[news.google.com] — Friday, January 20, 2023 7:20:49 AM
Knicks vs. Hawks prediction, odds, line, spread: 2023 NBA picks, Jan. 20 best bets from proven model CBS Sports
[news.google.com] — Friday, January 20, 2023 6:00:00 AM
Magic Starting 5: Mo Bamba Trade to Hometown New York Knicks? Sports Illustrated
[news.google.com] — Friday, January 20, 2023 3:40:57 AM
Knicks vs. Hawks: Start time, where to watch, what’s the latest Hoops Hype
[news.google.com] — Friday, January 20, 2023 1:44:32 AM
Ben Solak Previews Giants-Eagles, and the Knicks Lose Robinson The Ringer
[news.google.com] — Thursday, January 19, 2023 11:48:00 PM
MSC Cruises Named Official Cruise Line Partner of the New York Knicks Cruise Addicts
[news.google.com] — Thursday, January 19, 2023 10:29:44 PM
Knicks’ Mitchell Robinson undergoes thumb surgery, will be re-evaluated in 3 weeks The Athletic
[news.google.com] — Thursday, January 19, 2023 8:42:24 PM
Is Zach LaVine the Star the Knicks Trade For? Sports Illustrated
[news.google.com] — Thursday, January 19, 2023 8:38:00 PM
Knicks C Mitchell Robinson out at least 3 weeks after surgery to repair broken thumb Yahoo Sports
[news.google.com] — Thursday, January 19, 2023 8:38:00 PM
Mitchell Robinson injury opens door for Obi Toppin to see more Knicks minutes New York Post
[news.google.com] — Thursday, January 19, 2023 7:56:00 PM
RUMOR: Lakers trade pursuit of young Knicks player intensifies ClutchPoints
[news.google.com] — Thursday, January 19, 2023 7:27:00 PM
Kyle Kuzma Interrupts Walter Frazier to Brush His Sharp Suit’s Shoulders at Wizards vs. New York Knicks Basketball Game Footwear News
[news.google.com] — Thursday, January 19, 2023 6:59:41 PM
Hawks vs Knicks Pick ? NBA Predictions & Odds 1/20/23 Sports Chat Place
[news.google.com] — Thursday, January 19, 2023 6:56:00 PM
Eastern Notes: Pistons, Caruso, Thybulle, Knicks, Porzingis hoopsrumors.com
[news.google.com] — Thursday, January 19, 2023 6:47:23 PM
Knicks center Mitchell Robinson has surgery on broken thumb ESPN
[news.google.com] — Thursday, January 19, 2023 6:45:28 PM
Hawks Trae Young in danger of missing Knicks games with ankle injury ClutchPoints
[news.google.com] — Thursday, January 19, 2023 6:38:00 PM
Knicks’ Robinson has thumb surgery, out at least three weeks Rome Sentinel
[news.google.com] — Thursday, January 19, 2023 5:38:51 PM
NBA Insider says Knicks could look to trade for Mitchell Robinson replacement before deadline | Ian Begley Yahoo Sports
[news.google.com] — Thursday, January 19, 2023 5:09:06 PM
Hawks’ Bogdan Bogdanovic: Questionable against Knicks CBS Sports
[news.google.com] — Thursday, January 19, 2023 5:00:00 PM
Would Knicks do this Derrick Rose, Evan Fournier trade with Clippers? Daily Knicks
[news.google.com] — Thursday, January 19, 2023 4:30:00 PM
Hawks’ Dejounte Murray, Trae Young clicking with Knicks next CBS Sports
[news.google.com] — Thursday, January 19, 2023 3:19:34 PM
New York Knicks Starter Undergoes Surgery Yardbarker
[news.google.com] — Thursday, January 19, 2023 3:08:16 PM
Mitchell Robinson Injury: Knicks Lose Center For 3 Weeks Sports Illustrated
[news.google.com] — Thursday, January 19, 2023 2:55:28 PM
New York Knicks vs. Atlanta Hawks Prediction, Preview, and Odds – 1-20-2023 Winners and Whiners
[news.google.com] — Thursday, January 19, 2023 2:15:34 PM
MSG = homecourt disadvantage? Don’t believe the hype Posting and Toasting
[news.google.com] — Thursday, January 19, 2023 2:14:02 PM
Knicks: Julius Randle climbs to 9th, Jalen Brunson remains outside … Empire Sports Media
[news.google.com] — Thursday, January 19, 2023 1:05:47 PM
Knicks, Chase announce second $100K donation to Earl Monroe’s … Bronx Times
[news.google.com] — Thursday, January 19, 2023 12:11:06 PM
Once unthinkable, could a Kristaps Porzingis-Knicks reunion happen? New York Daily News
[news.google.com] — Thursday, January 19, 2023 11:30:05 AM
Cam Reddish trade talks intensify but rumored returns are uninspiring AMNY
[news.google.com] — Thursday, January 19, 2023 10:22:00 AM
Knicks star rocks Eagles jersey ahead of playoff game vs. Giants NJ.com
[news.google.com] — Thursday, January 19, 2023 10:21:00 AM
New York Notes: Warren, Nets, A. Williams, Robinson, Knicks hoopsrumors.com
[news.google.com] — Thursday, January 19, 2023 8:20:00 AM
Why are the Knicks losing so many close games lately? New York Post
[news.google.com] — Thursday, January 19, 2023 8:07:43 AM
Mavs Trade for Lakers’ Westbrook? Why It Makes Sense – NBA Rumor Tracker Sports Illustrated
93 replies on “Knicks Morning News (2023.01.20)”
REPOST
I should clarify that I’m not “out” on any of Mitch, Randle, or RJ as positive long-term pieces per se.
