed on a team.

If his defense stinks, then he can't play in the National League. That's half the teams.
Then if he strikes out and hits a low average, especially with men on base, then yeah, he is no longer needed.

So if you were a GM you would not want a fifty home run banger. Wow. Thank Christ you ain't no GM. Your family would be starving because you'd be fired after one hour on the job.

Who cares if a 50 home run a year guy's defense stinks. Uhh, Wayne Gretzky couldn't play goalie. I guess you wouldn't want him either.

FireHornacek wrote:

anrst wrote:

FireHornacek wrote:Hmm, so a guy who can give you 24 a game is obsolete. Got it.

Next this douche will write an article about how a player who can slam 50 home runs a year is no longer needed on a team.

Chris Carter got cut and no teams wanted him year after he led the league with 42 home runs at age 30

https://www.baseball-reference.com/players/c/cartech02.shtml

Uhh, I see you conveniently left out the fact that Carter led the league in strike outs.
Yanks cut him, too, after he had 70 strikeouts in about a month and a half.

Nice try, but you failed.
My position still stands: so a guy who can give you 24 a game is obsolete in the NBA?

You are proving his point. What arnst is saying is if you look at just ONE COUNTING STAT without context, then you might find extreme value in that ONE SINGLE THING. But if you look at THE ENTIRE CONTEXT, it lays a different story to value.

You are providing CONTEXT outside of Carters ONE COUNTING STAT that has value as to why he's not seen as a value. Furthermore, it's not like the rest of MLB was rushing to get Carter after the Yankees let him go.

Then you push Melo's ONE COUNTING STAT without looking at the ENTIRE CONTEXT of his value to winning basketball games.

You are telling him he's wrong by showing him he's right.

"A guy who can give you 24 a game is obsolete in the NBA?"

^ That's a question that losing teams ask. It undercuts actual effective resource management strategy.

The better question is,

"If a guy in the NBA averages 24 points a night, in the greater context of ALL HIS ATTRIBUTES AND TRADEOFFS, is he helping you win or lose basketball games against his relative cap cost against the entire marketplace?"

No one was rushing to get Chris Carter on their team, so the MLB marketplace has spoken about his value by how they handled his availability. Carter played at the edge of the deadball MLB era, where many teams needed the power production more than their distaste for the low efficiency. As offensive production rose in general, Carter's value recalibrated.

You are asking the wrong questions and blaming others for not answering the wrong questions.

FireHornacek wrote:

anrst wrote:

FireHornacek wrote:Hmm, so a guy who can give you 24 a game is obsolete. Got it.

Next this douche will write an article about how a player who can slam 50 home runs a year is no longer needed on a team.

Chris Carter got cut and no teams wanted him year after he led the league with 42 home runs at age 30

https://www.baseball-reference.com/players/c/cartech02.shtml

Uhh, I see you conveniently left out the fact that Carter led the league in strike outs.
Yanks cut him, too, after he had 70 strikeouts in about a month and a half.

Nice try, but you failed.
My position still stands: so a guy who can give you 24 a game is obsolete in the NBA?

If player gives you 24 points on 45%+ shooting he is great but if he gives you 35-40% he sucks.
If on top of that his defensive rating is negative he not only sucks - he is determent to the team.
If he also not passing the ball he is... Melo. And you team sucks.

TripleThreat wrote:you push Melo's ONE COUNTING STAT without looking at the ENTIRE CONTEXT of his value to winning basketball games.

Yes, I am looking at the one Melo stat -- 24 a game -- because that is the most important thing in basketball.

I don't care if a guy averages ten turnovers and shoots 50% from the free throw line, b-ball is a game about putting the ball in the net from the floor and if that guy can give you 24 a game he is doing that better than 90% of the players in the league.

That one Melo stat is the one stat that matters most in basketball!

Seriously, if a coach/GM can't find a place for a guy who will put up 24 a game, then they shouldn't be anywhere near a b-ball team.

Funny, 5 YEARS after the rule change, the dinosaur led us to the playoffs three years in a row...with some of the documented worst teams in the league. Only Anthony Davis had to deal with worse support during the same period. The dinosaur made people around him so bad, the Knicks took 2 years to win a game without him.
What if a player gives you 28/7/4.5?
What if that player leads the league in clutch shooting at the end of games?

Great, his defense sucked. The rule changes didn't change his defensive liabilities.

FireHornacek wrote:

TripleThreat wrote:you push Melo's ONE COUNTING STAT without looking at the ENTIRE CONTEXT of his value to winning basketball games.

Yes, I am looking at the one Melo stat -- 24 a game -- because that is the most important thing in basketball.

I don't care if a guy averages ten turnovers and shoots 50% from the free throw line, b-ball is a game about putting the ball in the net from the floor and if that guy can give you 24 a game he is doing that better than 90% of the players in the league.

That one Melo stat is the one stat that matters most in basketball!

Seriously, if a coach/GM can't find a place for a guy who will put up 24 a game, then they shouldn't be anywhere near a b-ball team.

There are 27 players who reached 20+ points in current season and 50 who are close:
https://www.foxsports.com/nba/stats?cate...
And we have our own supper-dupper-star Timmy with 22+ point per.
So we have much younger Melo replacement. And he has better defense and much chipper.
So our GM is good

jrodmc wrote:Has anyone informed Kanter he should be out of the league right now? His extra 3 rebounds a game and 10 less ppg are all that valuable?

