PG: 2nd Seed Baby!

[moocow007]

This is our culture now

Read on Twitter

?s=61&t=oWAQ5JzX5AK-44v89eypvw

The hate for losing was the number one fuel for the greatest players in NBA history. MJ and Kobe, losing what like having their heart ripped out their body and they would do whatever it takes to not have that happen.

[Knicksfan1992]

Disagree that Brunson deserves anything over Giannis tbh and I'm definitely a homer

Giannis had the first season EVER with 30 ppg on over 60% from the field. Think about all the great big men scorers there are who simply never accomplished that...On top of that he should probably be a DPOY candidate given that Milwaukees defense literally falls off a cliff if he's not playing.

Brunson just can't mirror that kind of 2 way impact IMO. No shame in that either. We're talking about a finals and regular season MVP here lol.

Tatum, to me though does not deserve anything over Brunson. His defensive impact is overstated over 82 games IMO. Man has Jrue, Derrick White, KP and Horford doing way more dirty work for him on that end. Impact metrics all have Brunson as the way better offensive player and I'm not going to hold rebounds against Brunson who is actually a decent rebounder considering he's under 6'1' lol.

Boston is still a solid playoff team without Tatum. They were actually technically a better team with Tatum off the floor. Not that net rating is the end all be all but, it shows that they are still a good team without him. The Knicks, this year are likely in the lottery without Brunson. Given the fact that Brunson's traditional stats are better, his impact stats are better, narrative is better an dthe way he closed the season was absurd, then I don't think there's an overwhelming argument for Tatum over him unless you really want to hammer the defensive differences but again it's not like the Knicks were bad defensively with Brunson on the floor lol...

[MrDollarBills]

Great teams take on and beat all comers. That is all!! All this jockeying and throwing games is weak sauce.

Yeah I can't get down with the notion that the Knicks should be scared to play anyone. Miami and Philadelphia are in the play in for a reason.

This is the mentality right now:



These teams have to come into the viper's den. Not the other way around!!!

[Deeeez Knicks]

Disagree that Brunson deserves anything over Giannis tbh and I'm definitely a homer

Giannis had the first season EVER with 30 ppg on over 60% from the field. Think about all the great big men scorers there are who simply never accomplished that...On top of that he should probably be a DPOY candidate given that Milwaukees defense literally falls off a cliff if he's not playing.

Brunson just can't mirror that kind of 2 way impact IMO. No shame in that either. We're talking about a finals and regular season MVP here lol.

Tatum, to me though does not deserve anything over Brunson. His defensive impact is overstated over 82 games IMO. Man has Jrue, Derrick White, KP and Horford doing way more dirty work for him on that end. Impact metrics all have Brunson as the way better offensive player and I'm not going to hold rebounds against Brunson who is actually a decent rebounder considering he's under 6'1' lol.

Boston is still a solid playoff team without Tatum. They were actually technically a better team with Tatum off the floor. Not that net rating is the end all be all but, it shows that they are still a good team without him. The Knicks, this year are likely in the lottery without Brunson. Given the fact that Brunson's traditional stats are better, his impact stats are better, narrative is better an dthe way he closed the season was absurd, then I don't think there's an overwhelming argument for Tatum over him unless you really want to hammer the defensive differences but again it's not like the Knicks were bad defensively with Brunson on the floor lol...

The knock against Giannis is that his performance didn’t translate into as many wins as it should have. On paper that team should have at least 55 wins.

Brunson has Giannis beat in terms of record with what most people would probably consider a worst supporting cast when you factor in injuries.

Knicks record with Brunson: 49-28
Bucks record with Giannis: 45-28

[sol537]

Next season we might have Brunson with Giannis...

[Synciere]

Next season we might have Brunson with Giannis...

Don't start rumors like this until at the least the dog days of summer..

And maybe not even then.

[Gravy]

It would be worse if we tanked to get the Pacers and then still lost to the Pacers lol

Losing to a healthy Sixers team is justifiable.

[Jeff Van Gully]

This is our culture now

Read on Twitter

?s=61&t=oWAQ5JzX5AK-44v89eypvw

The hate for losing was the number one fuel for the greatest players in NBA history. MJ and Kobe, losing what like having their heart ripped out their body and they would do whatever it takes to not have that happen.

funny you say that. MJ totally. kobe has a more nuanced view on that i was surprised to hear him express after his retirement.

he hated losing, but he had to be ok with losing happening, because it will happen often no matter how great you are. obsession with not losing would be your psychological demise. his distinction had something to do with how you prepare to win in all things being the key to actually winning as much as possible.

something like that. he put it much better.

[Chanel Bomber]

Not sure I would use the word "legend" for all those players.

