PG Thread: Time to overreact

[spree2kawhi]

It's incredible. Frank Ntilikina now has me curious for years already. I don't think he has the talent to make it in the league - not the handle, not the explosiveness at all, not even the on-the-ball skill level of almost any other two-way player around the league - but I want to know if he can make it in the league more than watching any game including the Wolves, Suns, Hawks, Pels, Lakers and so many more. I'm rooting for him and tuning in those meaningless games because of his demeanor and approach and because I can't believe he's still around.

Then again his defense is off the charts compared to virtually any shooting guard in the league and that's what I always valued the most when I played. But that's his only skill if you don't count his shooting form (which is worth **** as long as he can't connect). He can't create his own shot at all, but he's a guard. This is so fascinating, it's ridiculously strange.

[Clyde_Style]

On Randle (and I'm guessing DSJ by association) can't improve on defense...

Does that mean that Ntilikina can't improve on offense? Oh wait...Frank can cause we like him? Did I get the biased mantra right?

Come on guys...if we are going to say one guy can't let's not say the other one can. Offense is harder to learn than defense. Let's just say we won't know until the player proves it or doesn't prove it.

How about that?

The dichotomy on this board is still strong and vibrant I see.

And before anyone starts on the "but unlike the other's Frank is a hard worker...". That's BS. I've said this before Sean Miller has said that Alonzo Trier (another guy that gets fans angst) is one of the hardest working and most competitive players he's EVER coached. And Miller coached a LOT of players. So does that mean that Trier is going to be James Harden or Chris Paul because of it? Nope. Does it mean he'll even be better than he is? Nope. And the notion that a guy like Frank is harder working than Randle or Smith or Trier is based on nothing other than preferential assumptions not facts.

We have no idea what these guys can or can't ever become...until they actually do it or don't do it.

I get your drift on the bias point, but it bears mentioning that learning to play defense and offense are two very different sets of skills. Some guys really seem unable to learn how to read defenses, anticipate and react in unison with their teammates.

The thing about drilling offensive skills is you can do them basically by dribbling and shooting many reps and making the mechanical adjustments over time, but to learn defense when you have no innate knack for it really does require hands on coaching.

It is really hard for some guys to learn it from game situations and if there is no steady tutoring outside of game time they may suffer as a result. It certainly explains why some guys have terrible defense after one year in college. They needed more time and education to absorb the nuances.

If just time and will were the only factors to improving on defense, I'd say anybody could apply themselves and get much better at it, but some guys seem unable to learn defense as easily as improving their offensive moves.

Defense takes a little more mental effort than being a scorer in general, at least to play it at a higher level.

I get that but folks do improve defensively as well. It's just not as noticeable because defense doesn't stand out as much as offensive improvement. Mitchel Robinson is a perfect example. His defensive awareness early in the season was turrible. But he got better as the season went along. And the expectation is that he'll even be better. Vince Carter also is another guy who was pretty poor defensively early in his career but became a much smarter defender as he matured. Larry Johnson was another example of a player who got better defensively. Danny Green is another player that actually got better defensively as well as offensively with his shooting. So it does happen. Yes, there is an innate tendency for big time scorers to not feel the need to defend better. I get that. But it doesn't mean that they don't. It also doesn't mean that players that can score real well are less useful than players that can defend. it goes into what I said about the team and team building. At the end of the day, the old cliche "Defense wins championships" is not really true. "Scoring more points than your opponents" is what wins championships. To do so you need guys that can score as well as guys that can defend. I get the sense that some folks believe you can just throw 5 defensive centric players on the floor and they can win. They can't any more than throwing 5 offensive only players on the floor. Ideal obviously is 2-way players but they don't grow on trees. So you go with what you have an expect guys to do what they do best to be put into situations to do their best. But the ultimate onus is on the front office to be able to take a mix of offensive centric players and defensive centric players and make them work together (again assuming that it's not easy to build a team of 2-way players...and it's not...it's not).

My eyes can't handle big paragraph blocks Moo. Be kind to older eyes and use the enter key.

