Official Welcome to the Knicks... The Maple Mamba!!

[thebuzzardman]

How about Grant Hill with a little less BBIQ in terms of not quite elite decision making but still good but also a slightly better scoring potential.

Possible.

Batum?

It's so hard to find a comp. It has to be a guy with a decent bball IQ, willing passer, but more a power player who scores inside, not the most fluid handle, but of course shoots some jumpers.

RJ's comps could change based on if he gets a little more fluid ballhandling and shooting.

To be honest RJ reminds me a little of GS Mitch Richmond. Granted RJ is taller but Mitch himself was around 6-5/200. But to my point Mitch didn’t even shoot 3s until Sacramento. But right out the gate he was a triple treat (scoring-rebounding-passing) and was constantly going to the FT line. MR was also strong as hell as a rookie. What makes RJ comparisons tricky is that he’s a lefty.

That's an interesting comp too.

I disregard left vs right, as it's hard to find enough leftys for comparison.

Mitch Ritchmond was a damn good player who kind of gets forgotten, maybe especially in NYC, as Mullin has the NYC roots, and Tim Hardaway had the extra career as a villain, with the Heat.

Every bit the player as those two guys though. It's interesting how "really good" guys, of about 20+ years, just fall out of the collective consciousness, and people tend to rely on "star" and HOF comps.

On a musically related "note" of who gets remembered hundreds of years from now:

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/29/magazine/which-rock-star-will-historians-of-the-future-remember.html

Answer:

Spoiler:

[Marty McFly]

Grant Hill is a great call.

[B8RcDeMktfxC]

On a musically related "note" of who gets remembered hundreds of years from now:

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/29/magazine/which-rock-star-will-historians-of-the-future-remember.html

Answer:

Spoiler:

That's a mind-bendingly terrible article.

The three most striking things about the 2010s and pop music in, well, let's say "the West" (US&Canada, Western Europe) are (i) it doesn't matter as much (on average - and by volume of those to whom it is vitally important), (ii) everything is essentially available to everyone for free, (iii) despite (i) most 20 year olds "know" "everything" back to 1963 - an unprecedentedly long span.

[thebuzzardman]

On a musically related "note" of who gets remembered hundreds of years from now:

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/29/magazine/which-rock-star-will-historians-of-the-future-remember.html

Answer:

Spoiler:

That's a mind-bendingly terrible article.

The three most striking things about the 2010s and pop music in, well, let's say "the West" (US&Canada, Western Europe) are (i) it doesn't matter as much (on average - and by volume of those to whom it is vitally important), (ii) everything is essentially available to everyone for free, (iii) despite (i) most 20 year olds "know" "everything" back to 1963 - an unprecedentedly long span.

I really don't give a sh*t about the article, other than there's an interesting idea towards the end about who might get listened to years from now

[KnixinSix]

Grant Hill is a great call.

I like the comp too . 3rd overall pick out of Duke almost same height somewhat similar build.

All around offensive game but Grant was never a 3 pt shooter. Grant not super explosive either but a very smart and nifty player who used angles very well. He in his 4th year got up to 25 pts a game before his major injury (he was never the same after that).

I think Barrett if he reaches full potential will be a much better 3 Pt shooter than Hill was and a guy who also drives well to the hoop despite not having elite quicks/explosiveness.

[KnixinSix]

How about Grant Hill with a little less BBIQ in terms of not quite elite decision making but still good but also a slightly better scoring potential.

Possible.

Batum?

It's so hard to find a comp. It has to be a guy with a decent bball IQ, willing passer, but more a power player who scores inside, not the most fluid handle, but of course shoots some jumpers.

RJ's comps could change based on if he gets a little more fluid ballhandling and shooting.

To be honest RJ reminds me a little of GS Mitch Richmond. Granted RJ is taller but Mitch himself was around 6-5/210. But to my point Mitch didn’t even shoot 3s until Sacramento. But right out the gate he was a triple treat (scoring-rebounding-passing) and was constantly going to the FT line. MR was also strong as hell as a rookie. What makes RJ comparisons tricky is that he’s a lefty.

