Bandwagon Knick

Thoughts From the Sloan Analytics Conference

BK — Sat, 13 Mar 2010 02:21:00 GMT

By now, I'm guessing most basketball fans (and sports fans generally) have seen coverage of the recent Sloan Sports Analytics Conference, and read a few articles about it -- the event has grown significantly since its inception, and Truehoop, Basketball Prospectus and Basketball-Reference, not to mention ESPN and several other blogs have provided excellent coverage of the various panel discussions and research paper presentations this year. This was my first year attending the event, and I was extremely impressed at the quality of the content presented and the general organization of the conference, given how rapidly it has grown in popularity.

I wanted to share some of my thoughts attending the conference, as a first-time attendee passionate about sports and the growing prominence of of analytics. I'll frame some of my observations within the context of having been a part of other conferences in other industries on "hot" topics (some more academically oriented, others more targeted at business management). I have some higher level thoughts about the way the conference was conducted, as well as specific thoughts on the basketball analytics tracks, and some suggestions for what might be good for future events.

The Conference Experience and the Big Panels

I honestly wasn't sure what to expect when I registered for the event back in December, but when I heard that the conference sold out and that it was being moved to the large Boston Convention Center, I originally thought "wow, this is going to be a big event for such a specialized topic". I had originally thought of the event as a more academic and technically oriented conference with some sports management and media people participating. That may have been how things started four years ago, but the growth of interest in analytics -- and its increasingly publicized usage by high profile management at sports teams -- has made the Sloan conference a flashpoint for the discussion of analytics and its intersection with modern sports management.

I spent most of my time with the straight "analytics" talks (basketball analytics, emerging analytics in sports like football and soccer, etc), but there were many interesting "generalist" tracks and panelists covering topics ranging from social media, to alternative storytelling in journalism, to athletes and branding. Panel discussions at other conferences involving high profile speakers aren't always exciting, as it can be hard to get panelists to go in-depth on any topic; meaningful interaction between panelists frequently turns into soundbite type exchanges.

But I was impressed at how engaging many of the panels were, even when the information was high level, such as the "Next Generation Sports Management and Ownership" panel. The biggest panel of them all and the headliner: "What Geeks Don't Get: The LImits of Moneyball", had a great mix of personalities and Michael Lewis as a genial but intellectually curious and constantly prodding moderator. With Jonathan Kraft and Bill Polian addressing analytics in football, and Mark Cuban and Daryl Morey addressing the basketball side (with Bill Simmons as the media gadfly), there were some very thoughtful exchanges interlaced with humor.

Cuban quoted numbers from a lunchtime presentation on blocked shots to show just how hungry he is for any analytics that can give him a better understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of players on his team, and he and Morey had an interesting exchange on whether "clutch" is something that can be measured and valued (Morey didn't think so, while Cuban felt there was). Even when the information or insights being revealed weren't earth-shattering, it was a pleasure hearing intelligent people think out loud about everything from tactical decision making (the Patriots' oft-argued decision to go for it on 4th down against the Colts) to broader subjects such as how to make analytics accessible to a broader audience.

(This last point about making analytics more accessible -- brought up by Simmons -- is something I'd *really* like to see emphasized at future Sloan events -- maybe as a separate track as the conference will inevitably get bigger).

As far as the actual experience of viewing the panels, the conference center used 3 rooms for the major talks, and a smaller room for the research paper presentations. This has been noted in other recaps, but the organizers made the (reasonable) judgement that certain panels would get the larger rooms. The only problem was that the smallest room (used for the Baseball Analytics and Emerging Analytics talks) was too small, resulting in very crowded standing room only audiences that spilled outside. It did result in the opportunity to eavesdrop on interesting conversations (more on that later), but I assume the organizers will try to manage the spaces for the talks a little better next time.

I'll say this: the crowds in a relatively contained space did make for a certain level of intimacy, even with 1000+ people; it was easy to strike conversations with people. I didn't do too much of it myself, but I appreciated how easy it was to mingle. As the conference gets even bigger, I wonder if this same intimacy can be maintained.

The Basketball Analytics Talks: Best Moments

Some of the basketball discussion, in particular the marquee panel on Basketball Analytics featuring Kevin Pritchard, Dean Oliver, Mike Zarren, Mark Cuban, John Hollinger and Marc Stein, was conducted at a level that both generalists and more statistically minded types could easily digest. The research papers that were presented on subjects like "The Price of Anarchy in Basketball" and regularized plus/minus, were more technical.

Many of the basketball insights from the conference have already been addressed in other articles, but I was particularly drawn to the insights shared in the following talks:

* A Better Plus/Minus: Joe Sill presented his paper on "Improved NBA +/- Using Regularization", which I jumped into a little late after sampling the "Emerging Analytics" panel. A detailed explanation of what Sill did to improve on current +/- metrics in the NBA is up on his website, and has already been the subject of some insightful discussion from the excellent Houston Rockets blog Red94. This was the most technical presentation I attended in terms of statistical discussion, with terms like "posterior width" "gaussian prior" and "overfitting" being thrown around -- with ample justification, since Sill was making the case for his more elegant math (as he put it) providing +/- metrics that could provide better predictive value when it comes to analyzing the impact of individuals and team lineups.

The core of Sill's argument was simple enough to follow, and I spotted Mark Cuban and Brent Barry (among others) in the crowd soaking in the discussion. He used examples of players whose impact was either inflated or deflated by current adjusted +/- techniques, such as Brook Lopez (62nd among all players in adjusted +/-), Joe Johnson (309th!!), Chauncey Billups (162nd), and Carmelo Anthony (173rd). Under Sill's regularized +/-, Lopez drops to 173rd, Joe Johnson "improves" to 140th (with Sill providing the qualifier that JJ's defense is what still keeps him down), and Billups (46th) and Melo (37th) rated closer to popular perception of their impact.

Jason Kidd was brought up as someone who still seemed to provide one of those counter intuitive plus/minus rankings that lead mainstream writers like Simmons to dismiss adjusted plus/minus (Kidd is ranked 192nd this season). This led to a fascinating exchange between Sill and Mark Cuban, who defended his team's version of adjusted plus/minus. He pointed out that Kidd's numbers were deflated by mainstream techniques because he was used with a number of the Mavericks' second units to provide stability. Furthermore, the Mavericks weight possessions and scores differently based on their impact on the game (so that if Kidd was part of a lineup that made crucial shots to give the Mavs a win, those points were weighted more than points scored by a lineup early in the game). Also factored into the Mavs' plus/minus measurements were opposing lineups, and how consistent players are.

I enjoyed learning about what Sill is doing, and for my own purposes, I like using plus/minus to evaluate players like Jared Jeffries (72nd in Sill's rankings) who are difficult to measure by conventional metrics because they contribute so little offensively to the box score. There's also a certain story that can be told using plus/minus in evaluating the way lineups are used by teams. One thing that was clear from the conference, though, was that each team has its own "secret sauce" for adjusted plus/minus based on their own valuation of players and lineups, that makes it difficult to provide a truly generalized metric for fans and teams to use as a common language. This was reinforced in the basketball analytics panel by Zarren and Pritchard.

* The Value of a Blocked Shot: John Huzinga and Sandy Weil presented a superb paper during one of the lunchtime tracks on how not all blocked shots are equal; a good summary of the main points of the presentation is over at ESPN by Peter Keating (with an unfortunate hyperbolic headline about Dwight Howard being "overrated"). Huzinga/Weil looked at blocked shots that come from different situations (after an offensive rebound, live turnover, defensive rebound, live inbounds, dead inbounds), and looked at the points saved based on blocks of layups and jumpers after those events, using play by play data from the last seven years.

The most reported findings from this session were a textbook case for the value of advanced analysis and going beyond the boxscore -- it would be hard for even the most hardened numberphobe to deny the elegance of the case for how Tim Duncan's 149 blocks in 2008 generated more value for his team than Howard's 249 in the same year. At the core of the analysis was the increased value of a blocked shot when it prevented a layup versus a jumpshot, since teams score off layups at a much higher rate -- thus a shot blocker like Jermaine O'Neal (91 percent of blocks are layups) has more value than Brendan Haywood (only 31% of blocks being layups). Haywood's numbers further reinforce a point made by Tom Haberstroh in an article for Hardwood Paroxysm: blocked shots are a poor proxy for basket protection, as the Wizards during Haywood's tenure this season allowed the highest FG% in the league on shots near the rim by opponents. (for Knick fans that made it this far, this means that getting a shot blocker for the sake of blocking shots doesn't necessarily improve the defense)

Other interesting tidbits: only 5 percent of Kendrick Perkins' blocks come on shots that follow an offensive rebound, vs 24 percent of Pau Gasol's blocks -- Huzinga explained that this was due to Gasol's superior quickness in rising for a block (though I'm sure this will hardly quell the "Pau is soft" crowd). Also Rasheed Wallace had the highest number of blocks that ended up out of bounds, while Theo Ratliff had the lowest number. I hope the paper is eventually published online, because I'm sure there is even more insight that can be parsed from the data that may have only glancingly been covered due to time constraints.

The researchers did point out that there were a few factors missing from their research (or perhaps might be subjects for future iterations of the research): 1) the significant intimidation factor generated by a prolific shot blocker like a Dwight Howard, even if he's less efficient than other shot blockers 2) the possible increased fouling that occurs with a shot blocker 3) the possible increase in offensive rebounds given up with shot blocking, such as when teams get weakside blocks but end up in poorer rebounding position.

* Basketball Analytics - What's Still Missing: The panel of some of the brightest minds in the NBA went down easy, but there was still a certain reticence to share really meaningful information because so much of what teams do presently is proprietary. Cuban was the most forthcoming, and his appeals to the NBA to do more collection of information at a league level to prevent duplication of the same stat-collecting among teams was echoed among the rest of the panel. Information like deflections, locations of blocks, charges, etc would greatly aid teams and fans in getting a more sophisticated understanding of what actually happens in a game, and who's making an impact.

Everyone also agreed that information on injuries is frustratingly scant in the NBA (Morey actually provided an email address to anyone who could provide a breakthrough in that area), and one of the overheard conversations I stumbled onto involved two people working for NBA teams who shared the same frustrations. One of the team representatives said that basketball doesn't require any meaningful reporting of injuries, and that obfuscation is rampant -- the other rep said that they try to work off past injury history of a player and video analysis when evaluating them, but it was effectively a guessing game. (I should note that I did not engage in any espionage or underhanded eavesdropping -- conversations typically happened right in front of me, as if I didn't exist, given the crowds. I assume the information couldn't have been all that proprietary).

Thoughts For Future Conferences

I chose to spend more time in the foregoing summary talking about more tactical and technical insights that I got from specific talks at the conference, but there was no denying that there was a big buzz at the event arising from the presence of so many bright people seeking and sharing information and ideas. There were a healthy number of sports team executives and personnel at the conference, but there was also media, and plenty of people seeking careers and looking to make connections, and a fair number of bloggers and curious fans.

Knowledge came from the most unexpected places. I chose to focus on the basketball talks and got my money's worth, but I also got serendipitous insights from the likes of Brian Burke and Bill Polian and executives from the English Premier League. There were talks I missed that I wished I could have attended, but thanks to the twitter feeds of bright minds like Jonah Keri (and the super rapid blogging of Truehoop in particular), there was a firehose of information coming from multiple sources.

