K-DOT wrote:Capn'O wrote:GONYK wrote:Swinging for the fences on every pick instead of hitting the clear single is how we got Kevin Knox.
That's not to say other players may not turn out to be better. It's just saying the Knicks have chosen to maximize the probability with every pick instead of banking on potential.
They are just putting money in index funds every month instead of throwing cash on the next big alt coin

That's a boogeyman. Michael Porter Jr was the home run swing. Knox was just a bad pick.
I think that's a different argument, because no one (well, almost no one) was debating MPJ's talent, it was all about his health, which to be fair, hasn't completely been proven to be a non-issue yet
Knox is also kind of a weird pick because he was a reach at the time, and everybody knew it
Correct on both counts. Knox was a bad pick because the process was bad. But the thought process was that he was a 6'9" toolsy kid with 3 level scoring potential and younger than both Bridges (and healthier/less of a dckhead than MPJ, but that's a different matter)
He was the right archetype of player to take a risk on, you just had to ignore that he had absolutely no motor. Which they did, and here we are.
Then I would also say, us taking RJ 3rd was an upside pick, because there was an argument to take Culver or Hunter, who both would have been hitting a clear single. I'm also gonna say, modern baseball is trending to where batting average is less important, and power (rather, OPS) is more important, so the baseball analogy favors going for home runs over singles.
Not quite, since RJ had actual positive college production. His collective skills were just less refined than those guys, but he was younger. I don't know what happened with Culver, TBH. Either way, I think both of those guys were consensus trade down candidates.
As far as the baseball analogy, if the goal is to put runs on the board, sure. If the goal is have as much cheap and productive talent in your rotation as possible each year so you can pursue bigger fish with your cap space, I'd say the baseball definition loses its applicability.
Even in baseball though, homerun hitters strike out more.
BTW, I would have taken Keon Johnson at 21. I'm just saying that I see the Knicks' logic.