NY Post: Leon Rose’s grand Knicks roster plans went up in flames

Oy.

Yes, anything Vermin writes needs to be taken with a grain of salt.

Dreamed we drafted Cade.

The article is obviously another way to knock the Knicks and win the day’s headlines for a tabloid rag.
Still, the message is what I’ve been saying. There are two angles and they’re different:

1) The Knicks tried to sign a big name. They played cute and failed to make offers that free agents could refuse.
2) There was an order to be cheap that came from the top. I imagine a conversation that went something like this:
LR> Mr. Dolan, it’s going to take a max deal to get our point guard. We promised Thibs a PG.
JD> Leon, we lost a zillion dollars last year. We didn’t play in the bubble. Cuomo won’t let us have fans at MSG and we’re going to lose money in 2021. Tell Thibs to chill out. We’ll spend money when we make money. Let’s look at spending big in 8 months.

The situation with Kemba’s knee doesn’t sound great. Boston has enough depth to get by without him for a while, but Ainge might have to actually use that Hayward trade exception at some point.

when I saw this article yesterday, I had to check the date because it looked like the same thing he wrote 2 weeks ago.

And yes, it does sound like sour grapes from a holdover who wants to make the new regime look bad.

I take issue with the idea that “Rose has done no harm”, though (and I’m quoting Alan, but this is a common narrative). It comes down to this:

Did he come here with the right idea from day 1 (i.e. long term rebuild), or did he come here looking to compete immediately?

It really does look like it’s the latter, and that drove his decision to hire Thibs over a developmental coach like Atkinson; draft the singularly talented Toppin over players that fit the modern NBA better like Avdija, Halliburton or Vassel; and punt on 33 to keep a roster spot open for free agency. That is prioritizing the short term over the long term, and that is doing harm when you’re in a rebuild.

Hubert:
when I saw this article yesterday, I had to check the date because it looked like the same thing he wrote 2 weeks ago.

And yes, it does sound like sour grapes from a holdover who wants to make the new regime look bad.

I take issue with the idea that “Rose has done no harm”, though (and I’m quoting Alan, but this is a common narrative).It comes down to this:

Did he come here with the right idea from day 1 (i.e. long term rebuild), or did he come here looking to compete immediately?

It really does look like it’s the latter, and that drove his decision to hire Thibs over Atkinson, draft Toppin over Halliburton or Vassel, and punt on 33 to keep a roster spot open for free agency.That is prioritizing the short term over the long term, and that is doing harm when you’re in a rebuild.

Yep. Not sure why people are just airbrushing this away, beyond the optimism that generally coincides with a new regime and a new season about to begin. The worst thing is that the leaker is selling Rose’s actions as a strategic success but tactical failure, which means he thinks he will benefit by it being seen that way — and that would come only from Dolan. It’s not as though the leaker is saying, “OMG, what a stupid plan this guy had, we should be rebuilding.”

This shit is just a perennial with the Knicks. They’re never going to be successful this way.

The leaker’s probably Perry — See, it wasn’t my fault we couldn’t get stars to come here; the new guys are putting on the full court press to do it and it still isn’t happening. It could even be Mills, though it’s unclear how much he’s in the loop. Perry’s probably running to him with the goings-on, too.

It passed significant comment at the time, but it was a bad sign that Rose either didn’t want to or wasn’t able to clear out Perry. Again, as with Mills sticking around after Jackson was hired, this shit always happens with the Knicks. It’s never truly a new regime and a new start.

E: The leaker’s probably Perry

I think Perry is smart enough to prioritize keeping his job over feeding Berman.

A detailed reading of the article reveals that there really is no significant leak. The only thing attributed to a source is that Rose wanted to bring in Chris Paul, and if he did that he was going to add Carmelo Anthony. That’s not exactly ground breaking news.

The rest of the article is all conjecture and bullshit.

Hubert: I think Perry is smart enough to prioritize keeping his job over feeding Berman.

He already kept his job after the regime change, probably because of Dolan or Mills. Rose can’t or won’t touch him.

Owen: We’re always going to obsess over everything that happens like a bunch of witch doctors examining goat entrails, portents of doom,

Because we all know that’s how the Knicks operate and have for years. The FO is a mishmash of people and factions and agendas, particularly when you throw the strong-minded coach into the mix. It’s not a structure that warrants optimism. Maybe a miracle will happen; in terms of pure basketball, again, the only thing that matters is the development or lack thereof of about six guys. And then if an RJ Barrett DOES develop, at that point you have to worry that he’ll tire of the losing and the shitshow and the drama and start looking elsewhere, a la a certain elongated ectomorphic Latvian.

Wait right there team pessimism! If the new team is so bad, that’s good… we’ll be in the top3 of the draft and will have the most possible ping-pong balls (in a packed draft). So plan B is good.

If the team is balanced and might surprise, as team optimism is saying, that’s bad (for draft purposes) but it’s good for the development of the young players. Our veterans will surprise noone, they are what they are, unless they surprise for the worst like Randle last year.

So this season it’s a win-win… if we are bad we’ll select a franchise-player, if we are good our young players are becoming stars!

Hubert, your posts do come across as freaking out or maybe I’m just a sensitive team optimist person.

I think when I read these articles, they seem more nuanced than the headline. And I agree that it feels like Rose wanted to add dudes like CP3 if it wasn’t costing them too much (same with Westbrook) and also with signing FVV or HAywood. They were open to doing that but not at a cost that would hamstring them in the future.

Some people would not have liked us to trade for CP3 but if it didn’t cost us a lot but cap space for 2 years and then we signed Melo for the minimum or the mid level, that would not have hamstrung our future.

So to me it feels like Rose had the right idea and wasn’t willing to go all in for Cp3 or Westbrook or pay a boatload for FVV or Haywood. So how into the idea was he, really?

Whatever I feel, it has nothing to do with the articles. The articles are trash. The three reasons I’m grading Rose poorly (I’ll officially give him a C minus) are Thibs, Toppin, and kicking the 33rd pick to the curb.

If you read the article carefully, there is very little “sourced” material, and the material is about possible musings when Rose came on board…not a “plan” that he entered fre agency and drafting with. His public statements were all about patience, and he floated the idea that they would be building for long-term success, in direct contrast to prior FOs.

It’s also possible that the “source” is no longer with the organization, given the fact that they are talking about what Rose said when he came on board. Quite a few were let go, starting with Mills. And he’s as low-rent backstabbing of a SOB as there is, and very possibly Berman’s sour grapes go-to guy, either directly or via a crony. I can imagine Mills right now ruminating over what he would have done this offseason.

Some of you need to go out and get some air and relax a little.

Berman is a strange fellow.

When I read his articles I often come away feeling like I wasted a few minutes of my life, but I’ve heard him on podcasts and thought he had a very good grasp of the game and team and really enjoyed him. I suspect a lot of his articles are designed to ruffle feathers and get people talking and not necessarily to be a deep analysis of the team and management strategies. That’s why he was obsessed with Marbury for years and now likes to write about Frank. He knows it’s going to get the blood pressure of both camps up a bit.

Personally, I didn’t think CP3 was ever a serious option. He would have to be crazy to come to NY. Everyone knows he’s one of the greatest PGs ever. The one thing missing on his resume is a championship. He has a very short window. He wasn’t going to waste it in NY. Not that the Suns were a great option either, but at his salary it was hard to find a spot. At least they are way further along than the Knicks and closed the season well in the bubble. He’s what they need.

I’m giving Rose a B-.

I’m going to leave out speculation about what he may have wanted to do and look at what he did do. I think he kept himself open to all options in a difficult situation for attracting good players and the result was OK. I can’t rate him higher because he’s paid millions to “surprise guys like me” and not just do the same things anyone else could have done. Also, giving him credit for not making a bad mistake is just Knicks fans being so used to blunders, not making one seems like a success.

1. I like Thibs and much of the coaching staff a lot

2. I like quite a few people in the new management team. At first I was pissed off when he hired Wes, but I think overall he did fine job even if I could do without Wes and all the CAA influence.

3. I have no major problem with who he drafted, but I had no strong opinions.

4. There were no free agency or trade blunders, but no upside surprises.

I’m still suspicious of Rose’s overall strategy and am bracing myself for the inevitable John Wall trade, but the whole business of turning taking on Ed Davis into three second rounders and some of the other marginal moves gives me some hope that Rose will at least go about his business without trashing the team’s assets. That, at least, is an improvement over past regimes. If he flips one or two of Burk/Bullock/Rivers at the deadline, I’ll be even more pleased.

If you give this offseason an A you’re going to have to invent some new letters to grade the moves in the unlikely event that this team ever gets good. I’ve got this down as pretty much the epitome of a C offseason: Avoided big mistakes but failed to do anything to really move the needle in a positive way either. If a student handed in this work you’d be frustrated that you had to spend time to grade it because it’s so decidedly average.

What’s the ASOIAF line? “Blindingly adequate?”

#If you give this offseason an A you’re going to have to invent some new letters to grade the moves in the unlikely event that this team ever gets good. I’ve got this down as pretty much the epitome of a C offseason#

Which are the moves that would give Rose an A during this off-season ?
Are there any ?
Or C was the ceiling ?

Getting Giannis or AD for the minimum ? lol

I don’t think it’s fair to evaluate the Rose regime based on a bunch of stuff that someone said he wanted to happen but did not in fact happen. Also, one thing I tentatively like about Rose is he seems to have brought in a braintrust of sorts. So it’s possible he wanted to do a bunch of dumb stuff but was talked out of it by Aller, etc.

My evaluation of him so far isn’t terribly different than Strat’s. I’d probably go with C+ because I found the draft pretty disappointing, but everything else has ranged from defensible to savvy.

You kinda have to grade this offseason in categories:

-Pulled a blockbuster deal that moved us to the fringe of being a contender without sacrificing the ability to make further moves: F
-Drafted a sure-fire PG of the future: F
-Eliminated all suspicion that we’re not in for 5 more years of futility: F
-Made it impossible for Hubert and E to concoct conspiracy theories: F
-Wasted tons of cap space by signing aging vets or miscast #1 and #2 options to bloated long-term deals: F
-Bid against themselves to sign mercenary players: F
-Signed multiple PFs: F
-Stated definitively that veterans will sit behind rookie-deal players no matter how poorly they play: F
-Severed ties with CAA: F
-Avoided concerning allegiances to one particular college program over all others: F
-Fielded a roster guaranteed to win less than 20 games: F
-Fielded a roster guaranteed to win more than 35 games: F
-Hired a head coach that will lose games on purpose: F
-Hired a head coach that will state before training camp starts who’s playing and who’s not playing: F

Every year I look at the Knicks’ roster and I ask myself, how does this team shape up Four Factors-wise? And just about every year I come away with the same thought: the offensive eFG% is going to be terrible, so likely we will be terrible as a team.

Seems like the same story this year. I’m looking around trying to figure out how we’re not going to have a poor eFG% and 3PT% and I don’t really see it. I see lots of guys who can’t score. I game out various lineups and it’s hard to put one together that has reasonable balance and spacing. There are 3 or 4 non-shooters on the floor in most of the plausible lineups you can put together.

Given the circumstances, an A would have been an overt, explicit commitment to developing the kids, refraining from signing mercs who got in the way of that philosophy, disposing of existing players who got in the way of that philosophy, signing players who furthered that goal, and hiring a coach commensurate with that philosophy. They fell significantly short of that.

The fact is, the FO deserves an INCOMPLETE. They have been extraordinarily tight-lipped. Here’s what we DO know:
-They drafted a player projected by tons of outlets to not be available at #8 without using assets to trade up for him as was widely speculated
-They turned two trades for the same player into 3 draft picks and at least one intriguing young F-C.
-They wasted not a single dollar of future cap space on a multi-year deal
-They did not sign a single 1-year player to an above market-value contract
-They hired who was widely considered to be the best available coach
-They finished the offseason with more draft assets than they started with
-They demonstrated that they understood player valuation, capology and the win-curve by avoiding overpaying for quick-fix vets
-Other than Steve Stoute, they avoided being a league-wide laughing stock

I’d give the off season a B.

Toppin was a great pick in a weak draft for the #8 spot. We didn’t trade up for him. Every prospect this year had major flaws. He fell to us. We picked a guy with a very obvious floor. Toppin will most likely be able to put up points in the NBA. Sure, we need a PG. We always need a PG. But maybe it was wise to not pick a PG just to pick one when Toppin was still on the board at 8.

Quickly I really like and I think its really unfair to call him a reach at 25. He was SEC player of the year and shot 40 percent from 3. If the NCAA season doesn’t end, UK gets to at least the sweet 16 and his stock most likely rises. Quibbling over someone being picked 3 or 4 spots early is what you do in the top 15, not at pick 25.

The 33rd pick was punted down the road a bit. Not a big deal.

For me, turning $5 million in cap space into Spellman and 3 second round picks without giving up anything was a really sweet move and something The Knicks have NEVER done. Same with turning 27 and 38 into 25 and 33 for nothing. I think those 2 moves warrant some real positivity. As does not picking up Elf’s team option and then turning around and getting him back for 3 million less. As does getting Rivers for only 3 million with a team option for next year and the year after that. As does signing Burkes and Noel for cheap. We got a lot of cheap veterans that aren’t useless. Those are going to come in handy come the trade deadline.

So I give us a solid B for the off season. No bad long term moves were made. We signed vets for cheap (which is a good sign for the future) and we picked up a lot of extra future second rounders. Those always come in handy too.