The appeal of this mix of people and hive of intellectual energy isn't apparent to everyone, based on some of the snarkier reactions that reduce the event to the usual "geek summit" or worse (Exhibit A: "people who haven't won anything, who think they have something to teach us", Exhibit B: "complexities...that people never see...that...self-promoters without playoff success and championships never talk about at those NBA "Star Trek" conventions in New England" ).

Fortunately, popular mainstream columnists like Simmons and enlightened reporters like Howard Beck of the New York Times understand that it goes beyond paying grudging attention to what the so-called pocket protector crowd has to say. It's about wanting to be smarter, and understanding that there are genuinely new ideas and analysis that produce competitive advantage and can improve our appreciation of individual athletes and teams -- and even sports itself.

There will always be a certain coarse tension between those sympathetic to statistical analysis, and people who believe an intensely quantitative approach understates other intangible factors equally crucial to making good decisions and enjoying sports. But I never felt that tension, or any particular sense of geek exclusivity or triumphalism at the Sloan conference. If anything, the atmosphere seemed particularly welcoming of ideas from people with all sorts of backgrounds, as long as they had an open mind to the possibilities of the new metrics.

Finally, I would *love* to see:

* More from the Recently Converted: I missed the last big talk at Sloan about coaching analytics, though I caught many of the summaries of the talk (here's a good one from Zach Lowe at Celtics Hub), and I think elements of that particular panel should be a part of future Sloan events. Specifically, Avery Johnson and Brent Barry talking about what it was like to incorporate statistical analysis into their way of doing things, and what the pluses and minuses were of doing so; they came at it from the perspective of recent converts, rather than people who had breathing the Kool-Aid all their lives. Insights from recent converts (or on-the-fence skeptics) about what it takes from an organizational standpoint to make advanced statistics culturally acceptable would produce a terrific panel.

I spoke briefly to one team rep whose analytics duties are folded into a broader set of responsibilities touching other departments like marketing and legal; they were thinly staffed, to put it generously. Teams like Houston have a rumored reputation for having substantial personnel devoted to analytics, but some teams scuffle with much less. It may be too hard to pry this information from teams, but discussing how an infrastructure for analytics can be assembled within teams (in multiple sports) would be interesting.

* More From Players and Even Skeptics: Maybe future Sloan conferences can push the envelope (at the risk of generating some tension) by inviting scouts, or people who've used statistics but keep them at arm's length and have war stories to share about why they prefer to do things the way they do. Maybe some players open to digesting the most sophisticated scouting reports, like Shane Battier (if Morey would allow it), would be insightful. The important thing, of course, would be to try and invite people with some level of open-mindedness, so that it doesn't become an uncomfortable, unproductive standoff between "oldheads" and stats dudes.

* More From Media and Blogs: What are blogs and mainstream media doing to make advanced analytics part of the more general sports discussion, without alienating fans? There was a great article on Baseball Prospectus by Jon Sciambi about this topic recently (the comments are just as worthwhile as the article itself), and I would love to see this topic explored further. Could Doris Burke or Jeff Van Gundy share some numbers about, say, Brandon Roy's passing and shooting tendencies with him using some advanced metrics and expect to get a thoughtful exchange?

* More From Sports Leagues: A little more on what leagues are doing to make more advanced information available (to the degree they're interested in doing so) would be terrific. John Shuhmann at NBA.com has a regular column with advanced analyses on a variety of topics, like clutchness; having John or other representatives of the NBA talk about the tools they have, and how they may be trying to collect more information for teams beyond the standard box score, would certainly interest me.

There are many directions the Sloan conference can go, and I'm looking forward to attending future installments. I would recommend that anyone who cares about sports should try and do the same.

Weekend Recap: Structural Deficiencies

BK — Mon, 08 Mar 2010 05:35:00 GMT

I spent part of the weekend attending the Sloan Analytics Conference, and I'm excited to share some of my thoughts on that in a succeeding post -- that was the happy part of the weekend. Getting caught up with two more Knick losses (Raptors, Nets) wasn't so happy, though they reaffirmed more of the usual, especially since the trade. This is not a Knick team that is designed to win, or even compete very effectively, without a lot of things falling into place (like injuries to the other team). Any reasonably healthy and rested group of players (and that includes the Nets) is going to have a field day with this Knick roster.

It's to be expected that the defense, already shaky pre-trade, would suffer with the trade of Jeffries, Hill and Hughes (and the benching of Duhon); the current configuration of players is in the unenviable position of being versatile enough to defend every position on the floor poorly. The loss of Jeffries, especially, has really hurt the perimeterdefense, and say what you want about Duhon and Hughes, but they couldkeep their men in front of them and communicated on assignments. Some of the defensive dropoff has been mitigated slightly by an increase in pace, with House and Rodriguez in particular pushing the ball and shooting quickly, but it's not been enough.

The post-trade lineups, especially those with House and Rodriguez playing together, have been a travesty defensively, never more evident than in the most recent games, where Jarret Jack, Jose Calderon, Sonny Weems (!) and Devin Harris abused the Knick guards/wings endlessly. Jeffries couldn't always keep quick guards in front of him, but his length at least disrupted their vision, and he had a very good nose for where the ball was going after a pass and provided very good help. The current Knick defense is a throwback to the start of the season, featuring lots of switching, and either slow rotations to shooters, or anemic resistance inside when the ball finds it way into the paint.

Lee and Harrington have to shoulder their share of the blame for the much publicized lack of interior defense, but the weak perimeter pressure and the ability of opposing guards to get open 15 foot jumpers, dribble into the lane, and/or deliver passes inside with no resistance, makes it tough on the Knicks responsible for protecting the basket. The Knick defense has been giving up between 110 and 120 points per 100 possessions in recent games, and they're headed for last in the league in defensive efficiency at their current pace.

The odd assortment of pieces on the Knicks -- looked at a certain way -- gives D'Antoni the opportunity to be creative in a mad-scientist manner, given the profliferation of wing type players. Chandler, Walker, Gallinari, Harrington, McGrady and even Bender all play like small forwards or big guards. Unfortunately, they get placed in roles that highlight their deficiencies, whether it's Chandler having to defend power forwards, Harrington having to be a center, or Gallinari/Bender having to defend combo guards. This was most painfully evident in the second quarter of Saturday's Nets game, where foul trouble on Lee and Gallo forced D'Antoni to play a lineup of McGrady-Walker-Harrington-Chandler-Bender. This lineup couldn't guard the 3 point line, had difficulty with Lopez inside, and had little flow offensively, giving up the lead and control of the game to the Nets for good.

The point guard position remains the weak link, creative lineups and positional fluidity be damned. Using McGrady at the point sort of works when he's feeling good and rested, as he did for the Piston game and parts of the Raptor loss on Friday. He plays a solid two man game with Lee and is terrific at seeing over the defense to find cutters in the blink of an eye, but a lot of his effectiveness is predicated on the threat of his own offense. When his jumpshot isn't falling and he isn't able to use his guile to penetrate or post-up, he's not very effective. Defensively, T-Mac ranges from passable to indifferent, again based on how his body feels; I get the sense he cares about defense, but just can't push his body to cooperate all the time, leaving him looking helpless and apathetic on certain nights (especially the second night of back to backs).

Sergio is a more conventional point guard and no better an alternative, as he only seems to operate at one speed. He had his first decent game in a while against Toronto, taking advantage of the Raps' terrible transition defense to push the ball and rack up the assists: his confidence and creativity clearly improve when he's able to run. In halfcourt sets, he pounds the ball too much, is turnover prone, and his court vision doesn't seem as acute (he actually missed Gallo next to him twice in one game recently). He's daring on his dribble penetration, but isn't a great finisher, and he has too much faith in his ability to shoot 3 pointers that are clearly out of his range. And that defense! If it weren't for Sergio's steals, he might enter the discussion as one of the worst defensive guards to ever put on a Knick uniform.

At this point, it's time to give Toney Douglas a set 10 to 15 minutes per game, even if it means even uglier results than the recent string of games. As I mentioned in a previous post, I'd rather see House's minutes taken away, but I'm fine with Sergio losing some minutes as well. The development of Gallo, Chandler, Douglas and Walker are the main reason to watch the remaining games.

There's an overall deficit of length and athleticism on both offense and defense that D'Antoni is right to point out and lament. He understands that's the card he's been dealt, and he soldiers on, talking about finding a combination that will work. He can barely hide his distaste for his issues with the current roster though, and is starting to openly pine for the end of the year. I can't say I blame him.

Surveying the Wreckage: Thoughts on the Recent Play of Four Knicks

BK — Wed, 03 Mar 2010 19:54:00 GMT

Was out sick for longer than I would have liked, and it seems like the Knicks were too, based on the last three games -- ugly win (Wizards), decent competitive loss (Grizzlies), uglier loss (Cavaliers). Because the last of those losses represented yet another low for a team that just seems to bounce along rock bottom these days -- rather than slowly crawling out -- there's been a lot of drama and angst playing itself out in the media. Very predictably, the coach is taking his lumps too.

I'll have more to say about that at some point, but at this point I still think it's worth watching the games and making some observations about players that may still be around in the future and players that are still giving effort, since they do have a bearing on what the roster will look like next year, and what needs may be considered most urgent. Here are four that caught my eye:

* Toney Douglas: On the positive side, Toney had his best game since the start of the season against the Grizzlies - 10 minutes, 7 points, 3 assists, 2 rebounds, a steal. Douglas has had better games scoring-wise, but the most encouraging aspect of his play against the Grizz was that he (finally!) looked like a point guard who could actually move the ball and find other shooters. It can't be underestimated how important this is -- as an undersized combo guard, Toney's future in the league will be questionable, as good a scorer as he's capable of being. Developing as a playmaker will be crucial to his longevity in the league, let alone success as a guard playing under Mike D'Antoni.

With that said, it's been one step forward, two steps back for him. Douglas ran the pick and roll well in the Grizzlies game for the first time that I can ever remember, but he hasn't yet gotten the hang of how to work with a roll man -- instead, his assists mainly came from using the screen to find long range shooters, or create his own offense. And his defense -- a strong point when he was drafted -- is still coming along slowly. He does well at keeping his man in front of him in isolation situations, but he often makes the wrong decision in guarding pick and rolls and providing help. It can be very frustrating to watch, given he clearly has the athleticism to be a good defender, but he still seems to be operating a notch below the speed needed to earn major minutes, even though what he's going through is nothing unusual for a rookie guard.

At this point, given the continued downward trajectory of the season, I wouldn't have a problem with Douglas getting more minutes at the expense of House -- I understand the need to continue to see how good Rodriguez really is (though I admit I'm becoming a pessimist on the subject of Sergio). I was opposed to giving Douglas more minutes earlier in the season, even when the primary guard options were all struggling, because of his mistakes. But at this point, there's little left to lose, other than maintaining the appearance of competitiveness.

* Bill Walker: Walker looks like he could be a very good role player, and since the primary alternative to Knick watching is dreaming up various rosters to complement the free agent acquisitions this summer, Walker as a minimum salary addition to next year's team is a nice thought. I hadn't paid much attention to him with the Celtics as he seemed like a tweener project buried on the bench -- and the Tony Allen comparisons didn't exactly endear me either. But he's shown a nice touch from outside, and his motor to the basket is impressive -- he's good for a couple of highlight dunks a game. A lot of his promise seems to bear out John Hollinger's enthusiasm about his versatility before this season:

"Walker was an elite athlete prior to the knee injuries, and his ability to score and finish last season demonstrated that the injuries haven't destroyed his athleticism. He shot reasonably well from outside, too,making 12-of-30 3-pointers in the D-League and 6-of-11 long 2s in The Show. He's a poor foul shooter, however, and since he's a slasher he gets to the line quite a bit. Thus, improving from the stripe could reap big dividends."