I never expected much from this season…while it’s fun to imagine some Cinderella scenarios when we go on winning streaks, this has seemed like a .500ish team to me fronm the get-go and nothing that has happened this year has moved my thinking very much. This season is more about exploring what we have and making good decisions in the coming offseason than anything else. Randle, Barrett, and Mitch “can” theoretically be good pieces if those decisions pan out. But having the 3 of them in the starting lineup and then Brunson, who can be very ball dominant, running the point, will never allow for the kind of basketball I watched in the GSW-BOS game last night. Ultimately, I’d like to see Mitch replaced by someone that can pass and shoot a bit, even at the cost of some rebounds and blocks. Or by a guy that can give us 80% of his production at 20% of the cost. Unless and until we surround him with clones of Steph, Klay and Draymond, the Mitch genre of player will always be an eyesore to me.
Winning ugly has its charms, but I’m never going to be “attached” to it. Give me a team that thinks the game on a high level and I will be happy to live with the results.
I don’t think you’re gonna find anyone that gives you 80% of what Mitch gives you at 20% of the cost. A couple rookies might be excepted. This also applies for 80% of the cost.
http://www.espn.com/nba/statistics/rpm/_/sort/DRPM
You’re lucky to get a player like Mitch for 120% of his cost.
Fwiw, Sam Vecenie listed the Knicks as one of the most fun teams to watch right now.
Let’s appreciate what we have.
Mitch’s deal averages $15M a year and is descending. He’s been better than Jarett Allen by quite a bit in every metric ive looked at. Allen makes $20M. By Mitch’s last year he’ll make ~65% of what Allen makes.
There was a brief window where it was popular to find cheap centers, but looking at salaries across the league that’s no longer the case.
We already have the player making pennies on the dollar. It’s Mitch.
He comes “cheaply” because the other teams play a modern style — what Z-Man rightly denoted the style you see when you watch something like GS/BOS — not the style you have to play if you play Mitch.
He’s the definitive Moneyball player. The other teams want different, modern tradeoffs, not the tradeoffs you make if you have Mitch.
NOTE: None of this speaks to what Mitch theoretically could do if deployed in a more modern style, though obviously to a degree that’s reflected in his market value and cost.
I hope Hartenstein is a little healthier than he’s been…
Memphis plays Steven Adams. Cavs play Jarett Allen. The Jazz had a lot of success with Gobert and are succeeding with Walker Kessler.
I’m not sure why Moneyball became a diss all of a sudden. It’s been a good thing to find inefficiencies in the market, no?
… and as to aesthetics, with Mitch/Thibs, you don’t even get what could be a fun old-schoolish, low post center who you feed the ball to on the block and he can’t be stopped. That wouldn’t necessarily be “modern,” but it would at least possibly be fun.
But, no, what you get instead is a 5 who simply hovers in the lane around the rim waiting for the results of other people’s work.
I’m not sure why Moneyball became a diss all of a sudden. It’s been a good thing to find inefficiencies in the market, no?
*******************************
Not when it means losing in 5 in the first round when you happen to make the playoffs and general purgatory hovering over the entire project.
The marginal wins arguably achieved by picking up the loose change the other teams leave laying around are counterproductive if you want to build a contender. If what you want is to be able to turn on the TV or go to the Garden on any given night and have the Knicks with a slightly better chance at winning that particular game, I suppose it’s ok. There’s nothing wrong with that; it’s just not what a whole lot of us have in mind.
This is really just more of the “contention or bust” divide that features prominently around here. Is what it is.
Emphatic rejection you can replace Mitch at cost, at near cost, at low cost for most of his production.
Mitch is a marvel. I am fine with saying that he is aesthetically unpleasing. That’s a subjective assesment. I disagree strongly obviously – anyone that can block a shot on the perimeter like my avatar is a thing of beauty to me – but of course people’s mileage will vary.
But Mitch is historically good as an interior finisher, incredibly good as an offensive rebounder, and extremely good on defense.
You don’t replace a guy like Mitch easily.
I do think Walker Kessler is doing amazing stuff as a rookie. It’s not surprising – his college numbers were fantastic – but I’d accept he would have a shot at filling in for Mitch at a lower cost. Nic Claxton might be another guy.
I still think Grimes and Mitch are the team’s most important players or at least the guys who bring what the team most lacks otherwise. Robinson is the guy who can singlehandedly multiple times a game turn quality opponent shots into misses and turn bad Knick shots into scores. The former especially is a weakness for a low athleticism, low length team.
Players like Mitch can be reverse Allen Iversons. They will provide almost a defensive baseline for the team just as Iverson could convert offensive possessions into low/medium efficiency shots even without spacing.
Between Randle, Brunson, Barrett and Quickley, the team is packed with players who tend to over-dribble and isolate constantly. Grimes is the extreme opposite of that. He’s the rare player who is already beginning to do whatever he intends as he catches the ball. He injects flow and speed into an offense that can become very predictable and vulnerable to zone and double teaming.
My view is that either’s absence hurts the Knicks as much as anyone’s.
