Knicks Morning News (2024.04.01)

“Maybe “shill” isn’t the right word but there are a number of posters here who seem to have narratives that they hold very near and dear, and who value being “right” very highly. Everything that happens is a validation of that narrative, and anything that comes into conflict with that narrative has to be rationalized away.

I guess this is just human nature really. You see this sort of thing in all facets of life. It’s fine. The narrative-driven KB poster is as old as the site itself.

It is a little humorous seeing E, the poster boy for narrative-driven posting, call out another narrative-driven poster as a “shill” however. It’s just somebody whose narrative is the opposite to his.”

Please sum up what my “narrative” is, o wise one. Is it that Thibs can do no wrong? Is that what you really think having read my posts for over a decade? Or are you somehow offended that I have the audacity to disagree with you on a coach’s degree of responsibility for managing injuries? Or that, in my opinion, the way that Mitch’s and OG’s injuries were handled is pretty common practice around the NBA and other sports?

Yesterday, SGA was listed first as doubtful, then as questionable. He wound up playing. If he re-aggravated his quad by playing, who would be to blame? Mark Daigneault? SGA? The medical staff?

My entire argument is about Thibs being pretty much in the mainstream of how coaches handle injuries, not an outlier. I see the way Mitch and OG have been handled as pretty typical of coaches.

If you think that amounts to shilling, or whatever you are referring to as a narrative, go fuck yourself.

I also believe that a lot of injury management is about pain tolerance. Randle played a bunch of games last year on an ankle that eventually required surgery to fix. OG played lots of games (pre- and post-trade) with an elbow that required surgery to fix. After surgery, he came back when cleared by medical, then re-aggravated it, then was again cleared by medical to play the next day. Then, despite having a “clean” MRI, he went back to non-contact rehabbing. Is it about further damage (i.e. the medical staff is lying) or that the surgery did not get to the source of the pain, meaning that the “loose body” was not the actual/main cause? Whatever, it’s doubtful that being left in the game is the cause, or that it exacerbated things. Same with Mitch’s ankle.

None of that is really in the coach’s domain. The coach’s job is to ask medical “Is he good to go and for how long?” and to ask the player “Are you good to go?”

Some coaches might have taken Mitch out when he limped, or might have pulled OG when he yelled. But many wouldn’t have. In any case, I don’t Thibs is accountable for exacerbating whatever the players are experiencing. For me, it is 100% on medical.

“Z-Man’s continued citing of “medical” as an actual decision data point in the middle of a game is so delusional as to be bordering on charming.”

Medical includes the training staff. Trainers and coaches are supposed to interact in a way that protects players. If a trainer is afraid to tell a coach to pull a player from the floor, that trainer should be fired. If a coach ignores a trainer and leaves a player on the floor when he is told that he should be pulled, the coach should have to answer for it. That’s why trainers are on the bench, and team doctors are in attendance.

This relationship is much easier to see in football, where players are getting hurt all the time and re-enter games with injured body parts all the time. Coaches have very little interactions with injured players beyond “is he good to go” and “are you good to go.” Players are left in by coaches with both new and re-tweaked injuries all the time, unless either the trainer pulls them, the player asks out, or the player isn’t performing in a way that helps the team.

“I don’t think most coaches need medical personnel to come over and tell them to remove an obviously injured player from a game, but the claim here is that it’s perfectly normal to leave a guy in there who has just missed months of the season with a bad ankle after it was obvious he reinjured that very ankle.”

So are completely absolving the trainer from his actual responsibility? What exactly is the trainer’s job then? To use your favorite descriptor du jour, is it to shill for the coach at the player’s expense?

Rather than another condescending temper tantrum, I’d love to hear a mature and thoughtful answer the question: Why did the trainer not intervene on Mitch’s behalf, if not immediately, then during a stoppage in play or a time-out? Or the team physician? Are they incompetent, in cahoots, or afraid?

“(*) Who typically isn’t a doctor.”

To my knowledge, the team physician is present and behind the bench for every game. But that said, NBA teams employ the best trainers in the business. Not sure how much experience you have had with trainers, but they are really good at this stuff, especially at that price point.

“Are there any NBA coaches who are good with injury? Like I don’t think letting Mitch play with an sprained ankle is good, I just think most or all of the other coaches in the league would do the same shit.”

Hmmm…