PG: Knicks|Nets- Mecca, Greenie, Melo sit yo ass down Edition.

[F N 11]

Very small detail but did anyone see Frank stick his tongue out after he hit that 3 that forced a timeout? I dont know what came over dude or what was said to him but he got the message.

yessir!
i saw that. he knew that pull up 3 was nasty

It was something about that shot. It was not shot like he knew it was going to miss. That shot was let go with intention to sink. Lets see if he continues with this confidence.

[Juco24]

Sure would like to see more of Burke! On one play, he set up Porzingis wonderfully and for someone who hasn't played against NBA level competition in a while... he looked smooth out there! I could be wrong but I think him & Frank's game benefit one another. Wouldn't mind seeing Lee traded to a contender... hopefully allowing Burke more burn alongside Frank.... "KP6", -- I know, I know... it's NOT going to happen!!!

[GONYK]

But when Frank is bad on offense, he is baaaaad. Frank's highs are much higher than Jack's but Jack's lows are much higher than Frank's lows, and his offense is more consistent.

There is no denying that Jack is the steadier player, no matter how much he's hated.

I would love to see Frank start, but I totally understand why he doesn't on a team that is still prioritizing winning.

If you want to say that the team shouldn't be prioritizing winning, that's fine, but that is a different argument than the one my posts are addressing.

Nah, I don't agree with the assertion that Jack is better just because he's steadier. Jack is always AWFUL on defense as opposed to just "when he's bad, he's baaad." Jack is steadily handicapping our defense the way that Frank handicaps the offense, but only when he's playing poorly.

In short, my assertion would be that if Frank started starting 20 games ago, the difference in record would be negligible. To be fair, I'm factoring in the quality of teams we've beaten in that span and that Jack's plus/minus was in the negatives for about half those wins anyway.

I didn't say Jack was better. I said he was steadier, and thus easier for a coach to trust and game plan for.

I'm trying to think about this like Jeff, not how I personally feel about the effectiveness of each player.

With Jack, I know I'm getting around 12 pts/7 assists, bad defense, but a steady level of composure.

With Frank, I know I'm getting defensive effort. Period. The rest is still in flux. Will he get into foul trouble? Will he be aggressive on offense? Will he have a rough time with the ball pressure tonight or will he be in command?

I'm not knocking Frank at all. Just thinking about it like a coach who wants the highest chance of winning every night.

[Phish Tank]

The Kings' decision was quite easy being 13-30. Just as it was easy to make the moves we did in the 2014-15 season being 5-32 and surrendering the season.

The key is that we haven't gone on a freefall yet (though that will probably happen this month once the road trip really burns us). We're still 20-24. Saying we're going with the "youth" now or beforehand would be really really hard to sell to our players, especially since we were hovering around .500 until NYE.

It would be hard telling Jack to suddenly sit now, especially since he was a part of the team winning games. The Kings didn't win anything - even with the vets.

However, it'll be interesting to see how the Kings vets take their reduced role. There's 5 guys whose minutes will be cut - Vince Carter, George Hill, Temple, Z-Bo, and Koufos. Of the 5, Vince is on an expiring deal (easy convince), Temple and Koufos are on player options, and Z-Bo and Hill have a guaranteed contract for next season.

I'd think Hill is pissed and that may impact his role in mentoring Fox this season. It's one thing to tank, but you don't wanna piss off your vets in doing so

[j4remi]

But when Frank is bad on offense, he is baaaaad. Frank's highs are much higher than Jack's but Jack's lows are much higher than Frank's lows, and his offense is more consistent.

There is no denying that Jack is the steadier player, no matter how much he's hated.

I would love to see Frank start, but I totally understand why he doesn't on a team that is still prioritizing winning.

If you want to say that the team shouldn't be prioritizing winning, that's fine, but that is a different argument than the one my posts are addressing.

Nah, I don't agree with the assertion that Jack is better just because he's steadier. Jack is always AWFUL on defense as opposed to just "when he's bad, he's baaad." Jack is steadily handicapping our defense the way that Frank handicaps the offense, but only when he's playing poorly.