I see two legends (Jokic and Giannis). I need more playoff success to put the rest in "legend" status. Luka probably closest to those 2 but needs to show out this post season. Tatum also needs to seal the deal since the celtics are by far the most talented team. Looking forward to seeing SGA running the show in his first post season as a true contender.

Luka and Tatum will likeky be remembered as legends too, though most likely a tier below Jok. They're on course, with a pretty strong resume already to build on. And this season only solidified that trajectory.

SGA's regular season rivaled Bron and MJ's prime years. Maybe just a notch below, but that's the territory he was in this year. 30+ ppg on 110 (!!!) TS+ as a guard, with All-NBA defense. His all-around impact was just greater than Brunson's. And if he keeps it up, he will enter an exclusive realm.

Brunson was incredible this year but he was not on that level imo. There's no shame in that, and there's still room for him to improve even further. Starting this postseason.

I think when you factor what Brunson had to deal with this year in terms of production of his teammates in terms of missed games. Yes it does rival those guys IMO.

This year Brunson was playing with

Dont DiVincenzo - played a majority of his career off the bench
Josh Hart - who is a connector bench type piece on a good team
Ihart - played his entire career mostly off the bench
Precious or McBride - also bench pieces (you can say fringe rotational pieces before this year)

And got that team to 50 wins.

SGA had Chet + Williams two studs
Tatum had the best starting 5 to play with this year.

What Brunson had to do this year in terms of carrying the offensive load was unmatched in the NBA. Probably the only player that rivals that is Jokic since the entire offense runs through him in Denver.

But the MVP award isn't about who had the most adverse circumstances.

SGA and Jokic had better team records in the tougher Conference (meaning if you calibrate the schedules the gap in team wins likely increases), and they scored higher in impact metrics. There's no serious case for Brunson winning MVP when you consider these factors. The rest is mostly narrative-driven. That voters are giving him top 5 love is great already.

The Knicks also finished the season top 10 in defense and we know that Brunson wasn't much of a factor on that side of the ball. So while he did carry the offense in Randle's absence, his defense actually hurt the team (though not to the extent that his offense helped it), whereas someone like SGA was additive on both ends (and I would argue same for Jokic, who also happens to be the best offensive player in the league). It's all captured in the numbers and they show a clear gap.

[Fat Kat]

Read on Twitter

[stuporman]

Luka and Tatum will likeky be remembered as legends too, though most likely a tier below Jok. They're on course, with a pretty strong resume already to build on. And this season only solidified that trajectory.

SGA's regular season rivaled Bron and MJ's prime years. Maybe just a notch below, but that's the territory he was in this year. 30+ ppg on 110 (!!!) TS+ as a guard, with All-NBA defense. His all-around impact was just greater than Brunson's. And if he keeps it up, he will enter an exclusive realm.

Brunson was incredible this year but he was not on that level imo. There's no shame in that, and there's still room for him to improve even further. Starting this postseason.

I think when you factor what Brunson had to deal with this year in terms of production of his teammates in terms of missed games. Yes it does rival those guys IMO.

This year Brunson was playing with

Dont DiVincenzo - played a majority of his career off the bench
Josh Hart - who is a connector bench type piece on a good team
Ihart - played his entire career mostly off the bench
Precious or McBride - also bench pieces (you can say fringe rotational pieces before this year)

And got that team to 50 wins.

SGA had Chet + Williams two studs
Tatum had the best starting 5 to play with this year.

What Brunson had to do this year in terms of carrying the offensive load was unmatched in the NBA. Probably the only player that rivals that is Jokic since the entire offense runs through him in Denver.

But the MVP award isn't about who had the most adverse circumstances.

SGA and Jokic had better team records in the tougher Conference (meaning if you calibrate the schedules the gap in team wins likely increases), and they scored higher in impact metrics. There's no serious case for Brunson winning MVP when you consider these factors. The rest is mostly narrative-driven. That voters are giving him top 5 love is great already.

The Knicks also finished the season top 10 in defense and we know that Brunson wasn't much of a factor on that side of the ball. So while he did carry the offense in Randle's absence, his defense actually hurt the team (though not to the extent that his offense helped it), whereas someone like SGA was additive on both ends (and I would argue same for Jokic, who also happens to be the best offensive player in the league). It's all captured in the numbers and they show a clear gap.

Screaming man would like to have a word with you...

Watch on YouTube

Even if I agree that Jokic is the better player on the better team but you make it sound like he's as bad of a defender as your binky Burks.

[Guano]

Jokic, Luka, SGA, Giannis and Tatum are elite-of-the-elite players.