[mpharris36]

moo - who hasn’t acknowledged franks weakness on the offensive end though? I think it’s pretty common ground that he needs to improve in that area especially his shot. The reason however people tend to overlook his offensive weaknesses is because even with that he has a positive impact on the court.

And no one is suggesting randle is important to this team. He will need to probably score 20-10-5 for this team to be any bit successful.

But he isn’t a good defender at this point and the only issue was someone suggesting he is taking steps better by watching elite defenders which is ridiculous IMO because it takes a lot more than watching guys to be a good defensive player.

But at the end of the day we need randle offense not his defense which I’m more concerned about. However if randle wants to take that next step as an all-star impact player he hopefully can be passable on that end and not Kanter level.

[thebuzzardman]

Even though it was nothing to write home about, the ball movement looked better in this game than the Knicks had for most of last year.

also, "nothing to write home about."

are you kidding me?


my father knows how badly i hated the melo trade from day 1 (as i predicted, for the exact reasons that we were tortured by, for 7 **** years of awful basketball and no ball movement).

the day melo was traded, my dad called me to say, "congratulations on the trade. at least now things are finally looking up."

we just got off the phone today, and he brought up how the knicks looked. and i talked about how, even though they're young as ****, they had more assists in that game than melo did his whole career.


so while it isn't something to, "write" home about, it certainly was the main topic of discussion for a phone call.

It's an expression. The ball movement was better, but wasn't great, ie "nothing to write home about"

It's encouraging. Hopefully it continues. Based on the personnel on the team, I think it will.

[thebuzzardman]

Fiz has Big Ben Wallace at the facility working with the Bigs

Everyone ignored this interesting tidbit in the interest of rehashing the same board arguments of the last 2 years.

[GONYK]

On Randle (and I'm guessing DSJ by association) can't improve on defense...

Does that mean that Ntilikina can't improve on offense? Oh wait...Frank can cause we like him? Did I get the biased mantra right?

Come on guys...if we are going to say one guy can't let's not say the other one can. Offense is harder to learn than defense. Let's just say we won't know until the player proves it or doesn't prove it.

How about that?

The dichotomy on this board is still strong and vibrant I see.

And before anyone starts on the "but unlike the other's Frank is a hard worker...". That's BS. I've said this before Sean Miller has said that Alonzo Trier (another guy that gets fans angst) is one of the hardest working and most competitive players he's EVER coached. And Miller coached a LOT of players. So does that mean that Trier is going to be James Harden or Chris Paul because of it? Nope. Does it mean he'll even be better than he is? Nope. And the notion that a guy like Frank is harder working than Randle or Smith or Trier is based on nothing other than preferential assumptions not facts.

We have no idea what these guys can or can't ever become...until they actually do it or don't do it.

You drew in a lot of strawmen to make the argument here, Moo. You provided all the narratives by pulling in 21 year olds to try obscure the fact that Randle is pretty much a 25 year old entering his 6th season in the league.

It's all great to hope that someone can make a significant jump at this stage in their career, but anyone watching the game for any amount of time will agree it's highly unlikely. The data will back that up as well.

So to address the strawmen you introduced, if Frank, Dennis, Knox, RJ, Mitch or whoever were entering their 6th year in the league at nearly 25 years of age, I think it's pretty safe to say that everyone would pretty much think of them as finished products as well. In fact, it would happen much sooner on this board. Nothing dichotomous about that.

It is a much more rational stance than writing off the analysis as "Everyone who is criticizing Julius is only doing so because he's not Frank"

You have pretty much completely missed my point. My point was actually at the folks that seem to be willing to give Frank a 1000 mile leash based on him having done nothing in 2 years (NOTHING) and yet go on immediate attacks of condemnation of anyone that doesn't seem to be a good/great defender. Alonzo Trier is a shining example. Trier has been in the league 1 year and yet he's already condemned by the same "Frank is god" group. Why's that? The jadedness is what I'm talking about. I don't care about Randle not being a good defender nor even saying that he'll get better. You can't be talking out both ends. If you are going to attack guys for being weak in a specific area you can't then be on the flip side defending other guys (who have shown and done even less) for being weak in another equally important area.