In short, my assertion would be that if Frank started starting 20 games ago, the difference in record would be negligible. To be fair, I'm factoring in the quality of teams we've beaten in that span and that Jack's plus/minus was in the negatives for about half those wins anyway.

I didn't say Jack was better. I said he was steadier, and thus easier for a coach to trust and game plan for.

I'm trying to think about this like Jeff, not how I personally feel about the effectiveness of each player.

With Jack, I know I'm getting around 12 pts/7 assists, bad defense, but a steady level of composure.

With Frank, I know I'm getting defensive effort. Period. The rest is still in flux. Will he get into foul trouble? Will he be aggressive on offense? Will he have a rough time with the ball pressure tonight or will he be in command?

I'm not knocking Frank at all. Just thinking about it like a coach who wants the highest chance of winning every night.

I feel like the better player is gonna give you the best probability for winning. If consistency is the logic, young players by and large will always be limited in their play time and as an effect; they'll continue to be inconsistent. But just focusing onwhich player gives you the best chance to win; I'd take my chances on the guy guaranteed to play good on defense with a chance to be good offensively over the guy guaranteed to play solid offense but with no chance to be good on the other end. Like I said, the difference in results would be negligible at best in my eyes and that means I don't agree with the highest probability of winning defense.

[GONYK]

Nah, I don't agree with the assertion that Jack is better just because he's steadier. Jack is always AWFUL on defense as opposed to just "when he's bad, he's baaad." Jack is steadily handicapping our defense the way that Frank handicaps the offense, but only when he's playing poorly.

In short, my assertion would be that if Frank started starting 20 games ago, the difference in record would be negligible. To be fair, I'm factoring in the quality of teams we've beaten in that span and that Jack's plus/minus was in the negatives for about half those wins anyway.

I didn't say Jack was better. I said he was steadier, and thus easier for a coach to trust and game plan for.

I'm trying to think about this like Jeff, not how I personally feel about the effectiveness of each player.

With Jack, I know I'm getting around 12 pts/7 assists, bad defense, but a steady level of composure.

With Frank, I know I'm getting defensive effort. Period. The rest is still in flux. Will he get into foul trouble? Will he be aggressive on offense? Will he have a rough time with the ball pressure tonight or will he be in command?

I'm not knocking Frank at all. Just thinking about it like a coach who wants the highest chance of winning every night.

I feel like the better player is gonna give you the best probability for winning. If consistency is the logic, young players by and large will always be limited in their play time and as an effect; they'll continue to be inconsistent. But just focusing onwhich player gives you the best chance to win; I'd take my chances on the guy guaranteed to play good on defense with a chance to be good offensively over the guy guaranteed to play solid offense but with no chance to be good on the other end. Like I said, the difference in results would be negligible at best in my eyes and that means I don't agree with the highest probability of winning defense.

Fair enough. Agree to disagree.

[mpharris36]

I feel like the better player is gonna give you the best probability for winning. If consistency is the logic, young players by and large will always be limited in their play time and as an effect; they'll continue to be inconsistent. But just focusing onwhich player gives you the best chance to win; I'd take my chances on the guy guaranteed to play good on defense with a chance to be good offensively over the guy guaranteed to play solid offense but with no chance to be good on the other end. Like I said, the difference in results would be negligible at best in my eyes and that means I don't agree with the highest probability of winning defense.

remi and I seem to be on the same wavelength...also we are what like 4-11 in our last 15 so its not like jack is leading us to victory.

also I don't even think Jack is a positive on offense. He benefits a lot from playing with KP and Kanter. Until that 3 game stretch where he was shooting like crazy Jack was pretty mediocre on offense all year. Shooting around 42% from the field with no 3 point range and he never drives to the basket.

The CHI, MIN, NOP stretch is where his shooting sky rocketed....and we still lost all 3 games!!! with 18pts and 8 assists over that 3 game stretch.

I think the results in terms of wins/losses would be negligible with the potential for more wins as frank continued to get comfortable. We win games when we defend and get out in transition...we never get stops with Jack there for we never get out in transition.