I've been most impressed, in Walker's limited time, by how his play seems to defy position -- which makes him perfect for D'Antoni's system. He also seems to care about playing good physical defense inside, though I've been less impressed by how he closes out on shooters on the perimeter. His shot selection looks a bit rough at times, but with some seasoning and more playing time, Walker could be one of the most positive stories of a difficult season. Tactically speaking, his ability to finish inside and draw fouls will be especially valuable for a team that shoots few FTs and doesn't do particularly well converting at the rim.

* Eddie House: Eddie hasn't been shooting nearly as well this year as he had in previous years, but since his opening night 24 point outburst on 8 for 14 shooting, he's been particularly horrible, shooting 14 of 53 FGs and going 5 for 27 on 3 pointers in five games. One thing about Eddie is his misses are just as loud as his makes, and they seem to kill Knick runs and/or exacerbate opponent runs. His hustle and confident, vocal court presence add a nice element to a team that tends to slip into tentative or lackluster play, and he's an underrated passer when he can be bothered to pass.

Eddie and Sergio are both atrocious defenders, so it's interesting to see that it's been House that gets the minutes at the end of games: a subtle indication that the coach may not have complete confidence in Rodriguez (who didn't play the final minutes of the Grizzlies game or the entire OT period of the Wizards win).

I would just as soon Douglas get more minutes, as I noted earlier, but as long as D'Antoni cares about winning or at least being competitive, House will continue to get minutes because of his explosiveness on offense. There's no way the team can win with defense, as undermanned as it is inside, so the coaches are rolling the dice with small, offense-oriented lineups.

* Al Harrington: Why talk about Al? He's going to be gone, and he will never stop driving the Knicks crazy with his on and off play. Maybe I just have too much of a soft spot for someone who can score with some reliability when he's on, and whose play, even on a bad knee, managed to keep the Knicks competitive in the weekend games against the Wizards and Grizz. Yes, he had a rough game against the Cavs, but who didn't? (David Lee's effort in that blowout was one of the very, very few times it looked like he quit on a game). At this point, I'm just glad Al still cares, and I'l take 37 points, 4 assists, and 7 rebounds against the Wiz and 31 points and 3 assists against the Grizz. I'm even pleased he got more than 1 assist in consecutive games.

Mega-post on Gallinari still coming, and oh yeah, there's a game against the Pistons tonight. Unfortunately, it sounds like Wilson Chandler will still be out, which means it may not be a 30 point rout (gosh, let's hope not), but it has the potential to be hideous in its own special way, especially since the Pistons can't shoot and the Knicks can't rebound.

Thoughts about Gallo, Links, Wizards Preview

BK — Fri, 26 Feb 2010 18:43:00 GMT

I've been under the weather the last couple of days so this will have to be a shorter version of what I planned for the end of the week. If I get better over the weekend, I should have a longer piece up on Monday or Tuesday. In the meantime, some thoughts and links:

* Danilo Gallinari has become a growing source of concern, with terrible numbers since the all-star break: 15 of 47 FGs, 4 of 23 3 pointers, and in the 3 games since the big trade, he's been especially invisible with single digit contributions in points in each game; he's been notable mainly for hustle on the defensive end and some good work on the defensive boards. It's understandable that he would have trouble finding his way in a revamped offense with several new players, but even before the trade, his inability to assert himself on the offensive end has been evident for a while.

In fairness to Gallo, 3 of the 4 teams the Knicks have played since the break are exactly the types of teams that give him fits: long defensive teams that guard the perimeter well. Taking away the two players splitting up point guard duties all season (Duhon being benched, Robinson being traded), and replacing them with very ball dominant (Sergio) or shot happy (House) guards is going to change the rhythm of an offense significantly. (Yes Nate was just as shot happy as Eddie, but he at least knew to look for Gallo some of the time)

I'm working on a longer post about where Gallo may fit in the "new" offense in the future, but the most striking part about McGrady's arrival pertaining to Gallo's play is how effortlessly playmaking comes to T-Mac, in his ability to see the floor, manage double teams and traps, and finding cutters and open shooters. Before the season, many Knick fans (myself included) imagined that Gallo could be a similar type of playmaker -- not nearly as gifted or athletic as T-Mac of course, but still useful based on the limited evidence of last year's games where Gallo showed a flair for distributing the ball in the limited chances he got. Gallo, however, is still moving along slowly in developing two parts of his game -- the ability to score inside the 3 point line, and the ability to create shots for teammates when opponents are focused on him. He stops looking for the ball at times, and when he does have it and his primary option isn't available, he settles for the most conservative alternative. I find Lee and Chandler's turnovers maddening frequently, but at least they're trying to create something -- Gallo's play has been far too inert by comparison.

The remaining 36 games have to be a better showcase for Gallo's development. Some of that falls on Gallo's new teammates to find him, but much more of that, I would argue, falls on Gallo at this point to make himself known and relevant beyond the spot-up jumper. The coach has called him out recently, with ample justification.

Gallinari's shot chart since the All-Star Break, courtesy NBA hotspots

* By all accounts, it looks like Joe Johnson will be a major free agent target of the Knicks this summer. Why fans should be very concerned part 1, and part 2. I happen to like JJ a lot, but this is precisely the sort of risk that could be very damaging to the Knick long term prospects -- a likely max deal for an aging wing, with a new CBA on the horizon.

* With the Knicks' season all but technically over, the attention has gone to crafting all the scenarios for using the Knicks' cap space. This piece by Christopher Reina at RealGM is a good start, though I look forward to future pieces from everyone regarding more creative options for the summer beyond Lebron. The most unnerving aspect of all the pieces I've read so far is how the most desirable options all hinge on Lebron, and how many ways the Knicks could fall short if he stays with Cleveland.

* Very good summary -- from Houston's point of view -- of what their options are with their acquired assets and existing assets after the trade. Some of the moves they make, particularly with New York's 2011 pick, can strongly impact the Knicks' pursuit of free agents, and it's worth a read regardless given they're one of the most well-run front offices in the league. From the same site, a look back on when T-Mac burnt his bridges with Houston fans.

* A look back at one of the five most essential books a basketball fan can read: Rick Telander's Heaven Is a Playground. I just re-read it last summer, and the book still gives me chills with its piercing, yet empathetic look at basketball on the fringe in New York's inner city. I may have to get the new edition anyway, for the photos -- I always wondered what many of the protagonists looked like beyond the few fuzzy black and white photos printed in previous editions.

* Zach Lowe of CelticsHub with a very nice tribute to Eddie House's time with the Celtics.

* Finally, there is a game tonight with the Washington Wizards at the Verizon Center, and it should be fun watching two teams that looked so different a few weeks ago compete with their new patchwork lineups. The Wizards have played much better with all the drama seemingly excised after the recent giveaways (sorry, trades) of Jamison and Butler, and the increased playing time for Blatche (who has given the Knicks fits in the past). The last two games between these teams have been ugly, unartful routs (one for each side), but I'm hoping for a more entertaining, closely contested game tonight.

Reflecting On Nate Robinson; Legends Night Game Notes

BK — Tue, 23 Feb 2010 14:33:00 GMT

Nate signing autographs at a Nets game I attended last March

Tonight's game against the Celtics features a reunion with Nate Robinson, and it will be strange. Nate never struck me as the most essential of Knicks, not if you wanted to think of the Knicks as a team -- he was too much of a free spirit, too much in his own world, an entertaining diversion at best and an annoying distraction at his worst. But he also provided many of the most electrifying moments in the shaky D'Antoni/Walsh build-strip salaries-strip more salaries-strip even more salaries era. There isn't a question that on many dreary nights the Knicks showed up at MSG or road arenas in the dog days of the regular season, Nate's entry into the game immediately sent a buzz into the crowd and made people pay attention.

For all the aggravation Nate was capable of, I give credit to him for genuinely caring about playing well (at least as an individual) and working hard when the lulls in his play clearly impacted the team, such as when he experienced a horrible shooting slump early last season. And when he suffered the 14 game benching in December after finally pushing too many of the coach's buttons, he didn't give ammunition to the press -- he kept his mouth shut and behaved as professionally as a player could under the circumstances, letting his agents do the dirty work of complaining loudly in the media and taking shots at the coach and organization.

Statistically, Nate's always been one of the most productive players on the Knicks, and he had a wonderful stretch from mid-February to early March last season where he was one of the best scorers in the league, outshining the likes of Tony Parker and Dwyane Wade for significant stretches in head to head matchups. (never mind that the team lost 6 of 9 games during his most incandescent period of scoring). Even when he's been off his game, the positive plays always project at a louder volume and overshadow the rough spots: you don't think of his grand total of 19 blocks for his career, just the spectacular blocks of Yao and Shaq circulating on Youtube.

It's hard, frankly, to talk about Nate without considering what he could have done to make himself a more essential part of the team, as well as what the Knicks could or couldn't have done to make the situation better. I can't really go along with Kelly Dwyer's stance at Ball Don't Lie that his benching was needless, no matter how much respect I have for Kelly as one of the best basketball writers out there. I can question whether the punishment should have lasted as long as it did, or whether it could have been executed more tactically (with heavily reduced minutes) and less dramatically.

But the team's play largely improved (particularly on defense) with him on the bench, and say what you will about causation not equaling correlation, but the crisp play and opportunity to give more minutes to certain players and focus on defense yielded the best month of the season for the team. Further, Nate can't deny that the crippling slow start that doomed the Knicks' season from the beginning had a lot to do with his own desultory play the first few games, and a reversion to the mean of his numbers after a career season -- even as other factors ended up playing a greater role in torpedoing the season eventually.

It's hard to talk about all this because it's like watching the marriage of two close, likeable friends dissolve. No matter if you side with one friend more than the other, you don't like to speak poorly of either one, and you know they're better people than the conflict makes them seem.

So my most pointed observation is that Nate is a memorably explosive scorer, but not a great fit for a losing team -- he simply doesn't have the focus and discipline to stick with what the coaches are saying, or doing what he needs to do in a team-first manner when things aren't going well. He has that wonderful childlike enthusiasm and sense of theater that makes his highlights burn brighter, but the wavering focus means that small details necessary to keep a fragile team competitive at the margins (proper assignments on defense, finding shooters when your shots aren't there, even appearing to listen to the coaches when they're barking from the sidelines) get overlooked or brushed aside.

I think Nate tried very hard to make it work even after the relationship went south, tried harder to be a team player and better listener, as the Knicks continued to rebuild and harvest cap space. But he and his agents made the right call in determining that he would be better served on a winning team with less focus (fairly or not) on his shortcomings. Plus his brand equity from dunk contest wins and the sheer achievement of succeeding as a short, freakishly hyperathletic scorer was threatened by reduced playing time in the service of developing youth, and giving playing time to the latest rentals.

He should do very well as a bench scorer with the Celtics, and his playmaking may improve in more targeted bursts of play, surrounded by better players. His shooting with the Knicks this season has stayed with career norms (55% TS), though at some point after he got hurt against Miami last season, he started to go to the rim less and shoot more jumpers -- 60% of his shots were long two point jumpers or 3 pointers this year, vs 44% last year. His free throw rate has plunged as a result, and his steal and rebound rates are down slightly as well.