Hope that clears things up. The Randle discussion is just another example of the dichotomy that folks operate with here and don't even realize it.

So basically your gripe is posters who appreciate defense are critical of players who don't play good defense? Seems pretty consistent.

If there is any bias, it is people appreciate defense over offense, not Frank over player X. Mitch is a golden boy as well, and all he has the proven ability to do is dunk.

Nobody has said Julius is a bad player, or that his premium interior scoring isn't valuable. This whole conversation started because he has been a terrible defender over the course of his career and he hasn't really shown much on the floor to demonstrate the desire to improve on that consistently. I don't see how that is unfair criticism for a player entering his sixth season.

Just like even Frank's most ardent supporters won't deny that Frank has been historically bad at offense at this point in his career and needs to improve. Big difference is Frank 21 and has more developmental runway. Plus, he plays defense.

How is that "talking out of both ends"?

You want to rail against "assumptions" but seem unwilling to acknowledge probabilities.

[moocow007]

So some things to consider...

DEFENSIVE RATING (lower the better)

Julius Randle: 107 and 112 the past 2 seasons.
Frank Ntilikina: 112 and 115 the same past 2 seasons.

DBPM - DEFENSIVE BOX PLUS MINUS (higher the better)

Julius Randle: 0.6 and -0.4 the past 2 seasons.
Frank Ntilinkina: -0.5 and -1.2 the past 2 seasons.

DWS - DEFENSIVE WIN SHARES (higher the better)

Julius Randle: 2.6 and 1.9 the past 2 seasons.
Frank Ntilikina: 1.1 and 0.4 the past 2 seasons.

So....

Now what you can see is that Randle used to be brutal for his teams offensive success as a rookie with a mind boggling -12.3 OBPM. AT his best (last season) he was only still just a 1.8 OBPM.

[moocow007]

You drew in a lot of strawmen to make the argument here, Moo. You provided all the narratives by pulling in 21 year olds to try obscure the fact that Randle is pretty much a 25 year old entering his 6th season in the league.

It's all great to hope that someone can make a significant jump at this stage in their career, but anyone watching the game for any amount of time will agree it's highly unlikely. The data will back that up as well.

So to address the strawmen you introduced, if Frank, Dennis, Knox, RJ, Mitch or whoever were entering their 6th year in the league at nearly 25 years of age, I think it's pretty safe to say that everyone would pretty much think of them as finished products as well. In fact, it would happen much sooner on this board. Nothing dichotomous about that.

It is a much more rational stance than writing off the analysis as "Everyone who is criticizing Julius is only doing so because he's not Frank"

You have pretty much completely missed my point. My point was actually at the folks that seem to be willing to give Frank a 1000 mile leash based on him having done nothing in 2 years (NOTHING) and yet go on immediate attacks of condemnation of anyone that doesn't seem to be a good/great defender. Alonzo Trier is a shining example. Trier has been in the league 1 year and yet he's already condemned by the same "Frank is god" group. Why's that? The jadedness is what I'm talking about. I don't care about Randle not being a good defender nor even saying that he'll get better. You can't be talking out both ends. If you are going to attack guys for being weak in a specific area you can't then be on the flip side defending other guys (who have shown and done even less) for being weak in another equally important area.

Hope that clears things up. The Randle discussion is just another example of the dichotomy that folks operate with here and don't even realize it.

So basically your gripe is posters who appreciate defense are critical of players who don't play good defense? Seems pretty consistent.

If there is any bias, it is people appreciate defense over offense, not Frank over player X. Mitch is a golden boy as well, and all he has the proven ability to do is dunk.

Nobody has said Julius is a bad player, or that his premium interior scoring isn't valuable. This whole conversation started because he has been a terrible defender over the course of his career and he hasn't really shown much on the floor to demonstrate the desire to improve on that consistently. I don't see how that is unfair criticism for a player entering his sixth season.

