Knicks Morning News (2023.07.08)

Projections of improvement are about probabilities. You are not necessarily right or wrong based on the results for an individual player. Only long term results involving many players will determine your ability to project relative to random results.

This was posted the other day by a leading poker player. It’s well worth a read.

Phil Galfond
@PhilGalfond

The best thing poker teaches you is how to not be results-oriented, because that’s crucial for good decision-making in all aspects of life.

The worst thing poker teaches you is how to not be results-oriented, because everyone else in the world is and it’s very annoying.

What does it mean to be results oriented?

Most things in life are probabilistic, which means that taking an action doesn’t guarantee a specific outcome.

In other words, you don’t often know what’s going to happen next!

For example, if you have two routes to get to the grocery store that are similar in length, they won’t always take the same time as each other.

Let’s say that you think taking the freeway is faster midday, but slower during rush hour.

You’ve taken those routes a hundred times and it seems like you’re right. Almost always, the trips take what you expect them to.

One day, you get in your friend’s car to head to the store. It’s rush hour.

They begin to take the freeway, so you say, “Oh, the side roads are faster around now.”

They oblige, and you get stuck behind an accident on a small road. Your trip takes twice as long as it should.

Unlucky

“I knew the other way was better. I shouldn’t have listened to you,” your friend says.

Your friend is judging your decision by the result. This is being results-oriented.

98 times out of 100, you’d have been right. On average, you helped your friend make the best decision.

But now your friend blames you and won’t listen to you again.

Not only is your friend annoying – they are also going to keep driving the wrong way during rush hour from now on, wasting hours of their life.

Don’t Be The Friend

Assessing decisions properly doesn’t mean ignoring the outcomes.

The outcomes are evidence, but not proof.

You drove the two routes countless times. You observed the difference in traffic at different times of the day.

You based your theory on sound logic, then gathered evidence over time to grow more and more confident in that theory.

This is how decisions should be evaluated.

When faced with any decision, all we can do is make the best choice we can with the information we have at the time.

If it doesn’t go the way we hoped, it doesn’t mean we were wrong.

It’s just another bit of information to add to the decision-making process next time.

Cam Reddish had a 561 TS% on 17.1 USG at age 23 last season. He very well may still pan out. He of course may not.

I’ve been with E on Cam.

IMO, there’s undeniable talent there. He can create shots and do things that most other young players can’t. My argument has been that his development has been severely hampered by injuries (kind of like KP). So his development may come later than for the typical young player. Personally, I thought he was outplaying RJ for awhile for the Knicks until he got hurt, rushed back, was terrible in that one game, and went into the doghouse. The biggest problem he has is between his ears and not in his talent. He appears to be a bit of a knucklehead. He does a lot of dumb things. He also thinks he’s entitled to minutes and way better than he actually is. He’s a low basketball IQ player at this stage and maybe permanently.

He was assisted on 75% of his 2fgs on the Knicks, he cannot create his own shot.

He played the exact same role as Quentin Grimes but was much much worse at it.

It’s hard to debate things that statistics do not measure.

If you give Cam the ball and say “Cam, go get me a basket”, he’s going to be able to create a good shot in situations that many NBA players can’t. The problem is that kind of talent can lead to a lot of terrible shot decisions.

Remember what D’Antoni said about Nate?

“The best thing about Nate is that he can get his own shot any time he wants. The worst thing about Nate is that he can get his own shot any time he wants”.

It’s the same thing with Cam, but with Cam we are talking about a particularly low basketball IQ. He’s going to turn the ball over a lot trying to do more than is sensible and also take some horrible shots.

Grimes is on the opposite end of the spectrum completely. He’s a better player because he has a very high IQ, is a plus defender, and stays within his talent/skill level in his shot selection. But if you need a basket, you are never going to give the ball to Grimes and say, “go get me a hoop”.

Wait, did Berman retire last year and I didn’t notice? Too funny.

He did retire, but he occasionally tweets something Knicks related.