As a defender, Synergy Sports reports rated him "average" last season, based on points allowed per possession across a variety of plays (though help defense isn't measured tangibly in this metric), and Nate was average to below average in most situations. This year, his defense has been bipolar by the same metrics, ranking "Poor" on half the possessions he's defended (spot up jumpers and isolations) but above average to excellent on areas he's focused on improving -- pick and rolls and off screen scoring, where he's made more of an effort to manage the way he defends against screens. As a help defender, Nate still has the tendency to lose his assignment when the ball moves a lot, even though he's cut down on his gambling for steals.

Nate has the opportunity to magnify his strengths and have his weaknesses hidden playing with one of the best teams in the league, and unlike Marbury's odd stint with the Celtics last season, he'll remain fun to watch. He may go off for another 30 to 40 points tonight, because such an outburst would be true to his track record. What the Celtics need to watch for is minimizing the 2 for 10, 5 turnover performances after the big game, and improving his consistency and fit within the team concept. I wish Nate all the best in taking his talents to the next level, in what I genuinely hope is a better situation for him.

**************************************************************************

Not really in the mood to say too much about Legends Night at the Garden last night against the Bucks, because...yeah, that was awful. Playing against the Bucks is always a root canal, the Knicks' worst matchup among all NBA teams in the last two years. Playing with a bunch of rental players that crashed after their adrenaline high the other night against the Thunder, the offense featured a lot of aimless dribbling around, quick contested jumpers, futile post-ups, and lots of blocked shots at the rim. The only thing that kept the Knicks in the game for three quarters was the frenzied activity on defense generating Buck turnovers (18 points on 18 Buck TOs), led by Sergio Rodriguez's 8 steals.

* The 61-35 rebound advantage enjoyed by the Bucks represented the 5th time in the last 10 games the Knicks have been outrebounded by over 15 boards; prior to those 10 games, they hadn't been outrebounded this badly since just before Thanksiving, when they were outrebounded 60-36 by the Lakers.

* Only 10 assists, the lowest assist total for the Knicks all season, and only the fifth time all year the team had more TOs than assists. Chris Duhon is likely to remain in the doghouse, but his cautious risk-averse play did produce good efficiency and numbers in the passing game; it's going to be a wilder ride with Sergio and T-Mac dominating the ball, and their teammates are probably going to suffer a few more nights like last night (fewer and less optimal shots) while the coaches struggle to bring some sort of cohesion to the new collection of parts.

* For the second game in a row, the Bucks' Mbah a Moute effectively muzzled the Knicks' primary offensive option; last game it was David Lee, this game it was T-Mac. Among the league's less heralded players, I really wish the Knicks had a subtly disruptive force on defense like him.

* Andrew Bogut is a very good player, even if he's bound to look supernatural exploiting a mismatch with Lee. The Knicks played into his hands a bit too much, especially with the way they attacked him on defense without considering secondary or tertiary options on the wing once they started their drives, but he is as much a Knick-killer as anyone in the league. All respect to him for being the only player on the floor to play a game worthy of the legends in the building.

* I've tried to stay above the Brandon Jennings fray, but as much as I like the Bucks as a team that works hard and makes the most of its modest talent, I've grown tired of Jennings playing the lack of respect card in his non-drafting by the Knicks. If we're going to play the retrospective draft game, there are at least six rookies I'd rather have on this team and/or watch on League Pass than Jennings, who plays much too impulsively against the Knicks (he allowed Sergio to get into his head and the two of them jawed at each other at least twice), and his shot looks terribly broken. As with Nate, I look forward to his maturation and development into a quality point guard, but he'd be advised to dispense with the theatrics and cheap drama until his game is more capable of delivering.

* I can't see tonight's game against the Celtics being much prettier than last night's game, being the second of a back to back and on the road, even with Paul Pierce sitting out or at limited effectiveness. If McGrady does get limited minutes because of his knee acting up, scoring is going to be especially hard to come by. A slapdash lineup going up against the Celtic debut of Nate, with Tommy Heinsohn awarding Tommy points left and right all night, may be difficult to endure -- and I'm rooting for Nate. Ah well.

Knicks-Thunder Play Breakdown

BK — Mon, 22 Feb 2010 08:19:00 GMT

I mentioned in my lengthy Knicks-Thunder recap that there were two particularly well executed plays (or poorly defended, depending on your point-of-view) that shifted momentum late in the game (albeit very briefly). I thought I would share some screen captures to illustrate what happened a bit more closely, as the instantaneous result of both plays resulted in a reaction of "how the heck do you allow that shot to happen?" from the defense.

1) Kevin Durant's Game Tying Three Pointer

Here's everybody staggered around the foul line, with Collison in the foreground on the left elbow, and Gallinari defending the inbound pass, particularly vigilant of what Durant will do after he makes the pass. Collison cuts toward the basket and circles around back toward the right elbow, near where Russell Westbrook will have the ball after receiving the inbound pass.

Collison has made his move and now appears to be setting up a screen for Westbrook, with Durant quietly in the foreground on the left wing. Gallinari is watching the ball but also has Durant in front of him, possibly anticipating a pass back.

Collison fakes the screen toward Westbrook and then immediately moves to screen Gallinari while Durant goes to meet the pass from Westbrook. David Lee should be up toward the three point line ready to switch the screen, since there's no point in protecting the paint when the Thunder need a 3 pointer with less then 10 seconds left in regulation. Instead, he's in no man's land, and ends up closing out far too late on Durant's successful 3 pointer to send the game into overtime.

2) Eddie House's basket to give the Knicks their final lead in overtime.

House is highlighted in the center of the lane here, just as the inbounds play is developing. Gallinari is coming out to meet the ball considerably behind the 3 point line, while Chandler (#21) fakes toward the ball and then turns back toward House to cut into the lane.

House sets a slight screen for Chandler cutting toward the basket, which opens up a very slight bit of daylight, then moves to cut toward the sideline. The key here is that Westbrook (at the FT line) temporarily loses track of House, distracted by Chandler's cut to the basket, perhaps thinking there may be a lob.

In the meantime, Lee has turned to screen House as he cuts toward the left sideline, and Westbrook is already behind as a result of turning his head previously.

At this point, House is wide open at the left wing, and McGrady finds him easily. House doesn't need much time to get off his shot anyway, but Westbrook isn't close to contesting the shot. Lee's man doesn't switch...in fact, everyone apart from Westbrook seems frozen.

An overhead view from another angle during replays shows just how open House was by the time he received the pass. He made the basket to give the Knicks their final lead at 118-117.

Thunder 121 Knicks 118: McGrady, Durant and Much Much More

BK — Sun, 21 Feb 2010 17:14:00 GMT

This game ended as another one of those tough Knick losses, but for the better part of 47 minutes in regulation and 4 minutes and 30 seconds in overtime, you couldn't imagine a more entertaining game at the Garden. The much hyped return of Tracy McGrady had a lot to do with the excitement, but in a weird inversion of the typical post-trade scenario -- where newly acquired players tentatively adjust to new surroundings and defer to the regulars the first few games -- all the major trade pieces (McGrady, Eddie House, Sergio Rodriguez) imposed their personality on the game and did everything they could to will the Knicks to a win.

The game carried the kind of frenzied buzz I'd expect from one of those abisinthe lollipops if it were fueled with the actual thing the French rhapsodized about at the turn of the previous century: sweet and mind-altering all at once. Some notes:

* McGrady's 26 point performance was rather subtle for such a marquee acquisition: he was used for 4-5 minute stints in the 1st half because of his lack of play the last few months (and still scored 19 points), then used for one 8 minute stretch at the start of the second half. It looked like that would be it for him given a rough 20-25 minute cap originally envisioned by the coaches, but D'Antoni rolled the dice with him for the final 6:28 after loud MSG chants of "We Want T-Mac!". He had a basket, 2 rebounds and an assist in those final minutes of regulation, and very nearly sealed the win for the Knicks...except for 2 unfortunate missed FTs with a minute left that started the Thunder comeback in the final minute.

T-Mac definitely looks a bit slower and thicker, and it wouldn't be wise to have expectations of him returning to the form of his peak days. Even with that, it's impressive to see the way he carries himself on the court compared to the younger and more athletic players on the Knicks: there's a confidence with the ball and a level of court awareness that's either missing or feels grafted on to his teammates by the coaches. His passing ability for a wing has always been outstanding, and Knick fans can only hope that some of it rubs off onto players like Gallo and Chandler (whose composure and decision making in close games still needs a lot of improvement).

* Eddie House was at his frenzied, D'Antoni-era best, quick releasing his long jumpers as if the shot clock were running down on every possession, going after loose balls, and showing more savvy with his off-ball activity on offense and defense than I would have expected -- in particular, a two man game he ran with TMac in the fourth quarter for several possessions that was a reasonable facsimile of what Paul Pierce and Ray Allen have done on his old team the last couple of years. What I liked about Eddie is that he never had the defeated, slump shouldered look some of the Knicks tend to show when the other team starts to apply pressure. It's a cliche, but a heady dose of the unflappability and winning attitude he displayed while with the Celtics (even if it looks obnoxious to all other basketball fans) wouldn't be a bad thing for this team.

* Sergio Rodriguez was exactly as expected, maybe a little better. Full of energy, always looking to create, and darting into spaces (even when there wasn't much space to dart into), with an odd sort of shuffle step after several seconds of pounding the ball that launches his forays into passing or attacking the basket. It's hard to judge him on the basis of such an unusual game with so many new faces and lineups, but he got all the key minutes in the fourth quarter and overtime when T-Mac sat, so I look forward to seeing what he can do once he settles in. 5 points, 6 assists, 2 rebounds, 2 turnovers, and 2 for 8 shooting (that last part needs to improve) in 25 minutes.

* All three of the new guys ran pick and rolls with David Lee effortlessly for baskets. Very encouraging, and Lee should suffer no ill effects in his role in the offense...if anything, it may reduce the pressure on him to be the starting point of the offense on such a significant proportion of plays.

* Most unexpected surprise: Jonathan Bender. He got minutes as a result of McGrady's minutes being rationed, and looked the most spry and versatile he's ever been since...the last time he played the Thunder, when he had 16 points, 3 rebounds, and 2 blocks in 20 minutes of play. His numbers weren't nearly as gaudy in last night's game, but he actually looked more useful: his defense on Durant the few times he matched up on him was passable, he was aggressive on offense and on the boards, and he most importantly got off a couple of assists in the flow of play -- in the past, he's too often launched a weak 3 pointer whenever he gets the ball. If he can pick up his play the rest of the season as a result of the infusion of new faces, he'll be an intriguingly cheap option to consider for this summer.

* It's an obvious pleasure to watch the stars on opposing teams do their thing, but it's not always fun to watch it happen against the Knicks, especially when the expiring contract all-stars don't typically put up much resistance. Let's give some credit to Kevin Durant, though, for working his magic against some decent defense (by Knick standards). Last time the teams played at OKC, the Knicks tried an assortment of double teams and gimmick defenses, with the idea of making Durant more of a playmaker. This time around, the Knicks mostly played Durant straight with a minimum of hard double teams, especially after KD beat early double teams twice to hit Westbrook flashing to the lane for baskets.

Durant started off strong with 14 points and 2 assists in his first 15 minutes of play, with his greatest effectiveness coming in transition or matched up against Chandler. Over the next 27 minutes of play in regulation, he had 12 points, 5 turnovers, and 1 assist and missed 10 of 13 shots, as Gallinari spent more time matched up on him (Gallo protected the 3 point line particularly well -- the points he gave up were in early transition or drives where Durant used his quickness). KD then made that final killer 3 pointer to tie the game in regulation, and scored 7 points in OT (meaning 10 points in the final six minutes).

