Knicks Morning News (2024.11.19)

You’re pretty much just a defender, OG. Look at your rebounding, USG, and assist numbers to start and then to drill down, really and honestly ponder what goes through your mind when you have the ball and embark on a foray to the basket. It probably isn’t “Now’s my opportunity to set up a teammate,” or “If I can get to this spot, it will open things up for my teammate,” right?(*)

Philosophers of all stripes have held for millennia that self-awareness is a positive virtue. They’re not wrong.

(*) And if you’re really interested, you could look at film of the guys in the association who aren’t just defenders, note the skills they show and the things they do on the floor — and contrast/compare. I’m sure the film of your former team’s game last night is already available; it would be an opportunity to both learn and reminisce. A two-fer!!

He started it!

Delusions in the minds of lead Knick players serve the interests of no Knick factions.

In other words, within the limitations and parameters of his low-ceiling, uncreative (*) offensive skill set, OG is very effective or even extremely effective.

Already noted, never quarreled with. Reiterated again. Kumbaya.

(*) And quite self-focused, although I don’t chalk that up to selfishness in any way, but in processing capacity and inclination — ultimately part of skill set.

E’s like the receiver who puts on a big celly after catching a 3 yard screen pass while losing by 28, except he’s losing the OG Trade Takes Game by a lot more than that.

Why would I be celebrating giving up not one, but two guys who do possess high-ceiling, creative offensive skillsets, that include quick mental processing of facilitation of others, for one guy who doesn’t?

I think you’ve misread or misinterpreted.

A championship, of course. (*) Skill and talent wins championships.

Julius/DDV for KAT — skill-accretive, closer to championship.

RJ/IQ for OG — skill-depletive … well, you know.

No need to complicate things.

(*) Followed by maxing potential in the out-years. The world doesn’t end after the first championship.

I think when you field a top 4 where IQ is your “lockdown” defender with 2 sieves and a semi sieve, the answer is clearly no. I don’t know who your 5th man is….

??

Whoever it is now. The counterfactual is everything else the same, but OG out, RJ/IQ in. And then continued out through like 2031.

The claim appears to be that a championship is impossible under that situation. That seems a bit odd.

Not trolling, actually curious if people here consider “defense” a “skill” or not…

It is, but pure individual defense pales in comparison to offense. If offense is a 10, individual defense is like a 1 or 2.

OG is a skilled defender for sure, but the fact of the matter is a Cam Thomas can light him up when he’s on, and there’s not a lot to be done. And the team is 21st overall in defense.

The game now is pick-and-roll, ball movement, fluidity, open lane. It’s not Mark Jackson backing his ass into his defender for 15 seconds while everyone else stands and watches anymore. There’s only so much individual one-on-one defense is going to bring to the party. And it’s not much.

We are waiting to see how it all functions on a net basis after 20 games or so and when Precious and Mitch are back.

Then the important, driving variable isn’t OG; it’s Mitch and Precious. That kinda makes my point for me.

If we still had RJ instead of OG the defense would be way worse

Pure speculation. They never had the 21st ranked defense with RJ and often had very good defenses — including in the 2023 playoffs.

You boys are just imagining things regarding things that don’t exist to confirm your biases regarding things that do. It’s fine; we all do it from time to time. It’s just seemingly more pronounced and obvious with this one.

Bridges seemed like the perfect fit, too. I thought the idea was to have some sort of dynamic multi-ball handler backcourt like Garland and Mitchell. But we don’t seem too interested in trying to make that happen.

+1, and I’d still do this. Mikal has the potential to be a significantly better “Alec Burks, point guard,” than “Alec Burks, point guard” was. I’d move JB off the ball on some possessions in favor of Mikal, and make Mikal the full-time point forward on the second unit.

Might not work out, but pace Salvador Dali, er, TNFH, basketball linear time isn’t such that you have the luxury of waiting for the answer to the test until after the test is over. We could actually use some extra narcissism or solipsism from TNFH, in the sense of self-focusing and realizing that when he says, “I have to wait for IQ,” he’s already given his verdict on the trade and he’s on the “hill.”

I’ll even lend him my mirror!

Simple example to show. TNFH’s position is that he has to “wait for IQ” or words to that effect in order to judge the trade. That was his position then and it appears to still be his position based on recent comments.

Let’s call OG a 6 with a ceiling of 6.

The only reason to “wait to see what happens with IQ” is if you think IQ could become better than a 6. If he can’t become better than a 6, there’s no reason to wait — we know now it’s a great trade. (*)

The possibility that one/both of the players given up could become better than OG is literally the “hill” — the one that the resident narcissist is allegedly “dying on.” There’s nothing more complicated than that about it.

(*) We’ll leave aside the side point that if RJ’s a negative 2, as TNFH insists, IQ would have to become not just better than a 6, but at least an 8 in order for the wait to make sense. But to simplify, we’ll call RJ flat.

Good post, BBA.

I played organized basketball for several years, but it doesn’t matter because the Knicks didn’t lose with RJ. They won. The whole idea falls apart.