Completely separate observation: IMO one thing that’s becoming harder to deny about this team is it’s made up of several extremely streaky players who play very differently not just in terms of whether the ball goes in the hoop but also defensive effort and selfishness depending on whether they’re up or down. RJ and Randle both have that quality just as JR Smith did, where he’d look like an all star for 30% of every season and a total scrub for another 30%. Quickley is the other streaky player although he doesn’t let it affect his play style or effort.
I would like to see more switch and hedging with Hartenstein & Sims playing for the foreseeable future. I do think Thibs will adjust (eventually). Both seem better in those situations than in drop.
Yeah, I think we should keep Mitch. This injury again seems more like a freak injury and not something that is going to cause permanent damage.
I just don’t know if we need to mess with the starting line up plus IQ. RJ will slowly get better and so will IQ (and Grimes for that matter). And Mitch, Randle and Brunson have all been good to great (Mitch maybe has more room to grow too).
Yes, long term we need a superstar who would probably replace any of our starting 5 (except maybe Brunson).
But short term, the bench is the issue. Or at least was until Mitch went down.
I don’t know. There’s not a lot of time before the trade deadline and I doubt we’re going to pack it in just because Mitch got hurt. And none of our core pieces I would want to sell off right now. But this should move Leon to try and sell off CAM, Rose and Fournier (if possible) even more so.
So I would still like to shore up the bench but also, could see us losing games now that Mitch is out and maybe missing the playoffs all together. So don’t do anything taht would cost us future assetts, which I don’t think LEon would do anything.
This is all a long way of saying it sucks Mitch got hurt but I don’t know if it changes our long term trajectory that much. It might just end up costing us the playoffs this year. Which maybe could be a blessing in disguise as it would give us a lottery pick and an outside shot at a top pick.
My only fear is if we start losing because Mitch is out and missing the playoffs becomes a real possibility, that Leon is going to feel pressure and make some panic trade for Zach Lavine or something dumb like that.
A possible silver lining to Mitch’s injury..
Shouldn’t starting Hartenstein force Thibs to add some wrinkles into the offense? Especially late in games?
*** Sam Vecenie listed the Knicks as one of the most fun teams to watch right now.***
Other things Sam Vecenie might like:
Paint drying
Grass growing
Jicama
Lifetime original movies
Bob Dylan’s Christian phase
Pickleball
One answer to missing Mitch could be to call the Spurs and see if Poeltl is available. He’s hurting the Wembanyama odds.
I wouldn’t give up too much, but he’d be a great option.
Few things, trade-wise, from The Athletic:
1)Our old pal Mike Vorkunov writes “one NBA executive said this week he doesn’t believe Quickley is gettable in a trade anymore.”
2)In a trade rumor round-up by Vecenie and some of their other top NBA writers, Spurs have “a high asking price of multiple first-round picks” for Poeltl, and Wizards would want at least a first and a promising young player for Kuzma. Lots more than that, including their thoughts that Knicks should not trade IQ.
Other things Sam Vecenie might like:
Magic mushrooms
Parking car by airport and watching planes go up and down…
I like Mitch a lot. I like his contract. I like that he starts as center for us. But…the idea that if we miss the play-offs it was because Mitch was down for 8 weeks does not work for me. Mitch is our 4th best player, and very likely the easiest to replace given our bench. Two years ago, our little late season winning streak occurred without him. The season rests on our high-usage players’ efficiency, their defensive effort, Thib’s coaching, and whether or not our bench is any good (in that order).
Well that’s a no on Poeltl then.
Think the Wiz would take Obi, Cam, & their own pick back? Lol
Donnie, you don’t even watch the Knicks!
Where is this idea that contending teams try to avoid centers like Mitch coming from? Everyone acknowledges how central Timelord is to the Celtics. The Grizzlies start Steven Adams. The Nets start Claxton. Jarrett Allen is fairly similar to Mitch. Kevon Looney has 3 ringzzzz.
A lot of teams have plenty of success with low usage, high efficiency centers who add a ton of value defensively.
Of course, other contenders don’t play centers like Mitch because they have players like Nikola Jokic and Joel Embiid. There’s no clear formula here–good teams have good players. Mitch is unambiguously a good player. We can win with him if we get other good players in the other 14 roster spots.
Timelord (and others with superficial similarity) are not deployed like Mitch. You’ve left out the second part of a two-parter, and otherwise metamorphosed the discussion into a strawman — kind of like yesterday with the Reddish/Bullock trade. Better to just play it straight, I’ve always found.
Nor is Mitch “unambigiously a good player.” He’s a good player *if used in a premodern role.* This was also explained at length, not just by me but by Z-Man and others. Introducing the role introduces ambiguity — pretty much by definition.
(And I will again repeat my caveat because if I don’t it will be distorted. It’s possible that Mitch could also be good if used in a more modern role. It appears as if his value in the marketplace doesn’t give too, too much weight to that possibility, but that value could of course be wrong.)
I don’t think you’re gonna find anyone that gives you 80% of what Mitch gives you at 20% of the cost.
Taj makes just about 20% of what Mitch currently makes. Two years ago he probably gave you 80% of Mitch. But other than a hefty lift on FT%, nowhere near Mitch today even accounting for minutes played. And I think Taj is a bargain.
There are certainly inefficiencies in NBA salaries/value but finding the 80%/20% replacement for a productive player on a more or less on-the-market contract is not where you are likely to find them. On the other hand, of all the positions on the Knicks, having a “worse” player than Mitch at center would be the least disruptive and whatever savings plowed into upgrading the other positions (outside of Jalen) does have merit.