Plus I think this year’s team fits together on paper a lot better than last year’s.

i forget how long Berman has been in the beat reporter role…did he take over for Vecsey or was Kevin Kernan the bridge…but I am with Strat…I never read his articles and feel like I learned anything…I just skim for quotation marks to see if there are any nuggets….but I have heard him on the radio and he comes off different….anyway

I don’t see where anything that has been done to date speaks to above or below average…picks were either down the middle of the fairway (Toppin) or a little bit of a reach (Quickely) and they didn’t expose themselves in free agency either way (really bad deals or excellent deals) or in trades (they showed some savy but then pivoted by not using the 2nd rnd pick)….this year is going to be shit show anyways…may as well let the youngun’s play ball and assess next year…and hope for luck in the lottery…

Bruno Almeida: Look, I like to think that we’re all smart enough to kinda know what a great off-season looks like, and obviously this ain’t it, there hasn’t been any obviously great moves that we are super excited about, maybe the Noel signing but even that has a relatively limited ceiling.

See, I don’t buy this. Great moves are often the ones you DON’T make. In fact, what makes this off-season great is that IT ISN’T OVER! Say what you want about who you would have drafted…they aren’t sure-fire short-term (and likely long-term) busts like Ntilikina and Knox were. We aren’t even at the cap floor yet. Every deal signed is moveable or waive-able without repercussions. By this stage last year, we were capped out with overpaid, redundant players and counting on ugly stepsister draft pick RJ to make us feel less bad about losing out on Zion and Ja and ditching KP for pennies on the dollar, and Fiz was at the helm. There was zero hope that further transactions were coming…even the Morris deadline deal was a pleasant surprise.

There was nothing Mills-ian about this offseason. Nada.

Seriously, what were the obviously great moves that would have made this off-season an A for you? In other words, is it fair to set a standard that is unattainable?

E:
Given the circumstances, an A would have been an overt, explicit commitment to developing the kids, refraining from signing mercs who got in the way of that philosophy, disposing of existing players who got in the way of that philosophy, signing players who furthered that goal, and hiring a coach commensurate with that philosophy.They fell significantly short of that.

But this is simply not true. An “overt, explicit commitment to developing the kids” and signing the likes of Payton, Rivers, Noel, Burks, and keeping Bullock are not incompatible. You don’t develop kids by coddling them. Knox, Frank and DSjr have been coddled and got oddles of playing time in the NBA that they didn’t deserve. I’ve said over and over again that they all should have spent tons of time in the G-League until they could play in the NBA without stinking up the joint. They’re at the point where they either need to shit or get off the pot. If they can’t outplay journeyman-level players in years 3-4, they should be treated just like the journeymen…i.e as 1-year expiring deals. The proposition that the mercs are getting in their way is preposterous. I would argue that playing them too much confused them and ultimately hurt their development.

As to Mitch and RJ, same goes for them, although it is a near certainty that they will play no matter what and will deserve to. Same will probably be true for Obi, although I imagine that he will (wisely) be Randle’s backup at first.

As to Quickley and Iggy, they should not play in the NBA unless they are ready to. The nice thing is, if any of the young guys step up, you can simply bench, trade or waive any of the vets in their way without any future implications whatsoever, maybe even getting assets back. That’s the beauty of one-year market-level deals and cap space.

Exactly, Z-Man.

We still have 18 million in cap space and a ton of cheap vet contracts (Payton, Burkes, Bullock, Noel, and Rivers).

That alone gives us so much flexibility this season. Any combo of those players along with that cap space and/or Randle will probably net us a first round pick.

I’m somewhere in the C+ range at the moment, recognizing we’re early in the school year. There were some moves I didn’t like — Rivers, the 33, and maybe Toppin (still getting over my crush on Haliburton, and a concern that Obi is Amar’e Lite, good offense and terrible defense — and as someone raised on the 90s Knicks and who alway pissed off everyone in the gym by playing hardnosed defense in pickup games, I hate bad defense). But the first two are relatively minor and Toppin may well work out. The staffing included some great development choices, and a few lame-ass ones. There’s a rank odor of CAA/Kentucky nepotism, but at the same time lots of nice little moves (e.g., Davis). As per Z-Man’s tongue-in-cheek post (I hope), there was no game-changer out there, no great point guard we whiffed on in the draft. Free agency had mostly mediocre vets that were too old and/or wouldn’t move the needle/weren’t on our win curve, I didn’t like that we were likely fishing for them but glad we cut bait (or were saved from ourselves by using the wrong bait). Woods was about the only one that made sense, and not so much once we took Toppin.

I just don’t think that 1) there were any home runs to be had this off-season, and 2) we’re not even really in position to hit them right now. Too many holes to fill. Let’s see if the kids can fill some of those holes, then we can find ourselves some big motors to drive the boat.

I apologize after the fact for an overabundance of metaphors.

But this is simply not true. An “overt, explicit commitment to developing the kids” and signing the likes of Payton, Rivers, Noel, Burks, and keeping Bullock are not incompatible.

Huh? It’s hard to imagine something more incompatible with an overt, explicit commitment to developing the kids than signing mediocre, young-ish veterans to one-year deals. They’ve now done it two years in a row. The mercs are too young to have any interest in mentoring and the one-year deals mean they’re going to get all pissed off if their minutes are reduced or if they have to give way in the least to kid development.

@IanBegley
·
1m
Tom Thibodeau was asked about playing young Knicks even if they may not give NYK the best chance to win on a given night. He said game play is an important part of development, but not the only part (practice, G League, film, etc). Said roles will be ‘earned’ & ‘not given’ w/NYK.

That’s why it’s helpful that we got very mediocre vets

I really liked Terry and am disappointed we passed him over. Not sure he’s any better than Jared Harper but would have liked to find out. I’m not advocating for an “A”, just an incomplete until we have more data on Quickley, Obi, and the players we passed over. The Rivers signing is pretty inconsequential. He’s better than a vet’s minimum player and is getting less than DSjr, Knox or Frank. I don’t see the problem with that deal.

Who wins in a “why the fuck” contest: the Paul brothers or Lavar Ball?

Lavar’s got talented sons. The Paul brothers are just uber-Chad Aryan-looking dudes. They’re uniquely talentless. And if Jake Paul ever steps in the ring with a real boxer, he’s going to get flattened. We can only hope he goes the way of Ronda Rousey (who is not an offensive person at all, but whose career died immediately upon a more-talented fighter landing a few hits on her chin).

The Paul brothers are a fucking virus.

DRed: That’s why it’s helpful that we got very mediocre vets

Exactly. It’s a pretty simple concept.

The Honorable Cock Jowles: Over/under on games Mitch comes off the bench (because he has to “earn” it) before his agent starts leaking trade rumors and free agency destinations:

20.5

15 max

I don’t really see the free-agent signings as getting in the way of the young players too much. Our young players of most importance are Robinson, Barrett, and Toppin. No one we signed looks to get in their way. Our next most important are Ntilikina and Knox. Rivers and Payton might get in the way of Ntilikina but this is Ntilikina’s 4th year in the league and if he can’t win playing time over Rivers and Payton I am okay with him not playing much. As for Knox, Randle and Toppin are the players in his way and neither of them were free-agent signings so while he might have a hard time cracking the rotation early I don’t think our free agency is the reason.

Finally, the rest of our young players; Quickley, Brazdeikis, Harper, Smith Jr, and Spellman don’t need to be in the rotation right away and will probably get their chance because of Covid or after the trade deadline.

Yeah I just don’t get the whole play the kids no matter what, don’t have any vets logic.

We did that one season under Fiz and our youngsters (Frank and Knox) failed to develop. The ones we did play like Mudiay still didn’t amount to much. If Frank in year 4 can’t beat our Payton or Rivers and earn PT, he really doesn’t belong as part of our future. Thibs runs hard practices throughout the season. Young players will still get developed even if they don’t play every night. And thibs won’t play favorites with vets, which I think is maybe the concern. I think Thibs will play whoever earns it and if that’s a vet or a youngster, it won’t matter…no matter their salary or experience or lack thereof.

Our record isn’t going to be drastically better because Riveres and PAyton are playing over Frank and Quickley. In fact, if the young players are playing over the vets under Thibs then I imagine our record will be better than we think bc those young players are moving forward in their progression.

Plus some of the vets will be gone by the deadline.

Jake Paul is a cruiserweight. That weight class is heavily populated with very hard-ass, bruising Eastern European dudes. A top 50 cruiserweight would put some serious hurt on Jake Paul.

Maybe we’ll get to see that someday.

Made it impossible for Hubert and E to concoct conspiracy theories

This is like the 40th time you’ve accused me of concocted a conspiracy theory, and each time you’ve done so has led me to ponder the same question:

Do you know what the word conspiracy means?

Because there is a pretty big difference between a theory (of which I have many) and a conspiracy theory (of which I have… none).

For the record Z-Man (and to save you the trip to Wikipedia you are undoubtedly making as I type this):

A theory is “Rose hired Thibs and drafted Toppin because he wants to start winning right away.”

A conspiracy theory is “The Brooklyn Nets conspired to plant Leon Rose in MSG so he could make bad decisions that would help them to eclipse the Knicks as the premier team in NY.”

Once certain guys are placed into “known quantity” status and young guys are placed into “they have to earn their time” status, the die is pretty much already cast.

i don’t know how people don’t think all the incestuous connections that seemed to drive every decision point in this offseason is not throwing up huge red flags …. it’s probably the reason Leon Rose isn’t talking to the media….

at best it’s incompetence because there’s absolutely better guys out there then toppin, quickley, austin rivers, mkg…. at worst… there’s some very rotten things going on …

and as long time observers of the franchise did this come as a huge surprise with anyone with how this Rose era would end up?

there’s no benefit of the doubt from me…. and i gave every knick gm a lot of rope including phil and mills and perry… this has a chance of working out purely because they have a chance to nab cade or a number of strong prospects next year which thankfully they did not screw up but Rose will absolutely sink this franchise eventually…

and yes i realize sinking this franchise even further is a really tough accomplishment but that’s what happens when you get parasites that reward relationships over merit leading your organization…. it’s either dysfunction or corruption…. and neither portends good things….

It obviously doesn’t speak for itself, because this is like the fourth time you’ve said it and each time you’ve said it, it’s been easily and quickly debunked. At this point, the only thing to conclude is that you aren’t going to play any of this stuff straight and you have your bugaboos and your obsessions and stubbornly thereto shall you cling.

Huh? It’s an empirical fact. Go ahead and debunk it, if that is in fact a thing that can happen, let alone has already happened three times. Since it’s apparently already been debunked three times it shouldn’t be hard to do!

Oh no!!!

The Knicks are signing players repped by CAA! A talent agency that literally represents more than half of the league!

Oh no!!!!

The Knicks are bringing in players who went to the top college basketball program in the country!

Nah E. You have it backwards. If Rivers and Payton are playing over Frank and Quickley, it means Frank and Quickley aren’t good enough to play over them. You can’t honestly expect a coach to play them just because they are younger?

Put it another way. You’ve worked at a job for 10 years. You’re competent at it. The boss hires a kid right out of college. Would you be offended if the kid went in to pitch a new client with no experience when you have experience doing that?

Of course you would.

Would you expect the boss to fill his department with only kids right out of college because they potentially could grow into better employees?

Nope.

Its the same with basketball teams. Young players have to prove they’re better. I guess you want us to win less than 10 games with rookies and young players and G-leaguers? Why? How did that help Knox his rookie year?

Young players can develop plenty without playing all the time. Its called practice. That’s why they have them an that’s why they hired the development coaches.

This whole argument is so dumb because we haven’t even seen yet who Thibs is going to play.

RJ, Mitch and Toppin will all get plenty of PT.

Frank and Knox are in years 3 and 4. Time to show something.

Quickley, Iggy, etc…would not be guaranteed PT on most teams anyways.

Quickley is a red flag for me because I think there were better players available. That said, Quickley has promise and potentially replicates the skills of Vassell who several people on this board were pleading for us to draft 8th. If Quickley didn’t go to Kentucky I’d be fine with the pick.

Obi Toppin was likely the consensus pick at 8 for NBA GMs, scouts, and draft afficionados alike. Even the numbers say great things about Obi. This board really liked Hali & his numbers, including me, but Hali doesn’t actually project any better than Obi. Of all the things to get upset about drafting Obi isn’t one of them.

Oh no!!!

The Knicks are signing players repped by CAA! A talent agency that literally represents more than half of the league!

Oh no!!!!

The Knicks are bringing in players who went to the top college basketball program in the country!

ok… what’s up with trading away a 2nd rd pick to give a roster spot to rivers?

djphan: ok… what’s up with trading away a 2nd rd pick to give a roster spot to rivers?

I definitely think we should have traded the pick, we have 9 players on rookie contracts. There’s really no playing time for another rookie. I’m not even counting Evans or Powell.

The real issue is we should have gotten more for the pick, ideally 2 future 2nd rounders. The 2023 play is likely better than other random drafts, but theres a risk the double draft doesn’t happen.

Apparently, I’m the only one who believes that Rivers is here as a stopgap. He’s an undersized SG that can play PG in a pinch. Rivers isn’t playing over RJ & if anything pushes RJ to the 3 where he belongs. He’s not playing over Burks or Bullock. Frank is likely a better pure PG (sad, I know) than Rivers.

Rivers is the break in case of emergency PG or give RJ more space to run the offense PG. I really don’t think Rivers cracks the rotation unless RJ shows he can operate with better spacing (Frank shooting relatively well compared to Payton but actually quite awful doesn’t count).

I think a solid B grade for the offseason. They didn’t reach at 8, converted some low end assets into more low end assets, and didn’t remodel an 80k kitchen only to order take out every night. The missed on FVV, without overpaying, and when the dust settled Payton was the best no commitment option left. They have cap space, draft assets and flexibility. Now if we could just add rising stars to that mix.

