The Knicks Are Still Terrible

[mobilija]

I don't think the Raptors are a top 6 team unless a bunch of teams basically have worst case scenarios and everything goes well for Toronto.

I mean assuming reasonable/moderate health the Raptors are clearly worse than the Bucks, Nets, Heat, Hawks, Celtics, and Sixers (even without Simmons).  That doesn't account for the Knicks, Bulls, Hornets, or Pacers which could all quite easily be better than the Raptors.

Sounds like the East is deep this year....

or just varying degrees of mediocrity

Yes, less bad teams more middling to good teams, i.e. deep.

not how I'd describe deep at all.

If I remember correctly, there was this kind of debate about "deep" centered around the last two drafts. '21 was considered deep at the top with little to offer after that especially in the back half. The top 5 or so picks were all-star quality prospects. While the '20 draft was considered deep in its entirety bc, tho there were very few all-star quality prospects, it was flush with rotation level talent deep into the 1st round.

The East is like the '20 draft. Shallow at the top but deep in (nearly) its entirety with passable teams that can provide competition.

[celticsclay]

I don't think the Raptors are a top 6 team unless a bunch of teams basically have worst case scenarios and everything goes well for Toronto.

I mean assuming reasonable/moderate health the Raptors are clearly worse than the Bucks, Nets, Heat, Hawks, Celtics, and Sixers (even without Simmons).  That doesn't account for the Knicks, Bulls, Hornets, or Pacers which could all quite easily be better than the Raptors.

Sounds like the East is deep this year....

or just varying degrees of mediocrity

Yes, less bad teams more middling to good teams, i.e. deep.

not how I'd describe deep at all.

Ahhh so your take in the other thread was just not understanding how the word is used. That makes a lot more sense. If the big ten has a year where Rutgers, northwestern, Illinois and other teams traditionally weak are having strong years (all battling for low level bowls)  that would how the term is traditionally used for a deep conference. Very few walkover blowout wins and the league is considered deep. Now in contrast if the big ten has a year where penn state, Michigan, Wisconsin and Ohio state are all top 20 (even with two competing for championship) but Illinois, Rutgers, Michigan state, northwestern are all terrible it is not considered deep. This is how the term is commonly used.

[gouki88]

I don't think the Raptors are a top 6 team unless a bunch of teams basically have worst case scenarios and everything goes well for Toronto.

I mean assuming reasonable/moderate health the Raptors are clearly worse than the Bucks, Nets, Heat, Hawks, Celtics, and Sixers (even without Simmons).  That doesn't account for the Knicks, Bulls, Hornets, or Pacers which could all quite easily be better than the Raptors.

Sounds like the East is deep this year....

or just varying degrees of mediocrity

Yes, less bad teams more middling to good teams, i.e. deep.

not how I'd describe deep at all.

How else would you describe deep, other than 'less bad teams, more good teams'?

[celticsclay]

I don't think the Raptors are a top 6 team unless a bunch of teams basically have worst case scenarios and everything goes well for Toronto.

I mean assuming reasonable/moderate health the Raptors are clearly worse than the Bucks, Nets, Heat, Hawks, Celtics, and Sixers (even without Simmons).  That doesn't account for the Knicks, Bulls, Hornets, or Pacers which could all quite easily be better than the Raptors.

Sounds like the East is deep this year....

or just varying degrees of mediocrity

Yes, less bad teams more middling to good teams, i.e. deep.

not how I'd describe deep at all.

How else would you describe deep, other than 'less bad teams, more good teams'?

He used some weird definition of how many all nba players in the other thread. He just isn’t using the word in the same way as the rest of us.

[gouki88]

I don't think the Raptors are a top 6 team unless a bunch of teams basically have worst case scenarios and everything goes well for Toronto.

I mean assuming reasonable/moderate health the Raptors are clearly worse than the Bucks, Nets, Heat, Hawks, Celtics, and Sixers (even without Simmons).  That doesn't account for the Knicks, Bulls, Hornets, or Pacers which could all quite easily be better than the Raptors.