Just like even Frank's most ardent supporters won't deny that Frank has been historically bad at offense at this point in his career and needs to improve. Big difference is Frank 21 and has more developmental runway. Plus, he plays defense.

How is that "talking out of both ends"?

You are STILL missing my point.

I love guys like Pascal Siakam and Kawhi Leonard and Bruce Bowen and Ron Artest and Dennis Rodman (the last 2 being 2 of my most favorite players ever...and because they were ferociously intelligent and savage defenders). So NO I'm not griping about posters who appreciate defense or are critical of players that don't play defense (I've said that the chances of Randle playing better defense is slim to nil).

It's about guys defending one player based on dubious justification and railing incessantly about another player without giving them the same rosey jaded POV that you gave the first player.

Just look at my last post in this thread. The notion of Frank Ntilinkina the "lockdown defender" doesn't seem to be justified. In fact the stats seem to indicate that Julius Randle has been the better defender the last 2 years. So shouldn't you guys be getting on Frank for not being as good a defender as he should be or, based on these stats, even as good and impactful defender as Julius Randle has been in the same time period.

You guys are still talking out both ends. Frank has shown nothing. Where is the "lockdown" defender, "great basketball IQ" notion coming from? The stats sure don't seem to indicate Frank is even an average defender. And if a guy ha great BB IQ shouldn't he have figured out how to be more useful on offense than he has been? and yet you guys defend him incessantly saying that he will improve when he hasn't shown a thing that he would. Saying that the KNicks haven't given him a shot and yet we see other young(er) players (and dumber by my guess) getting better all by their lonesome.

There's the reality and there's the fantasy. I'm trying to stay on reality here...harsh as it is.

[moocow007]

Even though it was nothing to write home about, the ball movement looked better in this game than the Knicks had for most of last year.

also, "nothing to write home about."

are you kidding me?


my father knows how badly i hated the melo trade from day 1 (as i predicted, for the exact reasons that we were tortured by, for 7 **** years of awful basketball and no ball movement).

the day melo was traded, my dad called me to say, "congratulations on the trade. at least now things are finally looking up."

we just got off the phone today, and he brought up how the knicks looked. and i talked about how, even though they're young as ****, they had more assists in that game than melo did his whole career.


so while it isn't something to, "write" home about, it certainly was the main topic of discussion for a phone call.

It's an expression. The ball movement was better, but wasn't great, ie "nothing to write home about"

It's encouraging. Hopefully it continues. Based on the personnel on the team, I think it will.

The ball movement was definitely better than last season but that's probably not surprising with the addition of guys like Randle, Barrett and Payton (upgrades over their equivalents from last season) as well as the additions of vets that know better where to stand, what to do and where to go to clear space.

[br7knicks]

Even though it was nothing to write home about, the ball movement looked better in this game than the Knicks had for most of last year.

also, "nothing to write home about."

are you kidding me?


my father knows how badly i hated the melo trade from day 1 (as i predicted, for the exact reasons that we were tortured by, for 7 **** years of awful basketball and no ball movement).

the day melo was traded, my dad called me to say, "congratulations on the trade. at least now things are finally looking up."

we just got off the phone today, and he brought up how the knicks looked. and i talked about how, even though they're young as ****, they had more assists in that game than melo did his whole career.


so while it isn't something to, "write" home about, it certainly was the main topic of discussion for a phone call.

It's an expression. The ball movement was better, but wasn't great, ie "nothing to write home about"

It's encouraging. Hopefully it continues. Based on the personnel on the team, I think it will.

Lol I know the phrase. I was just saying how, it may not be me writing about it, but I thought it was so encouraging to see, it was the main topic of a phone conversation.

[thebuzzardman]

also, "nothing to write home about."

are you kidding me?


my father knows how badly i hated the melo trade from day 1 (as i predicted, for the exact reasons that we were tortured by, for 7 **** years of awful basketball and no ball movement).

the day melo was traded, my dad called me to say, "congratulations on the trade. at least now things are finally looking up."

we just got off the phone today, and he brought up how the knicks looked. and i talked about how, even though they're young as ****, they had more assists in that game than melo did his whole career.


so while it isn't something to, "write" home about, it certainly was the main topic of discussion for a phone call.