When approaching a dumpster fire, proceed with caution.

I’m pretty even keeled on this board with a slight tendency towards the optimists because that’s my personality. Guys like E and Hubert are really out of whack today.

E:
I guess the other part of the grade would be putting together a front office with clear lines of authority and responsibility where all are pulling in the same direction, and they failed at that, too.That one might be undoable, given the reality of Dolan.

That being the most ridiculous comment of the day. They have absolutely put together an FO with clear responsibilities and a coaching staff as well balancing Thibodeau with player dev guys. And also you have no idea what’s going on in the front office.

Id also like to get everyone’s understanding of grading. In my world B- is average. Anything below a that and my mom would lock me in my room lol. That’s my grade for now. Draft is unknown. FA was do no harm when prices went over their valuation. Downside was minimal creativity. However, I give Rose a bit of a pass this time due to this being his first go round and the limited time/weird circumstances of the signing period.

Z-man: Hubert, by conspiracy theories, I mean that you ascribe motivations to people without a shred of evidence. The motivations you ascribe often involve an undertone of deluding the public perception behind a given action. And even if not, it implies a hidden agenda. You do that all the time and E is also prone to it.

Right, but as Hubert rightly said, there’s no “conspiracy” involved in any of that even if you had “our” motives spot-on.

In the mid-late Trump era, “conspiracy” became a synonym in certain parts for “dubious, a bit out there, and faintly or more than faintly right-wing.” That’s not proper English usage.

E: What’s Scott Perry responsible for and who does he report to?

He’s the GM and reports to the POBO, Leon Rose.

JK47:
Every year I look at the Knicks’ roster and I ask myself, how does this team shape up Four Factors-wise? And just about every year I come away with the same thought: the offensive eFG% is going to be terrible, so likely we will be terrible as a team.

Seems like the same story this year. I’m looking around trying to figure out how we’re not going to have a poor eFG% and 3PT% and I don’t really see it. I see lots of guys who can’t score. I game out various lineups and it’s hard to put one together that has reasonable balance and spacing. There are 3 or 4 non-shooters on the floor in most of the plausible lineups you can put together.

<
Good point. Here’s my crack at a lineup that could work and develop the kids and MAYBE gives you some efficiency

Payton – his game is what it is at this point
Bullock – def gives floor spacing and D
RJ – with improved FT % to 70-75 and 3% to 35 you can accept him here
Obi – he’s efficient and will at least attempt to shoot from range which will help RJ with lane clogging when he gets to the tin.
Mitch – my guess is Thibs is gonna let him take cornet 10 – 15 footers. If Mitch could shoot 40% in this range (AD numbers) and up his USG from 13 to 20 then you have a star in the making.

That to me is our best lineup. You can trade Burks for Bullock if you want.

Grocer: I think Rose “leaked” it to save face with the majority of fans and Dolan, who think more like GoNY than this board’s consensus.

I certainly don’t think like a majority of fans. Definitely not here or elsewhere and that’s my complaint 😀

Z-Man, you asked what’s wrong with the Rivers pick-up a while back up the thread. My real problem is he just wasn’t needed (barring injury or Covid), and takes what almost made sense in terms of playing time split between the kids and the vets to a chaotic level. For example, without Rivers:
RJ maybe gets on average 30 mpg at SF. Burks backs him up for some 15 mpg. Iggy (or ick, Knox) gets some mop-up.
Bullock starts at SG at maybe 25 mpg. Burks backs him up for another 10 mpg, giving him 25 total. Frank gets 10 mpg, with Quickley mopping up the last few minutes.
Peyton gets maybe 25 mpg at the point, with Frank getting 15 (totaling 25) and Quickley (or, ick, DSJ) mopping up.
That gives the kids a chance to show something (anything?), while giving the lineup some shooting and some passing, at least most of the time.
Now throw in Rivers, who has averaged ~25 mpg on teams much better than the Knicks over his career. You think he’s sitting on the bench waving a towel?

thenoblefacehumper: There’s probably more to it the further you get from prospects of the “can’t miss” variety. I definitely think it helps Mitch to have a real point guard on the floor. This kind of speaks for itself:

Mitch with Payton: 17.2 PTS/36, .758 eFG%

Mitch without Payton: 13.7 PTS/36, .729 eFG%

I understand this point. It underscores everything I’ve been saying. This team desperately needs a floor general. It’s an NFL team without a QB (thanks Denver for showing us what that looks like). And TNFH, no matter who the starting PG is, I like Elfrid as the backup but not the starter. As a starter, he’s overmatched by the stars and superstars of the NBA. Finding a top-15 point guard is and continues to be an imperative for the Knicks.

BTW, where did you find those stats?

Raven,

I get what you’re saying about Rivers but the 3 year deal with two team options to me says maybe they want Rivers back and at that price, its hard for me to complain about an actually competent vet.

It just seems like we’re back in the ole should we only play the kids vs. should we play some vets and kids argument and I just don’t think the people who want to only play the kids at all 10 rotation places are thinking about this logically. I think you would be hard pressed to find a coach who would be cool with that, even a “development” coach like Atkinson and I think that product would be almost unwatchable. And unlike last year, the vets are spread out among multiple positions and all are so cheap that I think it will be very easy to move them for more picks at the deadline.

I mean any combo of Noel plus Rivers/Bullock/Burkes would give a playoff team a great back up big man and some wing shooting/defense for a playoff push for the grand total of like 9 million dollars.

Put it another way. Sure a team with just kids taking up 90 percent of the minutes might give those kids more PT to develop but it would most likely mean we couldn’t pick up any additional picks at the deadline and for a sucky rebuilding team, getting to pick up more draft capital is super important. The more picks we add to our cupboard, the easier it will be to move up in a draft to draft a real franchise changing player or swing for a trade for a real superstar. Put it another way. If the Knicks in 2010 had a bunch of extra first round picks, trading for Melo would not have hard capped that team the way it did because we still would have had the ability to build around him.

Swift, to be sure I’m not a ‘play the kids at the expense of the vets’ kind of guy. But I do think this is the year to find out what we have with the kids. So they need some decent playing time, at least at first — if there’s no development, screw them, plant them on the bench. If they break out, great, play them over the vets. My imaginary lineup mixed vet and kid time (again, a start-of-the-season plan), with vets starting at two of the three positions. If Rivers gets his allotted 20-25 minutes, then ugh. He’s not really worse than the other players, but he’s not any better than most of them either. He’s a meh minutes suck.

If we make a bunch of trades fairly soon with various of these guys then I take it all back. But certainly as it stands now, it’s not a pretty picture.

swiftandabundant: I mean any combo of Noel plus Rivers/Bullock/Burkes would give a playoff team a great back up big man and some wing shooting/defense for a playoff push for the grand total of like 9 million dollars.

The saving grace of this season would be if the Knicks sent a package of 3 vets like Randle, Noel and one of the wings off to a playoff team for a top point guard on a multi-year deal.

BTW, according to Spotrac, there are 17 point guards making an average of $20M or more per year in the NBA. That’s 15 earn over $25M.

(continued)

very cheaply to MIN.
– Payton, Noel: C. Very good value, but only 1 year deals. If they play well we will have to pay a fair salary, and we have no window when to use all of our salary cap and then go over the cap resigning them. Payton is probably needed as a stopgap at PG. But a 1-year deal for Noel, no matter how good he is, does not make sense to me. I guess we could possibly trade them, but they do not have the profile of player that is urgently needed halfway during the season.
– Burks, MKG: D. Same as above, but I don’t expect much value from them.
– Rivers: A (joking, kinda). I firmly believe he has trade value, in the sense that Doc Rivers will force Morey to trade for him, just let’s see what can we get for him.
– Ed Davis trades: A+. We got a few 2nd rounders and to try Omari Spellman who is still in his rookie contract for 2 more years.

So overall a B for me. I am not feeling that the Kentucky/CAA connection has been detrimental to us (yet).

Hubert: his two biggest swings this year were coach and the 8 pick, and with each selection he gave me reason to believe he’s a decade behind the rest of the league.

And with this we kind of get back to the not really commented on enough fact that Rose really hasn’t been “in the league” in any serious sense. He was an agent. He’s not a personnel guy and has no experience as a personnel guy. He should have structured the FO to have a great, proven basketball GM who did the vast majority of the actual personnel judging with Rose retaining final sign off on the really big decisions and using a very light touch even then. (And under the GM, a really good cap guy, a pro and college personnel guy, etc.)

How it should have worked is that Rose gave players comfort with the organization and an “in” to get meetings and the like. I never wanted Rose as the primary personnel out-front decision maker and it’s bad that he is. He has zero experience in that role and there isn’t any translation between recruiting players to your agency and that role. Steve Mills, of course, didn’t really have any experience or chops as a personnel guy, either, but that’s again a bar a flea couldn’t limbo under.

(William Wesley isn’t a personnel guy either, in any sense. Sigh. It might be nice if someday the Knicks actually got a proven personnel guy as their top basketball personnel decision maker.)

@Hubert

Fair points, but I think you’re underselling Obi’s 3 point shot and passing a bit. If you just look at his box score his assist and 3 point numbers don’t stand out–2.8 assists per 40 and 41% from 3 on 2,2 attempts per game over his two years in college. But I think his “true” 3pt and assist skills are better than the box score indicates; part of that has to do with him being the focal point of the offense in a league where he physically dominates. Dunks are still king in basketball–there is not much incentive to take threes or to pass when you average 69% from 2 point land (especially in a league with poor spacing like the NCAA). He’s not going to be shooting as well from 2 point land in the NBA (we will be ecstatic if he does), and that’s going to open up his three point shot (where he’s shown flashes of stepbacks and more generally good, repeatable form) and his passing (which is genuinely good–the numbers belie just how good his passing is imo–he’s not Jokic but he’s definitely a plus passer at PF). Obi really does have all the makings of a modern NBA 4 if you’re a believer in his 3 point shot. The real problem has been his age–which limits his top-level projection imo–and defense, where he shows the kind of awareness deficit in team d that you can’t really train out of a player, along with the stiffest hips I think I’ve ever seen in man scenarios, which maybe can be changed. Even there, I think it’s possible he can avoid being, say, bottom 10% at his position defensively. There’s the makings of a legit player there. Would I have picked him at 8? Probably not. But I don’t think Obi serves as evidence that Rose isn’t trying to fashion a modern team, especially considering the Quickley pick, Bullock’s exercised team option, and the Burks signing, which were all because of their shooting.

Early Bird: Quickley & Rivers are both shooting guards. Frank is arguably better at SG.

Quickly claims to be a point guard.

Early Bird: We do not have a PG logjam.

It’s arguable that we don’t have a single point guard.

GoNYGoNYGo – Tanking forever: Quickly claims to be a point guard.

It’s arguable that we don’t have a single point guard.

But we have Elfrid Payton. He makes Julius Randle better than Dennis Smith, Jr. does!!!

Every bad team needs a usage soaker, and we may have found the greatest usage soaker of them all in Austin Rivers

The fact that “Somehow Taj still” is currently sitting at #2 in that poll has me cracking up. XD XD XD

Tim MacMahon
@espn_macmahon
· 1h
Luka Doncic on a key to contending this season: “Which team is not going to have [COVID-19] positive people.”

Can’t say the kid doesn’t understand basketball.

If he had just ended up on the Knicks. It really isn’t that hard to imagine.

The hate on Payton by the Frank gang has been inexplicable, really, I just cant understand it. I was a proponent for drafting Ntilikina, I loved his profile and willingly ignored all the red flags because I saw an elite defende who could learn how to shoot, damn, I spent a year in here fighting with Z-Man about how Frank was going to be great… but it was a mistake and he was right, I was wrong, and let’s move on please. Let the kid earn his minutes and I truly hope me proves me wrong once again and this time becomes a real high level player.

Payton is an adequate Point Guard who can do Point Guard things pretty well, there’s evidence of it, it is available to the eye test and to anyone who pays attention, and he’s simply a better guard than the other options, its also super simple. Is he the long term future of this franchise? Obviously not. It is infuriating to see how he’s still the same player he’s been in the NBA ever since he arrived with little progress, but he’s a real NBA player which I doubt DSJ and Frank will ever be as Point Guards.

z… you keep thinking i’m comparing these people like they are carbon copies… i’m not… these are just illustrations of one-dimensional players and how extreme outliers in one category … like 2p%… can color your expectations….

same thing happened with lonzo ball…. he hacked his way to stupendous advanced metrics and it meant squat because the advanced metrics thought he was dominant driving to the hoop when he was absolutely not that….

the advanced metrics think obi toppin is like shaq inside… he’s definitely not that…. he’s going to be way short of it… and how far short of it is going to determine how good he will be…..

djphan:
z… you keep thinking i’m comparing these people like they are carbon copies… i’m not… these are just illustrations of one-dimensional players and how extreme outliers in one category … like 2p%… can color your expectations….

same thing happened with lonzo ball…. he hacked his way to stupendous advanced metrics and it meant squat because the advanced metrics thought he was dominant driving to the hoop when he was absolutely not that….

the advanced metrics think obi toppin is like shaq inside… he’s definitely not that…. he’s going to be way short of it… and how far short of it is going to determine how good he will be…..

I didn’t belabor the point, but okay. That said, many of Obi’s 2-pt shots came in transition, where he was an absolute monster at getting out on the break and finishing. He also was a very impressive roll man in the PnR. And it’s not like he had lots of space to operate, he was keyed on every night, and dis a great job of passing out of double-teams. He also drew fouls at a high rate and hit his FTs. It’s really not fair to suggest that he “hacked” his way into his advanced metrics. That’s the same nonsense that was said about lots of players whose games translated immediately to the NBA, most recently Brandon Clarke. Remember all the talk about him being a 6’8″ 215lb 23yo whose game wouldn’t translate because he was taking advantage of younger, smaller players with superior teammates masking his deficiencies (and his pre-Gonzaga stats were very mediocre). Yet he went on to be all-rookie first team.