[Nazrmohamed]

I feel like the better player is gonna give you the best probability for winning. If consistency is the logic, young players by and large will always be limited in their play time and as an effect; they'll continue to be inconsistent. But just focusing onwhich player gives you the best chance to win; I'd take my chances on the guy guaranteed to play good on defense with a chance to be good offensively over the guy guaranteed to play solid offense but with no chance to be good on the other end. Like I said, the difference in results would be negligible at best in my eyes and that means I don't agree with the highest probability of winning defense.

remi and I seem to be on the same wavelength...also we are what like 4-11 in our last 15 so its not like jack is leading us to victory.

also I don't even think Jack is a positive on offense. He benefits a lot from playing with KP and Kanter. Until that 3 game stretch where he was shooting like crazy Jack was pretty mediocre on offense all year. Shooting around 42% from the field with no 3 point range and he never drives to the basket.

The CHI, MIN, NOP stretch is where his shooting sky rocketed....and we still lost all 3 games!!! with 18pts and 8 assists over that 3 game stretch.

I think the results in terms of wins/losses would be negligible with the potential for more wins as frank continued to get comfortable. We win games when we defend and get out in transition...we never get stops with Jack there for we never get out in transition.

Look, if this is about moving Jack to the bench for younger players in a rebuilding year then you don't have to convince me by proving he sucks. Id do it cuz hey, I wanna develop youth and I'd like the best draft pick possible. But y'all playing if you don't think he's the best pg on the roster. It won't save him from my long term vision but put it this way....if I were trying to win hands them he's our best pgs

[Phish Tank]

I feel like the better player is gonna give you the best probability for winning. If consistency is the logic, young players by and large will always be limited in their play time and as an effect; they'll continue to be inconsistent. But just focusing onwhich player gives you the best chance to win; I'd take my chances on the guy guaranteed to play good on defense with a chance to be good offensively over the guy guaranteed to play solid offense but with no chance to be good on the other end. Like I said, the difference in results would be negligible at best in my eyes and that means I don't agree with the highest probability of winning defense.

remi and I seem to be on the same wavelength...also we are what like 4-11 in our last 15 so its not like jack is leading us to victory.

also I don't even think Jack is a positive on offense. He benefits a lot from playing with KP and Kanter. Until that 3 game stretch where he was shooting like crazy Jack was pretty mediocre on offense all year. Shooting around 42% from the field with no 3 point range and he never drives to the basket.

The CHI, MIN, NOP stretch is where his shooting sky rocketed....and we still lost all 3 games!!! with 18pts and 8 assists over that 3 game stretch.

I think the results in terms of wins/losses would be negligible with the potential for more wins as frank continued to get comfortable. We win games when we defend and get out in transition...we never get stops with Jack there for we never get out in transition.

You're not wrong in your perspective.

If we bench Jack, then we have to bench him for good because he'll be equally terrible for us in the bench rotation and will negate the production of the bench because he's too old or slow to change the pace.

With the starting unit, we're not really getting out on the break anyways because we have slower players out there right now in Kanter, Jack, and Lee to an extent. Lance makes things worse. Yes, Timmy will come back into the starting lineup, but it's not like the entire lineup gets out on the break. Even KP would prefer a halfcourt game.

The bench unit has a greater likelihood to change the pace of the game with speed, with Baker, Doug, and Beasley to an extent. Frank accentuates the bench unit in that regards. You put Jack in there and Baker and Doug's production will tank.

[Knicksfan1992]

The Kings' decision was quite easy being 13-30. Just as it was easy to make the moves we did in the 2014-15 season being 5-32 and surrendering the season.

The key is that we haven't gone on a freefall yet (though that will probably happen this month once the road trip really burns us). We're still 20-24. Saying we're going with the "youth" now or beforehand would be really really hard to sell to our players, especially since we were hovering around .500 until NYE.

It would be hard telling Jack to suddenly sit now, especially since he was a part of the team winning games. The Kings didn't win anything - even with the vets.

However, it'll be interesting to see how the Kings vets take their reduced role. There's 5 guys whose minutes will be cut - Vince Carter, George Hill, Temple, Z-Bo, and Koufos. Of the 5, Vince is on an expiring deal (easy convince), Temple and Koufos are on player options, and Z-Bo and Hill have a guaranteed contract for next season.