Sounds like the East is deep this year....

or just varying degrees of mediocrity

Yes, less bad teams more middling to good teams, i.e. deep.

not how I'd describe deep at all.

How else would you describe deep, other than 'less bad teams, more good teams'?

He used some weird definition of how many all nba players in the other thread. He just isn’t using the word in the same way as the rest of us.

Using made up definitions of words is an easy way to win an argument

[nickagneta]

[celticsclay]

Yeah. Precisely. Been happening a bit lately on this board.

[Moranis]

I don't think the Raptors are a top 6 team unless a bunch of teams basically have worst case scenarios and everything goes well for Toronto.

I mean assuming reasonable/moderate health the Raptors are clearly worse than the Bucks, Nets, Heat, Hawks, Celtics, and Sixers (even without Simmons).  That doesn't account for the Knicks, Bulls, Hornets, or Pacers which could all quite easily be better than the Raptors.

Sounds like the East is deep this year....

or just varying degrees of mediocrity

Yes, less bad teams more middling to good teams, i.e. deep.

not how I'd describe deep at all.

How else would you describe deep, other than 'less bad teams, more good teams'?

a low level mediocre team is not a good team and is in fact a bad team.  There are still 3 very bad teams in the east this year and 2 or 3 (depending on what happens with Simmons) very good to great teams.  I don't even know if I'd call teams like the Celtics, Heat, and Hawks good teams.  Should all be .500+ teams, but those are 2nd round type playoff teams at best.  No one else has any business winning a playoff series.  That just isn't a deep conference.  The West is a deep conference.  There are 6 teams that could legitimately make the finals and another 2 or 3 that are on the same tier as the Celtics, Heat and Hawks. 

Mediocrity does not equal deep in my view.  You can certainly disagree with that view, but that is my view. 

Edit: And for the record, this post is based a large part on objective factors like future betting odds.  Here is a link to a site.  https://www.vegasinsider.com/nba/odds/futures/  So 6 of the top 9 are in the West.  #11 is also a Western team.  so 7 of the top 11 are in the West.  The Heat have the 4th best odds to win the East at +1200, 6 teams out West have better odds than that.  Now I do understand some of that is just how good Brooklyn is perceived to be at -125, which is crazy (the Lakers are +170 to win the west), but it also shows that there just aren't that many good teams in the East.  The East is not deep.  A bunch of average teams does not make a conference deep.  A bunch of good teams does, and in that, the West laps the East.  The West is the deep conference.  The East is just bad (outside of BKN, MIL).

[Moranis]

I don't think the Raptors are a top 6 team unless a bunch of teams basically have worst case scenarios and everything goes well for Toronto.

I mean assuming reasonable/moderate health the Raptors are clearly worse than the Bucks, Nets, Heat, Hawks, Celtics, and Sixers (even without Simmons).  That doesn't account for the Knicks, Bulls, Hornets, or Pacers which could all quite easily be better than the Raptors.

Sounds like the East is deep this year....

or just varying degrees of mediocrity

Yes, less bad teams more middling to good teams, i.e. deep.

not how I'd describe deep at all.

How else would you describe deep, other than 'less bad teams, more good teams'?

He used some weird definition of how many all nba players in the other thread. He just isn’t using the word in the same way as the rest of us.

You know full well I didn't do that. You said the conference was objectively deeper than 2019, I asked what standards you were using to describe objective and pointed out things like that as objective factors that didn't yield that conclusion.

But since you brought it up. the 10th seed in the East in 2019 had 39 wins, do you think the 10th seed this season is going to have 39 wins?

[Hoopvortex]

The New York Knicks are still one of the worst run teams in the NBA and if you’re factoring in profitability, they are the most incompetent by a fair margin. If you look at how things have progressed since Phil Jackson left, the organisation continues to make the wrong moves.

The hiring of Tom Thibodeau was seen as a huge coup for the ailing franchise, but in my opinion, it is yet another poor decision.