To suggest in any way that Obi piled up stats simply by bullying his way to the rim against smaller players is not justified. He has a nice offensive skillset for a 6’8″ power dunker with a long wingspan.

i’m telling you exactly how they hacked their way into it… it’s not nonsense… if you want to handwave it ok that’s your perogative….. but players with extreme efficiency #s usually don’t translate…. because they’re not as efficient in 2p% then the rest of their value collapses….

the same is probably going to be the case with brandon clarke…. right now he’s shaq at 19% usage… that’s not going to continue and while he’s solid elsewhere and should have a career… he’s not destined to be some superstar like his shooting is indicating… it’s a hack and that’s why you can’t really take advanced stats too literally and why you have to contextualize everything when forecasting….

when seeing a 100% TS your first instinct shouldn’t be that wow that dude is a great player… it should be what did he do to achieve that…. and once you break it down it usually starts becoming less impressive…..

that doesn’t mean obi is hopeless… i had him #10 on my board …. it just means that all this gushing over his potential and his athleticism is overstated…. athleticism is a lot more than just dunking the basketball in transition and that is what i’m pushing back on….. it’s what leads people to believe that knox was athletic…. he wasn’t and obi while he elevates well … he isn’t amare…. and if you’re expecting that then you’re going to be very disappointed….

If anything, Z-Man is more confident than I am today on Frank’s to be a real player, which is still kinda funny to me (and also how you were my “strat” before strat was relevant, but once I got over it you became one of the posters here that I always respect and like, which I truly never believed would happen at the time lol)

Brandon Clarke can also block shots in addition to being magnificently efficient at lowish usage. And he doesn’t seem to need the ball much in his hands.

Aaron Gordon does seem like a decent comp and looking at his numbers and his salary that is pretty troubling.

this is kind of cool:
DECEMBER 1 @ 6:00PM PST
SIMULCAST ON
MoPOP’s Facebook page + Amazon Music’s Twitch channel + Amazon Music app
Click any of the platforms above. No accounts are required to stream for Facebook or Twitch. A free account is needed for Amazon Music.
JOIN US VIRTUALLY

This one-night-only benefit will feature unforgettable performances by Alice In Chains, as well as performances from Metallica, Billy Corgan, Korn, and more.

#As fans, this board is peculiar in the sense that we probably don’t think like the average fan. We think, “finally a smart off season”; many fans probably think “the Knicks struck out again, they have nobody good on the team once again”.#

Not only the majority of this board said “finally a smart off season” which could also seem as blind optimism right now but We also crossed our fingers for that kind of approach by the FO to happen.
Threads before the start of the FAgency don’t lie.

Early Bird: I shouldn’t bother explaining why these are both incredibly dumb takes, but:

– Payton was 6th in AST%
– 6th in AST/36
– Top 10 in AST/TOV ratio (NBA.com is dumb and won’t let me sort by total minutes played; I don’t care enough to prune it to find the exact ranking).

These are objectively good numbers and show Payton to not only be a PG, but a good PG. He had a bad shooting year. A return to his career FT% & 3P% makes Payton even more valuable.

He is a decent point guard, an ideal backup. It’s fair to say that he had a down year but Elfrid has never been known for shooting well. These are his career TS% numbers:
14/15: 45.6
15/16: 47.8
16/17: 52.0
17/18: 53.8
18/19: 50.2
19/20: 47.0

TNFH, btw, thanks for that link! Very cool – bookmarked!

+/- for Mitch with…
-50 DS Jr
-38 Frank
+44 Elfrid

Bruno Almeida:
If anything, Z-Man is more confident than I am today on Frank’s to be a real player, which is still kinda funny to me (and also how you were my “strat” before strat was relevant, but once I got over it you became one of the posters here that I always respect and like, which I truly never believed would happen at the time lol)

Thanks, Bruno. I’ve had contentious exchanges with nearly every long-time poster here and, you know, win some, lose some, it’s all good. Humor and humility are critical in my profession, and definitely in my household, which is like a raging sit-com most of the time. We’ve all been wrong enough times to not gloat too much when we’re right, and to have a thick skin when we’re embarrassingly wrong. Over time, the frequent posters have gotten to know each other’s personal stories a bit, which adds empathy to the mix and waters down any hard feelings. I find your story to be immensely compelling, and the same for many others.

It’s a great board, and if we can agree on one thing, we all deserve a good team to root for. Hopefully the worm is starting to turn.

Yeah, and it’s honestly all about the way it happens, really. If both people involved know how to respect the arguments of the other, even though it gets inflamed and heavy handed, it’s easy to go back and rethink. In the end sometimes we’re arguing like mortal enemies with people who actually are super close to our own values and ideas, but they differ in that one aspect that initiated the discussion, which is what happened with us lol. Just thr nature of online interactions, and a big, big reason why my interest in basketball comes and goes with my life, but I always end up back here.

Marquette is thrashing OK State and Cunningham 19-7

djphan:
the argument with clarke was whether he was worthy of a top 3 pick…. ppl were actually making this argument…and knowing what we know now i still wouldn’t trade rj for clarke straight up and i think ppl would be nuts to … you can get guys like clarke pretty readily… and a superior guy with more upside was just signed for ~12mm aav….

you dont’ spend high lotto picks on that…

What? We were comparing Obi to Clarke. You made the point that they are “hacking” to get their stats. Who said anything about trading RJ with Clarke straight up, or #3 picks? (and in retrospect Clarke would have been an excellent #3 pick, but I digress…)

the argument with clarke was whether he was worthy of a top 3 pick….

The argument about Clarke was whether it would be wise to pick him at #3 when he would likely be there later, and what you could get out of trading down.

and knowing what we know now i still wouldn’t trade rj for clarke straight up

Which seems nuts to me, because Clarke just proved that he can grind for 12 efficient points per game, help you stay lean and quick at the 4 during smallball lineups, and play solid D without any danger of fouling out (he reached 5 fouls in only two games last season). And RJB was one of the very worst players in the league, falling short of Darius Garland’s meager nadir. So… upside, I guess?

you can get guys like clarke pretty readily

Like who?

and a superior guy with more upside was just signed for ~12mm aav….

Who? Christian Wood? Yeah, I’ll take both for $15M AAV combined, please.

you dont’ spend high lotto picks on that…

Clarke was +103 in TSAdd; Barrett was -144. Barrett nearly made more in his rookie season that Clarke will in his first three seasons combined.

So much disrespect for a positively stunning rookie season. And comparing him to Barrett, who is looking like a real fuckin’ bust? C’mon, dude!

Now list their 2019-20 salaries, and career earnings. And scoring efficiency. And best of all– AGE.

Which seems nuts to me, because Clarke just proved that he can grind for 12 efficient points per game, help you stay lean and quick at the 4 during smallball lineups, and play solid D without any danger of fouling out

You’re more compelled by that than most basketball people and fans, who are more compelled by stars, star potential, and upside. There’s maybe something beyond basketball that leads you to that. It’s neither “wrong” nor “right,” but simply a way of looking at the world and valuing what we value.

He’s a nice player and among the very best of what you clearly (and rightly) perceive as his “type.” But I’d need a lot more convincing that having the best or near-best of that type correlates with wins or … egads …. multiple championships as you seem to be saying. I don’t trade a guy whose “type” is “potential star” for that type and I put RJ in that bucket, as do most people, I’d say. I may miss on him actually becoming the star, but it’s worth the risk.

Now list their 2019-20 salaries, and career earnings. And best of all– AGE.

and what? i don’t see what point you’re trying to make….

you trade down from a top 3 spot so you have the privilege to draft something you could’ve gotten with the MLE? in any year?

that’s pretty terrible when you think about it right?

Would I trade them for Clarke:

Barrett — No
Toppin — No
Frank — Yes, but with some hesitation and trepidation because Frank could be as elite a role player. I’ll accept the laughs I know are coming. I’d hesitate a bit, then do it and not look back.
DSJ — Obviously
Knox — Yes
Robinson — Yes. I’m far less high on him than what I’ll shorthand label the efficiency crowd
Quickley — Give me a few games. If I had to literally decide today, then yes.

I respect your opinion a great deal but most definitely not on this. The guy was a rookie and put up 20% usage on 5th-best efficiency in the whole league. At $8M AAV he’d still be a steal. And he’s 24.

RJ over Clarke in the draft is a defensible gamble. I probably would have taken Clarke, but if you hit on RJ, having a wing who can create his own offense at a high usage and add some playmaking is more valuable than having a good big except in a few rare cases, so I get that. The chance that Clarke becomes a good NBA player is basically 100% though. He was good last year, and unless he gets badly injured or addicted to drugs it’s very very likely he’ll be good for the next few years at least. I don’t know what the odds are for RJ, but he was pretty bad last year, so it’s safe to say it’s a lot less than 100%

The lack of understanding, assuming it actually exists, probably originates in the use of the words “ended up.”

The Honorable Cock Jowles:
I’m not smart enough to understand. Help.

Sorry bud, I’m not worthy either…

i don’t really know who any of these folks are: nancy wilson, mark lanegan, liv warfield, jeff fielder, ben smith, andy stoller, ryan waters – but they just covered “brother” magnificently…from their own homes…how cool…

is there something so special about clarke that you can’t just readily replace with about 30 guys in the league and not really miss too much?

How many other rookies were in the top 30 in BPM this year?

if not in FA then the draft…. guys like him are readily available every year….

This is just utter ridiculousness. I am not sure you are thinking clearly. If you think you can find a rookie who can put up those numbers, and do so not just in spot minutes but a healthy dose of reserve minutes in a stacked conference… what the fuck league you watching, man?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NWpklkAE4Oo

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IgTgTegC-ac

I don’t really have a dog in this fight, am fine with RJ but would have been okay with trading down…maybe land Herro and Clarke.

More generally, sure, positional scarcity counts….but so does probability of success. Clark was as close to a sure thing you could get for his particular position…and you take a stab at RJ’s position at #8-12, or whatever pick you traded down to.

RJ was pretty far from a sure thing. If we were talking Zion or Ja it’s a pretty ridiculous argument. But RJ had several red flags that wound up rearing their ugly head (and one that didn’t…he’s clearly a better defender than advertised.) But the odds of RJ becoming a non-replaceable player at his scarce position were not great when we drafted him and are even longer now.

I’m not quibbling, but the odds at this moment clearly favor the trade-down being the better option.

like i don’t know why it’s important that he’s a rookie

Because the NBA has a completely different playstyle than the NCAA. They are not remotely similar, and rookies often play like shit because the level of competition is so, so much higher than even the most competitive NCAA games. The ’12 Bobcats would have smashed through the NCAA tournament with ease, and they were a 7-59 team.

… he’s already 24… that makes him the same age as christian wood….. and a year older than domantos sabonis and john collins….. 3 years older than mitch robinson…. heck he’s only two years younger than steven adams and drummond….. same age as jusuf nurkic and clint capela too…..

Nah, you got your facts all catawampus here.

Wood is a full year older.
Sabonis is 4 months younger.
Collins is a full year younger.
Robinson is 18 months younger.
Adams is nearly 3 years older.
Drummond is nearly 3 years older.
Nurkic is nearly 2 years older.
Capela is 2 1/2 years older.

Might seem like I’m nitpicking, but 3 years is an eternity for a professional athlete.

Clarke was a prolific shotblocker in college and that doesn’t seem to have carried over-I wonder if that has to do with how Memphis play defense. I can’t say I watched many Grizzlies games last season.

I’m not sure why we’re arguing about Brandon Clarke specifically, but last year’s draft in the lottery was a mess after the first two picks, as everyone thought at the time. RJ has his warts, but I need a better argument for why RJ was a bad pick at that spot other than citing a player that twenty other teams passed on.

I need a better argument for why RJ was a bad pick at that spot other than citing a player that twenty other teams passed on.

I don’t think he was a bad pick at #3. I agree with positional scarcity, and ceiling, when it comes to ball-handling, two-way wings. I just think that after his dismal rookie year, and Clarke’s monster year as a sixth man on a team that missed the playoffs by a single game, it’s clear which one I would take at #3 if forced to choose between the two.

i mean i showed you why that’s not true…. you can believe what you believe… but if you want to engage further… you should show me why you think it’s true… if you jsut want to will it into existance i cannot help you….

here’s another question i hope you will answer… were you trading age 20 brandon ingram for jakob poeltl or domantas sabonis in 2018 too? or is clarke super special that this is a stupid comparison?

and if it is a stupid comparison are you saying that clarke is going to be better than sabonis and poeltl?

djphan: jakob poeltl or domantas sabonis in 2018 too? or is clarke super special that this is a stupid comparison?

I mean, on its face Clarke is more efficient than Poeltl and scored nearly 2x as many points per 36. Clarke was a rookie and Poeltl isn’t.

djphan – I don’t even know if I would trade Clarke for Ingram now but would definitely trade 20 year old Ingram for Clarke and I would much rather have Clarke than Poeltl or Sabonis.

Clarke averaged almost 20 points per 36 he is not just a low usage dunker. It’ll be interesting to see if he regresses this year. I don’t completely buy his 3pt shooting and as his role increases he will see more defensive pressure but his rookie stats are outstanding.