I'd think Hill is pissed and that may impact his role in mentoring Fox this season. It's one thing to tank, but you don't wanna piss off your vets in doing so

I think they trade Hill before he has a chance to get pissed. A contender who's willing to pay could use him. They might have to attach a pick to him but he's moveable because that 3rd year is unguaranteed. He'd make a lot of sense on OKC/Houston/SA in the West and I could see the Sixers having interest in him in the East. H would essentially be what McConnell is for them with a reliable jumper and much more experience. They have a good cap situation going forward to absorb his deal for an extra year and if they unload Bayless in the deal along with an expiring (Trevor Booker or Amir Johnson) then it wouldn't hurt their cap situation too much this summer since they have that huge Redick 1 year deal coming off...

[j4remi]

Look, if this is about moving Jack to the bench for younger players in a rebuilding year then you don't have to convince me by proving he sucks. Id do it cuz hey, I wanna develop youth and I'd like the best draft pick possible. But y'all playing if you don't think he's the best pg on the roster. It won't save him from my long term vision but put it this way....if I were trying to win hands them he's our best pgs

Is Jack really winning games for us though? Not since month one.

[mpharris36]

I feel like the better player is gonna give you the best probability for winning. If consistency is the logic, young players by and large will always be limited in their play time and as an effect; they'll continue to be inconsistent. But just focusing onwhich player gives you the best chance to win; I'd take my chances on the guy guaranteed to play good on defense with a chance to be good offensively over the guy guaranteed to play solid offense but with no chance to be good on the other end. Like I said, the difference in results would be negligible at best in my eyes and that means I don't agree with the highest probability of winning defense.

remi and I seem to be on the same wavelength...also we are what like 4-11 in our last 15 so its not like jack is leading us to victory.

also I don't even think Jack is a positive on offense. He benefits a lot from playing with KP and Kanter. Until that 3 game stretch where he was shooting like crazy Jack was pretty mediocre on offense all year. Shooting around 42% from the field with no 3 point range and he never drives to the basket.

The CHI, MIN, NOP stretch is where his shooting sky rocketed....and we still lost all 3 games!!! with 18pts and 8 assists over that 3 game stretch.

I think the results in terms of wins/losses would be negligible with the potential for more wins as frank continued to get comfortable. We win games when we defend and get out in transition...we never get stops with Jack there for we never get out in transition.

Look, if this is about moving Jack to the bench for younger players in a rebuilding year then you don't have to convince me by proving he sucks. Id do it cuz hey, I wanna develop youth and I'd like the best draft pick possible. But y'all playing if you don't think he's the best pg on the roster. It won't save him from my long term vision but put it this way....if I were trying to win hands them he's our best pgs

the stats would suggest he isn't...point guard play is played on both ends. I have proven his offense doesn't outweigh his horrendous defense. What else would you like from me to acknowledge. That on most nights Jacks offense will probably be better than franks? Sure I can acknowledge that...but on every night Franks defense is light years better than Jacks defense. So my point remains if we are trying to win Frank is still your option over Jack...

[mpharris36]

I feel like the better player is gonna give you the best probability for winning. If consistency is the logic, young players by and large will always be limited in their play time and as an effect; they'll continue to be inconsistent. But just focusing onwhich player gives you the best chance to win; I'd take my chances on the guy guaranteed to play good on defense with a chance to be good offensively over the guy guaranteed to play solid offense but with no chance to be good on the other end. Like I said, the difference in results would be negligible at best in my eyes and that means I don't agree with the highest probability of winning defense.

remi and I seem to be on the same wavelength...also we are what like 4-11 in our last 15 so its not like jack is leading us to victory.

also I don't even think Jack is a positive on offense. He benefits a lot from playing with KP and Kanter. Until that 3 game stretch where he was shooting like crazy Jack was pretty mediocre on offense all year. Shooting around 42% from the field with no 3 point range and he never drives to the basket.

The CHI, MIN, NOP stretch is where his shooting sky rocketed....and we still lost all 3 games!!! with 18pts and 8 assists over that 3 game stretch.

I think the results in terms of wins/losses would be negligible with the potential for more wins as frank continued to get comfortable. We win games when we defend and get out in transition...we never get stops with Jack there for we never get out in transition.