Thibs was ousted from the Bulls after damaging Rose’s career, while shortening Deng and Noah’s. One would assume Thibs has learned from his failings, but when asked if he would alter his heavy minutes policy, Thibs said no, and last season the Knicks star players averaged the highest minutes in the league (by some distance).

The new Knicks president of basketball operations, Leon Rose, portrayed Thibs as someone who could develop youngsters, bring back winning mentality to the Knicks and attract free agents. Well Thibs has refused to play and develop their rookies (other then perhaps Barrett) and given the Knicks recent re-signing flurry, they had no concrete interest from star free agents.

Although I believe the 76ers destroyed themselves with their all out Hinkie tank, that doesn’t mean a team can’t rebuild with youth while picking up assets through salary dumping, similar to what Memphis is currently doing and what the Celtics previously did following the Brooklyn trade.

Something that has become blatantly obvious to me is no matter how bad the Knicks play, their loyal fans will pack Madison Square Garden. If that’s the case, the Knicks should be the one team who could tank (in some form) without financial repercussions, but because the Knicks hired Thibs, they have most likely missed any chance of picking in the high lottery for the foreseeable future.

If you look at their recent drafting history it’s actually been quite poor, which surprisingly was something the Knicks previously did very well.

In 2018 they selected Kevin Knox with the 9th pick, Mikal Bridges was the very next pick, followed by Shai Gilgeous-Alexander, Miles Bridges and then at 14, Michael Porter Jr…that selection is a disaster. In 2019 in which they missed out on Zion & Morant which was obviously tough but IMO picking RJ Barrett was the wrong move when De’Andre Hunter and Darius Garland were available, but perhaps at least not a horrible decision. The 2020 pick of Toppin is still a confusing one, he is an old fashioned power forward which is not valued in the current NBA. Toppin doesn’t protect the rim, stretch the floor or defend at a high rate. Someone who was still on the board and apparently worked out for the Knicks was Tyrese Haliburton.

So essentially without changing any of the Knicks recent decisions, except their draft selections, they could have a roster with Gilgeous-Alexander, Hunter and Haliburton.

IMO the Knicks are still a terrible organisation, please try and change my mind.

Kudos and a TP for the wide-ranging and provocative post.

The main area I disagree about is the hiring of Thibodeau; I think he’s a perfect choice, both for where the team is - and for the city. New York needs a tough team.

They were third in defense last season. The year before, they were 23rd. In my view, that’s where you start building a contender.

He’s the first coach to create an effective role for Julius Randle.

Your point about minutes is well taken. It’s unwise to run your best horses to exhaustion every night; better long-term to get them more rest and integrate more of the bench into the rotation.

(Apropos, it would be unwise to play Jayson Tatum 35.8 minutes again; we may predict that Coach Udoka, the Popovich acolyte, will get him down into a more reasonable range this season.)

I’m glad that Kemba gets to go to New York; it wouldn’t be too surprising if playing for the Knickerbockers was a childhood dream of his. But I doubt that his knee issue is going away, ever, and so I doubt the wisdom of the New York front office in acquiring him.

[Hoopvortex]

The Knicks over-under is 41.5, while the Raptors are 35.5.  I’d reverse them.

Why so for the Raptors? They lost Lowry. He was a key player for them. Have they replaced M.Gasol and Ibaka yet? The center position was a major problem for them last season.

I like their forwards (Anunoby, Siakam, Scottie Barnes, Boucher) and VanVleet (one guard) but do they have a supporting cast around them?

isn't Dragic still there? He isn't as good as Lowry, but he is still a quality player. They added Birch and Achiuwa I think.  Not great, but at least some size between them.  That said, 35.5 seems about right to me.  They are a below average team overall.

I’d take the over, but Toronto might be the hardest team to handicap right now. What their holdover roster did last season, even more so than the Celtics’, is a poor predictor of what they’ll do this season. Their main guys missed big chunks of the season, and played a lot of games hurt and post-Covid.

To add to the unpredictability, they’ve got several young guys with real potential to emerge as rotation players, or even stars - or to achieve nothing. Achiuwa and Barnes have star potential, and Flynn and Watanabe have rotation potential. Ishmail Wainwright? Great body, great movement, great heart.