Both Sabonis and Poeltl suffer from playing a style that isn’t ideal for modern basketball, that is not a problem for Clarke. Also, Ingram could easily regress, his shooting got better all at once and I want to see another good shooting year before I completely buy him as a star.

can i get ppl on record on whether they would trade rj for clarke right now? like who else thinks this… this is bothering me…. and we have another contingent that wouldn’t trade frank for stephen curry…..

In a vacuum I would trade RJ for Clarke right now. As it sits I would pause because Toppin plays the same position as Clarke but I still probably would.

On the other hand I’d trade Toppin for Clarke in a second. Again not a reflection on Toppin, who I think has a solid chance to be quite good but a reflection on how good Clarke has been.

dang, looks like we got snubbed again for a christmas day game…I’ll tell ya, the level of disrespect for our storied franchise is disconcerting…

His own coaches played the guy 22.4 minutes per game. Are they stupid, too? And his usage wasn’t 20%, it was 18.7%. Being able to use possessions is a skill; it’s not a random thing.

It’s an old story by now, but the people who overvalue the Mitchell Robinsons, the Cole Aldrichs, the Willy Hernangomezs, and then to a different degree but similar kind, the Tyson Chandlers and the Brandon Clarkes put way too much stock in “efficiency” and way too little stock in the ability to create and get off shots. It’s really that simple and it’s too late in basketball internet/analytics history to spend much more time arguing about it. Brandon Clarke can’t create usage at anything close to star levels, so he’ll never go into the star bucket and that’s why his coach didn’t play him anything close to star minutes and why he wasn’t drafted at a star height and why his value on the marketplace isn’t star value. If certain types want to turn him into their own cult hero, that’s their business, but it really doesn’t have much to do with basketball.

To take one of a zillion possible examples throughout basketball history, Tracy McGrady’s usage rose from 19.1 at 18, to 21.9 at 19 (pretty significantly less than RJs), to 24.3, to 31 the next couple years, to 35.2 at 23. Little to none of that has to do with the way he was deployed or anything else; it’s virtually all game and skill growth. He didn’t use that few possessions at 18 because he was “inefficient,” or “not a focal point of the offense”; he used that few possessions because he didn’t have the game yet to use many more. No need to relitigate this one — to the extent one doesn’t understand this obvious truth of basketball life, one doesn’t understand basketball.

But while this is a necessary condition to stardom, it certainly isn’t a sufficient one. If you don’t make enough of the shots you’re able to create, it’s not going to work.. (And of course since they use so many possessions so inefficiently, those are the types of players analytics types detest beyond their actual, true skill detestiblilities. Their numbers seem loathable, and I guess they are — but their games aren’t necessarily so. High usage guys put themselves out there and risk loathability, the Mitchell Robinsons and Michael Cages and James Donaldsons and Brandon Clarkes really don’t.)

Is Jerami Grant a good comp for Clarke? He just got 60 million. Much more than he should have but I think at least some indication you can’t just pick up that kind of player for nothing. Maybe Grant is a much better defender.

The idea you can just pick them up in free agency is silly. Contenders do pick up useful pieces for discounted prices but that’s a different thing.

Clarke also costs a lot less than Barrett.

I’d definitely make that trade right now. RJ may shock me this year but I’d take the bird in hand.

I think Clarke has a fair usage. If he played 36 minutes we would be talking about a 19/10 guy with a couple of assists and a block, that is not a niche player that shoots seldomly (and even some of those cases, like Kawhi, grew to much larger roles). And there are plenty of players that came to the league as “old” rookies and still improved a fair amount.

E, I agree with what you said. But Clarke, in his rookie year, almost reached his share of usage (20%) with a ludricous efficiency. For the sake of the argurment, he could airball and extra possesion a game to get to that 20% and still have an incredibly good efficiency.

Let this one sink in: Clarke scores more per 100 possesions than RJ Barrett. So all this talk about getting you shots against NBA competition, results in that Clarke is better than RJ. Perhaps he cannot do on its own and needs to rely on his PG, but basketball is a team sport and is not only measured on how good is your dribble.

/scours BB-ref …

Yeah, LeBron James’s TS% at age 19 was .488 on 28.2 USG%. I’m happily holding the player.

The Honorable Cock Jowles: This is stats trutherism where a top-5 shooting efficiency rookie is unfavorably compared to a bottom-5 efficiency rookie because the latter plays a more in-demand position and is several years younger.

You’re just hearing what you want to hear, and arguing against strawmen you want to argue against, because it’s nothing like that. Everyone knows Clarke was efficient and Barrett was inefficient and the real import of those things has been pored over at length.

Clarke was very efficient last year. Barrett was inefficient last year. Literally everyone knows that and there isn’t a single person or a single sentence disputing that, as best I can tell anywhere in the discussion.

Personally, I’d take Frank Ntilikina over both of them. I think he’s really going to start dunking it this year!

It looks like the Clarke/RJ discussion got very interesting, but I don’t have time to read it all now.

I’m a Clarke fan.

I think the usage/efficiency debate is about role. If you want to contend, you need a solid #1 and #2 option (along with other good role players).

To be a legit #1 or #2 option, you have to be able to score at a solid efficiency level in quite a few ways. If you are more limited, no matter how efficient you are at 1 or 2 things, good defenses can take those things away or at least limit them to the point where it becomes a problem for you to score. Almost by definition, that makes you a role player. Role players can generate a lot of “statistical” value as part of team that already has its #1 and #2 option, but they can’t “lead” a team to contention and you can’t “build around” them. They are complimentary pieces and easier to come by than legit #1 and #2 options.

At this point, Clarke looks like a very high end role player. If a good defense wanted to slow him down, it would have no problem doing so. It’s going to take a leap in skills for Clarke to become a #1 or #2 option. He’s the kind of guy you want to add to the Mavs. They are set a #1 and #2. Now they need high value role players.

A guy like RJ is the flip side of the coin.

He has a greater variety of basketball skills at a “threatening to be really good” level, but he can’t do anything efficiently enough yet to be a #1 or #2 option yet.

The debate is whether it’s more likely for Clarke to expand his skills, be able to create more off the dribble, shoot efficiently from a greater variety of places in a variety of ways, and become a much more complete offensive basketball player or whether it’s more likely that RJ can improve his efficiency level at a variety of things that he can already do fairly well to a high enough level to become a #1 or #2 option.

There’s no easy answer to that, but age, work ethic, athletic ability, coaching, and things like are certainly a factor.

IMO, RJ has the higher ceiling but he also has the lower floor.

Wouldn’t it be nice to hear the chant “DEFENSE” and have it mean something again?

If a good defense wanted to slow him down, it would have no problem doing so.

Well, for one, he roasted the 7th-ranked OKC defense for 27 points on 19 shots in just 25 minutes. At what point do you think Mike Malone said, “Hey, we should probably try to slow that rookie down?” And if he didn’t say that, why is he employed as a basketball coach?

I do think we have a chance to a be a decent defensive squad this year.

Mitch and Noel means rim protection and shot blocking for the entire game (assuming both don’t foul out!)

Frank is a good defender, so I imagine Thibs will have him in the rotation.

RJ, Rivers, Burkes, Bullock are all pretty decent defenders. Payton isn’t good but he’s not horrible either. Quickley if he plays is supposed to be good.

The PF spot is the weak spot with Randle and Topping obviously. Also, kind of weird that a huge chunk of our scoring will come from the PF spot but that’s also where our weakness is on defense. But I think the good news with that is that the PF spot can be a weak spot of D if you got good defensive Centers, which we do.

And of course we got a good defense oriented coach. If they buy in, I think we could be good on defense.

what exactly is brandon clarke doing that he is roasting these teams? is he posting them up? he’s taking them off the dribble?

82% of his baskets are assisted…. i’m kind of curious to know what you think he’s doing that teams need to focus to ‘stop’ him…

Obi looks a bit like Melo guarding the PnR.

The Honorable Cock Jowles:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Qn_MFGT-rs

Should be a good video for discussion.

Creating shots is a worthwhile skill only if you can make them. Getting open and converting shots when someone passes you the ball is a skill.

Another epistemological crisis at KB.

We have argued for years over how much the delta between elite and average role players matters. I think we all agree that it’s important but not critical. You can find reasonable substitutes.

What really matters in the NBA is the delta between the truly elite superstars and your generic average #1 option. The difference between, I don’t know, Luka Doncic and Pascal Siakam, is really important.

That’s not to discount the Clarke’s of this world (or the Siakams). The Mavs lost their own version of Clarke to an achilles tear last year when Dwight Powell went down and it hurt them. But it hurt them a lot less than losing Doncic would have. Kleber and others were able to soak up those minutes without giving up too much.

I think my take on this argument is that it’s really about RJ. The way I see it, he can’t shoot. He’s maxed out physically. He’s already had the best player development you can have. He’s got a Mamba mentality which is a big detriment to his future value – you saw how awkward that was next to Zion – and it also keeps him from making what I would say are the optimal offensive decisions. I don’t think he is a dominant athlete and I think the defense is less impressive than some here do.

You don’t have to be crazy about Clarke to make the trade. You just have to believe that RJ’s eventual outcome is one that can be particularly damaging – being a max contract but well below average #1 or #2 option.

I think Barrett is tracking to be the next Wiggins and I’d trade him for basically any above average piece almost just to avoid that outcome.

Obviously, he may breakout and improve this year. Anything can happen. But I wouldn’t want to bet on it.

thenamestsam: Creating and missing shots is not valuable but is often a precursor to creating shots and making them. My point is that the guys who can create shots and make them are so rare that you have to take some chances on guys who might become that – if you give up on all the young guys who take and miss a lot of shots you’re going to have some really, really, really big misses. Like giving up on some of the best players of all-time style misses.

Bingo. You know who else can create NBA shots well at a young age, or at least could? Kevin Knox. I consider the apparent effort to make Kevin Knox more “efficient” between years one and two to be entirely misguided. I’ll now duck for cover.

Anything can happen, I guess, but Clarke wasn’t a high usage player even in college. He was a 24.1% USG his last year at Gonzaga. At SJ State as a 20-21 year old it was 25.1. He’s never come close to demonstrating the ability to drive offense that stars demonstrate.

I think my take on this argument is that it’s really about RJ. The way I see it, he can’t shoot. He’s maxed out physically. He’s already had the best player development you can have. He’s got a Mamba mentality which is a big detriment to his future value – you saw how awkward that was next to Zion – and it also keeps him from making what I would say are the optimal offensive decisions. I don’t think he is a dominant athlete and I think the defense is less impressive than some here do.

This is what it sadly comes down to for me, though there are good arguments on both sides and for that reason everyone should be 10% nicer to each other.

Barrett vs Clarke has become a proxy war for low-floor/high-ceiling/high usage Player X vs high-floor/questionable ceiling/low-to-medium usage Player Y. In reality the specific question is a lot more narrow than that, and if you’re just not that big of a believer in Barrett it should be pretty uncontroversial to say you’d trade him for an unambiguously productive player like Clarke.

I’m not so out on Barrett that I’d be shocked to be proved wrong on this in hindsight, but as of now I just don’t see him becoming the kind of irreplaceable player being discussed.

I agree with the larger point that high usage, high efficiency scorers/ball handlers (who tend to have other skills as well, with e.g. Devin Booker being an exception of sorts) are worth a lot more than limited bigs, even if the two players in question are graded similarly by box score aggregators. I just don’t see Barrett becoming one of those dudes.

A familiar refrain: I hope I’m wrong!

The Honorable Cock Jowles:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Qn_MFGT-rs
Should be a good video for discussion.

Yes indeed. Obi-1 is not a good defender. In one of his first interviews after he got drafted and in a few before, Toppin admitted his weakness. He worked on defense over the summer and he claimed to be eager to work with Thibs and the staff to improve those skills.

I will repeat what I’ve said, no 2020 draft pick was considered a tier-1 or tier-2 player. Toppin was a tier-4, borderline tier-3 prospect. Tier-3 being a full-time NBA starter. That being said, there are no tier-1, 2 and few, if any tier-3 players on the Knicks. If Toppin can develop defensively, it’ll help elevate him to those top tiers. It’s why, up until draft day, I liked the staff that Rose assembled, starting with Thibs. They are teachers. But so was Larry Brown, supposedly.

Bingo. You know who else can create NBA shots well at a young age, or at least could? Kevin Knox. I consider the apparent effort to make Kevin Knox more “efficient” between years one and two to be entirely misguided. I’ll now duck for cover.

See, I cringed whenever he tried to do his Melo impression and that was completely independent of the shots rarely going in. It just looked awful and lacked fluidity. The guy is kind of a stiff. I definitely would’ve known he was inefficient if I watched the games and never looked at numbers, whereas with inefficient rookies who went on to become #1/1A options I think that would’ve been a much harder determination.

To me Knox’s only prayer is that he limits himself to threes, transition points, and the occasional drive. I find his shot creation to be a hopeless endeavor.

This is what made it so perplexing to me that he was viewed as a “high-ceiling” pick compared to someone like Bridges. It was fair to note Bridges’ relatively low-ceiling, but Knox is just as limited if not more so! Unlike Barrett, this is simply not a guy who has ever demonstrated a wide variety skills.

I have played competitive basketball. but not competitive defense.

Early Bird: RJ Barrett has a 0% chance of becoming James Harden. Does this resolve the debate?

I probably shouldn’t have used Harden as my example since he had such a different developmental curve, and really was out of the gate a pretty productive bench player on a team that was already getting really good.

But I do think if you truly believe there’s a 0% chance RJ makes it as a guy who can have the ball in his hands and drive efficient offense, then yes, that does end the debate, and I would gladly trade him for a guy like Clarke if possible. I just don’t agree with that. 0% is a very low number and there are a number of guys who developed into centerpiece offensive players who started off by primarily showing the ability to take, and miss, a lot of shots.