What “modern” things do Timelord, Looney, Adams, Claxton, and Allen do that Mitch doesn’t? If you can’t, you know, name them, sounds like you’re the one not “playing it straight.” Better to be specific about these things, I’ve always found.
Tons of highly successful teams deploy defensive stalwarts at center and get their high-usage guys at other positions.
My position on a potential Cam-for-Bullock trade remains that we should make it if it’s the best offer we get for Cam. This seems uncontroversial–Cam is a pending free agent who sucks, so we don’t want to re-sign him. The logical thing to do is to trade such a player for the best offer. What’s the “strawman?”
Just gonna ignore E who is intent on trolling or just has no idea about any of those players.
Mitch has drastically improved in the last couple years. He also missed the Hawks playoff series, which I guess is the most important event of the last 20 years. Do you remember where you were when you heard the Knicks lost in the playoffs? Everyone does.
“What “modern” things do Timelord, Looney, Adams, Claxton, and Allen do that Mitch doesn’t?”
Not hovering around the rim every possession seeking offensive rebounds. This is probably the fifth time I’ve mentioned this. It’s not his fault he does that, naturally — that’s how he’s premodern-ly deployed.
“What’s the “strawman?””
Making it about Cam Reddish, about whom you and others are obsessed, and ignoring the back end of the transaction and its import.
“Do you remember where you were when you heard the Knicks lost in the playoffs?”
Oh, yeah, definitely — sitting in nice seats I lucked into for all three games and where a lot can be observed.
We should trade all of our players that we never play—namely, Cam, Rose, and to a lesser extent Fournier—for players that we at least could plan on putting in the rotation. Assuming that we can do so without giving up much (if anything) in terms of picks. It’s really quite ridiculous to have those three players plus Svi and Arcidi glued to the bench without any possible way of getting off of it.
You’re joking, but i think they might. And the reason is that the pick is exactly most valuable to the Wizards. With that pick out, they can only trade picks starting in 2028 because of the protections. If they get the pick back, they instantly can trade four of their own picks (including the 2023 pick).
ORB/36:
Adams: 6.6
Mitch: 5.8
Timelord: 5.6
Looney: 4.6
Allen: 3.4
Claxton: 3.1
Doesn’t seem like there’s some offensive rebounding practice that drastically differentiates Mitch from this group.
“Making it about Cam Reddish, about whom you and others are obsessed, and ignoring the back end of the transaction and its import.”
Apologies for making a potential trade of Cam Reddish about Cam Reddish, but I still think we should trade the pending free agent we’re definitely not re-signing for the best offer.
I’m not even sure what the debate is.
Every player on your team is not going to be a super versatile star and among the top few players in the league at their position.
The idea is to build a team that OVERALL can score efficiently, defend, rebound, make value added passes etc.. at a high enough level to compete with the best teams.
Mitch is extremely limited on offense, but he defends the paint well, helps well, intimidates, and is a beast on the offensive boards. He’s very good at the things he does. That’s what you want from a role player. You want him to be VERY good at a few things even if he’s not so good at some other things. Then you try to get the things he doesn’t do well from other players that maybe don’t do some of the things Mitch does well.
That’s more or less what I’ve been saying for years regarding Mitch.
He’s very very good role player, but given his specific limitations, you have to try to get the things he doesn’t do well elsewhere.
That’s the Randle debate (and it applies to RJ and Brunson to some degree also).
If your C can’t shoot, spacing will become an issue if you have other weak shooters on the court, especially if some of your guys do their best work trying to get to the rim.
IMO the issue we should be discussing is not so much whether Mitch can be part of a contending team. He 100% can be (at least when healthy). The issue is whether, Mitch, Randle, RJ and Brunson are the best fit?
IMO, if Mitch is the C we need better shooting.
Ultimately, we will probably have to choose between Randle, RJ, and Mitch and either get a true stretch PF, switch to a C that can stretch the floor, or get a longer taller more athletic SF that’s a high level 3 point shooter.
In isolation though, Mitch is a very good role playing C.
Maybe you couldn’t find a player as good as Mitch on his current salary, but what do you think we could get back in a trade for Mitch right now (assuming he was healthy and we were sellers at the trade deadline?
I’m guessing a single lightly protected first. And it’s not because GMs don’t appreciate Mitch’s statistical profile. My guess is that other GMs appreciate that in a playoff series against good teams with heady players, Mitch’s many weaknesses are easy to exploit. He is not a well-rounded player by any means.
Folks can go on dreaming that he’s in the conversation with players like Allen, RWIII, Adams, Adebayo, Capela, etc. I think he’s a huge step below them. I’d rather pay more to get one of them, or pay less and take the productivity cut.
Rather than move on from Mitch, I’d rather the Knicks move either Barrett or Randle in a deal of some sort for a “shooter.” Maybe a stretch 4 for Randle or a 3 and D wing for RJ.
Easier said than done, I know.
I agree with what deeefense said in a way….it’s more about the rest of the team than it is about Mitch…on the right team he would make more sense. On our team, which is so heavy on starters that score in the paint, he is a placeholder until we can find a C who can do more than he does. He’s the easiest to move since Randle and RJ aren’t going anywhere and Brunson is on among the best non-rookie deals in the NBA.
and is a beast on the offensive boards.
*************************
At the cost of hovering, clogging the lane for other players, and probably indirectly impacting transition defense.
There’s a reason the other teams don’t “hover” their center.
Spurs are asking for two 1sts for Poeltl
And I can’t really imagine going into the playoffs with matchups against Embiid and Giannis without a guy like Mitch.