I think the 3 ball is going to come faster than we think with him. He is a tireless worker and the shot improved almost each game we saw in SL.

[B8RcDeMktfxC]

On a musically related "note" of who gets remembered hundreds of years from now:

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/29/magazine/which-rock-star-will-historians-of-the-future-remember.html

Answer:

Spoiler:

That's a mind-bendingly terrible article.

The three most striking things about the 2010s and pop music in, well, let's say "the West" (US&Canada, Western Europe) are (i) it doesn't matter as much (on average - and by volume of those to whom it is vitally important), (ii) everything is essentially available to everyone for free, (iii) despite (i) most 20 year olds "know" "everything" back to 1963 - an unprecedentedly long span.

I really don't give a sh*t about the article, other than there's an interesting idea towards the end about who might get listened to years from now

I don't see it.

Listened to by whom? And where?

Did the writer go back into musical history and look at who survived surprisingly. Is that comment about Armstrong really supposed to be some kind of proof? Who is listened to now from the 20s and by whom and where?

Is the evolution of musical taste/genres moving faster now or slower now. How can you have any sort of futurecasting (so far out - or is it so far? are we moving faster of slower again) without an explicit theory of the general development of society and tastes.

What was in vogue (for whom and where) in 1719? How did it survive. Isn't "the age of mechanical (resp. electronic) reproduction" a compicating factor as Benjamin thought or not so significant as Adorno maintained.

[thebuzzardman]

That's a mind-bendingly terrible article.

The three most striking things about the 2010s and pop music in, well, let's say "the West" (US&Canada, Western Europe) are (i) it doesn't matter as much (on average - and by volume of those to whom it is vitally important), (ii) everything is essentially available to everyone for free, (iii) despite (i) most 20 year olds "know" "everything" back to 1963 - an unprecedentedly long span.

I really don't give a sh*t about the article, other than there's an interesting idea towards the end about who might get listened to years from now

I don't see it.

Listened to by whom? And where?

Did the writer go back into musical history and look at who survived surprisingly. Is that comment about Armstrong really supposed to be some kind of proof? Who is listened to now from the 20s and by whom and where?

Is the evolution of musical taste/genres moving faster now or slower now. How can you have any sort of futurecasting (so far out - or is it so far? are we moving faster of slower again) without an explicit theory of the general development of society and tastes.

What was in vogue (for whom and where) in 1719? How did it survive. Isn't "the age of mechanical (resp. electronic) reproduction" a compicating factor as Benjamin thought or not so significant as Adorno maintained.

Jesus christ, it was a speculative piece, mostly for fun.

You must be fun at parties and other social gatherings, like weddings and funerals.

[Clyde_Style]

Grant Hill is a great call.

I like the comp too . 3rd overall pick out of Duke almost same height somewhat similar build.

All around offensive game but Grant was never a 3 pt shooter. Grant not super explosive either but a very smart and nifty player who used angles very well. He in his 4th year got up to 25 pts a game before his major injury (he was never the same after that).

I think Barrett if he reaches full potential will be a much better 3 Pt shooter than Hill was and a guy who also drives well to the hoop despite not having elite quicks/explosiveness.

You're wrong about Hill though. He was explosive in his prime before he got injured. He was a high flyer.

Watch on YouTube

Grant is one of the athletes who came back after a bad injury and created a second chapter for himself based on playing smart.

[Capn'O]

Grant Hill is a great call.

I like the comp too . 3rd overall pick out of Duke almost same height somewhat similar build.

All around offensive game but Grant was never a 3 pt shooter. Grant not super explosive either but a very smart and nifty player who used angles very well. He in his 4th year got up to 25 pts a game before his major injury (he was never the same after that).

I think Barrett if he reaches full potential will be a much better 3 Pt shooter than Hill was and a guy who also drives well to the hoop despite not having elite quicks/explosiveness.

