Knicks most used lineup was very successful

by mindfeck on Mar 30, 2011 4:38 PM EDT

This is an argument that the Knicks can improve with more time playing together, and that they don't need a center any more than they need a tall/defensive forward.

The Knicks most used lineup this season was:

	Unit	Min	Off	Def	+/-	W	L
	Felton-Fields-Chandler-Gallinari-Stoudemire	572.4	1.14	1.10	+59	22	13

http://www.82games.com/1011/1011NYK2.HTM

It was also the most successful lineup for the team. That is a very high number of minutes for one lineup to play together. I checked a few good teams and their most common lineups had 300-400 minutes. These top lineups were not any more successful than this one was for the Knicks. However, the other Knicks lineups were much less frequent and less successful.

Maybe this means that the team could be much better with familiarity. Maybe it means we underestimated the previous guys. Maybe it means D'Antoni needs to get a few different rotations set. The defense with the bench players is atrocious.

One more thing- Shawne Williams has been statistically our worst defender and the Knicks give up the most points when he's on the court. This shouldn't be the case since he often defends bench players, but it may also be due to being out of position.

Tweet Comment 12 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Well, no offense,

but no shit our starting lineup was our most effective lineup.

Fields, on the follow!

by nygmp42 on Mar 30, 2011 5:45 PM EDT reply actions

Well

I think the point was that that starting lineup didn’t include a true center (also, that wasn’t always the starting lineup by any means).

Posting and Toasting: DWTDD.

by Seth on Mar 30, 2011 5:52 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs

chandler and gallos height caused alot of mismatches

when they were together.

by lets go buffalo on Mar 30, 2011 6:05 PM EDT up reply actions

I think this was the "winning streak" lineup

NBA Team Analysis and Player Comparison

by mindfeck on Mar 30, 2011 7:13 PM EDT up reply actions

and i think 1 or 2 years together

with that will be absolutely an elite. given that if every ones upside is met.

by Teutoknicks on Mar 31, 2011 12:54 AM EDT up reply actions

Really?

You thought the Knicks starting lineup was better than pretty much any other in the league? It emphasizes how weak the other lineups are for the team that they’re sitting under .500 despite one of the best starting lineups.

NBA Team Analysis and Player Comparison

by mindfeck on Mar 30, 2011 7:11 PM EDT up reply actions

i read this and thought...

you were saying that we had no offense… which i agree with.

by bucketsncents on Mar 30, 2011 7:30 PM EDT up reply actions

of course poope is gonna be our worst statistical defender

MDA has the guy guarding centers half the time

by MHEV35 on Mar 31, 2011 9:54 AM EDT reply actions

lol, so true. He is given a lot of mismatches.

Proud Islanders fan, the organization that iced the greatest team to ever play the game and won 4 straight cups.
I'm also an optimistic Knicks fan, pessimistic Mets fan, and a happy Jets fan.

by OzzyFan on Mar 31, 2011 3:58 PM EDT up reply actions

What was the point of this?

I think we all would be in agreement that starting Stoudemire at C over Turiaf/whoever one would consider his backup with Fields and Gallo/Chandler in the lineup would be overall better then the other way. We don’t lose size or rebouding, and we add more offense that way.

Proud Islanders fan, the organization that iced the greatest team to ever play the game and won 4 straight cups.
I'm also an optimistic Knicks fan, pessimistic Mets fan, and a happy Jets fan.

by OzzyFan on Mar 31, 2011 4:06 PM EDT reply actions

What starting lineup would you like out of the players we have now?

Darrelle Revis once won a game of Connect Four in three moves.

by bm01bath on Mar 31, 2011 9:39 PM EDT reply actions 2 recs

This is why i have a problem with advanced metrics

These numbers don’t tell the whole story. A lot of the success probably came over the streak where we were playing inferior teams. Furthermore this does nothing to disprove the need for a center. This may have been our most successful lineup, but we don’t have any options where there was a real starting center involved. There’s no telling that a lineup with a marcus camby at the 5 wouldn’t have been more successful and then we likely would have had a very successful second line unit.

Although I agree, we could survive quite well with a new 4, putting Amar’e at the 5, provided the new 4 is an elite rebounder. I still would prefer a center who is a rebounder/shotblocker so Amar’e can play his natural position.

by Athony Mason's Haircut on Apr 2, 2011 4:00 AM EDT reply actions