New York Knicks' Next Generation?: Why Amar'e Stoudemire Was Wrong About Being "Back"
The New York Knicks are not back.
Mediocrity be thy scarlet letter for all those desperate New York writers, celebs and fans who ceaselessly proclaim so these days. Being on ESPN or TNT a few times does not make a team "back." That makes it the latest flavor.
So shame on you impetuous Big Apple blue and orange partisans for lowering the legacy of Reed, Debusschere, Frazier and Monroe.
Truth be told, the Knicks are barely interesting. The interesting part comes when their outside shots are falling for an entire game, or when they catch a really good team by surprise—like they've done with Miami and San Antonio this season—or perhaps when they take advantage of a good, but tired team—in the case of their win over Oklahoma City earlier.
Almost everything has to go right for the Knicks to win a game. That criterion does not amount to interesting, much less "back."
Young does not translate into interesting. Young often means inconsistent. Enter the Knicks, the definition of a sometimes-.500-or-less team: streaky-shooting, predictable and without defense.
Yes, the Knicks (25-24) are predictable—you know they're going to lose half or more than half of the time. You can even feel when they are going to lose.
Examine two games from the Knicks' very recent schedule, Feb. 2 versus Dallas and Feb. 4 vs. Philadelphia. A true team on the rise—more than halfway through the season—would have won them both. Instead the Knicks lost them both.
Beat Dallas to show you can protect home turf. Beat Philly to show you can stifle those behind you.
Nope. The Knicks fizzled out twice.
The Knicks have beaten only four very good teams all year: Oklahoma City, San Antonio, Miami and Chicago.
They beat each of these teams just once. They'd be hard-pressed to beat these teams again.
The Knicks' best streak of the season came against the likes of Detroit, Toronto, New Jersey and Sacramento. The Knicks have lost 15 of their last 24 games. To Knicks coaches and front office people: Your job security may be in jeopardy once again.
In the NBA, to be a comer, to be interesting, a team needs to commit to defense. One could venture to say no NBA team has won without playing exceptional defense.
Take the lesser-known NBA champions like the 1975 Golden State Warriors or the 1979 Seattle Supersonics—both played excellent defense, team defense. Perhaps this is why James Dolan keeps flirting with the excoriated-as-executive Isiah Thomas. Isiah would not be so smug with a defenseless squad.
So how are the Knicks interesting? How is this back? The Knicks, again, are neither.
Amar'e Stoudemire, the so-called "rejuvenator," may soon be suffering from a Ralph Kiner-type complex: We could have finished .500 or below without you.
As Rick Reilly said on ESPN.com in a Jan. 26 piece: "...if he's (Stoudemire) so valuable, why do they lose as often as they win?"
Stoudemire is a flawed player. He's really B-plus, not A. Rarely does he well contain his counterpart defensively. He does not average 10 rebounds a game, so he's not an exceptional rebounder. He does not take over games when it counts.
Put simply, Amar'e Stoudemire is not a franchise-changing athlete. Stoudemire is who he is—an excellent offensive force, limited otherwise.
In a watered-down league, one might ask "Why hasn't he taken the Knicks even further?" Carmelo Anthony, whom the Knicks should wisely crave, is a better player than Stoudemire, and he can bring greater positive effect to a team. (See the 2003 Syracuse University champions.)
It was arrogant of Stoudemire to proclaim upon signing that “the Knicks are back.” Just play. Show us.
Bernard King—also a better, more consistent player, and much more exciting than Stoudemire—took the Knicks to another (playoff) level. With less help, if anything. Before exalting Stoudemire, as Knicks rooters are now doing, let him do such things as King did.
The Knicks do not have above-average coaching. Mike D'Antoni breeds soft teams. Everything depends on out-gunning (-scoring) the opponent. It's like the Wild West with D'Antoni: We'll see who is left standing.
Well, even in the Wild West the best shooters had to find a barrel to take cover behind, once in a while.
Then too, D'Antoni is not an adjustment guy. He doesn't have a repertoire of switcheroos he can conjure during the course of a ballgame. He'll never out-smart the really good coaches or the talented teams with clever players. It's just not going to happen. His “system” gets a certain mileage for the money, but it is a very finite system.
If the Knicks disbanded today...besides Stoudemire, how many of their players would we ever hear from again? Instead of developing players for a “system,” the really superior coaches develop players.
That the Knicks are back is wishful thinking, coming from longing fans who have lowered their standards to places Willis, Clyde, Charles and Patrick could never imagine.