You're wrong about Hill though. He was explosive in his prime before he got injured. He was a high flyer.

Watch on YouTube

Grant is one of the athletes who came back after a bad injury and created a second chapter for himself based on playing smart.

Him and McDyess. So many just don't know.

[E-Balla]

Grant Hill is a great call.

I like the comp too . 3rd overall pick out of Duke almost same height somewhat similar build.

All around offensive game but Grant was never a 3 pt shooter. Grant not super explosive either but a very smart and nifty player who used angles very well. He in his 4th year got up to 25 pts a game before his major injury (he was never the same after that).

I think Barrett if he reaches full potential will be a much better 3 Pt shooter than Hill was and a guy who also drives well to the hoop despite not having elite quicks/explosiveness.

You're wrong about Hill though. He was explosive in his prime before he got injured. He was a high flyer.

Watch on YouTube

Grant is one of the athletes who came back after a bad injury and created a second chapter for himself based on playing smart.

Yeah the idea of Grant **** Hill not being super explosive is absurd. Dude is arguably one of the 5 best athletes at the SF position in league history (Dr. J, the Hawk, LeBron, and Nique are over him with maybe Scottie and the Kangaroo Kid too).

[Clyde_Style]

I like the comp too . 3rd overall pick out of Duke almost same height somewhat similar build.

All around offensive game but Grant was never a 3 pt shooter. Grant not super explosive either but a very smart and nifty player who used angles very well. He in his 4th year got up to 25 pts a game before his major injury (he was never the same after that).

I think Barrett if he reaches full potential will be a much better 3 Pt shooter than Hill was and a guy who also drives well to the hoop despite not having elite quicks/explosiveness.

You're wrong about Hill though. He was explosive in his prime before he got injured. He was a high flyer.

Watch on YouTube

Grant is one of the athletes who came back after a bad injury and created a second chapter for himself based on playing smart.

Him and McDyess. So many just don't know.

Yes, Antonio was a flying sack of muscles that went boom! at the rim

[GONYK]

Grant Hill is a great call.

I like the comp too . 3rd overall pick out of Duke almost same height somewhat similar build.

All around offensive game but Grant was never a 3 pt shooter. Grant not super explosive either but a very smart and nifty player who used angles very well. He in his 4th year got up to 25 pts a game before his major injury (he was never the same after that).

I think Barrett if he reaches full potential will be a much better 3 Pt shooter than Hill was and a guy who also drives well to the hoop despite not having elite quicks/explosiveness.

Grant Hill was incredibly explosive in his prime.

He was the first SF to really always be attacking and playing downhill. He was pretty much the original prototype for Lebron. Bron brought much more strength to the role though.

That is a big reason why the RJ comp with Grant falls short

[Clyde_Style]

My comp for the Maple Mamba is Marla Maples

[newyorker4ever]

My comp for the Maple Mamba is Marla Maples

So you go both ways?

[Clyde_Style]

My comp for the Maple Mamba is Marla Maples

So you go both ways?

This is not about me, but RJ is working on his right hand

[newyorker4ever]

My comp for the Maple Mamba is Marla Maples

So you go both ways?

This is not about me, but RJ is working on his right hand

Well if he's actually right handed, like he said he is, then it shouldn't take him long to get it down.

[newyorker4ever]

Read on Twitter

[DowNY]

Read on Twitter

This show is helping Mitch develop people schools and showing his personality more. Complete shift from this time last year in his shy phase. He’s comfortable.

[newyorker4ever]

Read on Twitter

This show is helping Mitch develop people schools and showing his personality more. Complete shift from this time last year in his shy phase. He’s comfortable.

Yeah it's pretty much a complete 180 for sure. Lets just hope he doesn't get too big for his britches which isn't hard to do when you're a New York Knick and getting praised by every Knicks fan and living in NYC. I think we're good with him but KP was that humble dude his first year to.