Funny, 5 YEARS after the rule change, the dinosaur led us to the playoffs three years in a row...with some of the documented worst teams in the league. Only Anthony Davis had to deal with worse support during the same period. The dinosaur made people around him so bad, the Knicks took 2 years to win a game without him.
What if a player gives you 28/7/4.5?
What if that player leads the league in clutch shooting at the end of games?

Great, his defense sucked. The rule changes didn't change his defensive liabilities.

Yep, Knicks sucked. And Melo was the suckers leader.
He sucked better that other Knicks by mile.

arkrud wrote:

There are 27 players who reached 20+ points in current season

Uhh, that's not a lot, you know. 27 players out of the whole league is just....wait for it....6% of the NBA players.

Do you realize how small that is? 6%. So Melo is one of the only 6% in the league who can put up 20+ points a game. And you folks believe he is worth nothing to the NBA. Wow.

By the way, if I told you that only 6% of the women in this world are beautiful, you'd be desperate to be with one of those 6%.

FireHornacek wrote:

TripleThreat wrote:you push Melo's ONE COUNTING STAT without looking at the ENTIRE CONTEXT of his value to winning basketball games.

Yes, I am looking at the one Melo stat -- 24 a game -- because that is the most important thing in basketball.

I don't care if a guy averages ten turnovers and shoots 50% from the free throw line, b-ball is a game about putting the ball in the net from the floor and if that guy can give you 24 a game he is doing that better than 90% of the players in the league.

That one Melo stat is the one stat that matters most in basketball!

Seriously, if a coach/GM can't find a place for a guy who will put up 24 a game, then they shouldn't be anywhere near a b-ball team.

I don’t know man, your shtick isn’t working. Time to try a new thing

arkrud wrote:

jrodmc wrote:Has anyone informed Kanter he should be out of the league right now? His extra 3 rebounds a game and 10 less ppg are all that valuable?

Funny, 5 YEARS after the rule change, the dinosaur led us to the playoffs three years in a row...with some of the documented worst teams in the league. Only Anthony Davis had to deal with worse support during the same period. The dinosaur made people around him so bad, the Knicks took 2 years to win a game without him.
What if a player gives you 28/7/4.5?
What if that player leads the league in clutch shooting at the end of games?

Great, his defense sucked. The rule changes didn't change his defensive liabilities.

Yep, Knicks sucked. And Melo was the suckers leader.
He sucked better that other Knicks by mile.

CrushAlot wrote:

arkrud wrote:

jrodmc wrote:Has anyone informed Kanter he should be out of the league right now? His extra 3 rebounds a game and 10 less ppg are all that valuable?

Funny, 5 YEARS after the rule change, the dinosaur led us to the playoffs three years in a row...with some of the documented worst teams in the league. Only Anthony Davis had to deal with worse support during the same period. The dinosaur made people around him so bad, the Knicks took 2 years to win a game without him.
What if a player gives you 28/7/4.5?
What if that player leads the league in clutch shooting at the end of games?

Great, his defense sucked. The rule changes didn't change his defensive liabilities.

Yep, Knicks sucked. And Melo was the suckers leader.
He sucked better that other Knicks by mile.

The main part of the article was about rule changes in 2004 changing the game and making the mid range and big man game obsolete. Jrod makes good points

The rules change was meant to make game more watchable and exiting.
As a side effect it now required players to be more versatile at every position.
And most of all it required to have a team concept for team to be great.
Having one star who excel in very specific area not good enough for any team to be competitive.
Interim players tried to beat the system by creating supper-teams but this creates a small club of teams who can compete in NBA and a bunch of losing teams.
So the organisations who lost the talent to supper-teams are firing back by developing systems which can maximize average versatile players.
A lot of movement, 3-point shots, fast pace, etc.
Not sure if this will help against supper-loaded teams but it surely will render one-dimensional players extinct.

FireHornacek wrote:

TripleThreat wrote:you push Melo's ONE COUNTING STAT without looking at the ENTIRE CONTEXT of his value to winning basketball games.

Yes, I am looking at the one Melo stat -- 24 a game -- because that is the most important thing in basketball.

I don't care if a guy averages ten turnovers and shoots 50% from the free throw line, b-ball is a game about putting the ball in the net from the floor and if that guy can give you 24 a game he is doing that better than 90% of the players in the league.

That one Melo stat is the one stat that matters most in basketball!

Seriously, if a coach/GM can't find a place for a guy who will put up 24 a game, then they shouldn't be anywhere near a b-ball team.

This is ridiculous rationale. Your team is going to get a certain number of shot attempts per game. If you're putting up points at low efficiency, your team is going to automatically score FEWER POINTS per game, than if shot with greater efficiency. If your team gets 100 shots in the game, if you shoot with 54% TS you'll score 108 points vs. 120 if your TS is 60%.

FireHornacek wrote:

arkrud wrote:

There are 27 players who reached 20+ points in current season

Uhh, that's not a lot, you know. 27 players out of the whole league is just....wait for it....6% of the NBA players.

Do you realize how small that is? 6%. So Melo is one of the only 6% in the league who can put up 20+ points a game. And you folks believe he is worth nothing to the NBA. Wow.

By the way, if I told you that only 6% of the women in this world are beautiful, you'd be desperate to be with one of those 6%.

Not all the players in the league get enough minutes to score 20 points per game. If you look at starters, 27 players is just under 20%.