The pleasure of watching superstars like Kobe, Lebron or Wade is obvious to even the most casual of fans, because the moves and athleticism that fuel their scoring are out there for everyone to see. Durant's scoring is smoother and "quieter", but no less spectacular if you take the time to scrutinize his possessions and look at how he scores. He has a remarkably consistent and economical shooting stroke that he gets off effortlessly with just the slightest space running off a curl, or isolated behind the 3 point line. And he's gotten better at using the aggressiveness of defenders against them, as he did last night when he twice faked toward screens and then went the other way for baskets. A lot of times when watching Knick games, I rewind over plays with weary resignation seeing blunders on help defense or sloppy execution of offense; but when it's the Thunder, I can't help going over plays involving Durant. I could watch hours of tape on him.

* Despite the decision to defend Durant with a single defender with some soft help, Westbrook still destroyed the Knicks (again), exploding to the lane over and over again for layups. He was an equal opportunity abuser of Knicks in this game: Duhon, House, and Rodriguez were all burnt at one time or another. His elbow jumper comes and goes, but it seems to go in most of the time against the Knicks, making him almost impossible to defend, like a guard equivalent of Amare Stoudamire. And the most unsung player of the game award goes to Jeff Green, a 30 percent 3 point shooter who hit a very difficult shot in regulation and another in OT. The latter shot was taken from a spot where he's shot 11 percent all year. Knicks can't be blamed too much for that. (The Knicks *can* be blamed for giving up 20 points off their 17 turnovers, and 56 points in the paint)

* There was a lot of internet wailing last night over the plays that were run for the Knicks at the end of regulation and in overtime, one of which was superb (a pass to House who was freed as a result of multiple screens for a corner basket), but the others which resulted in heavily contested 3 pointers or weak inside shots. Let's keep in mind that halfcourt plays designed to produce a quick basket generally work best when 1) there's a player skilled enough to command the attention of more than one defender 2) there are more than one or two passers capable of moving the ball to a second or third option 3) players on the court can set credible screens and 4) there is a player capable of inbounding the ball effectively, not a trivial thing in the closing seconds. It also helps if the players on the floor have been together for more than one game. The reality is that the player best equipped to create his own shot in regulation and OT for the Knicks was gassed at the end, and was mostly used as a decoy in those sidelines out of bound plays.

I'd rather withhold judgement on the poor execution in those final sets until the lineups stabilize a little...and I'm still going to be realistic about the fact that those sets will still have a modest chance of success until more talent arrives. I'm also going to give credit to the Thunder defenders, whose length and quickness made it very difficult for the Knicks to get that much needed sliver of opportunity in the closing seconds.

* Wilson Chandler and Al Harrington looked most befuddled by the presence of the rental players; Wilson had some highlight-worthy scoop drives, but also had difficulty regulating the pace of his game surrounded by so much manic energy (five turnovers), while Al mostly looked lost on offense (2 for 10 shooting despite many fine passes from Sergio to set him up). Gallo was very good on defense, and better on offense than his last atrocious game against the Thunder, though still tentative.

* The final play of regulation that led to the Durant 3 pointer was a terrific instance of deception where Durant inbounded to Westbrook, Collison ran away from the ball and then circled back to fake a screen for the ball, then screened off Gallo which freed Durant. The fail on the play was David Lee, who inexplicably dropped back into the paint when Collison moved up to screen, rather than moving up to crowd the 3 point line and switch on the screen. Collison deserves credit for doing the dirty work most of the game on screens, garbage baskets, and charges; as he said in his post game interview about the screen on Gallo, "I just wanted to get set...it felt pretty good to pop someone like that". (The Knicks could use someone like that...oh right, he was traded for cap space! OK, never mind...)

* Walsh could certainly use a tape of this game to show future free agents how good New York and MSG can be with star power in the building; the energy was so good that even Clyde was caught up in it enough to deliver one of his best broadcast performances, throwing out the multisyllabic words and rhymes at a breakneck pace, as if mandated by D'Antoni to match the Knick pace. There were so many good examples, but the one that comes to mind is when D'Antoni ran onto the floor to berate the refs on a non-call on Lee; Clyde spat out "Cantankerous! Belligerent! Pugnacious!" in a perfect cadence to describe D'Antoni's heated mood. New Yorkers may not have Lebron, but Clyde beats Austin Carr nine ways till Sunday.

* On to the next one. With 3 games in 4 days (last night's game plus the back to back with the Bucks and Celtics starting tomorrow), McGrady's knee is going to be tested heavily, and there are likely to be more minutes for Toney Douglas and possibly Harrington. Despite the playoff hopes continuing to recede, I'll give credit to Walsh for giving fans something to look forward to in these final 28 games beyond what to do with cap space.

The Trade: Beyond All or Nothing With Massive Cap Space

BK — Fri, 19 Feb 2010 07:40:00 GMT

So a trade happened, finally. The Knicks get Tracy McGrady and Sergio Rodriguez, and most importantly, enough cap space to acquire two maximum (or close to maximum) players that can form the core of a legitimate championship contender. For this opportunity, they're giving up Larry Hughes, Jordan Hill, Jared Jeffries, and an exchange of picks with Houston in 2011 and a top 5 protected 1st round pick in 2012.

Let's get the snap judgement winner/loser stuff out of the way quickly. Houston had all the leverage and extracted a very heavy price from the Knicks for taking on Jeffries' contract -- in the end, the thing that was supposedly causing so much consternation and drama between the parties, the protection of picks, ended up being token protection. Step back from being a Knick fan, and applaud Daryl Morey for exploiting an opportunity and making the most out of it, acquiring quality or at least promising players, and setting up the odds favorably to acquire more assets down the road with useful draft picks.

Qualified applause for Donnie Walsh for doing what he set out to do: clearing every bad contract off the roster since he took the job with the Knicks. In a sense, he really had no choice but to move forward and improve the Knicks' modest chances of getting the kinds of superstars needed to vault them back into relevancy after a horrible decade. Walsh was further boxed into a corner by the moves made by several other teams (Chicago, Washington, Sacramento, Clippers) to open up their own cap space this summer for a max free agent -- suddenly the Knicks needed to offer potential free agents extra incentive to consider joining the team beyond the simplistic appeal of playing in New York. With the possibility of two elite players playing together created by the trade, Walsh accomplished that.

The extra cap space, as I mentioned in my last post, doesn't guarantee anything magical, not even close: it only increases the (still small) probability that one or two of the big three free agents decides to sign with the Knicks. And the potential downside remains very significant. If Lebron James sign with the Knicks, then the Knicks have won -- but that's the lowest probability outcome. Even though I support the general optimism of my colleagues that a direction has been set in place, I have some reservations about some of the underpinnings of that direction, and we need to look at what's been established to date since Walsh got here to understand if the Knicks can get somewhere better, and do so quickly.

The "Plan" That Got the Knicks Here

Mike D'Antoni and Donnie Walsh had a plan to shed the roster of undesirable contracts over a two year period in preparation for this summer's free agent extravaganza, while fielding a team (and building a culture) that could gradually establish a higher standard of basketball in New York after so much desultory play and unnecessary drama the last ten years. Walsh's hiring of D'Antoni as the coach was an outstanding choice: as much as any future free agent signing, the coach was going to be a big part of making the Knicks entertaining and relevant again.

Walsh didn't set out to hire a great coach and then put him in cold storage for two years while he gutted the team: there has always been the intent to build something, a core. What everyone didn't foresee was how narrow the margin for error would be, in trying to field a team with playoff aspirations while shipping out mercenaries, and replacing them with mercenaries with 2010-friendly contracts. Not to mention managing a cap situation that became more and more of a tightrope walk, as the economy reduced flexibility in moving bad contracts and acquiring players that could be useful in the short term.

If all had gone well, D'Antoni would now be coaching a team fighting for the 8th seed, with two solid contributing young players from the drafts of 2008 and 2009, and a well-rounded enough lineup that a star player (or two) could easily imagine joining and taking the team to the next level. But bad luck with the draft torpedoed that plan -- Danilo Gallinari got Tractor Traylored and lost a year, while the Knicks just missed out on the perfect guard (Stephen Curry) in the 2009 draft that would have been a major foundational building block of the next great D'Antoni team, arguably as important as any free agent acquisition short of Lebron this summer.

The snapshot judgement of the last draft for the Knicks (especially in light of this trade) has been to highlight the drafting of Jordan Hill as one more Knick blunder born of a dysfunctional culture that hasn't been completely excised. But though I questioned the drafting of Hill at the time, my issue looking back hasn't been that specific draft pick (especially since the alternative everyone like to scream about, Brandon Jennings, didn't dispel concerns about his shooting and maturity adequately enough to enter the picture at the Knicks' draft position) . My issue has been with the overall backup plan when the primary option (drafting the PG of the future, whether that was Curry or Rubio or someone else) didn't materialize. Drafting Hill was defensible on its own merits, but the inability to produce anything more by the end of last summer meant no guard depth, and no leadership brought in (in the form of cheap veterans like Grant Hill) that could get this year's team to the next level, however modest.

The Knicks maintained their cap space, but the team they've actually fielded on the floor this season has been problematic. Building a strong culture and demanding accountability can only do so much with players in the last year of their contracts feeling expendable. The flaring up of sensitive egos (and their agents) demanding better "communication" from the coach, in retrospect, was depressingly predictable.

The Importance of the Backup Plan in 2010

it's easy to say now that it was never realistic to field a highly competitive team while clearing cap space, and D'Antoni could do nothing more than get his motley crew to play hard, develop the young talent worth developing, and try not to go mad in the process. Walsh's big trade yesterday may mean "mission accomplished" in getting the Knicks ready to go for summer 2010, but two key components of the package being sold to free agents, the marquee coach and the young core of the team, aren't in the kind of shape that the brain trust envisioned when the plan was drawn up in 2008. The coach is clearly worn down by all the losing, and the young core is thinner than one would have hoped.

So now it's all or nothing in going for the prize. A popular (and very reasonable) line of thinking has it that the best and most sustainable kind of rebuilding -- forged by the Prestis and Pritchards of the world -- requires a more gradual approach over a period of several years. That the Knicks maybe should have not done this kind of trade, but instead get the best free agent they could with space for one max player this summer, then acquire another free agent after the Curry and Jeffries contracts came off the books in 2011, all the while building around these acquisitions with shrewd trades and draft picks informed by sophisticated player evaluation.

But too much damage was done by previous regimes (and unspeakable individuals) to make such an approach feasible (no draft pick this year, enough said). And let's get to the elephant in the room: the original marquee acquisition, the coach. D'Antoni is getting paid well, but like any individual in the upper echelon of his profession, he doesn't have the patience to see his prime years expended on a laborious rebuilding process. Whatever you think of his abilities as a coach and what he's been able to do with a lot of flawed pieces, you have to respect that he wants to win, and that he feels losing is a terrible teacher. He's been perfect for New York that way, requiring good to great players who are coachable and "get it".

I sure hope Lebron isn't going to be the only player that can make him happy, because that's a lottery ticket with absurdly long odds. If it really comes down to "Lebron or bust", Madison Square Garden may not be the best place for basketball in the years to come. Lebron is one of my favorite players in the league, and what team out there wouldn't want to have him? I even respect the line of thinking from some intelligent colleagues that Walsh and others understand something about Lebron's intentions that fans may not be privy to, that may make his acquisition less of a long shot than it may first seem.