[Kernewek]

I don't think the Raptors are a top 6 team unless a bunch of teams basically have worst case scenarios and everything goes well for Toronto.

I mean assuming reasonable/moderate health the Raptors are clearly worse than the Bucks, Nets, Heat, Hawks, Celtics, and Sixers (even without Simmons).  That doesn't account for the Knicks, Bulls, Hornets, or Pacers which could all quite easily be better than the Raptors.

Sounds like the East is deep this year....

or just varying degrees of mediocrity

Yes, less bad teams more middling to good teams, i.e. deep.

not how I'd describe deep at all.

How else would you describe deep, other than 'less bad teams, more good teams'?

I think the East can be better than it has been in a few years and still not be a particularly deep conference. They aren’t binary statements, at least not to me.

In other words, it’s the difference between “The East is a wide open conference this year” and “The East has four or five teams that are likely to win the NBA Championship this year.”

That’s just how I see it, of course, but the second one indicates depth to me. The first one indicates a lack of clear top talent.

[mobilija]

I don't think the Raptors are a top 6 team unless a bunch of teams basically have worst case scenarios and everything goes well for Toronto.

I mean assuming reasonable/moderate health the Raptors are clearly worse than the Bucks, Nets, Heat, Hawks, Celtics, and Sixers (even without Simmons).  That doesn't account for the Knicks, Bulls, Hornets, or Pacers which could all quite easily be better than the Raptors.

Sounds like the East is deep this year....

or just varying degrees of mediocrity

Yes, less bad teams more middling to good teams, i.e. deep.

not how I'd describe deep at all.

How else would you describe deep, other than 'less bad teams, more good teams'?

a low level mediocre team is not a good team and is in fact a bad team.  There are still 3 very bad teams in the east this year and 2 or 3 (depending on what happens with Simmons) very good to great teams.  I don't even know if I'd call teams like the Celtics, Heat, and Hawks good teams.  Should all be .500+ teams, but those are 2nd round type playoff teams at best.  No one else has any business winning a playoff series.  That just isn't a deep conference.  The West is a deep conference.  There are 6 teams that could legitimately make the finals and another 2 or 3 that are on the same tier as the Celtics, Heat and Hawks. 

Mediocrity does not equal deep in my view.  You can certainly disagree with that view, but that is my view. 

Edit: And for the record, this post is based a large part on objective factors like future betting odds.  Here is a link to a site.  https://www.vegasinsider.com/nba/odds/futures/  So 6 of the top 9 are in the West.  #11 is also a Western team.  so 7 of the top 11 are in the West.  The Heat have the 4th best odds to win the East at +1200, 6 teams out West have better odds than that.  Now I do understand some of that is just how good Brooklyn is perceived to be at -125, which is crazy (the Lakers are +170 to win the west), but it also shows that there just aren't that many good teams in the East.  The East is not deep.  A bunch of average teams does not make a conference deep.  A bunch of good teams does, and in that, the West laps the East.  The West is the deep conference.  The East is just bad (outside of BKN, MIL).

So...when u reference the top 9 or even top11 teams you are not talking about depth. Thats not even half the league. Deep by definition implies far down from the top. When we talk about a team being deep, its in regards to the quality of the bench, not just the top end of the roster. Why would deep have a different meaning when talking about a conference?

You are winning the argument that you created about the West having more high quality teams. Bravo! Now you can try winning the argument about the quality of teams through out the East. You've already started by  initially outlining the competitiveness of the middle tier teams and calling them "degrees of mediocrity" then moving your assesment to "low level mediocre" or in the case of Hawks, Celtics, and Heat not good.

However, if you wanna stop this conversation thats fine too. I think we both know it will end in "agree to disagree", which you've already stated. So, apoligies to the OP for derailing his detailed thread.

[celticsclay]

I don't think the Raptors are a top 6 team unless a bunch of teams basically have worst case scenarios and everything goes well for Toronto.