I think this is a pretty spirited but healthy discussion… if only we could keep the discussion moving…

RJ Barrett has a 0% chance of becoming James Harden. Does this resolve the debate?

what about a 50/50 shot at brandon ingram?

let’s take the last 6 drafts as an example…. the top wings drafted were wiggins.. parker.. ingram.. brown.. tatum.. jackson…. (leaving out doncic cause someone is going to cry foul)…. 3 of those are probably out and out busts… and 3 of those probably made it…

and ingram is sort of in the barely made it category… like rj he struggled in his age 19 year shooting from basically every where…. and i see the same ppl talking shit about rj who buried ingram…. have ppl not learned their lesson on this?

that’s not to say they are exactly the same….. or that rj is going to figure it out… there’s no guarantees in life…. but i’d take a 50% shot at brandon ingram over a 100% shot at brandon clarke…. especially when picking #3….

rj’s right on his free throws…. he was about 68% after he switched his shooting motion early on when he was shooting in the 50s….

Iggy was an electric athlete when he came into the league. A terrific, explosive slasher who wreaked havoc defensively and who was a tornado in transition. I don’t think of RJ that way at all.

I think there are tons of reasonable comps out there for RJ: Derozan, Stackhouse, Wiggin? How about Joe Johnson? Maybe even Carmelo?

None of those are the kind of player I want to make a big long term investment in.

Re Clarke, I fully agree with those who think he may have considerable upside. He does have amazing touch and he isn’t a terrible three point shooter. I also think his defense might end up being really useful. But this argument really isn’t about him as I said above.

DeRozan gets so much shit but dude was part of a Raptors team that consistently won 50 plus games year after year and got to the ECF only to lose to Lebron at his absolute peak. He was good enough to be the central player in a trade that netted Kawhi Leonard. Honestly, if RJ turns into Derozan, we should all be very happy with that outcome. He’s a good player. Just because he doesn’t fit some people’s ideal of the modern NBA player doesn’t mean he isn’t a really good player.

Another thought. When you list Stackhouse, Carmelo, etc…I think we need to consider how those players would have turned out if they came up in today’s NBA and not the ISO NBA that was their generation.

I like RJ’s game. I want him to develop as a shooter. If he can’t he’s a bust and a bad draft pick because the was drafted 3rd overall. He’ll fall into the mold of Ntilikina and Knox who just can’t take that necessary step forward. I hope I am wrong about all three.

RJ is 4 years younger than Clarke. I know he had a bad rookie year efficiency wise, but I think we tend to forget just how young RJ is.

And I think we tend to forget that because outside of shooting, RJ is a pretty well rounded basketball player who seems extremely mature and even keeled and highly competitive for a 20 year old kid. I often forget that he just turned 20 because when I watched him play last year, he didn’t act like a 19 year old on the court. I know that is eye test stuff but I think his demeanor and attitude bodes well for his development.

Also, we’re so focused on his shooting because its the one area he really needs to improve to become a good player. But he will most likely improve in the other areas of his game as well. Its not like his defense, playmaking and rebounding numbers are all gonna stay the same while only his shooting will or will not improve.

The Honorable Cock Jowles: If Barrett is a .530 TS% shooter at 22, he’s still be a scrub.

If one’s argument is ultimately relegated to calling 2003-04 Dwayne Wade a “scrub” it’s fair to conclude that we’re pretty much in Rule of Holes territory.

I think it’s fair to say RJ is nothing like Dwyane Wade who was an explosive above the rim athlete unlike RJ.

Maybe I’m underrating RJs strength and he’ll just bowl over defenders and finish much more efficiently, but I don’t see it.

Iggy was an electric athlete when he came into the league. A terrific, explosive slasher who wreaked havoc defensively and who was a tornado in transition. I don’t think of RJ that way at all.

To be clear, I was just talking about projecting an optimistic statistical profile for RJ. I could see him arriving at an Iguodala-like profile but he would definitely get there a lot differently. There are multiple ways to skin the 18-5-5/.560-.580 TS% cat.

He’s nothing like Iguodala. Barrett can drive offense and Iggy couldn’t. Iggy’s low/medium usage, Barrett is high. Iggy never had a single usage year in his career as high as RJ had as a 19 year old, and most were far behind. If RJ can get the TS% into the 555 area where Iggy’s career number wound up, he’s going to be a multiple time all-star.

If you take it as self-evident that Barrett can “drive offense,” whatever that means, sure. Without specifying I find that to be kind of a meaningless designation though. Of course RJ Barrett can be the highest usage player on a given team because, well, anyone can. Iguodala could’ve been too.

Can RJ Barrett be the highest usage player on a contender? I think the answer is no, and for that reason I think a lot of people are asking the wrong question vis-a-vis Clarke.

THCJ – I’m not clear what those numbers are and for whom. I think the 2003-04 numbers are Wade’s at age 22 and that the second number is WS/48. Can you clarify?

I think you’re vastly overstating the likelihood RJ turns into Ingram.

i showed you the comps he had in college… showed that he performed as well and in some cases better than his peers and showed how he was similar to ingram in his first year…. i made no proclamations that he’s guaranteed to do anything…. merely that he is performing inline with his peer group….

and you’re making some pretty bold proclamations based on…. the eye test….

what’s this about specious again?

The Honorable Cock Jowles: Iguodala’s .555 career TS% means he was above average over the course of his career. If Barrett lands at .555, he’ll be below average, and the league continues to trend upward as almost all players are practicing deep jump shots out of the womb at this point.

It won’t mean anything of the sort, but in any event all I said is that if RJ gets his TS% to somewhere around 555 he’ll be a multiple time all-star, and he will be. I’m too busy to start running through the whole list of current guys, but the first one I picked on the 2020 all-star list was Donovan Mitchell and his 2020 TS% was 558. I suppose it’s possible that I picked the one guy at random who had the very lowest TS% of the 2020 all-stars and if that’s the case, guilty as charged. But it’s still all-star level.

Yeah, Wade was a high performing rookie (given that most rookies suck). Then he was very good his second year and a superstar his third. And was great in college too. He was a lot older than RJ but he also didn’t have all the resources RJ has had.

I loved watching Wade when he came into the league and had him on a fantasy team too. Very hard to find guards who average 2 steals and a block. He was such a dynamic athlete, words you would never use to describe RJ.

It’s not particularly fair to RJ to comp him to a HOF, I have to say, but if we are doing it then it’s only fair to say he doesn’t remotely resemble one.

And yeah, there is a chance that RJ ends up an all star but that’s meaningless except that it might trigger some escalator on a stupid contract we gave him.

Tatum & Brown came into the league much better than RJ.

vs.

I was referring to their rookie years

ok…..

Arbitrarily choosing 6 players is what exactly?

what’s arbitrary about rjs peer group?

what’s less arbitrary for you then and more applicable… let’s see it ..

Right now RJ doesn’t shoot well, doesn’t finish well at the rim and is an abysmal free throw shooter. That’s, uh, kind of a lot of things to fix. Maybe it’s possible. I hope so, because I like the rest of his game. The whole “throwing the ball in the basket” part really needs some work though.

Just wanted to pop in to say that Rudy Gobert is a top 10 player in the league and he absolutely cannot be the #1 offensive option on a team. Shot creation is important but you can be a superstar without having pretty much any ability to make your own shot–you just have to make your mark in other ways. Clarke can be that kind of guy if his defense is for real, though he’ll never quite be Gobert, an all-timer of a defender at C.

I would trade Clarke for RJ (pre-draft or if we didn’t draft Obi), simply because I don’t think RJ will reach his high-level outcome after his awful first season. But I’m not super down on him. He’ll probably end up being a decent if unspectacular player like Rudy Gay.

Speaking of Rudy Gay, I do think it’s fascinating to think of what Donovan Mitchell’s reputation and outlook would be if he hadn’t played with Gobert. I love those kind of counterfactuals. Where would Mitch be reputation wise if the Lakers had taken him for instance?

Did I mention that Ringer piece on Christian Wood? The guy dominated the D-League (apparently) and put up pretty strong numbers in the scattered 500 minutes he was allowed to play across his first three seasons in the NBA. And then basically fell into more minutes last year by accident and was awesome but in a way you could totally have predicted from that 500 minute sample.

It’s such a strong contrast with a guy like Barrett or any of these other prospects who have been anointed and carefully managed for so many years. The story outlines the situation, basically bad work ethic and a diva complex that he only really shook after getting cut by a Chinese League team.

But that in itself is amazing. How the hell did a Chinese league team cut Christian Wood?

djphan: what’s arbitrary about rjs peer group?

what’s less arbitrary for you then and more applicable… let’s see it ..

  

What makes this RJs peer group?

Do they all profile the same way? Play the same way?

Why are we ignoring his rookie year by only looking at draft position?

Ingram appears to be a success, but do all or even most players who put up multiple years of mediocre numbers suddenly blossom or is this actually a rare occurrence? A sample of 1 player doesn’t seem very indicative.

Also: Can we get rid of the edit timer on KB? Sometimes I’m thinking and run out of time to edit. Surely we’re not worried about people selectively editing their past contributions in order to misrepresent things, right? If not, then why have an edit timer?

I agree that the superstar archetype is usually a shot maker, partly because offense is more valuable than defense, but there are plenty of ways to be a top 10 player that don’t involve elite shot-making.

I agree with most of what you said and I think we’re actually mostly in agreement but a couple things I want to add: first, the word “plenty” here sticks in my craw a little. Basically every guy you listed was somewhere between all-league and all-timer level as a defensive player. So I would argue that really there’s precisely one way to be a true superstar level guy without primary shot creation skills, and that’s the combination of all-league defense and very good secondary offensive skills. But I’ll concede to you that it is possible.

But the point I started out trying to make (which I openly admit to having cribbed from Partnow) is that if you have one of the kind of superstar you’re describing, you still need to find at least “pretty good” shot creation somewhere and shot creation is the hardest skill to find guys who are “pretty good” at, because it’s so rare and so coveted and so valuable that even the guys who are pretty good at it are on max contracts and are incredibly highly valued by their current teams. Because of that I think you end up with the conclusion that it’s much harder to put together a team that looks like elite secondary skills guys plus pretty good shot creation than the other way around, and I think that’s borne out by the history of who does most of the winning of championships in the modern NBA.

Silky Johnson, Fleet Admiral of the Tank Armada: KG? John Stockton? These are all superstar level players at peak who did not contribute that much in terms of shot-making.

I beg to differ on these two…KG averaged 18 shots per game for most of his prime in Minny, then took a back seat in Boston…but was still a shot-creator when needed (killed us many a time from mid-range in crunch time.) Stockton took fewer shots but could score any time he wanted to and in a bunch of different ways. You might as well include guys like Magic Johnson and Reggie Miller if you’re including Stockton and Garnett.

TS% has never really been a metric that you could eyeball the Top 10 guys and go, “ooh, yeah, look at all the stars there, that’s a really important number” but even since 2007, it’s become more and more removed from that. Last year’s Top 10 are

M. Robinson
Ol’ Stale Dwight
Gobert
D. Robinson
Clarke
J. Allen
Collins
Wood
Thomas Bryant
Seth Curry

It barely even correlates with being “good” (other than in a tautological sense) much less anything much more than that. In 2007, the list was

Nash
Amare
Mikki Moore (an old school precursor to the Aldrich/M. Robinson/WHG line)
Prime Dwight
Kevin Martin
Nene
Biedrins
Eddy Curry in his one good year (LOL)
Dirk
Manu
… then Chauncy and Yao.

That’s a pretty nice group.

So basically the modern breakdown of 3PT, 2PT, pace, and FT is severing most/all the connection between TS% and being good. This is the kind of looking behind the numbers thing that has to be done rather than just rote reciting them.

this thread has been fun and i appreciate the distraction. list post then a word post.

gobert’s overall rapm for the last five seasons is 10th. he is first or second on defense and pretty highly ranked on offense but not elite, somewhere around the 15-20% percentile. to me it looked like he lost a half step last year, but last year was weird.

curry
lebron
cp3
embiid
lowry
butler
holiday
kawhi
jokic
gobert

edit: that’s top ten one version of rapm over the last 5 years. no i am not saying holiday is better than kawhi.

I think in the end we’re mostly agreeing as well. I guess my worry is this: I don’t really know what “elite shot creation” means and what essential role it’s supposed to play in a modern NBA offense. It’s a pretty nebulous term.

I agree it’s a fairly nebulous term, but I certainly think Jokic qualifies. He’s 7 feet and kind of chubby, but he can bring the ball up the court, score from inside and outside, score in isolation, pass, he has everything you’d expect except the normal shape and size. It doesn’t necessarily have to be a guy who can run a PnR in my eyes; basically the way I think of it is a guy who “give the ball to X” constitutes a pretty good to maybe even great offensive play, basically regardless of circumstance.

And I think the fact that teams with elite shot creators have won the majority of championships is just reflective of the fact that in a superstar dominated league like the NBA the best players of all time usually win rings.

The fact that the guys generally considered the best of all time and the elite shot creators have a strong overlap was really the point I was trying to make. You can certainly pick out teams who had great winning formulas (not even talking just about championships) built in a different way, they’re just rarer is my only point.

Z-man: I beg to differ on these two… You might as well include guys like Magic Johnson and Reggie Miller if you’re including Stockton and Garnett.

No, we’re not including Reggie Miller in anything. Let’s agree we don’t talk about that dumb prick.

I think people overrate shot creation. It is how not elite players like Russell Westbrook and Carmelo Anthony get elevated as some of the best players in the game all the while never making it anywhere in the playoffs and overall being considered overrated by stats guys.