Tatum is the only one who Brunson surpasses in some impact metrics, and he's the clear-cut best player on the best team. Otherwise there's a pretty clear separation between the other 4 and Brunson statistically.

And those metrics do factor in context.

Brunson being in top 5 MVP voting and All-NBA conversations is significant enough. There's no need to act like he's being robbed for not making first team. The guys above him are legends.

So is Brunson

Chanel holding another Knick in low regard. Terrible but expected

This board really is full of bad people.

[Chanel Bomber]

So is Brunson

Chanel holding another Knick in low regard. Terrible but expected

This board really is full of bad people.

This is some of my best work, let me cook bro

[NoDopeOnSundays]

Chanel holding another Knick in low regard. Terrible but expected

This board really is full of bad people.

This is some of my best work, let me cook bro

[Chanel Bomber]

I think when you factor what Brunson had to deal with this year in terms of production of his teammates in terms of missed games. Yes it does rival those guys IMO.

This year Brunson was playing with

Dont DiVincenzo - played a majority of his career off the bench
Josh Hart - who is a connector bench type piece on a good team
Ihart - played his entire career mostly off the bench
Precious or McBride - also bench pieces (you can say fringe rotational pieces before this year)

And got that team to 50 wins.

SGA had Chet + Williams two studs
Tatum had the best starting 5 to play with this year.

What Brunson had to do this year in terms of carrying the offensive load was unmatched in the NBA. Probably the only player that rivals that is Jokic since the entire offense runs through him in Denver.

But the MVP award isn't about who had the most adverse circumstances.

SGA and Jokic had better team records in the tougher Conference (meaning if you calibrate the schedules the gap in team wins likely increases), and they scored higher in impact metrics. There's no serious case for Brunson winning MVP when you consider these factors. The rest is mostly narrative-driven. That voters are giving him top 5 love is great already.

The Knicks also finished the season top 10 in defense and we know that Brunson wasn't much of a factor on that side of the ball. So while he did carry the offense in Randle's absence, his defense actually hurt the team (though not to the extent that his offense helped it), whereas someone like SGA was additive on both ends (and I would argue same for Jokic, who also happens to be the best offensive player in the league). It's all captured in the numbers and they show a clear gap.

Screaming man would like to have a word with you...

Watch on YouTube

Even if I agree that Jokic is the better player on the better team but you make it sound like he's as bad of a defender as your binky Burks.

Brunson plays with effort on defense but he's still a negative defensively. It's not his fault per se, but the reality is that he's not a positive factor on defense. That's not insignificant when you assess a player's overall impact.

[Galvationknicks]

Cavs' JB Bickerstaff received votes for the National Basketball Coaches Association Coach of the Year, while Tom Thibodeau did not.

Wow

[mpharris36]

Luka and Tatum will likeky be remembered as legends too, though most likely a tier below Jok. They're on course, with a pretty strong resume already to build on. And this season only solidified that trajectory.

SGA's regular season rivaled Bron and MJ's prime years. Maybe just a notch below, but that's the territory he was in this year. 30+ ppg on 110 (!!!) TS+ as a guard, with All-NBA defense. His all-around impact was just greater than Brunson's. And if he keeps it up, he will enter an exclusive realm.

Brunson was incredible this year but he was not on that level imo. There's no shame in that, and there's still room for him to improve even further. Starting this postseason.

I think when you factor what Brunson had to deal with this year in terms of production of his teammates in terms of missed games. Yes it does rival those guys IMO.

This year Brunson was playing with

Dont DiVincenzo - played a majority of his career off the bench
Josh Hart - who is a connector bench type piece on a good team
Ihart - played his entire career mostly off the bench
Precious or McBride - also bench pieces (you can say fringe rotational pieces before this year)

And got that team to 50 wins.

SGA had Chet + Williams two studs
Tatum had the best starting 5 to play with this year.

What Brunson had to do this year in terms of carrying the offensive load was unmatched in the NBA. Probably the only player that rivals that is Jokic since the entire offense runs through him in Denver.

But the MVP award isn't about who had the most adverse circumstances.

SGA and Jokic had better team records in the tougher Conference (meaning if you calibrate the schedules the gap in team wins likely increases), and they scored higher in impact metrics. There's no serious case for Brunson winning MVP when you consider these factors. The rest is mostly narrative-driven. That voters are giving him top 5 love is great already.

The Knicks also finished the season top 10 in defense and we know that Brunson wasn't much of a factor on that side of the ball. So while he did carry the offense in Randle's absence, his defense actually hurt the team (though not to the extent that his offense helped it), whereas someone like SGA was additive on both ends (and I would argue same for Jokic, who also happens to be the best offensive player in the league). It's all captured in the numbers and they show a clear gap.