I mean assuming reasonable/moderate health the Raptors are clearly worse than the Bucks, Nets, Heat, Hawks, Celtics, and Sixers (even without Simmons).  That doesn't account for the Knicks, Bulls, Hornets, or Pacers which could all quite easily be better than the Raptors.

Sounds like the East is deep this year....

or just varying degrees of mediocrity

Yes, less bad teams more middling to good teams, i.e. deep.

not how I'd describe deep at all.

How else would you describe deep, other than 'less bad teams, more good teams'?

a low level mediocre team is not a good team and is in fact a bad team.  There are still 3 very bad teams in the east this year and 2 or 3 (depending on what happens with Simmons) very good to great teams.  I don't even know if I'd call teams like the Celtics, Heat, and Hawks good teams.  Should all be .500+ teams, but those are 2nd round type playoff teams at best.  No one else has any business winning a playoff series.  That just isn't a deep conference.  The West is a deep conference.  There are 6 teams that could legitimately make the finals and another 2 or 3 that are on the same tier as the Celtics, Heat and Hawks. 

Mediocrity does not equal deep in my view.  You can certainly disagree with that view, but that is my view. 

Edit: And for the record, this post is based a large part on objective factors like future betting odds.  Here is a link to a site.  https://www.vegasinsider.com/nba/odds/futures/  So 6 of the top 9 are in the West.  #11 is also a Western team.  so 7 of the top 11 are in the West.  The Heat have the 4th best odds to win the East at +1200, 6 teams out West have better odds than that.  Now I do understand some of that is just how good Brooklyn is perceived to be at -125, which is crazy (the Lakers are +170 to win the west), but it also shows that there just aren't that many good teams in the East.  The East is not deep.  A bunch of average teams does not make a conference deep.  A bunch of good teams does, and in that, the West laps the East.  The West is the deep conference.  The East is just bad (outside of BKN, MIL).

So...when u reference the top 9 or even top11 teams you are not talking about depth. Thats not even half the league. Deep by definition implies far down from the top. When we talk about a team being deep, its in regards to the quality of the bench, not just the top end of the roster. Why would deep have a different meaning when talking about a conference?

You are winning the argument that you created about the West having more high quality teams. Bravo! Now you can try winning the argument about the quality of teams through out the East. You've already started by  initially outlining the competitiveness of the middle tier teams and calling them "degrees of mediocrity" then moving your assesment to "low level mediocre" or in the case of Hawks, Celtics, and Heat not good.

However, if you wanna stop this conversation thats fine too. I think we both know it will end in "agree to disagree", which you've already stated. So, apoligies to the OP for derailing his detailed thread.

Mobilija, you and other posters are correct, this is the definition of deep and the bench analogy is a good one. When you say a team is deep it doesn’t matter whether their top two guys are superstars or not, it is saying their 8th, 9th, 10th and 11th players are good players for those roles. The term is also used in baseball a lot when the 7, 8 and 9 hitters are batting 270 instead of the standard 210-220 for those spots. A bunch of teams in the East have significantly improved over the last couple of years like the nets, hawks, knicks and hornets. The only team that real had a huge drop is Toronto. I suspect the East will have more wins against the west this year than they have in recent years as they appear to have more teams that have really fallen off a cliff (Houston, San Antonio) and their mediocre to bad teams like Minnesota’s and Sacramento and New Orleans have not improved to the degree teams like the Knicks, hawks and nets.

[Moranis]

I don't think the Raptors are a top 6 team unless a bunch of teams basically have worst case scenarios and everything goes well for Toronto.

I mean assuming reasonable/moderate health the Raptors are clearly worse than the Bucks, Nets, Heat, Hawks, Celtics, and Sixers (even without Simmons).  That doesn't account for the Knicks, Bulls, Hornets, or Pacers which could all quite easily be better than the Raptors.

Sounds like the East is deep this year....

or just varying degrees of mediocrity

Yes, less bad teams more middling to good teams, i.e. deep.

not how I'd describe deep at all.