The metrics are pretty clear on his value to both sides of the ball.
But…the idea that if we miss the play-offs it was because Mitch was down for 8 weeks does not work for me.
But he is so important to our defense.
I think a distinction should be made between “best” and “most important.” Obviously, this overlaps most of the time but Mitch improves our defense so much that I would say even if he isn’t our third best player, he might be our third most important?
Let me put it another way. Our top 6 is Brunson, Randle, IQ, Mitch, RJ and Grimes. I think this is not up for debate. After that, there is a huge drop off in talent and production. Now Obi, Sims, Hart and even McBride all could potentially improve but as it stands right now, our top 6 is pretty damn good and our bottom 4 are not so good.
So losing ANY of the top 6 long term is potentially very bad for us. Obviously, Brunson and Randle are a cut above the other 4, so if we lost one of them long term our season would most likely be sunk. But I would argue Mitch is the third most important player because of the specific skill set he brings to this team.
Like maybe Hart and Sims can step up. Its not out of the question. More likely that would happen than MrBride stepping up if Brunson went down. But Mitch is extremely valuable to us for defense and rebounding.
I work in a marketing department. Our graphic designer just quit. Was she the best employee in our department? No (she was great!) But no one else in the department can do what she does or even fake do what she does. If we lost our content writer, even though I’m in sales, I could fake writing content for a month or two while we found someone else. But no one in our department knows Illustrator or Adobe After Effects. So we’re screwed. It’s the same with Mitch.
And not to knock on RJ but out of the top 6, he is probably the least important (right now). Brunson, Randle, IQ, and Grimes can all up their production some to cover for the lost scoring if RJ misses a ton of time. But if Randle goes down, Obi can’t really fill that void. Same with Brunson and I would argue same with Mitch. I would say losing any of the 5 of our top 6 sans RJ long term could potentially sink this team’s season.
I actually think IQ could fill in for Brunson pretty well if he can keep up his current play. The gap closes a lot with IQs defense and Brunson’s lack there of.
The bench would be more concerning. From that perspective having Sims offsets the loss of Mitch more than other positions.
“At the cost of hovering, clogging the lane for other players, and probably indirectly impacting transition defense.
There’s a reason the other teams don’t “hover” their center.”
I think you missed my main point.
Other than the most versatile stars, every player has things on his resume he can’t do. Rather than dwell on what a player can’t do well, you should focus on what he can do well and try to build a team of players that complement each other so the sum is greater than the parts.
We don’t have an optimal fit. I’ve been saying that for years.
It’s better than it was with the addition of Brunson, but we still have too many players that want to get to the rim and not enough space. Mitch is part of that, but are so RJ and Randle.
Hart is not going to be as efficient as Mitch or as good on D, but he’ll hit the offensive boards almost as hard and give us a little better spacing. I think we’ll be OK if he can get out of his shooting slump with floaters and put backs.
I wonder if Sims is going to be the starter?
He’s more like Mitch.
Pretty bizarre conversation. There’s probably no player on our roster with a stronger proof of concept on a contender than Mitch. The two teams who played in the finals last season both start centers who are quite similar to Mitch.
He is 2nd on the team in RPM, 3rd in RAPTOR WAR, 3rd in BPM, and first in individual net rating. Box score stats, impact stats, and stats that combine the two agree he’s very good!
To the extent he “doesn’t fit” with RJ Barrett, perhaps the most relevant question is who exactly does “fit” with RJ Barrett? Is there a center somewhere who is a great fit with a guy who takes and misses a lot of shots in the paint?
Rather than dwell on what a player can’t do well, you should focus on what he can do well and try to build a team that complements each other so the sum is greater than the parts.
********************************
Obviously concur, but when the players are all stuck in a primitive style, all we can do is project.
The Knicks three best offensive players are all slashers. They have to deal with an extremely clogged lane. As I’ve said in the “what should the front office do?” conversations, rather than project and guess, I’d really like to see the lane become unclogged and the offense modernized before making any final decisions. As Z-Man noted, and as I’m sure you’d agree, you turn on a GS/BOS game (or basically *any* other game) and the differences in spacing and openness are stark and obvious.
I’m not even convinced Mitch couldn’t play well in an open lane, modern offense. He can pick and roll and rim run, and could likely crash the offensive boards very effectively from distance. I see no reason to believe he *has* to hover to be effective.
Let the Spurs ask for whatever they want for Poeltl…let’s see if they get it.
If we were offered two firsts for Mitch, would you take it?
He is 2nd on the team in RPM, 3rd in RAPTOR WAR, 3rd in BPM, and first in individual net rating. Box score stats, impact stats, and stats that combine the two agree he’s very good!
******************************
The other front offices aren’t obsessed with that stuff. I realize that bringing up outside opinion warrants the tumbrils and the guillotine around here, but Mitch’s reputation is not that. He’s not even Tier 5 in the Athletic and his peak Top 100-ish rating is somewhere in the 92-ish range.
There’s ample reason for that — they’ve been pointed out here at length. Those people aren’t just doing those ratings that way just to piss off the Mitch faction at Knickerblogger.
Now, it’s of course possible that those rankings are off. That’s certainly possible and as an open-minded sort, I never dismiss those possibilities. But making that case requires far more rigor and analysis than some superficial all-in-one metric that anyone who pays attention knows is biased toward certain types of players. (cough … Isaiah Hartenstein).
If we were offered two firsts for Mitch, would you take it?