But with that said, let me give you my impression from my playing days. Putting aside the hustlebunny/brown nosey element which most of us detested — OG’s not in that category, unlike some people that might be named — it’s not really that enjoyable to play with a dude who had a couple go to moves and nothing else. You can always tell when he’s thinking “OK, now I’m going to try one of my moves” and you knew that if it didn’t work, he’d never hit a cutter or even really look for one and would just make a milquetoast pointless pass to someone else and you’d have to start all over, with less time on the shot clock if there was one.

RJ on the other hand, while he’s certainly a bit hoggy, is an excellent passer. When he makes a foray, you stay involved because there’s a good chance he’ll hit you with a pass if you get yourself into position.

It’s also annoying to play with a dude who’s 6-8 and buffed but can’t really rebound for shit and barely mixes it up on the glass. RJ isn’t that.

I guess I don’t really get the “loved playing with us” part. OG’s been bitching about his offensive role and non-recognition for several years now on multiple teams. I manage egos in real life who sometimes have bizarre opinions of what they bring and at some point, even though you can’t say it out loud obviously, it becomes a “you aren’t that great, just shut the fuck up about it already,” which is probably why I spent my civilian time responding to the Athletic article.

But different strokes, different folks, tomato-tomahtoh.

Not likely to become something substantially more than that.

Then there’s no reason to “wait” on the trade as TNFH did and still does. If RJ’s a negative and IQ has no chance to ever be as good as OG, the answer is clear, full stop.

Well, I think both of them can become better players than OG and certainly combined can. TNFH is the one that’s “waiting.”

Or is he?

Problem is E will never lose this debate cause no matter how bad RJ plays and how good OG and the Knicks are he’ll just always say they would’ve been better with RJ.

You’re right that losing the debate wouldn’t rest on looking back ten years from now — that’s easy — but I could “lose” it if it was shown in the here and now that I’m fundamentally wrong about the players’ ceilings and skillsets and I guess the reasonable odds of them doing good things with them — but I don’t think there’s any serious case to be made that I am.

TNFH is in pretty much the same place, although for different reasons, so it’s good to have company!

Hill Country IPA? It’s quite good.

I’m pretty sure that if someone said Eric Gordon or PJ Tucker had high ceilings and skillsets it could be disproven.

“Start with an unfalsifiable theory, and then claim victory when the unfalsifiable thing isn’t disproven.”

Then there shouldn’t be such pushback. That’s another alternative, especially when there isn’t really disagreement as with the “hill.”

I’m not sure what victory you think I’ve claimed.

I forget E, are you a giants/jets, yanks/mets fan also?

None of the above geo, though I go to Yankee Stadium a few times a summer now and don’t really detest the Yankees by any stretch. It’s basically the Knicks/Rangers ported to the summer sport, so it works for me vibe-wise, although there are certainly Mets fans among the Knicks/Ranger fanbase as we see at KB.

OG’s defense isn’t even “impacting good team defense” much less “impacting winning.” The entire idea that he somehow impacts winning beyond the things he does on the floor is cray-cray.

He’s made one all-defensive team in his career.

For whatever reason, mostly Knickcentric cultural, people want to believe OG is some super-special defender and want to believe his super-special defense and the other “little things” he does somehow uniquely impact winning and that’s fine — but there’s simply nothing to the idea. If another fanbase insisted it about one of their guys, KB would scoff.

It’s Eckstein-ian.

I’d propose a cease-and-desist on the entire idea. It’s kind of beneath the place.

He didn’t stay up for Queta/Keita?

Garland’s playing like dog shit. Not impacting winning.

Z-Man’s doing yeoman substantive work on the topic, but I’ll add a more straightforward version that isn’t intended to be over the top, but might come off as such, not sure.

He put up star numbers in 32 games in TO last year. If he plays like that all the time, he’s a star, full-stop. He can even lose some TS% points from that number and still be a star.

That’s his ceiling — star. And that’s not just a projection from some freak physical skills like Anthony Randolph or something — it’s numbers he has already put up.

And now this year, he’s adding passing/facilitation to the mix — which was always there, by the way.

Nothing mysterious or indecipherable about it. Only complicated if one is looking to complicate it.

Not sure what Harrison Barnes, career usage in the 18s, has to do with anything.

Will he hit his ceiling? Maybe, maybe not. We’ll see. But we know his ceiling.

Celtics played a chippy, annoying game in the fourth and the officials let them get away with it.

Wankers.

It can be simplified even more. The reason he’s streaky like that is because he has wonky shooting form. If he fixes that form, he’ll be a star. If he doesn’t — and he very well may not — he won’t be a star.

Using him the right way matters and can help boost his math, but ultimately it comes down to whether his form wonkiness continues to make too many shots hit the back rim or go in and out, rather than through the basket. Thibs didn’t use him right, and he was saddled too much with Julius’s backwash, but if he’d put more shots through the basket here rather than off the rim, he’d already be a star. That’s on him.

I’ll leave this one alone for awhile. Diminishing returns and all.