But it's still a long shot, and groveling for the leagues' best player -- as nice a dream as it is -- has never struck me as any better a plan than what was done for much of the last decade. The mainstream media is going to take a straight "Lebron or bust" angle for the next few months, and it's going to be painful to deal with, frankly. (131 DAYS, 4 HOURS, 57 MINUTES, 5 SECONDS LEFT OMG). Screw it. I'm going to judge this trade on how well the skeletal core can be improved by the acquisition of any combination of two players (two superstars, one superstar/one 2nd tier player, etc), so that it can be a 45 to 50 win playoff team the next two years -- and how functional a group of players can be assembled around the free agent acquisitions.

I'll spend time in future posts dealing with the specific possibilities, and of course there's plenty of short term entertainment to look forward to with Tracy McGrady and Sergio playing at the Garden starting this Saturday. I am really, really hoping that Walsh and Co. will do everything they can to be creative with the possibilities created by cap space, and look beyond the superstars to the available players that can be acquired more affordably to build a competitive team.

I'm uncomfortable at how narrow a window for success the Knicks have created for themselves, especially with so many other teams lining up to overpay for 2nd tier talents if the superstars don't budge from their current teams. But there's no choice but to support the current plan, even if grudgingly, and trust that while the big prize is obvious, formulating a credible series of backup plans is going to be crucial for the franchise's long term ascent.

Trade Rumors, All-Star Weekend Notes

BK — Tue, 16 Feb 2010 04:59:00 GMT

I'm working on a more in-depth piece on how the Knicks have done on offense and defense as of the All-Star break (not the midpoint of the season, but a good 51 games in), but it's hard not to get distracted when all sorts of rumors are swirling around that may make a fair chunk of the roster go away in a few days. I really don't like to comment at length on trade rumors, as NBA GMs posture a fair amount through the media, and a lot can change within the space of a few hours.

However, the latest rumored trade involving the Knicks and Houston Rockets has enough intrigue in it that it's worth noting a few things about what it all means for the Knicks' long term plan, even if one side blinks and a trade never comes to fruition. But let me get a few points about the eventful All-Star weekend in Dallas out of the way:

* Gallo didn't do much in either the Rookie-Sophomore game or the 3 point shooting contest. He can be forgiven to some degree for the former, as players who dominated the ball (Jennings, Evans, Westbrook) mostly chose to gun it, and passing was an extreme afterthought. (DeJuan Blair was the most notable exception, as he was strong enough on the boards to carve out his own niche, and his ability to neutralize the sophomores' advantage in the middle made him the most valuable player in the game, in my opinion). As for the 3 point shooting contest, Gallo didn't have the pure stroke that Steph Curry demonstrated, nor the moxie that Paul Pierce showed in winning the competition...he just looked like another contestant. I'm sure it was a fun weekend for Danilo, but as Seth put it best over on Posting and Toasting, there were no giant rooster balls on display...on the evidence of the last weekend, Gallo's still in "hit the wall" mode.

* Nate effectively won the dunk contest by default, as no one else bothered to show up. People are tired enough of Nate that he becomes a punching bag and used as an example of everything that's considered wrong with the dunk contest, but I'm going to credit him for still competing with a sore groin and *still* showing energy and commitment -- even if his actual elevation and creativity were diminished. (Shannon Brown and the "Let Shannon Dunk" campaign behind him, on the other hand, was one of the worst cases of unfulfilled hype this season -- the only way Brown's showing could have been more disappointing was if he asked Paul Shirley to dunk in his place). The bigger issue with the dunk contest is that the concept may have run its course -- which Eric Freeman explores most compellingly for the Sporting News.

* David Lee, like Gallo, got some token burn in the All-Star game and had a very rough start (3 turnovers in about 3 minutes or so), but ended up with a passable 4 points and 2 rebounds in 12 minutes of play. He got his best opportunities in his first stint in the game, with Wade distributing the ball; when he entered the game for the second and final time playing alongside Derrick Rose and Chris Bosh, he basically never touched the ball, even when he was wide open at the foul line. As a Knick fan I was happy to see him in the game, though the NBA fan in me felt Josh Smith deserved the spot more. (For that matter, both should have played in place of Gerald Wallace, who didn't look engaged all weekend)

* The best Knick performance all weekend may have been the brief presence of Nate Robinson in the broadcast booth for TNT during the Rookie-Sophomore game -- he sounded like cared more about the specifics of the game than the rest of the announcing team, analyzing tactical aspects of play on both sides, imploring certain players to pass or shoot or set a screen (Gallo was *wide* open behind the 3 point line on one possession and Nate hectored Westbrook to notice that fact), all the while sounding very articulate and intelligent (and no, there was not a single "WORD AAAPPPP!"). Knick fans are familiar with how well Nate handles himself in interviews with the press, but it was pleasing to hear him extend that poise with the media to broadcasting. Looks like a really good future for him in that area after his playing career is over.

* The proposed trade between the Knicks and Rockets breaks out, to my unscientific eye, as follows: 1) McGrady for Harrington or Hughes 2) Hill and draft picks (swap of 1st rounders in 2011, Knick first round pick in 2012) in order to get the Rockets to take Jeffries 3) other bodies (Dorsey, Cook) to make the deal work but who otherwise aren't likely to have a big impact. McGrady is an interesting unknown quantity at this late stage of his career, but for all the rumors leaking in the press about the Knicks' potential long term interest in him, he's a long shot to succeed with his injury history and the difficulty of recovery from his latest surgery . The deal is really about creating enough additional cap space for two, rather than one, maximum contract superstars this summer.

I noted on Twitter that this felt a bit like taking a second job in a coal mine in order to earn more money to buy lottery tickets for a big jackpot. You increase the risk of getting hurt or dying with the second job, but you (very marginally) increase your odds of getting the big prize. Now that I've had the chance to think about the parameters of the proposed trade a little more, the deal does give the Knicks additional opportunities to succeed, but still provides a lot of risk. The Knicks would be giving up what could be a significant portion of the future for the chance to go broke this summer; they're banking on landing one or two of the most coveted superstars (Lebron, Wade, Bosh), or at a minimum, some combination of second tier free agents that would improve the team enough so that any future draft picks yielded would have lesser value.

A couple of thoughts on this, one (sort of) positive, one negative. Donnie Walsh may have made the reasonable assessment that cap space for only one free agent doesn't provide him adequate bargaining power versus teams like Miami or Chicago or Dallas or even the Nets, who have superstars and/or a better collection of young talent and draft picks to go along with the cap space. Getting space for two players increases the probability that, for example, Bosh and Wade may feel more comfortable leaving their situations for the opportunity to play together under a renowned coach in a major media market starved for the opportunity to become prominent again. It's interesting to consider that the Knicks may increase their chances of landing a single superstar just by opening up the possibility that one more could join that player; even if the team only gets one, the money could be used to make deals for a strong enough supporting cast to appeal to the player in question. So you could argue that increased cap space increases the *slight* probability of attracting one or two of the top three players.

On the other hand, the Knicks have to be mindful of opportunities lost not just by the giving up of draft picks, but being locked into bad contracts before the new CBA is negotiated. if the Knicks end up signing two second tier free agents (for example Joe Johnson or Rudy Gay, and Carlos Boozer) for close to max money, and these players do not age well and/or get hurt early, the Knicks could find their ability to recover hampered by the size of these contracts in a more austere environment in 2012, not to mention the lack of draft picks. Even if the braintrust manages to build a solid 45 to 47 win team that is competitive in the first and maybe second round of the playoffs, the ability to improve the team to the point where it contends for championships will likewise be hamstrung. It won't quite be the 2000s all over again, but it won't be far off.

In other words, the deal increases the small probability of a big upside (getting 1-2 elite superstars), but also magnifies the downside of a higher probability outcome (signing two useful but overvalued second/third tier free agents with a riskier injury history and career arc).

There have been entirely reasonable arguments made for the Knicks to hang on to Hill, Jeffries, the draft picks, etc and let the remaining onerous contracts expire in 2011 and then operate with even more massive cap space. The selection of free agents at that time isn't as notable however (to put it mildly), and one of the biggest assets the current Knick regime has to sell -- coach D'Antoni -- isn't going to want to suffer another rebuilding year. He's getting paid very well, but no good coach wants to suffer years of losing and babysitting bad contracts. Now that this season looks effectively shot (though there will continue to be noise about a final playoff "push" for another few weeks), the Knicks aren't being shy about ditching short term aspirations and simply going for it all come July.

So much can happen between now and the deadline -- based on so many other rumored deals and offers being spun -- and there's a reported skittishness on the part of both the Knicks and Rockets to consummate the deal. Each side seems to be waiting for the other to blink, and there are probably small haggling points that we're not privy to that could kill everything. Until then, it's a fascinating negotiation between a team that represents a certain model of savvy management and player evaluation using statistical methods (the Rockets) and a franchise trying its hardest to get past being a punchline, after a decade of horrific mismanagement and a fatal appetite for mediocrity and underachievement in its past acquisitions.

Sacramento 118 New York 114 (OT): Soul Stealing

BK — Wed, 10 Feb 2010 15:24:00 GMT

Mike D'Antoni and the Knicks have had some huge ups and downs over the last two eventful seasons, but I'm not sure the lows could get much lower than the previous 2 games against the Sacramento Kings going into last night. There was that 27 point loss last March that torched the Knicks' (already flickering) playoff aspirations. And this season produced a 14 point beating at Sacramento that was much, much worse than the final score. (The Knicks trailed every single second of those two losses -- that's right, not one lead)

Add to those two losses last night's meltdown at the Garden, which effectively gutted this year's playoff chase, and you wonder whether D'Antoni angered some spirits around Arco Arena to produce such soul stealing losses. The coach did make his usual reference to the lack of that something extra plaguing the team since mid-January, in saying "our spirit is messed up". In last night's case, it may have just been the biggest and baddest soul stealer, Tyreke Evans, deciding to take over the game after the Knicks built a seemingly safe 15 point fourth quarter lead.

Of course, there really is no such thing as a safe fourth quarter lead for these Knicks, not with their heads and their confidence trapped in some nether zone where neither sound decisions nor grace under pressure reside.

Lowlights:

* The coaching staff has vaguely referred to David Lee being "hurt" a few games ago, but no specifics have emerged in news stories since then. Whatever is ailing Lee, mental or physical, is becoming a significant concern. He still gets his double doubles, but he's been much less of a force in recent games, and the team rebounding has suffered as a result. When Lee is doing well, he will get from 15 to 20 percent of available rebounds; in 5 of the last 7 games, he's gotten 12% or less of available rebounds. He only got 2 rebounds total in the final period and OT, and both were offensive boards. Every key rebound on the Sacramento side was essentially grabbed by a King (most glaringly a Greene tip of his own short jumper, right over Lee's back). Lee has been victimized in recent games by the scrappy likes of Brockman, Kevin Love, Jason Thompson, and Antawn Jamison.