************************
Will never be offered, but hand raised vigorously.
Is there a center somewhere who is a great fit with a guy who takes and misses a lot of shots in the paint?
**********************
Oh, I don’t know — maybe one that … doesn’t bring elite shotblockers into the paint????
This shtick where you pretend front offices care more about The Athletic tiers and The Ringer rankings than they do about various metrics is so tired.
I’m literally reading a book written by Seth Partnow right now. He does not say “when I was in the Bucks’ front office we ignored all those number thingys.” Quite the opposite.
Numbers have their blindspots, everyone knows this. Not all measurements can stand up to the empirical rigor of Kevin O’Connor’s rankings, give them a break.
The Mitch faction. Lol
I think most teams in the NBA would be delighted to have Mitch on his current contract.
Honestly, all the stuff about how he is a bad fit, I just don’t buy it. A good team can absolutely find a way to use Mitch.
“The two teams who played in the finals last season both start centers who are quite similar to Mitch.”
I assume that by those two you mean Looney and RWIII
A couple of things:
-Both of those teams have off-the-dribble 3-pt shooting in spades
-Both have multiple all-NBA level players
-Looney is making substantially less money; RWIII makes roughly the same but is by far the better player on both ends
-Both are excellent passers
-Both understand the geometry of the FT
-Both teams have other options that work just fine
In short, my opinion is that you put everything into filling the other roles and then fill in the pogo stick role however you need to with what is left over, especially with non-lottery picks. Walker Kessler was available at #22 and I would be more than happy to replace Mitch with him and use Mitch’s money elsewhere.
This shtick where you pretend front offices care more about The Athletic tiers and The Ringer rankings than they do about various metrics is so tired.
***********************
Another strawman. Never said front offices don’t pay attention to numbers and metrics. Never even hinted it. Did say they aren’t obsessed with it, and they aren’t.
The outside opinion is generally reflective of what front offices are thinking, and all of them of course use numbers and metrics vigorously. As if the Athletic guy and the b/ball guys at ESPN and SI are just a couple jabronies watching a few games on TV and bloviating.
The metrics alone aren’t indicative of Mitch’s actual value and reputation in the marketplace and it’s impossible to see how that really warrants any kind of relitigation.
I think most teams in the NBA would be delighted to have Mitch on his current contract.
*************************
Like when Z and others insist this about Randle, same response — this should be reflected in the marketplace. Find and show the evidence that it is. Happy to listen and participate.
roster construction/sorry ass front office and neandethal head coach are probably more worrisome than mitch’s contribution per dollar…
“This shtick where you pretend front offices care more about The Athletic tiers and The Ringer rankings than they do about various metrics is so tired.”
I don’t know why the snark is necessary….
Are you disputing Mitch’s current market value? What do you think he could be traded for?
“Like when Z and others insist this about Randle”
Sorry, never said this. I only said that it would be bad asset management to use assets to dump his salary without trying to rehabilitate his value. And time has borne out that the notion that his contract was the worst contract in the NBA and was unlikely to be salvageable was one of the worst hot takes ever.
You know people make fun of you for the Athletic article tiers because:
(1) nobody knows what they mean with some people not having a subscription (I read it and don’t remember what any of the designations are)
(2) it’s already outdated, and
(3) you’re just offering your opinion on how good these players are, saying they’re tier x is also just your opinion, it’s redundant.
You have yet to offer any stats or research or anything to backup your positions. If you offer literally any source or stat in response to people posting actual data and sources… then it might be worth responding.
Do I need to tap the sign again?
Our poorly constructed roster of tier 5F players with a bad coach who runs a Neanderthal system is 6th in offensive rating and 11th in defensive rating.
You have yet to offer any stats or research or anything to backup your positions.
*****************************
Those rankings by objective outsiders *are* research and a bunch of stats and metrics are embedded in them.
Can you link it then? And do you think it’s still relevant? When was it last updated?
PS I agree with those who believe that other GMs would still be hesitant to take on Randle’s contract even with his improved play this year. But he’s certainly re-established a significant amount of market value compared to before this season. I can’t offer any proof of this, but it seems to pass the smell test.
I think it would a lot easier to find a team for Mitch than Randle. Good teams don’t need him. Bad teams won’t really want him for a number of reasons. There are some middling teams that could use him but it’s a small market.
He was playing great. I’d say he has tailed off a bit lately. The defense is always an issue. But he’s been fine and I am glad he is looking like 2020 Randle.
I..can’t believe we’re in here “debarguing” over Mitch’s value. I think he has more than proven his value already in this half a season. I feel like you can only argue his value if you’re expecting 20 and 10 from him per. Though there has been valid points made about him drawing elite shot blockers into the paint, but that’s still minimal compared to the value he brings to this team. Sure- we’d all love a Porzingis type who can shoot, play in the post, and block shots to play alongside Randle. But..they make it work just fine, so it’s kinda arguing over semantics to me. Randle brings tremendous value too, but I’d rather see him replaced over Mitch
***Allen, timelord, Looney, Claxton, Capella, etc…”
Robinson and Jarret Allen are similar, but to appreciate Allen you have to look at their differences. Allen shoots 22% better from the line, has double the assist rate, has half the foul rate, and, most importantly, takes 45% of his shots from outside of 3 ft vs 9% by Mitch. He’s basically Mitchell Robinson without the holes which IS a very valuable in any system. But the flaws can’t be ignored. They suppress Robinson’s value, despite what the efficiency snobs want to believe.