It's an expression. The ball movement was better, but wasn't great, ie "nothing to write home about"

It's encouraging. Hopefully it continues. Based on the personnel on the team, I think it will.

Lol I know the phrase. I was just saying how, it may not be me writing about it, but I thought it was so encouraging to see, it was the main topic of a phone conversation.

I talked about it with my brother as well. It was good. It's a start.

[thebuzzardman]

also, "nothing to write home about."

are you kidding me?


my father knows how badly i hated the melo trade from day 1 (as i predicted, for the exact reasons that we were tortured by, for 7 **** years of awful basketball and no ball movement).

the day melo was traded, my dad called me to say, "congratulations on the trade. at least now things are finally looking up."

we just got off the phone today, and he brought up how the knicks looked. and i talked about how, even though they're young as ****, they had more assists in that game than melo did his whole career.


so while it isn't something to, "write" home about, it certainly was the main topic of discussion for a phone call.

It's an expression. The ball movement was better, but wasn't great, ie "nothing to write home about"

It's encouraging. Hopefully it continues. Based on the personnel on the team, I think it will.

The ball movement was definitely better than last season but that's probably not surprising with the addition of guys like Randle, Barrett and Payton (upgrades over their equivalents from last season) as well as the additions of vets that know better where to stand, what to do and where to go to clear space.

That's a big part of it as well, as you said. Also, whether it be their talent, or in their bball DNA from team Canada, RJ and Iggy seem to understand spacing and cutting pretty well, even though Iggy didn't play.

I know you aren't wild about the roster construction, but if you see the roster as still in transition, I think the construction is coming along.

[GONYK]

You have pretty much completely missed my point. My point was actually at the folks that seem to be willing to give Frank a 1000 mile leash based on him having done nothing in 2 years (NOTHING) and yet go on immediate attacks of condemnation of anyone that doesn't seem to be a good/great defender. Alonzo Trier is a shining example. Trier has been in the league 1 year and yet he's already condemned by the same "Frank is god" group. Why's that? The jadedness is what I'm talking about. I don't care about Randle not being a good defender nor even saying that he'll get better. You can't be talking out both ends. If you are going to attack guys for being weak in a specific area you can't then be on the flip side defending other guys (who have shown and done even less) for being weak in another equally important area.

Hope that clears things up. The Randle discussion is just another example of the dichotomy that folks operate with here and don't even realize it.

So basically your gripe is posters who appreciate defense are critical of players who don't play good defense? Seems pretty consistent.

If there is any bias, it is people appreciate defense over offense, not Frank over player X. Mitch is a golden boy as well, and all he has the proven ability to do is dunk.

Nobody has said Julius is a bad player, or that his premium interior scoring isn't valuable. This whole conversation started because he has been a terrible defender over the course of his career and he hasn't really shown much on the floor to demonstrate the desire to improve on that consistently. I don't see how that is unfair criticism for a player entering his sixth season.

Just like even Frank's most ardent supporters won't deny that Frank has been historically bad at offense at this point in his career and needs to improve. Big difference is Frank 21 and has more developmental runway. Plus, he plays defense.

How is that "talking out of both ends"?

You are STILL missing my point.

I love guys like Pascal Siakam and Kawhi Leonard and Bruce Bowen and Ron Artest and Dennis Rodman (the last 2 being 2 of my most favorite players ever...and because they were ferociously intelligent and savage defenders). So NO I'm not griping about posters who appreciate defense or are critical of players that don't play defense (I've said that the chances of Randle playing better defense is slim to nil).

It's about guys defending one player based on dubious justification and railing incessantly about another player without giving them the same rosey jaded POV that you gave the first player.

Just look at my last post in this thread. The notion of Frank Ntilinkina the "lockdown defender" doesn't seem to be justified. In fact the stats seem to indicate that Julius Randle has been the better defender the last 2 years. So shouldn't you guys be getting on Frank for not being as good a defender as he should be or, based on these stats, even as good and impactful defender as Julius Randle has been in the same time period.