What you need to win a championship in the NBA is a top 5-10 player and a good team around them. It is true that all of the top 5-10 players are shot creators but that does not mean that being a shot creator is inherently a more important skill than other things like efficient scoring, or passing, or defense.

Unless you are an elite shot creator it is better for you to take a more secondary role and be efficient than it is to dominate the ball and score 25 while driving down your team’s offensive rating. The problem with shot creators is frequently when on a team with better, actual elite shot creators they become redundant and don’t help the team nearly as much as if they were better secondary scorers. It is why Westbrook couldn’t exist with Harden and why Carmelo couldn’t adjust to a more secondary role as he got older.

So unless a player looks like he is going to become one of the top 10 players in the NBA I will take efficiency over shot creation every day.

Also, BenR, I’m glad you’re posting again, because I find I agree with you most of the time.

Silky Johnson, Fleet Admiral of the Tank Armada: But surely John Stockton and KG are not shot creators the same way that MJ, Harden and KD are, even if they did or could take a lot of shots–they’re not, for example, elite iso scorers, who can score from anywhere on the floor in a myriad of ways

I still disagree somewhat. They had such a high skill level that they could score whenever they wanted to in isolation. They just chose to pick their spots. Most of the time they preferred to make other players better.

It doesn’t change your general point, I just disagree with these two being included.

One of the things I sincerely love most about this blog is how passionate people get about arguments like Barrett v Clarke and Frank v his value (or lack thereof) that most NBA fans would dismiss as trivial. The specific topic might very well be trivial in the grand scheme of the NBA, but you get to see a lot of interesting arguments about what people value about NBA productivity.

what is the marginal value of a wing with high usage but medium efficiency compared to a big with low usage, high efficiency, and high versatility? it’s always been a hard question. i think it’s useful to stick to the aforementioned comparison and not throw in bigs with severe spacing or defense limitations like favors, harrell, holmes or noel, all of whom have more polarized value contributions.

the tricky thing about this is how all or nothing it is. i think if you can (1) shoot from the outside (3) be a non-terrible passer (2) be a 25% usage guy with near league average efficiency, you are almost always a scarce and valuable offensive player. you can try to isolate these traits and regress them against orapm samples and you get good things. last year these are the jamal murray and cj mccollum types. i added shoot because there is some evidence with obvious intuitions behind that the shot creation by players with this profile who don’t shoot threes is quite a less valuable on average. the counter to this: efficiency fall off matters a ton, both in terms of actual value added to an offense and the surprising number of players who can get 25% usage at modestly worse efficiency, say more in the .51 to .54 range today. guys like dillon brooks, terry rozier, devonte graham, kyle kuzma, kenrick nunn can all provide this if you just stick them in a lineup where they are the alpha creator.

meanwhile a truly versatile big has become a rare and valuable thing. pj tucker is a sort of caricature of this kind of versatility with just zero shot creation but has been a very valuable player, even before entering hardenville. paul millsap was mentioned above but this is an awful example. millsap has been an incredibly valuable nba player precisely bc of genuine two-way versatility, undoubtedly (to me) a more valuable player in his prime than the medium efficiency high volume guys. it’s still unclear how much genuine versatility clarke will turn out to have.

ptmilo: what is the marginal value of a wing with high usage but medium efficiency compared to a big with low usage, high efficiency, and high versatility? it’s always been a hard question.

It’s comparing apples and oranges. These are different roles. I don’t expect to take Noel and Mitch to drive the team offensively, but they can, none-the-less, be dominant in certain needed areas. Ideally, you want high usage, high efficiency players but there’s only one Greek Freak.

A team made up of the top ten TS%ers of 2007 is a championship-caliber team, as is a team made up of the top 10 usage guys in 2020 (and I’m certain, 2007) .

The outlier is the top 10 in TS% in 2020, which isn’t even a playoff team. Figuring out how the game has gotten that way will answer a lot of these questions. The starting point clearly is the significantly changed mix of 3’s, 2’s, FT’s, and pace and together with that, something to do with the decline in congestion in the lane would be my guess. But efficiency has been decoupled from quality massively in just the last 13 years, at least at the very high end.

rama – I tend to post more at the beginning of the season and offseason. I’m like the KP of posters I come on real strong but after a month into the season I start to drop off and by January I’ve disappeared completely.

E – The top 10 usage guys for the most part have and are allowed by their coaches to have high usage because they are elite. It doesn’t mean having high usage is necessarily an indicator of being elite it just means there is no way a good coach is letting a mediocre player post a 30+ usage even if he was capable of it.

if we’re just talking on the offensive side, usage and efficiency are critical…so, what more does a guy like clarke or mitch have to add to be more effective offensively?

bam or brook. pass or shoot.

Strat – Check this one out….

https://www.theringer.com/2020/12/2/21755050/gamblers-podcast-horse-betting-emily-gullikson

The thing about Clarke that I think is largely being dismissed is he was not low usage. He was medium usage, he scored over 19 pts per/36.

82% of his shots were assisted! yes at a raw usage cap ~20 is pretty good… but it’s not sustainable….. once that drops to a normal ~70ish% then his usage will crater to ~14-15….

he wasn’t exactly known for his shot creating ability in college and it’s not like he was developing that at all last year so it’s very likely he’s going to regress a ton…

At least we’re not the Pistons. Damn.

I think we got incredibly lucky with our draft position this year. I am all out on LaMelo – I think he’s a total trap pick, in that he’ll flash enough to make you think he could be amazing but never deliver enough on a consistently high level to make your team good. I am so relieved we don’t have him. He’ll be more than Wiggins, but a similar kind of all upside pick that never materializes. And Wiseman may end up being good, but he’d be making five times what Mitch is! Beyond that, there’s so much variability….I am not sure Obi was the right pick, but I also can’t point to any player chosen ahead of him that I pine for.

More importantly, the salary difference for #1 and #8 is not small – it has a real impact on your available cap space. $4 mil now, $4.5 mil in year 3 …. that is a big deal.

We got lucky, even though it may not have looked like it.

djphan – you talk about Clarke as though he is a five-year veteran. He was a rookie last year, the fact that he produces as much or more than very good role-player big men in their prime like Harrell or Noel or Favors or Holmes seems to reflect really well on Clarke’s potential. None of those players were close to as good as Clarke in their rookie year.

I know Clarke was on the older side as a rookie but that does not mean he is done growing as a player. Most players, even ones that entered the NBA at *gasp* 23 tend to improve on their rookie year.

he’s a fine player.. but this type of player is generally not going to get too much better and in the case of clarke is likely to regress a lot…. someone made the comp before of dwight powell and i think that’s pretty appropriate here… and i don’t think anyone really gave dwight powell a second thought on this board….

dwight powell is a solid bad case choice for clarke, not expected. powell has averaged 7.9 2PA for his career, clarke did 11.5 at 66% as a rookie. powell has tried to shoot threes but it hasn’t worked out and defenses treat him like he’s brad stevens running on the court to call a timeout. whether clarke can become half a threat out there is tbd. but if this was a conversation about bad cases, rj would lose. it’s about good cases. i don’t know rj’s good case. it’s not james harden. is it cory maggette? in that case the trade makes sense at almost any realistic probability of hitting it. if it’s better than that at a reasonable chance, it gets harder. i don’t know really know clarke’s good case. maybe larry nance sr.

dwight powell is a solid bad case choice for clarke, not expected

is it really?
%assisted fgs for clarke 82%

career %assisted fgs for powell 84%
look at powell’s career years coinciding with doncic on the team…. not a huge coincidence….

these guys are very dependent on the team around them…. the secondary #s are pretty similar… 3p shooting powell isn’t strong in but it’s not clarke was shooting a ton from the outside either…

what exactly do ppl think clarke is? do ppl think he’s going to be draymond green running the break and guarding all 5 positions or something? have ppl actually seen him play outside of youtube videos?

@ShamsCharania:
Los Angeles Lakers star LeBron James has agreed to a two-year, $85 million maximum contract extension with the franchise (contract runs through 2023 — when his son, Bronny, graduates high school and could have option to enter the NBA Draft if the league and NBPA change the high school-to-pro rule)

So next AD signs also a 3 year contract, becoming a free-agent only in 2023. And maybe followed by Giannis’ max extension.
The so called “star studded” 2021 free agency is getting weaker by the day.

I secretly want Kawhi, so all is still good for me!

So what I’m hearing is that Clarke is truly elite at putting himself in positions to get assisted baskets. The fact that he got so many high percentage assisted shots tells me he must be really good at putting himself in a position to catch a pass and score a basket. He does this better than and more often than Powell, or Noel, or Holmes and he is only a rookie. Imagine if he gets even better at putting himself in advantageous positions to catch even more passes.

Karl Malone over the last 8 years of his career (I only have the last 8 because before that the stat wasn’t kept, I’m guessing it is probably mostly the same throughout his career) had over 79% of his baskets assisted. Including two seasons (age 33 and 34) where he scored over 27 points a game. I am not comparing Malone and Clarke just pointing out that having your baskets be assisted does not mean you are a one-dimensional offensive player.

Having his shots be assisted isn’t a bug but a feature of a player like Clarke. The fact that he can score almost 20 points per 36 and not need the ball in his hands is an asset, not a weakness.

Age isn’t the only factor in improving as a player, experience is also important. Rookies tend to improve over their first 2-3 seasons even old ones.

this is true… but this is usually true from someone coming from a low point of production .. say if they were shooting poorly… and then gradually improve that aspect over the years…. that is basically what happened to draymond….

but by and large older prospects that come into the league are generally already at the tail end of their development curve….. they’re not adding new skills…. well passing sort of tends to develop later… .but in terms of scoring or even defensive ability (from a box score perspective) clarke isn’t going to turn into tim duncan ….

more reading on this subject:
https://bleacherreport.com/articles/964894-nba-draft-why-age-should-be-a-big-factor-when-evaluating-prospects

what exactly do ppl think clarke is? do ppl think he’s going to be draymond green running the break and guarding all 5 positions or something? have ppl actually seen him play outside of youtube videos?

i’ll tell you what i hate most about the haveuevenseenhimplay police. it’s that when the answer is ‘i’ve seen him play more nba minutes than you, djtanner,’ i have suddenly been tricked into bragging about something that should in fact be a little humiliating.

the point you seem to be missing is that clarke has upside even if he can’t be much of a shot creator. if he merely shoots the 3 okay in addition to keeping up his short range (assisted) volume and turns out to be a pretty good, versatile defender, he is a very good player, importantly better than dwight powell. and since you watched him almost as much as the cooler kids, you know that he *already* does things on offense that dwight powell could never do, because he has better short-range touch and looks like he makes better decisions.

you can still be a much better offensive player than dwight powell with a high assisted %. john collins has 75-78% of his shots assisted but he’s still very viable shot creator, since creation is not all about unassisted shot attempts. i do not think clarke is going to be collins as a shot creator. but he’s a decent bet to be a better offensive player than powell, and that’s even if he doesn’t shoot the 3. but it’s true that if he can’t shoot a lick from deep like powell it will still limit his upside in a meaningful way.

I was simply using Malone to demonstrate that having a large % of your baskets assisted is not a death knell to being a complete offensive player.

ok so what are some other examples or is malone it? what typically do you expect with players that are 80% assisted fgs then? is it malone or is it something else?

let’s throw john collins in also since people are finally looking into this… what is the norm here? what are we expecting?

like are you arguing malone is the base case or is he just simply possible?

the point you seem to be missing is that clarke has upside even if he can’t be much of a shot creator. if he merely shoots the 3 okay in addition to keeping up his short range (assisted) volume and turns out to be a pretty good, versatile defender, he is a very good player, importantly better than dwight powell. and since you watched him almost as much as the cooler kids, you know that he *already* does things on offense that dwight powell could never do, because he has better short-range touch and looks like he makes better decisions.

how much of an upside is there? dwight powell with a 3pt shot… is… who exactly? paul millsap? shawn marion? are we calling clarke that? i don’t think it’s that but are you?

is there a model out there that we’re looking at what his reasonable projection going to be so i don’t misinterpret anyone’s stances here?

What in Clarke’s high TS% peer group would possibly make one think a high TS% is indicative of anything important (again beyond the tautological “he’s a good player because he has a high TS%”)? That list is pretty much just a random assortment of jabronies.

It looks like around 62-ish is where you start getting to the actual good players in the league. We finally get down to KAT at 13 (642). We don’t get to a good guard/wing until all the way to Lillard at 17 (628). And then at that point we start getting to some real stuff — Harden at 18, AD at 21, Booker at 24, Giannis at 28. But even then, they’re sprinkled in with some fluff. Theis 23, McLemore/McDermott 25/26. What’s it even a signal of?

Silky Johnson, Fleet Admiral of the Tank Armada: On the other hand, Clarke is already good–approximately as good as his comparison class in his first year (e.g. Powell).

Do you have an explanation as to why, beyond his true shooting percentage? Like I said, I’m looking at the TS% group, particularly his top 10 peers and I’m not really getting that signal. I have significant doubts that that roster would even make the playoffs.(*) Maybe I’m not seeing it.

(*) Take it down to 12 so you get another guard in there and the starting lineup is Seth Curry, JJ Redick, Duncan Robinson, Brandon Clarke, and Rudy Gobert. Sorry, but I’m just not salivating to have that as my starting lineup.

In 2007, the top TS% starting lineup would have been Nash, Manu, Dirk, Amare, Prime Dwight. Bench of Chauncey, Yao, and Kevin Martin. Probably a championship winner. Quite the difference. So something else, something dramatic, is happening with TS% as a signal. It basically isn’t even a signal at all anymore. Used to be an excellent one, now isn’t one at all.