And as for the 80% value for 20% of the cost, the trick isn’t really to find the player currently playing in the league to replace Robinson with. The gist is more that all the guys listed above were 2nd round picks (or late 1st rounders), and they were good at what are good at immediately. So if what you want is a low usage high efficiency center who can rebound and protect the rim for 20 minutes a game, you can buy a 2nd rounder and pay him the minimum for a few years and get a lot of what Robinson provides.
We’ve been surprisingly good because our offense has been surprisingly good. As of right now we rank #6 in offensive rating.
Our offense has been surprisingly good because of possession control: we’re an elite offensive rebounding team, and we’re elite at preventing turnovers. It’s an ugly style, definitely not aesthetically pleasing, and you can question how well that’s going to work against the very best teams in the league, and in the playoffs.
But it’s working, and Mitch is obviously a big part of it, as he’s one of the very best offensive rebounders in the league. He’s no slouch on defense either. Our numbers are a little bit inflated because of Thibs’ maniacally short rotation– we play a playoff-style rotation in the regular season. So that caveat applies. But I think we’re about to find out how much the offense is going to miss Robinson’s voracious offensive rebounding. It’s central to our good offensive play.
>>To the extent he “doesn’t fit” with RJ Barrett, perhaps the most relevant question is who exactly does “fit” with RJ Barrett? Is there a center somewhere who is a great fit with a guy who takes and misses a lot of shots in the paint?<<
When we are talking about complimentary pieces we aren't talking about huge transformations. We are talking about modest improvement or deterioration depending on the conditions. But that kind of stuff means extra/fewer wins, especially when applied to multiple players.
RJ would be more efficient on any team with above average spacing given we have below average spacing. He'd finish better if there weren't often 2-3 guys in the paint waiting for him.
I can't quantify it, but I'd take it. Of course, I'd prefer he start shooting better from outside and finishing better too.
Mitch is actually an excellent fit on a team that gives a ton of shots to a guy who can’t make them in RJ Barrett. If you replaced Mitch in our offense with a stretch big I’m not sure we’d get that much better (I mean, we’re already top 6 or 7 in offensive efficiency), since what makes our rather primitive offense go is putbacks and extra attempts off of offensive rebounds. RJ (and Randle on a bad day) is still going to chuck, chuck, chuck away, no matter how open the paint. And I think that the Mitch of this and last year is an excellent, excellent player, one of the most underrated in the league, and a real defensive anchor. I’m nor sure how you could look at the stats, or watch the games, and not think that. He’s been far better than Capela and Allen ytd, and has more defensive chops, imo, than Claxton or Time Lord (though they bring things on offense that he doesn’t).
The reason we don’t look like GSW is because we don’t have Steph Curry, Draymond Green, and Klay Thompson. The reason we don’t look like Boston is because we don’t have Tatum, Brown, and Horford. If Thibs had Steph, Dray, and Klay on his team, they would still look largely as they do on GSW, with just a bit less motion and a lot more Dray in the Noah pinch post role.
More broadly, I think that Thibs just has strong views on what works with his personnel, which conditions his offensive decisions. He often ran the triangle in Minnesota iirc, along with more motion (though there was also a fair bit of iso), and ran some pinch post play in Chicago with Noah. Here, he doesn’t do that because, really, would you want Randle to be running a motion offense? We need to make things simpler for our guys, not more complex. That makes it ugly, but it sure is effective so far.
“Obviously concur, but when the players are all stuck in a primitive style, all we can do is project.”
I’m a dinosaur. I don’t believe any of the nonsense spouted by so called experts. I’ve seen the game change multiple times, but it always comes back full circle. It just depends on what’s been working lately (everyone likes to imitate the latest success) and that depends on the skills of the very best players in any era.
The only real transformation has been that there’s a better understanding of the value of 3s relative to long 2s and players became more focused on that skill because of that understanding. So they are better at it.
But IMO, you can win with any style if you have the right players.
I’d gladly take Hakeem surrounded by 3 point shooters and play inside/post out right now and kick everyone ass just like he did.
You can win with Mitch too with the right combination of players.
If I found the correct Athletic article, then the two metrics are EPM & RAPM. Mitch is top 30 in both metrics. Grimes & IQ also excel in both metrics.
In Seth Partnow’s opinion, as nobody else contributes, the modern Cs you mentioned are on par with the traditional Cs. Outside Embiid & Jokic, traditional center Gobert is the highest ranked center.
The article doubts Brunson is a borderline all-star, however, the consensus around the league now appears to be that he is a borderline if not actual, all-star. The same applies to Randle. Again, the article is out of date.
Backwards looking metrics are not reliable predictors. You need to update your assessment based on new information. If you do, it becomes clear that the Knicks you disparage are better than the article you rely on states.
At least IQ is what we hoped he was. And the FO realizes it.
The Knicks’ defense is 4.3 points per 100 possessions better when Robinson is on the floor, according to Cleaning the Glass.
The offense is 6.3 points per 100 better when Robinson’s in the game, too.
(Katz talking about our center quandary today)
I think a little too much is made out of Mitch’s offensive rebounding compared to our other options. He pulls down 5.8 per 36. Hart gets 5.2 and Sims gets 5.1. Their respective OREB%s are within one percentage point. And Hart and Sims have better DREB%s, and their total REB%s are almost identical to Mitch’s.
And while none are good FT shooters, I don’t feel like they have to defy the laws of physics to make one.