* Chris Duhon was at his schizophrenic best/worst last night, and all the pre-game wrangling over his benching, his reinstatement, his communication with other players as an "assistant coach" etc etc didn't really change the dynamic I described in a previous post -- that he usually starts well, and ends poorly. He's been the focal point of ire directed at the Knicks' troubles all season, though slump or no slump, I've been willing to live with mediocre offensive production if he maintains an awareness of his limits and does well as a playmaker. On the latter end, he was fine (9 assists, 1 turnover), but this may have been his worst game this season in terms of understanding the distinction between making the opponents respect your ability to take a shot, and simply taking bad shots. His shooting issues have had a toxic effect on his confidence, which spills over into the playmaking necessary to keep the offense going, creating a mobius strip of toxicity that renders him ineffective and eye-avertingly uncomfortable to watch in endgame situations.

Duhon's teammates share the blame for the failure of that final possession in regulation by not moving or setting any screens, but the Duhon of last year would have found a way to get off a better shot, get a pass off to a cutter, or find a shooter on the wing. This year's Duhon dribbled around for most of the 24 seconds and forced up an awful 3 pointer that never had a chance of touching the rim.

* Which brings up the issue of the alternative, Nate Robinson, who was unfortunately no better. In his defense, he played with a strained groin that clearly inhibited his ability to move on offense and defense. Nate did not have his jumper going, wasn't much more successful driving the basket, and his limited movement made him more of a liability than usual on defense, where Kevin Martin shot over and around him all game. He did contribute to the run in the fourth quarter that built the 15 point lead, but he also made it possible for the Kings to come back with rushed shots and turnovers. In overtime, he gave up most of Martin's 9 points that allowed the Kings to pull away for good.

* The Kings deserve credit for staying in the game every time it threatened to get out of hand -- even before the lead built up to 15 points, there were several opportunities for the Knicks to build a big lead earlier in the game, and the Kings always had a way of producing a timely basket. And their zone defense in the fourth quarter was especially effective with Gallinari out of the game. Which begs the question of why the Knicks didn't attempt a similar zone when Evans started getting more penetration, given their experience with the zone. Perhaps the coaching staff feared the outside shooting of Martin, Casspi and Greene, or feared the very potent offensive rebounding of the Kings, but it would have been worth a try as a means of crossing them up and halting their momentum.

* Not enough can be said about how good Tyreke Evans was (10-16 at the rim); it's one thing to watch his highlights, it's another to see him victimize your team's defense in real time -- he splits weak double teams and tucks the ball in for his explosion on drives like the best NFL running backs finding a split-second hole. (I half-expected to see him stiff-arm Jeffries into the stands on a couple of his drives, they blended strength, speed, and the slightest hint of misdirection so immaculately). It's always easier said than done to say "lay off him and let him take the jumpshot!", though in this particular game, he missed 9 of 10 jumpers (many of the misses extremely unsightly), and there were some questionable decisions by Jeffries to play him tighter than he needed to be played in the final minutes. Again, the temporary use of a zone might have helped focus the Knicks on bringing help toward stopping Reke and funneling the ball to other options.

* Losing results in some ugly plays and momentary pointing of fingers, produces loss of composure at the most untimely moments. Even though the Knicks were the ones imploding down the stretch, you could see the stress of losing on both sides -- when Casspi failed to retrieve a pass he called for, Evans raised his hands in disgust as demonstratively as a pitcher glaring at his shortstop for not fielding a grounder. And when Jeffries (who generally had a good game) chose to take a poor 3 pointer after receiving a kick out from Nate (rather than probe for a better shot or pass) you could see Nate and Jared talking quite animatedly and not all that pleasantly at the next break in play.

* Wilson Chandler deserved better. So did Gallo, who was strong on the boards, even when his shot wasn't falling. When Gallo left the game, the Knicks never had a chance to keep up on the glass.

* The problematic guard play has been such that even the coaches can't seem to manage momentum and when the best time to have Duhon and/or Robinson in the game should be in the fourth quarter. D'Antoni chose to go with Duhon down the stretch after a few poor decisions by Nate when the Kings rallied, then in overtime, he made a peculiar decision to go with Nate after Duhon had played a minute of OT. Perhaps he felt the Knicks needed offense to keep up with the resurgent Kings (and he was rewarded with one Nate layup), but the substitution allowed Martin to go off. D'Antoni ended up putting Duhon back in for the final Kings possession, but the damage was done by then.

* Back to the rebounding. The Kings killed on the boards, 59-39, making this the 5th game in the last 13 that the Knicks have been outrebounded by a double digit margin. In the 20 games before that, such double digit rebounding deficits only happened three times. It's also the 4th time in the last 6 games the team has been outrebounded by more than 15; prior to those six games, the Knicks had been outrebounded by that much only once since Thanksgiving. Tired legs? Bad spirits? Reality setting in? Though the team has never been a strong rebounding team -- relying most heavily on efficient shooting and taking care of the ball to stay competitive -- this is a major trouble spot to address if the team doesn't want to sink all the way down to the depths of lottery-land...with no lottery pick.

* McGrady as a stopgap fix? Maybe, but I don't see much value if salaries aren't shed...and want nothing to do with shipping out Jordan Hill or anyone else of value on the Knick roster.

Milwaukee 114 New York 107: Dagger

BK — Sat, 06 Feb 2010 06:22:00 GMT

I predicted this would be a difficult one to win for the Knicks, because of matchups and the Bucks' style of play. But when Andrew Bogut had to leave the game early with a migraine, a golden opportunity presented itself to the Knicks. One that they proceeded to squander in the most dispiriting way possible.

In the first half, things mostly went according to plan. The Knicks had twice as many free throws, and only one turnover. Brandon Jennings seemed a bit too anxious to make a splash on Broadway, demonstrating questionable shot selection and missing 7 of 8 shots. Without Bogut in the game, rebounding was mostly even. The Knicks did a good job of adjusting to the Bucks' overplaying and ran back door plays and got to the rim easily with Bogut's absence. The only major red flags were the Knick's own soft defense, which gave up 54 first half points, and an 18 point first half from Ilyasova, who hustled and played with more swagger than all the Knicks combined.

It was one of those halves that was a portent of very bad things to come, given how flat the team felt even with a 59 point half and 5 point lead. Sure enough, the Bucks made their run in the 3rd quarter. The Jennings storyline gained obvious traction with his scoring burst to put the Bucks up for good, but the real damage was done by the more aggressive defense on the ball by the Bucks, which produced 10 second half turnovers, many of them in a stretch spanning most of the 3rd quarter and part of the 4th. Additionally, the Bucks seemed to get every loose ball even when the Knicks were able to get stops. By the time the dust cleared, the Bucks were up by 13 and managed to repel a couple of Knick runs to pull out the win.

Unlike other tough or overwhelming losses where some excuse could be conjured, no matter how weak (on the road, second of a back to back, injured players, mid-season blues, etc etc), this one was the most painful yet, because of how inexcusable it was. Playing at home, against a team that suddenly lost its best player -- a team with very solid, well-coached players but hardly overwhelming talent -- the Knicks didn't play with urgency and were outhustled and outworked. This wasn't a star vehicle where the fans at the Garden could begrudgingly accept that the other team simply had a difference making player or two that would eventually shut the door on the home team. Every "loud" hustle play seemed to be made by the Bucks, and the Garden crowd let the Knicks know how poorly they thought of the effort, unleashing the loudest boos of the season.

Notes:

* Part one of Nate as starting PG yielded mixed results. He was mostly restrained on the offensive end and managed to get to the rim and FT line in the second quarter as the Knicks erased an early 10 point deficit. Ball movement was not especially good while he was on the floor, but the Bucks deserve some credit for that with their defense. In the fourth quarter, Nate ran the pick and roll with Lee particularly well as the Knicks rallied, a very encouraging sign. He did not shoot well from the perimeter, though, and most difficult to accept were the 3 pointers he gave up on slow close-outs (3 to Charlie Bell and 1 to Jennings).

* D'Antoni expanded his rotation slightly to make room for 3 guards (Nate, Duhon, Hughes) in a sort of committee arrangement. Duhon, in particular, acquitted himself well in his limited minutes on both ends of the floor, and Hughes was strong in the first half, less so in the second. The 3 guard arrangement did mean Jeffries got a relatively paltry 13 minutes in the first half and 27 for the game, after averaging over 35 minutes in the last month.

* Speaking of Jeffries, he had his share of hustle plays and good help on defense...but this was his worst game in some time, and he was on the floor for a good deal of the third quarter meltdown. The Bucks were a particularly bad matchup because Jennings is too quick for him at the point, and the Bucks wings and frontline players were often too strong and frequently muscled him out of the way on the boards and on screens. He made a couple of 3 pointers in the 3rd quarter to keep the team in the game, but then became a bit too enamored with the shot, taking (and missing) 2 more jumpers in the last minute and a half to enable the Bucks to build their lead entering the final period.

* I try to avoid commenting on officiating or attributing losses or wins to calls, but the game became much more physical in the second quarter and the officials largely chose to swallow their whistles, with sometimes comical results on both sides. Though the Knicks certainly got their licks in, the physical play favored the Bucks, who looked more comfortable being physical on defense. The Knicks are simply not a strong physical team, and the lack of whistles also meant the Knicks had a hard time drawing fouls that could build on their early free throw advantage.

* Al Harrington continues to be essential and maddening in equal parts, and is transforming into an increasingly slower and more labored version of the essential and the maddening. His outside shooting got the team back in the game, but he struggled to convert inside all night long, bothered by the physical interior defense of the Bucks. He still managed 22 points (on 20 shots) and 8 rebounds, but seemed a step slow relative to the more engaged Bucks.

* David Lee had his usual monster stat line with 32 points on 18 shots, 15 rebounds and 3 assists. I was a bit intemperate on twitter in the wake of the loss and declared the offensive statistics misleading in light of a lackluster defensive effort and some damaging turnovers (4 in the second half, including two unsightly ones in the lane on drives, both induced by Buck defender extraordinaire Mbah a Moute). Upon reflection, David had a terrific game...but he couldn't stop the bleeding once it started, and missed several crucial rebounds on the Bucks' end that allowed them to gain crucial additional opportunities when the team was trying to rally.

* Gallo looked slow, almost leaden, and overly deferential when the Bucks crowded him on his shot, and he missed 4 of 6 free throws. D'Antoni in the post game conference indicated Gallo needed to create more opportunities for himself, and not pass up the ones that were there when he shook his defender. Whether he's hit a wall, his back is acting up, or he's simply navigating slowly to the next step in his evolution as an NBA player, his struggles are painfully apparent right now, and it may require the all-star break for him to clear his head and go back to playing more instinctively.

* While I referred to the Bucks' modest talent earlier, I don't mean to slight them in any way in terms of their ability to win the way they did last night. They've been involved in tightly contested games with some very tough teams, and it was easy to see that when the Knicks were able to get the lead down in the 4th quarter, the Bucks had a level of composure that's been missing from the Knicks too often in close games. Ilyasova and Mbah a Moute were outstanding, and Warrick and Delfino also made several big plays. They may very well continue their credible challenge for the final playoff spot in the East late into the season, contrary to the claim I made in my preview. (The Bucks are extremely well served by two outstanding blogs, BrewHoop and Bucksketball -- both great reads that I enjoy following)

* D'Antoni was miked up for the game and MSG captured every bit of his anger and frustration in the third quarter with the sagging energy of his team -- he looked a hundred times more passionate than the players on the floor. The post game press conference was more of the same: though he always maintains a certain level of calm and tries to express as much of the positive as he can, his frustration was as evident as it has been all season. He parried largely tactical questions about lineups and Nate's performance as a point guard, and kept lamenting the lack of spirit and something greater in the performance of the team (as a *team*) that can get them to win games they need to win.