How else would you describe deep, other than 'less bad teams, more good teams'?

a low level mediocre team is not a good team and is in fact a bad team.  There are still 3 very bad teams in the east this year and 2 or 3 (depending on what happens with Simmons) very good to great teams.  I don't even know if I'd call teams like the Celtics, Heat, and Hawks good teams.  Should all be .500+ teams, but those are 2nd round type playoff teams at best.  No one else has any business winning a playoff series.  That just isn't a deep conference.  The West is a deep conference.  There are 6 teams that could legitimately make the finals and another 2 or 3 that are on the same tier as the Celtics, Heat and Hawks. 

Mediocrity does not equal deep in my view.  You can certainly disagree with that view, but that is my view. 

Edit: And for the record, this post is based a large part on objective factors like future betting odds.  Here is a link to a site.  https://www.vegasinsider.com/nba/odds/futures/  So 6 of the top 9 are in the West.  #11 is also a Western team.  so 7 of the top 11 are in the West.  The Heat have the 4th best odds to win the East at +1200, 6 teams out West have better odds than that.  Now I do understand some of that is just how good Brooklyn is perceived to be at -125, which is crazy (the Lakers are +170 to win the west), but it also shows that there just aren't that many good teams in the East.  The East is not deep.  A bunch of average teams does not make a conference deep.  A bunch of good teams does, and in that, the West laps the East.  The West is the deep conference.  The East is just bad (outside of BKN, MIL).

So...when u reference the top 9 or even top11 teams you are not talking about depth. Thats not even half the league. Deep by definition implies far down from the top. When we talk about a team being deep, its in regards to the quality of the bench, not just the top end of the roster. Why would deep have a different meaning when talking about a conference?

You are winning the argument that you created about the West having more high quality teams. Bravo! Now you can try winning the argument about the quality of teams through out the East. You've already started by  initially outlining the competitiveness of the middle tier teams and calling them "degrees of mediocrity" then moving your assesment to "low level mediocre" or in the case of Hawks, Celtics, and Heat not good.

However, if you wanna stop this conversation thats fine too. I think we both know it will end in "agree to disagree", which you've already stated. So, apoligies to the OP for derailing his detailed thread.

Mobilija, you and other posters are correct, this is the definition of deep and the bench analogy is a good one. When you say a team is deep it doesn’t matter whether their top two guys are superstars or not, it is saying their 8th, 9th, 10th and 11th players are good players for those roles. The term is also used in baseball a lot when the 7, 8 and 9 hitters are batting 270 instead of the standard 210-220 for those spots. A bunch of teams in the East have significantly improved over the last couple of years like the nets, hawks, knicks and hornets. The only team that real had a huge drop is Toronto. I suspect the East will have more wins against the west this year than they have in recent years as they appear to have more teams that have really fallen off a cliff (Houston, San Antonio) and their mediocre to bad teams like Minnesota’s and Sacramento and New Orleans have not improved to the degree teams like the Knicks, hawks and nets.

I'll ask the question again, since you ignored it in the thread you created and ignored already in this thread.  In 2019 the 10th seed in the East had 39 wins, do you think the 10th seed in the East this season is going to have 39 wins?

Edit: And come on, Detroit is much worse.  Washington is worse.  Orlando is worse.  Indiana is probably worse (unless you think they are 48 win team).  You can't just focus on the bottom without looking at the top teams. 

Here are the East Standings from 2019

Milwaukee - 60 wins
Toronto - 58
Philadelphia - 51 (this is the year they added Butler a month into the year)
Boston - 49
Indiana - 48
Brooklyn - 42
Orlando - 42
Detroit - 41
Charlotte - 39
Miami - 39
Washington - 32
Atlanta - 29
Chicago - 22
Cleveland - 19
New York - 17

How much different do you really think the win totals are going to be? When the 10th seed comes in at a more typical 36 or 37 wins and the 11th seed has a more typical 34 or 35, that doesn't mean the conference is deeper.  When there aren't two teams at 58+ wins and no teams winning in the teens, that doesn't mean the conference is deeper.  Crap is still crap whether they win 17 or 22 games makes no difference.  Mediocrity is still mediocrity whether they win 31 games or 36 games.