If we look at on-off numbers, Mitch is great but McBride (who I think we can all agree is not very good) has excellent numbers too, and he’s doing it while mostly being on the court without Mitch and Randle and with Hart.
I’m pleased that we get a chance to look at Sims with this 9-man rotation (wasn’t the case when Mitch was last injured.) Being that he’s getting paid 10% of Mitch’s salary, if he gives 80% ot the production, I’m good with that.
Here’s some quotes on Mitch’s rebounding from a recent Katz article:
We don’t have these numbers for Hartenstein or Sims, but the raw numbers may under sell Mitch’s impact on the boards.
https://theathletic.com/3412054/2022/07/11/nba-players-top-125-tier-5/
This is the Athletic article that describes the tiers, gives the methodology, and lists the Tier 5 guys.
“Is it still relevant?” Well, the methodology and philosophy are. There’s 60% of a season of new data, of course, so there’s likely been some player movement.
A higher percentage of his rebounds are contested than any other player in the league, according to the data-tracking tool, Second Spectrum
*******************************
Precisely what you’d expect from the center who hovers the most ….
Mitch is a very good to excellent offensive rebounder. That doesn’t mean he doesn’t hover. (Technically, “is asked to hover” — it’s not as though he has any choice in the matter and would probably prefer not hovering.)
Another issue in Mitch’s value going forward might be injuries. I’m too lazy to see how much time he’s missed in the past with minor injuries, but this latest has me hoping he’s not injury prone/snakebit/whatever.
Interesting debate today but seems somewhat moot vs. what trade(s) might happen before the deadline.
I’ve addressed this above using his methodology to show that the article underrated at least half the Knick rotation, including 4 of 5 starters.
There’s no doubt that Mitch is an elite offensive rebounder. Great rim protector too. But he has glaring flaws and is flaky as hell. That bugs me.
I’m looking forward to finding out whether Sims is for real, i. e. How much daylight there is between him and Mitch. Tonight will be a great test. Hopefully he can stay on the court.
PS were we better off with Sims as the backup 4 rather than Obi? Serious question…
I’d argue that Mitch has glaring holes but is not really flaky as hell anymore. He was his first couple of years, certainly, but he seems to have matured pretty significantly.
(Related, interesting Athletic article on Justise Winslow and how he fell into a really deep wormhole, but seems to have come back out again — so ‘maturing’ does indeed happen, even if not yet for me…)
And a shot at your question — Sims over Obi at the 4 at the moment, would be my position. But not if Good Obi comes around again.
And yeah, I believe in Good Obi. Scoring 20, 20, 19, 35, and 42 points over five games is not an aberrant fluke, even if it was end-of-year games.
From today’s Katz article, it appears the 1-4 pick and roll is avery successful part of the Knick’s offense, with Brunson as the screener!
“Heading into Thursday night’s action, Brunson had set the fourth-most ball screens of any point guard in the NBA this season, according to information tracked by Second Spectrum and supplied to The Athletic. Most of them are for Randle. And when he does it, the team dominates. His ball screens have generated 133.8 points per 100 possessions so far this season, a number so obscene that we considered placing an NSFW warning at the top of this article.”
Howdy Geo! I really enjoyed “Atlanta”. I blew through the first 3 seasons already.
Super interesting about Brunson screens
wow a whole thread on mitch… the forgotten the guy on our team for most of the year…
when you have as poor a defensive personnel as we’ve had over the years to then be above average defensively as we’ve had it really does speaks volumes to the impact mitch has had on that end…. and for that reason he is really really valuable… it’s readily apparent when ihart and sims take the floor…
you can win with just about anything but you absolutely need top flight talent… it doesn’t really matter who anyone is at any position… but given the scarcity of talent you will have limited people in some positions.. that’s unavoidable…. building a team is how you mix your multifaceted talent with some of your limited ones and which limited skills you choose…
as far as anchoring a defense… grabbing boards… finishing the limited opportunities he gets very efficiently… there’s a lot of guys like that but he is one of the best at it…. to the point where a team sent the motherload of all draft picks for the best version of that guy…. and we didn’t have to do anything….
gk and Owen, it’s the next paragraph on Brunson screens that’s the killer:
“Think about it like this: If the Knicks created a shot that was as good as a Stephen Curry 3-pointer every single time they came down the floor, they would still be seven points per 100 worse than they are when Brunson screens in a pick-and-roll.”
I love Sims, so I hope he rises to this challenge. Actually I hope Thibs starts him and keeps Hart as the backup.
So many teams are still intrigued by Cam… perhaps we are wrong about him? In fact, didn’t he destroy us in one of our 4 playoff losses 2 years ago?
Cam only played in the Milwaukee series
https://nypost.com/2023/01/20/obi-toppin-knows-what-has-to-change-with-knicks-needing-him-now/
I see this argument a lot right now about cam. Other teams want him so we must be wrong.
But we wanted him too and Atlanta didn’t. Were they wrong? They drafted him and gave up a chance to get Doncic to do so. He even played well for them in a playoff game. Yet they were willing to dump him for a late first rounder and expiring Kevin Knox.
I mean he’s a name and he has a lot of potential bc of his size and athleticism. So teams are going to be intrigued. They’re gonna think we can fix him. But at the end of the day the most we can get for him is a second rounder or two? So how valuable is he really?
I don’t know. I remember toney Douglas having multiple twenty point games at the end of the 2009-2010 season and thinking we’d found a hidden gem.
Did someone bring up TDDWTDD and I missed it? I hate when that happens.