OK, I know it’s only 6 games into the NBA season and every single team in the east other than the Pacers have 3 or 4 losses already but I have to wonder if it’s time to reevaluate what was an almost universal understanding that the Knicks would finish 4th or 5th in the conference.
On the plus side JR is coming back tonight, adding some much needed offense and Bargnani had his best game as a Knick with 25 points, 8 rebounds and 5 blocks. Even NBA betting lines seem to feel the Knicks will be competitive even against teams like the Spurs.
The other side of this is Tyson Chandler is out for 4-6 weeks (at least) and as Harris Decker from The Knicks Blog points out, scoring against Zeller and Biyombo is slightly easier than scoring against the Duncans, Gasols and Hibberts of the league.
I’m leaning towards agreeing with our listeners, of whom everyone seems to feel the Knicks will go below .500 in the next 23 games but it should also be noted that as of yet no one in the east is stepping up to bump the Knicks down a spot or two and Pierce and Garnett look completely washed up so far.
I guess what I’m trying to say is I don’t know what to think anymore. My gut says this season is a mess and we should all panic but my eyes are telling me the east is turning out to be as top heavy as always and if the Knicks can stay close to .500 with Chandler out they’ll still hold on to a top 5 seed.
What do you think?
I just read a lockout article in support of the players. I have to say the author, Howard Bryant must be Kobe’s brother because the arguments made here are completely irrational.
In summary, he’s saying that there is parity in the NBA. The owners argue that there isn’t enough parity and that they want to base their model more like the NFL’s where there is. The author says the NFL does not have parity. He bases his argument on stats like this “In the NFL, the league of the vaunted hard salary cap and far less guaranteed money for its players, 20 of the 44 teams in the NFC of AFC title games came from top-10 TV markets” OK, so 31% of the teams played in 45% of the title games. I think that’s pretty even considering some teams get ravaged by injuries or bad management every year.
To say the NBA has parity is ridiculous. 3 teams from the west have made the finals since 1999. 12 years. 3 teams. Sounds pretty lopsided to me. In the east there have been a number of teams that made the finals, but every year there are about 4 good teams and 11 horrible ones. Yes the Knicks have one of the highest salaries and haven’t done anything, but that doesn’t mean having no cap is a good system. In poker if you start each hand with pocket aces you might not win every hand but you definitely start off with an advantage. If you have good ownership, having the highest salary is a huge advantage. (see Lakers and Yankees). Those two teams don’t win every year but they’ve made the finals a hell of a lot more than any other team in their respective sports.
I’m all for a hard cap. It’s boring if the same teams are in it every year. Why not just contract the league to 8 teams if the others aren’t going to have a chance at being competitive? And yes I’m aware that Oklahoma City is a very small market and are doing alright for themselves, but last I checked there is still only one Kevin Durant, so not every small market team is going to be able to draft him to become relevant.