A Mea Culpa
...and some stats
Following yesterday’s newsletter in which I compared the logic behind David Fizdale’s decision not to start Frank Ntilikina with the Monte Hall Problem, I got a text message from my friend who essentially called bullshit.
His argument was pretty simple. He wasn’t disputing the logical foundation of my argument itself (that the likelihood of someone picking up early fouls goes down if they’re not in the game), but rather that the decision screamed of a coach either a) giving a facetious excuse for something he wanted to do anyway (which I addressed yesterday) and/or b) playing not to lose.
The second part was especially interesting to me, because while I sympathize with the plight of head coach who fears having to look at his bench at some point during a game and not seeing a viable option to run his team, my sympathy underscores that fact that, if Fizdale was to be believed, this was a decision driven by fear. That’s a bad way to coach, especially when coaching a young team that needs to be developed.
Now to the point: am I leading the newsletter with this because I find it particularly compelling that Frank did or did not start the game, or whether Fiz was or wasn’t telling the truth? Of course not, because in the grand scheme of things, this is all quite meaningless.
However: this whole back and forth forced me to acknowledge not only that I tend to Stan for this head coach (not a surprise if you’ve listened to/seen/read my takes), but also to ask myself why. Why did I think it was so important to try to look at the bright side of every decision that he (and to a greater extent, the organization) makes?
It’s not because I’m a fan, because my text buddy (who is often quite critical of what they do) is a fan as well. It’s also not because I’m afraid to be critical, because I am sometimes, and as someone with a platform, I think my words carry some power, even if it’s only 0.0001% of influence on what the team does. Still, it’s something, and if I thought criticism would get them to alter a particular path or another, I’d happily be critical of said path.
No, I think the reason is deeper, and something that gets at the heart of why I write this newsletter, have the pod, do postgame videos, etc., etc. Simply put, I approach the team this way because I think that someone covering this team should always not only assume best intentions, but take those best intentions to their logical conclusion. Often times, members of the local media do the opposite, assuming worst intentions (or ignorant decisions) and take those assumptions to their logical conclusions.
Neither side is right, or wrong, for that matter. But I did think it was important to acknowledge my stance, even if that acknowledgement was already tacitly understood by most of you reading this (we are the smartest fan base in the world, after all)
One final point on this before we move on: there does come a point where positivity becomes the enemy of objectivity.
Let’s take Fiz. One can (as I often do) argue that we have no idea yet if he’s a good coach or not because of the talent he had last year and how fresh this season still is. However, the sample size we’ve been given is probably enough to decide that he’s not an elite coach. That fact should be acknowledged.
Does it matter? Who knows. Personally, I think it’s more important for this franchise at this particular time to have a coach that’s on the same page with the front office and can remain relentlessly positive in the face of a storm of negativity. Could the scales tip in the other direction? Of course. If and when it does, hopefully I’ll be up for calling it out.
That’s my promise today: I’ll try and spend more effort looking for the blind spots I might otherwise be missing in an effort to paint a fuller picture. Just an FYI.
Let’s look at some stats.
Statistical Spotlight
Five games is too small a sample size to draw any real conclusions. Last year, through the end of October, the Charlotte Hornets had the second best offense in the league and the Houston Rockets had the sixth worst. The Knicks, meanwhile, had a top 19 defense, one spot behind the Orlando Magic (18th), who would go on to have the best defensive rating in the sport from January 1 onward.
So yeah, it’s kinda early to be making any proclamations based on what we’ve seen so far. That doesn’t mean some stats aren’t good to know at this point, if for no other reason than to look for things that either need improvement or should continue to be capitalized on.
(all stats courtesy of Cleaning the Glass, which, if you’re going to go behind one paywall this year and you’re obsessed with the NBA far more than any other sport, it’s the one I’d recommend. It’s such a resource for so many things, both about players and teams)
Let’s start with something good: New York currently has the third highest offensive rebounding rate in the league, behind only Philly and Golden State. Not coincidentally, all three of those teams are also in the bottom half of the league in eFG%, with the Knicks checking in at 24th.
Given the shooting woes they’re likely to experience all season, it would seem like a good idea for the Knicks to use the one thing they really have going for them – size – to their advantage. They’re doing that in spades, as they’re first in the NBA in both points per miss and putback plays per miss in the half court. Basically, their glass-chewing on the offensive end is the only thing preventing an offense currently ranked 27th from being dead last.
This type of commitment to the offensive glass usually comes with the cost of allowing opponents to feast in transition off of live rebounds (because you’re worrying about grabbing your own teammates’ misses instead of getting back on defense).
Philadelphia is the gold standard here. Despite leading the league on grabbing their own misses, Philly is also third in defending teams off of live ball rebounds. Basically, they’re consistently in two places at once, which you can do when you’re so damn huge, athletic, and switchable.
The Knicks are the poor man’s version of the Sixers in this respect. They’re 15th in this category, dead smack in the middle of the league, which isn’t bad considering how young they are and the generally poor reputation some of their players have as smart team defenders. Making decisions on the fly in a situation where there are lots of moving parts would seem to be a tough ask.
(Golden State, the gold standard for heady defense for the last five years, is 29th, by the way.)
The bigger issue for New York has obviously been their turnovers, which is the other way that opponents can score in transition.
Here’s where things really get wonky. As you might expect, the Knicks are 28th in the league in opponent points added per 100 transition plays off steals. The odd part is that only 56.8 percent of the steals they’re yielding have led to transition plays, which is 7th in the league.
So that means that, when they do turn it over, they’re often doing a good job in stopping the initial fast break off those turnovers, but when teams are able to get out and run off steals, the Knicks aren’t putting up much of a fight. I guess we can count that as a silver lining?
Sure…why not.
Quote of the Day
I gave Marc Berman some shit yesterday for his reaction to Fizdale’s starting lineup decision, so let’s throw him some love today.
(As an aside, without casting judgment, I’m not sure there’s another team in the league or in sports that has to deal with a beat writer using the word “ridiculous” to describe a decision that, while open to question, is valid on it’s face. If anyone tells you there aren’t unique challenges that come with coaching and/or playing for this franchise, they’re sticking their head in the sand. But such is life, I suppose…)
Here’s head coach David Fizdale, courtesy of Berman in today’s Post:
“We missed nine open shots that Julius found people on,’’ Fizdale said. “You think about that. All of a sudden if those shots start falling, what Julius’ stat line looks like. What it comes down to is make-or-miss in this league, and then people start these critiques.”
(there’s some other goodies in the piece. I’d recommend checking it out)
This quote reads a little like Fiz putting lipstick on a pig and a little like complaining about the what I wrote in the proceeding paragraph. It’s also encouraging, not only because of the fact itself, which highlights how Randle was playing easily his best game as a Knick through three quarters, but also something more important:
For as much as we’re frustrated about this coach and this team not paying attention to the little things, they clearly are. When Marcus Morris takes one or two or five abysmal shots, that’s getting noticed. Maybe you’re encouraged by this, or maybe you’re frustrated by the fact that it hasn’t yet changed, but either way, no one should think that the staff is operating with their head in the sand.
So that’s something.
Watch Party!
Really now…is there anyplace you’d rather be?
News and Notes
Only thing of note is that Dennis Smith Jr. and Elfrid Payton are again not on the active roster tonight, and the starting lineup will be the same as Wednesday night: RJ Barrett, Wayne Ellington, Marcus Morris, Julius Randle and Mitchell Robinson.
That’s it for today! New York plays in Boston tonight. Tip off is at 7:30. We’re off until Monday barring anything nuts happening tonight. So let’s call it 50/50 you’ll be reading something from me tomorrow.