On to the Cavaliers tonight, who'll probably get their 11th straight without too much of a problem at home. It would be just like the Knicks to show more effort and passion in a long shot game like this one, rather the far more winnable and important game the night before, but I'll take whatever they can provide at this point.

Wizards Notes, Bucks Preview, and Thoughts On The Point Guard Conundrum

BK — Fri, 05 Feb 2010 16:51:00 GMT

Nice win over the Wizards the other night to break (temporarily) a terrible slump that has been suffocating the life out of the team. The time of year right before the All-Star break is a drag on a lot of teams, but the Knicks really haven't managed the heavier load of games and the injuries very well. Even against other teams with inexperience (Minnesota), dysfunction (Washington) or simply being tired (Toronto at the end of 4 games in 5 days), it's been a struggle for the team. January ended as a squandered opportunity, as the Knicks just couldn't take advantage of a favorable schedule to position themselves more favorably for the playoff race.

The win over the Wizards looked very much like the loss to the Timberwolves over the weekend -- the home team punching and counterpunching and staying with a road team that had played a lot of games in a few days, until the road team ran out of gas. (And yes, I know using a boxing metaphor to describe an 88 possession game with big stretches of listless play from both teams is pushing it). It was still nice to see the Knicks come to life, and while everyone is talking about Nate Robinson playing well enough to take over the starting role at point guard, Al Harrington's return was huge, and his 2 three pointers in the third quarter to give the Knicks the lead for good were probably the biggest shots of the game.

A few other notes:

* Knicks made half of their three pointers, and got 37 shots at the rim. Though they could have done a better job of finishing close to the basket (59.5%), much of that was Jared Jeffries' overambitiousness with a few attempted folllow-baskets that he may have been better advised to tip to teammates. Nate had 4 of his 10 makes at the rim, an excellent ratio that I hope he carries over to his new starting role.

* Fifteen combined free throws for the *game* from both teams, which doesn't exactly speak to the willingness of either team to be physical. (during the Wizards' win over the Knicks last Saturday, they didn't attempt their 3rd FT until the second half either)

* One of Harrington's pet plays is a spinning dribble head on into traffic that elicits howls of anguish from a loud subset of Knick fans, probably because it's an all or nothing play that's just as likely to end in an ugly turnover as it is to produce a basket. (It is also such a heads down play that no matter how many opposing players collapse to stop the drive, the idea of open teammates receiving a pass is purely theoretical). Imagine this type of drive with Al's shaky knees, and it becomes a high wire act with lead boots. And yet. When he did get a layup toward the end of the 3rd quarter on one of these drives, I was inexplicably happy. Maybe because it signaled a willingness on the part of the Knicks to finally start taking it to the basket and not settle for jumpshots. You take what you can get and worry about the style points some other time.

* Nate had a very good all-around game and had only 2 turnovers, but they were two of the louder turnovers in the game -- one an attempt to thread the needle on the fastbreak into a crowd of 3 defenders that Magic himself couldn't have pulled off, the other a lazy pass in a half court set that was stolen by Randy Foye. Give Nate credit for this, though -- on the second turnover, he hustled back to take the ball away from Foye on a driving layup, and managed to keep the ball inbounds and recover it. It was a fantastic display of athleticism on the part of Nate, except unlike the last time he pulled off something similar at home (his fastbreak block of Rondo in November), he didn't preen to the crowd. Just dribbled it down the court to reset the offense. Nice.

* The Wizards have a lot of good players capable of making plays that make you wonder how the team can be struggling the way it is. Wednesday night it was Blatche and Haywood that took turns carving up the Knicks, until the team as a whole wilted in the face of the Knick second half run. The Knick run (or Wizard collapse depending on your inclination) is documented in full by Kyle at Truth About It, and he was none too happy about it. (A very similar sequence could have been constructed for the Knicks' collapse against the Wolves last Sunday, except it would have mainly consisted of Love and Jefferson putting up baskets against the Knick frontline).

Changing of the Point Guard: A Closer Look

The big news from an otherwise lackluster mid-season game between the Knicks and Wizards was the demotion of Chris Duhon, something many Knick fans have been clamoring for almost the entire season. Based on shooting alone (32 percent in the month of January), Chris has been digging a pretty deep hole for himself. Yet D'Antoni continued to defend him as the starting PG, which led to some gentle mocking in the press ("he does everything well but shoot!").

Upfront I can say that I've always felt Chris is a backup and not starter-level point guard in the league; however, for this team and the type of offense D'Antoni likes to run, maintaining him as a starter was a reasonable position, given the lack of alternatives. Nate has not had as good a season as last year (the odd 41 point game notwithstanding), and only recently has he shown signs of paying attention to all the details of the game necessary to earn major minutes. Hughes has shown signs of getting worse after each injury and brings his own issues with his extremely ineffiicient shooting, and iike Nate is a volume shooter who can quickly shoot his team out of a game. And Toney Douglas still can't seem to use the limited minutes he's gotten so far to show that he can be even a reasonable backup playmaker.

The flip side of poor volume shooting is extreme timidity in shooting and playmaking when the first few shots don't fall, which has been Duhon's problem in his extended slump. Even though Duhon does other small things well (particularly on defense as part of the various zones and help defenses the Knicks run), many fans can't see past the lack of confidence Duhon projects, whether it's coming up short on his 3 point shots or being unable to finish at the rim. As a result, his demotion has been greeted with hosannas from people that felt a benching was overdue, including voices as sober and rational as Knickerblogger.

The only issue I would take with the angle taken on Duhon's demotion is that this isn't quite the sudden move it's been portrayed as -- D'Antoni has been gradually tinkering with Duhon's playing time, and coming to realize that the same player he played for an average of 38 to 40 minutes the first 3 months of last season doesn't always warrant extended PT. Last season, Duhon's games with limited minutes were almost exclusively injury related; this season, D'Antoni has kept Duhon's minutes in the 30 to 35 minute range when there are other alternatives (Hughes early in the season, Robinson more recently), because he realizes he can only get so much mileage from him.

Still, 30 + minutes from a 30% shooting guard is a lot of minutes, but as long as D'Antoni was committed to a tight rotation, he was willing to live with the shooting if Duhon's playmaking and other modest contributions were positive. I didn't have any issue with this because Duhon generally didn't do anything to *hurt* the team as part of the starting unit; the team's recent troubles were more related to how poorly the second unit played, and how poorly the team finished games.

I looked more closely at how Chris' contributions in the starting lineup broke out by using numbers from popcornmachine.net to see how he fared in the first and second halves of recent games. Duhon as a starter typically plays most of the first quarter (8-9 minutes), then returns in the second quarter for the last 4 to 6 minutes. The table below shows Duhon's +/- for the 2 first half segments he plays, and presents an overall +/- number for the second half, since I was mainly interested in evaluating how he performed as a starter at the beginning of games. (Thus for the table below, a +4/-2 means the lineup he played with registered a +4 for the first quarter minutes he played, and a -2 for the second quarter minutes he played).

Chris Duhon: Opponent	1st Half +/-	1st Half Ast/TO	2nd Half +/-	Minutes

PHI	+4/-2	3 AST/0 TO	-2	32
TOR	-15/-5	2 AST/1 TO	+18	37
DET	+1/-11	0 AST/2 TO	-3	19
DET	+2/+9	5 AST/3 TO	-8	20
LAL	+1/+2	5 AST/0 TO	-4	31
DAL	-2/-10	0 AST/0 TO	-21	35
MIN	+26/-4	7 AST/0 TO	+2	31
TOR	+6/-8	5 AST/1 TO	-10	35
WAS	-8/+11	4 AST/1 TO	-5	37
MIN	+7/0	2 AST/3 TO	-9	35
WAS	-1/-3	2 AST/2 TO	DNP	13

Taking into account the issues and noise surrounding using raw +/- numbers, there are some interesting things I took away from this snapshot of Duhon's last 11 games as a starter:

* With the exception of an outlier game like Dallas, where everyone played as poorly as they possibly could, Duhon has generally had a segment of positive play in the first half as a starter. Given this is +/- we're talking about, of course it isn't all him: having David Lee as one of your teammates, who tends to start strongly does help. But in 7 of the 11 games, his unit has been positive, and in 8 of those games, he's registered at least 2 assists with 1 or no turnovers. This is the aspect of his play, along with the contributions of defense, that led the coach to continue to support him. In his worst half (the first Toronto game), he rebounded in the second half with a +18.

* The second half of games...now there's the issue. With the exception of the Toronto and Minnesota games, it's been more unrelentingly ugly. The Knick coaching staff is a big proponent of plus/minus to evaluate situational lineups and matchups, and they had to notice this, which is why even before last Wednesday's game (where Chris was a DNP for the 2nd half), D'Antoni sat him for significant stretches of the second half in both Detroit games when his turnover count was high.

* One thing not evident in the numbers but increasingly apparent in the recent slump is Duhon's diminishing energy on defense as well as offense. He's one of the better help defenders on the team, and good at pursuit around screens, but against the Wizards and Wolves his pursuit of his man around screens has looked a step slow, and his attention span on switches (though not nearly as volatile as Nate's) seems to waver more.

* I look forward to an energized Nate and Larry taking advantage of their newly awarded opportunities to energize the offense. I still wonder (long term) how Nate will be used against longer teams when he can't be "hidden" as easily, even in a zone where he may have to close out on much taller shooters. Hughes should be better in this respect, but his strengths are best employed in straight man to man, where he can focus on the tendencies of his opponent and play passing lanes (in zones he sometimes loses his man, as he did during the Wizards game when Nick Young got free for a 3 in the first half).

* I predict Duhon will be the most professional of D'Antoni's various doghouse inhabitants, but I do hope, most of all, that the exile lights a spark in him. He is still the best playmaker on the team, and he is not as bad a shooter as he's been for most of the season. As much as I want to believe a Nate/Larry/Toney triumvirate will give the team a new identity and a fresh start, it's more realistic to expect that this will be a shuffling of the usual deck chairs, with some wild highs and lows.

Knicks vs Bucks, 7:30pm, MSG

Tonight's game against the Bucks gives the Knicks an opportunity to avenge one of their worst early season losses -- the loss to the Bucks as part of the Knicks' 1-9 start painted a bleak picture for the season at the time, and there may not have been a first half all season where the Knicks were so throughly defeated by the second quarter (when they fell behind by over 30 points). The Bucks had a rough stretch after their strong season start, including a brutal West Coast road trip, but they've recovered well and prior to their last clobbering by Orlando, had won 5 of 7 games.

I'm not sure I see the Bucks as a playoff team relative to the other teams fighting for playoff seeds, but they are a very, very difficult matchup for the Knicks. Bogut is the kind of big man who gives David Lee fits, and unlike the Bynums and Haywoods of the world, he is much better with the ball and in handling double teams, meaning the Knicks' zones and help can only do so much. Milwaukee is not a great offensive team, but they have a very good turnover differential and rebound well (two big Knick weaknesses). Jennings has cooled off substantially after his hot start but still poses plenty of problems with his quickness and playmaking, and Ridnour is having a career year -- he'll bust any zones the Knicks try to run pretty quickly.

The Bucks do not get to the free throw line though, and are one of the most foul-prone teams (their league-bottom free throw differential surprised me at how severe it was). If the Knicks can get positive offensive contributions from Harrington and Nate (the players most likely to draw fouls) and keep the Bucks from getting off to the same start they did in the previous game, tonight's game should be a good one.