I'm not saying Brunson should win the MVP (Probably Jokic and SGA finish 1/2 in some way)...however I do think you factor the players situation in MVP. Most Valuable...meaning if you took Brunson off the Knicks they wouldn't even be a playoff team without him. Both Denver and OKC would still be playoff teams.

I think a players value does impact MVP. So Brunson should be top 3 or 4 in MVP. And easily a 1st team all NBA player.

Basically if you swapped Tatum with Brunson...no way the Knicks would be at 50 wins.

[Chanel Bomber]

I think when you factor what Brunson had to deal with this year in terms of production of his teammates in terms of missed games. Yes it does rival those guys IMO.

This year Brunson was playing with

Dont DiVincenzo - played a majority of his career off the bench
Josh Hart - who is a connector bench type piece on a good team
Ihart - played his entire career mostly off the bench
Precious or McBride - also bench pieces (you can say fringe rotational pieces before this year)

And got that team to 50 wins.

SGA had Chet + Williams two studs
Tatum had the best starting 5 to play with this year.

What Brunson had to do this year in terms of carrying the offensive load was unmatched in the NBA. Probably the only player that rivals that is Jokic since the entire offense runs through him in Denver.

But the MVP award isn't about who had the most adverse circumstances.

SGA and Jokic had better team records in the tougher Conference (meaning if you calibrate the schedules the gap in team wins likely increases), and they scored higher in impact metrics. There's no serious case for Brunson winning MVP when you consider these factors. The rest is mostly narrative-driven. That voters are giving him top 5 love is great already.

The Knicks also finished the season top 10 in defense and we know that Brunson wasn't much of a factor on that side of the ball. So while he did carry the offense in Randle's absence, his defense actually hurt the team (though not to the extent that his offense helped it), whereas someone like SGA was additive on both ends (and I would argue same for Jokic, who also happens to be the best offensive player in the league). It's all captured in the numbers and they show a clear gap.

I'm not saying Brunson should win the MVP (Probably Jokic and SGA finish 1/2 in some way)...however I do think you factor the players situation in MVP. Most Valuable...meaning if you took Brunson off the Knicks they wouldn't even be a playoff team without him. Both Denver and OKC would still be playoff teams.

I think a players value does impact MVP. So Brunson should be top 3 or 4 in MVP. And easily a 1st team all NBA player.

Basically if you swapped Tatum with Brunson...no way the Knicks would be at 50 wins.

Denver have had a losing record without Jokic so no, that's not true. They wouldn't make the playoffs without him.

I do think the Knicks would most likely reach 50 wins with Tatum instead of Brunson. The defense would be even stronger. The offense perhaps a bit worse but it wouldn't see a dramatic decline. We're talking about Tatum here

[thebuzzardman]

This is our culture now

Read on Twitter

?s=61&t=oWAQ5JzX5AK-44v89eypvw

Yet Chanel has gravy guzzling Luka over this warrior. Terrible

[stuporman]

But the MVP award isn't about who had the most adverse circumstances.

SGA and Jokic had better team records in the tougher Conference (meaning if you calibrate the schedules the gap in team wins likely increases), and they scored higher in impact metrics. There's no serious case for Brunson winning MVP when you consider these factors. The rest is mostly narrative-driven. That voters are giving him top 5 love is great already.

The Knicks also finished the season top 10 in defense and we know that Brunson wasn't much of a factor on that side of the ball. So while he did carry the offense in Randle's absence, his defense actually hurt the team (though not to the extent that his offense helped it), whereas someone like SGA was additive on both ends (and I would argue same for Jokic, who also happens to be the best offensive player in the league). It's all captured in the numbers and they show a clear gap.

Screaming man would like to have a word with you...

Watch on YouTube

Even if I agree that Jokic is the better player on the better team but you make it sound like he's as bad of a defender as your binky Burks.

Brunson plays with effort on defense but he's still a negative defensively. It's not his fault per se, but the reality is that he's not a positive factor on defense. That's not insignificant when you assess a player's overall impact.

Well, I'd like to inform your binary bound brain that life isn't just two sides. Just because he's not a 'net positive', and that's your opinion not fact or reality, doesn't mean he's a 'net positive'. He can be a 'net neutral' on defense, where he has match ups that are positive or negative for him, or situations that are either positive or negative for him creating a neutral effect.

Some assume because of his limitations that he's always a 'net negative' and in some instances that is accurate but it isn't across the board or in every circumstance that he's a net negative. I guess you'd rather go with assumptive narratives to make broad assessments but as screaming man so clearly points out, those aren't always the case. He makes plays that Burks can only dream of on both ends of the court.