Amar'e Stoudemire vs. Dwight Howard: Which Player Makes More Sense for Knicks?

The New York Knicks' quest to drape either Chris Paul or Dwight Howard in orange and blue is common knowledge.

Seemingly spurred on by the Miami Heat’s assembling of the "Big Three," the Knickerbocker hierarchy was determined to add another superstar alongside their All-Star duo of Carmelo Anthony and Amar'e Stoudemire.

With Paul out of the equation, Howard became the focus of not only the Knicks, but also any other team in the superstar market. 

Some speculation has been floated in recent weeks with regard to how New York could acquire Howard—largely considered the best center in the association. But in order to get Howard, the franchise would likely have to part with Stoudemire. 

In this writer’s humble opinion, such a move would be a drastic error by the Knicks.

It is without question that Howard is a top-tier player in the association, and the argument could be made that he is the most effectual. 

But Howard would not fit into the Knicks' current system. 

Looking purely at statistics, the two are on a similar level.

Stoudemire averaged 25 points and eight rebounds in 2010-11, while Howard averaged 22 and 14.

Borderline interchangeable. 

However, do not let the statistical similarities confuse you—the two could not be more different players.

Stoudemire is fairly quick for a near-seven footer. He gets up and down the floor and has the ability to find many ways to score. His range extends well into the "mid-range" category. 

And while he averages a respectable rebounding tally, he is hardly a presence on the glass or the defensive end. 

Howard, on the other hand, is a somewhat limited player on offense. His scoring jumped greatly last season, but he is still predominantly an inside scorer. Don’t expect to see Howard extending his range out beyond 12 feet, or spotting up his defender. 

His defensive work, though—as everyone knows—is arguably the best in the league. 

With that considered, it’s clear that Stoudemire is a better fit into Coach Mike D’Antoni’s up-tempo, running style of play. Stoudemire is able to contribute in the half-court set while also being able to stretch the floor when the Knicks offense is functioning at its high-octane best.

Howard would not be able to contribute in the same manner. 

The offense would have to be changed entirely to fit Howard’s methodical style, undoing the Knicks' building program of the past two seasons. 

But even with that considered, the 2010-11 Knicks would have been better off making that trade. Time and time again, their defense was proved to be second—and sometimes third—rate, allowing an astonishing 106 points per game (the third-worst in the NBA).

The addition of Tyson Chandler, one of the premier defensive players of the past season, should drastically improve that Knicks defense. 

Therefore, the supreme defensive talents of Dwight Howard in comparison to Stoudemire do not carry as much weight. 

If New York continues to build on the glimpses they showed last season, combined with the addition of Chandler, they should be a contender in the Eastern Conference.

Stoudemire was brought to New York to be an integral piece in the creation of a Knicks dynasty.

Trading him would not only make that plan null and void, it would also move the Knicks further away from their championship aspirations.