You're not wrong in your perspective.

If we bench Jack, then we have to bench him for good because he'll be equally terrible for us in the bench rotation and will negate the production of the bench because he's too old or slow to change the pace.

With the starting unit, we're not really getting out on the break anyways because we have slower players out there right now in Kanter, Jack, and Lee to an extent. Lance makes things worse. Yes, Timmy will come back into the starting lineup, but it's not like the entire lineup gets out on the break. Even KP would prefer a halfcourt game.

The bench unit has a greater likelihood to change the pace of the game with speed, with Baker, Doug, and Beasley to an extent. Frank accentuates the bench unit in that regards. You put Jack in there and Baker and Doug's production will tank.

why do I care about bakers and dougs production? I care about KP's...wouldn't it benefit KP to play with Frank who seems to have good chemistry when there are out there and franks defense leads to transitional hoops for KP? I think I would much rather prefer that then jack walking it up the court and leading to a long mid range jump shot.

[KnicksGod]

Nah, I don't agree with the assertion that Jack is better just because he's steadier. Jack is always AWFUL on defense as opposed to just "when he's bad, he's baaad." Jack is steadily handicapping our defense the way that Frank handicaps the offense, but only when he's playing poorly.

In short, my assertion would be that if Frank started starting 20 games ago, the difference in record would be negligible. To be fair, I'm factoring in the quality of teams we've beaten in that span and that Jack's plus/minus was in the negatives for about half those wins anyway.

I didn't say Jack was better. I said he was steadier, and thus easier for a coach to trust and game plan for.

I'm trying to think about this like Jeff, not how I personally feel about the effectiveness of each player.

With Jack, I know I'm getting around 12 pts/7 assists, bad defense, but a steady level of composure.

With Frank, I know I'm getting defensive effort. Period. The rest is still in flux. Will he get into foul trouble? Will he be aggressive on offense? Will he have a rough time with the ball pressure tonight or will he be in command?

I'm not knocking Frank at all. Just thinking about it like a coach who wants the highest chance of winning every night.

I feel like the better player is gonna give you the best probability for winning. If consistency is the logic, young players by and large will always be limited in their play time and as an effect; they'll continue to be inconsistent. But just focusing onwhich player gives you the best chance to win; I'd take my chances on the guy guaranteed to play good on defense with a chance to be good offensively over the guy guaranteed to play solid offense but with no chance to be good on the other end. Like I said, the difference in results would be negligible at best in my eyes and that means I don't agree with the highest probability of winning defense.

This is not directly addressing the points of your discussion, which are good ones on both sides, but I think it's important to the discussion nonetheless:

Many coaches, like Horny, seem to kind of have a subtly defeatist attitude about their D. They are making an implicit conclusion that Well our team is going to give up a lot of points anyway. It's hard to stop NBA offenses even with good defense. So at least with Jack, the thinking goes, I feel like the offense will be run better, we won't have bad turnovers, and maybe that will be enough to win the game. The rising tide of O will lift the team in general.

But it's false IMO. The opposite is more true. Good defense, especially when you have a lead, is the rising tide that lifts all boats. If you don't get stops, it demoralizes the team and it really jumpstarts the other team's comeback. I haven't looked at the numbers, but they've blown a lot of leads late in games with Jack and it's because of D.

A turnover here or there is not that demoralizing. Yes Jack has a more consistent ability to run the team right now. But as long as we play Jack, we will be at risk of blowing a lot of leads.

Many subpar coaches deemphasize D late and it hurts. Our coach won't even put in Frank for offense-defense switches. He just uses Jack on defensive possessions late too.

[mpharris36]

I didn't say Jack was better. I said he was steadier, and thus easier for a coach to trust and game plan for.

I'm trying to think about this like Jeff, not how I personally feel about the effectiveness of each player.

With Jack, I know I'm getting around 12 pts/7 assists, bad defense, but a steady level of composure.

With Frank, I know I'm getting defensive effort. Period. The rest is still in flux. Will he get into foul trouble? Will he be aggressive on offense? Will he have a rough time with the ball pressure tonight or will he be in command?