Says something about you.

am i the asshole for asking too many questions?

Very minor point, but Clarke is 6’8″ and 215, which makes him exactly two inches taller than RJ and one pound heavier. I just bring that up because everyone is calling him a ‘big’ and comparing him to giant 7-footers. He’ clearly a 4, but he’s no monster. And now I’ll just make everyone on both sides furious by saying I think of him as a multi-talented, hyper-efficient Kenny Sky Walker…

Many 19yo rookies who play 1000 minutes are pretty terrible, so I’m totally fine with the notion that it should be discounted. At the same time, you should take a look at why he was terrible his rookie year, and the likelihood that those things are more a product of too much too soon or reflective of fundamental issues…physical, positional, emotional, IQ, processing…

Ingram was exceedingly weak and thin when he came into the league. Not saying that was the only issue, but becoming heavier/stronger by itself is a pretty simple problem to correct over time. Shooting and dribbling are much harder to improve. Defensive reactions i.e. making quick reads is also very hard to correct, much harder than “build leg strength to avoid getting backed down by stronger players.”

RJ is about as strong for his position as you can possibly be for his age, that’s an asset already so not much room for improvement. He has excellent court awareness on both ends. The problem for RJ is that the things he needs to improve most are among the hardest things to improve at his position. Not impossible, just extremely hard. He has grown up knowing how important it is for a player his size to have a tight handle, shoot 3’s and FTs, and finish with both hands. He’s played a billion minutes of AAU, HS and college ball and has surely worked on those things with top-notch coaches and is still not a great shooter or ball-handler. I expect some improvement in those areas, but for him to be elite, he needs pretty dramatic improvement. So long as he’s far more comfortable going left than right, and shoots 70ish% from the line and 33ish% from 3, he will have a tough time being anything but a decent rotation player…maybe a somewhat better than Shump, but not much. Problem is, #3 picks who don’t completely suck tend to get paid well beyond what they are worth. I’ll be pleasantly surprised if his shooting and ball-handling improve much.

The good (or bad) news is that he’s not going to be traded, so the discussion is moot. Let’s hope he goes the way of Jaylen Brown and Brandon Ingram, and not the way of Stanley Johnson and Justice Winslow.

Everyone ready for a totally normal NBA season?

djphan: am i the asshole for asking too many questions?

I wouldn’t say asshole, nothing you are saying is the least bit offensive. I just don’t sense that you’re here to be much of a learner.

I like how you’re all still fighting to see which hill to die on, RJ or Clarke, and E is still there trying to instigate trolling by arguing again ts% is useless without understanding any of it lol

nobody — nobody — is suggesting that Clarke = Malone or will become Malone or even CAN become Malone.

i’m pretty sure you guys are misinterpreting what i’m saying… or reading too much into it… i had a bunch of followup questions after that should make it clear so i’m not really sure where the confusion is…..

ok i’ll bite… why? what specifically about his game is comparable to karl malone….

if you’re using karl malone as an indicator of elite ability… which ben absolutely made that claim… you should be able to elaborate on why we should believe it’s possible instead of it being an outlier …

i mean asking why is a completely fair question is it not?

Man, looking at Ingram’s B-R page – it is hard to believe a guy who shot about 66% on the ~670 free throws between his freshman year and first two years in the pros suddenly turned into an 85% shooter. I can easily believe a 66% FT shooter turned into a 70 and then a 75% shooter, but 85% from the line is elite territory.

I guess that is hope for RJ, but man it would be very hard to imagine RJ topping out at anything better than 37% from 3 and 75% from the line.

Frank:
Man, looking at Ingram’s B-R page – it is hard to believe a guy who shot about 66% on the ~670 free throws between his freshman year and first two years in the pros suddenly turned into an 85% shooter.I can easily believe a 66% FT shooter turned into a 70 and then a 75% shooter, but 85% from the line is elite territory.

I guess that is hope for RJ, but man it would be very hard to imagine RJ topping out at anything better than 37% from 3 and 75% from the line.

The Athletic had a good piece on this the other day – specifically about RJ’s abysmal FT% as a rookie and how historically that translates into later performance. Ingram is the best case scenario and an aberration but the others guards who shot less than 70% are – surprise! – players we are well familiar with, such as DSJr, Payton, Mudiay as well as Ben Simmons and Josh Jackson. Improvement there isn’t unprecedented but the odds are against him right now.

Just flailing around because you are unwilling to give in an inch to well-supported opposing viewpoints. Hopelessly entrenched in a position. A non-learner..

was i being misleading somewhere about me being here to learn or something?

i’m asking questions that i genuinely would like an answer to… this is how civilized people discuss things…. i asked why… i dont’ need to learn anything here… i’m here for the interaction and the entertainment and hopefully i add something of value and maybe i do learn something….

i dont’ think i misinterpreted anything and even if i did… is it really worth making snide comments about having some sort of ulterior motive …. you have misinterpreted many things that i’ve written and from many others… are you immune to this too or something or is it fair to also question your motives when you don’t understand things too?

if i did something wrong i’ll apologize… but this grief is a bit unfounded and i’m not offbase on this….

djphan: was i being misleading somewhere about me being here to learn or something?

i’m asking questions that i genuinely would like an answer to…this is how civilized people discuss things…. i asked why… i dont’ need to learn anything here… i’m here for the interaction and the entertainment and hopefully i add something of value and maybe i do learn something….

i dont’ think i misinterpreted anything and even if i did… is it really worth making snide comments about having some sort of ulterior motive …. you have misinterpreted many things that i’ve written and from many others… are you immune to this too or something or is it fair to also question your motives when you don’t understand things too?

if i did something wrong i’ll apologize… but this grief is a bit unfounded and i’m not offbase on this….

Whatever, feel free to ignore me and/or respond in kind. I stand by my take on your posting. If you don’t like snide comments (especially when you say dumb things), you’re in the wrong place.

Saw Mark Lanegan with the Twilight Singers back in the day. It’s funny when you see people with their side projects not knowing what their prime was like. He’s a great singer. Very distinctive voice.

This thread taking me back to some KB glory days. Some prime Eddy Curry and David Lee joints for instance (before I realized he couldn’t play any defense at all, well neither of them could)

Also making me kinda excited to watch some basketball again. Half the fun is seeing how predictions you make here pan out.

Igno-Bot 3000: The Athletic had a good piece on this the other day – specifically about RJ’s abysmal FT% as a rookie and how historically that translates into later performance. Ingram is the best case scenario and an aberration but the others guards who shot less than 70% are – surprise! – players we are well familiar with, such as DSJr, Payton, Mudiay as well as Ben Simmons and Josh Jackson. Improvement there isn’t unprecedented but the odds are against him right now.

RJ absolutely must improve his FT shooting. I wouldn’t be surprised if he gets it into the mid-70’s, his shot is arms-y/push-y but doesn’t seem broken or hitch-y. Seems like his makes and misses are bunched, rather than a consistent pattern. 80’s is a stretch, but if he can just settle in to the form that lets him make 16-20 from time to time, it’s possible.

Oh shit, did Suggs tear his Achilles? Everything about it looks that way.

DJphan – Not sure why you are catching so much heat. You are a big scout right, so I get why yo remain committed to your views here You aren’t in on Clarke as a big difference maker and that’s fine. And you are for RJ (well, possibly) and that’s fine too.

It always takes time to sort things out. And half the time when we all look back three years later we still don’t agree despite a lot having happened.

good news we’re not going to trade for westbrook (at least not before the season)

So what I’m hearing is that Clarke is truly elite at putting himself in positions to get assisted baskets.

The biggest concerns I have with present-day Clarke are these:

(1) I don’t think I’ve ever seen him set a good screen. He feints like he’s going to, and then rolls to the basket after making virtually no contact. This might be good for him as a roll man — and that appears to be the case, given how many great looks he gets at the rim — but it sure as hell ain’t good for Ja (or Kyle Anderson, or any other player you can see in the Clarke highlight videos) unless the PNR defense totally fails and Clarke beats the weakside defender to the rim. Which he does. Often. That said, if Mr. Strat is right, and teams begin to pick at Clarke’s tendencies, he’s either going to have to help create space for the ball-handler or he’s going to have to learn to pass out of the roll and hit a teammate for a backdoor flush or a corner three. I have not really seen him do this much, yet.

(2) He also seems to get beat off the dribble or in PNR coverage, but uses his superior athleticism and ball-hawkishness to track down the penetrator and contest the shot in the paint. Too many clips of him going after a penetrator from the side or from behind. He’s not afraid of contact, but also plays it safe too much. His foul rate is either a reflection of superior spatial awareness and body control, or a deep-seated desire to stay on the floor and not get pulled from foul trouble. Maybe a little of both, but not neither, as far as I can tell.

We officially dodged a bullet here.

Houston has agreed to trade Russell Westbrook to Washington for John Wall and a first-round pick, sources tell ESPN.— Adrian Wojnarowski (@wojespn) December 3, 2020

Wow. Love it. Twitter line I liked best, Wall and Harden is going to be the perfect stimulus package for Houston nightclubs.

As for Suggs, the NCAA is the worst

Steve Cohen and Sandy Alderson are putting the Mets on the map with some solid lowkey signings tonight.

Leon Rose didn’t trade for Westbrook.

Today is a good sports day.

I figured the Knicks were going to draft Suggs at #5 after we inevitably drop two spots in the lottery; now I guess we’re gonna draft BJ Boston. Blech.

Maybe he’ll be available at #13 after we win 32 games from Austin Rivers starting!

geo: you rock cyber soze, that was 21 minutes and 27 seconds very well spent…perfect timing for a bit of a down day…

Glad i could help! 🙂

Frank hit five corner threes in a row in shooting drills today!!!!

E:
Frank hit five corner threes in a row in shooting drills today!!!!

c’est magnifique!

suggs…doing his Willis impression..coming back on the court…

@ShamsCharania:
Sources: Protection on the first-round pick that the Wizards traded to Houston in Russell Westbrook/John Wall trade: 2023, Lottery; 2024, Top 12; 2025, Top 10; 2026, Top 8; then becomes two second-rounders.

This makes (a little) more sense!

Amen! A pick for Westbrook? That’s insane!! :O

I think of the the pick not as giving something for Westbrook but rather giving something to get rid of Wall.

WTF are the Rockets doing? I can see it from the Wizards perspective.

The Rockets are talking a good game about trying to win with Harden but they know they’re going to have to trade him and they wanted to get something for Russ. At least that would be my guess.

I don’t know if Westbrook – Beal or Wall – Harden is the weirder pairing. A protected pick is going back to Houston is a lot but Wall’s health had to be a big factor. I think it works out for both teams.

i kind of like the wizards team…. not bad considering the situation they were in with wall….

pepper: i’m jealous man..one of my favorite dishes is porco alentejana…it’s tough to find it here in the US (a well made version that is)…

Oh that’s amazing. Have ever been in Portugal? Of our traditional dishes to be known outside, i wouldn’t bet on that one, but it’s also one of my favorite dishes. 😉

If you live in NY metro, there’s a large Portuguese community in Newark, NJ. Where there’s portuguese people, there’s bakeries and restaurants, so probably there you can find it.

https://www.basketball-reference.com/leagues/NBA_2020_shooting.html

you can sort through % assisted #s and you can keep going back… if you look at the type of players that get over 80% year after year… you can see what i’m talking about….

if you’re still not seeing it… then ok… but this is what i’m basing it on…. 1 or 2 or 3 players doesn’t mean you just throw away all these other examples… it means you need a good reason to believe that he’s closer to malone than these other guys and that’s what i was trying to tease out of you….

He’s not closer to Malone but Bam or Shawn Marion (69% assisted) those are very nice outcomes as well. My point is high assisted % is not proof of anything by itself. It just shows he is not a guard or ball-handling wing and not a post-up big.

Houston needed the pick to save face after giving OKC 2 picks for Westbrook only a year ago. Even a heavily protected pick is enough for casual fans to think they got a pick. As long as HOU has Harden, they’ll be in contention.

I’m still really down on Russ, but this will also help push WAS further ahead of us. This move is double good for the Knicks & their draft next year.

If Wall can shoot threes, that might be better for Houston than Westbrook was, since it would mean they could play actual big men centers without messing up someone’s game

Yeah, I was just thinking that Wall’s recent improvement in three point shooting is a key factor here.

Suggs came back out and finished game. Had a great block in closing seconds actually. So that’s good.

Brian Cronin: Yeah, I was just thinking that Wall’s recent improvement in three point shooting is a key factor here.

Just a reminder that the “recent improvements” you’re talking about took place in the fall/winter of 2017.

Just a reminder that the “recent improvements” you’re talking about took place in the fall/winter of 2017.

Well, all relative for a guy who has lost so much time. Just noting that he did at least hit 37% from three for a season, while Westbrook’s career high is 34.3% (the only time he ever shot over 33% from three). The Rockets really just need a guy that the other teams have to sort of pay attention to.

Enjoyed that Clarke Film School interview. Seems like a smart kid.

He said that slipping hard and early off screens is something they are taught by Grizz as a way to generate better opportunities at the hoop.

He said he think his block rates are down just because of adjustment to higher skill level in NBA and size in particular. Not as easy to roam and slough off his man. And people are just better.

Houston is acting very Knicksy. Two recovering former all stars in their new starting lineup. So glad we don’t have that problem anymore.

And yeah..Harden is definitely getting traded. Most likely for Brooklyn’s package and I don’t wanna see that. I’d love to see him traded back to OKC for SGA and some of that War Chest that Presti has built up, but Harden wants a chip so that’s not gonna happen