I'm not knocking Frank at all. Just thinking about it like a coach who wants the highest chance of winning every night.

I feel like the better player is gonna give you the best probability for winning. If consistency is the logic, young players by and large will always be limited in their play time and as an effect; they'll continue to be inconsistent. But just focusing onwhich player gives you the best chance to win; I'd take my chances on the guy guaranteed to play good on defense with a chance to be good offensively over the guy guaranteed to play solid offense but with no chance to be good on the other end. Like I said, the difference in results would be negligible at best in my eyes and that means I don't agree with the highest probability of winning defense.

This is not directly addressing the points of your discussion, which are good ones on both sides, but I think it's important to the discussion nonetheless:

Many coaches, like Horny, seem to kind of have a subtly defeatist attitude about their D. They are making an implicit conclusion that Well our team is going to give up a lot of points anyway. It's hard to stop NBA offenses even with good defense. So at least with Jack, the thinking goes, I feel like the offense will be run better, we won't have bad turnovers, and maybe that will be enough to win the game. The rising tide of O will lift the team in general.

But it's false IMO. The opposite is more true. Good defense, especially when you have a lead, is the rising tide that lifts all boats. If you don't get stops, it demoralizes the team and it really jumpstarts the other team's comeback. I haven't looked at the numbers, but they've blown a lot of leads late in games with Jack and it's because of D.

A turnover here or there is not that demoralizing. Yes Jack has a more consistent ability to run the team right now. But as long as we play Jack, we will be at risk of blowing a lot of leads.

Many subpar coaches deemphasize D late and it hurts. Our coach won't even put in Frank for offense-defense switches. He just uses Jack on defensive possessions late too.

great point!

[mpharris36]

what frustrates me the most is Jeff goes into the postgame and talks about wanting to set a defensive tone and identity...yet never follows through. Frank is holding guards to under 39% from the field while Jack is allowing them to shoot about 50% from the field. That is not taking into the effect the steals or blocks that Frank can get as well.

What that means to me is more transitional opportunities and those are always the best chance to get "easy" buckets.

My main concern is that the front office and coach claimed earlier we wanted to get younger, play defense, and get out in transition with our athletes. Yet we start a slow plodding lineup that is probably our weakest defensive unit. It's the lack of identity and direction that bothers me the most. And yesterday proves when we defend and get stops...frank and baker helped hold dinwiddie and levert two guys having good years to horrible shooting days we were able to get out and score easy buckets and KP also benefited in transition..isn't that what we should be doing more often? Not playing a half court iso game with Jack running the show?

[Red Vines]

Narrator: They would lose the following night.

Read on Twitter

[HEZI]

Can't use the Nets game as a measuring stick for anything to be honest. That team reminds me of the 2008 Knicks, regardless of what numbers their players might be putting up you just know they are hot garbage as a team. Their style of play doesn't fit their roster and they put 0 effort on the defensive end yesterday. Also, it's not like the Nets weren't left wide open so many times, like the Knicks have a tendency of doing to every team they play. They were given plenty of wide open looks, they just suck at shooting. Beating the Nets is like beating a 5th grader in 1 on 1, yeah you won but did you really?

[Jalen Bluntson]

Can't use the Nets game as a measuring stick for anything to be honest. That team reminds me of the 2008 Knicks, regardless of what numbers their players might be putting up you just know they are hot garbage as a team. Their style of play doesn't fit their roster and they put 0 effort on the defensive end yesterday. Also, it's not like the Nets weren't left wide open so many times, like the Knicks have a tendency of doing to every team they play. They were given plenty of wide open looks, they just suck at shooting. Beating the Nets is like beating a 5th grader in 1 on 1, yeah you won but did you really?

If we lose to them...everyone here would be measuring the Knicks future based on this game. It DOES matter that you win against these scrub teams. We were doing it with authority early this season.

Maybe the Warriors vs the Nets is like playing a 5th grader but, not the Knicks.

I get where you're coming from. I mentioned last night in a post. You can take too much from beating them but, you can measure how much better you are than them by beating them all year long. We are the better team. Trying to get back on track with Timmy and now Burke in the fold. You gotta start somewhere.

[3toheadmelo]

Read on Twitter