You guys are still talking out both ends. Frank has shown nothing. Where is the "lockdown" defender, "great basketball IQ" notion coming from? The stats sure don't seem to indicate Frank is even an average defender. And if a guy ha great BB IQ shouldn't he have figured out how to be more useful on offense than he has been? and yet you guys defend him incessantly saying that he will improve when he hasn't shown a thing that he would. Saying that the KNicks haven't given him a shot and yet we see other young(er) players (and dumber by my guess) getting better all by their lonesome.

There's the reality and there's the fantasy. I'm trying to stay on reality here...harsh as it is.

Your reality is really leaning heavily into exaggeration and hyperbole.

Honestly, if you don't think that Frank has proven, at minimum, to be an extremely solid defender both individually and within a team concept or if you've forgotten all those times he has absolutely clamped down on premier perimeter scorers in the league (I can provide the video), I think you are displaying your own bias. If you genuinely think Julius Randle is a better defender, then I honestly don't know what to tell you aside from you're missing the context that you were touting a few posts up.

That's neither here nor there though.

The answer to your question is simple. Frank is 21, was drafted as a project, and has played less than 130 games in his career. In those 130 games, he has been a part of some of our most productive lineups and certainly our best defensive lineups. That's why he gets a longer leash with a certain contingent of posters. Same reason Knox gets a longer leash than Hezonja before him and Morris now. It's why RJ will get a longer leash than almost anyone else on the entire team.

Even then, literally everyone is saying that Frank needs to make a noticeable jump and become at least a break even offensive player to stick with this team. So you are speaking to a bias that isn't really true.

Personally, I love the type of player Frank projects to be. I never really saw him as more than a George Hill type of player though. Expectations are higher when you are talking about someone you see as a franchise anchor.

Randle turns 25 in a few weeks. Trier will be 24 before the AS Break. Dotson is 25. That's why these players aren't given the hope of potential. Because most players are finished products, by and large, at this age. Even then, people see the worst anyone says about Trier is that he's a Lou Williams type. Dotson is universally acknowledged as a solid two way role player, and Julius is seen as someone who needs to improve defensively to really make an impact and take a team anywhere.

All of that seems pretty realistic, IMO.

[j4remi]

Oh God, I've just realized I'm being hopelessly optimistic. I believe that Frank can raise his offensive game to average and Randle can do the same for his defensive game. Randle has improved every year in the league, Frank is 21 and has shown marked offensive improvement at FIBA and the first preseason game. Plus if Randle keeps improving offensively and Frank does the same defensively (both I feel are givens), then you can scheme out ways to hide them on their weaker sides of the court even if they top out at mediocre.

[Clyde_Style]

You have pretty much completely missed my point. My point was actually at the folks that seem to be willing to give Frank a 1000 mile leash based on him having done nothing in 2 years (NOTHING) and yet go on immediate attacks of condemnation of anyone that doesn't seem to be a good/great defender. Alonzo Trier is a shining example. Trier has been in the league 1 year and yet he's already condemned by the same "Frank is god" group. Why's that? The jadedness is what I'm talking about. I don't care about Randle not being a good defender nor even saying that he'll get better. You can't be talking out both ends. If you are going to attack guys for being weak in a specific area you can't then be on the flip side defending other guys (who have shown and done even less) for being weak in another equally important area.

Hope that clears things up. The Randle discussion is just another example of the dichotomy that folks operate with here and don't even realize it.

So basically your gripe is posters who appreciate defense are critical of players who don't play good defense? Seems pretty consistent.

If there is any bias, it is people appreciate defense over offense, not Frank over player X. Mitch is a golden boy as well, and all he has the proven ability to do is dunk.

Nobody has said Julius is a bad player, or that his premium interior scoring isn't valuable. This whole conversation started because he has been a terrible defender over the course of his career and he hasn't really shown much on the floor to demonstrate the desire to improve on that consistently. I don't see how that is unfair criticism for a player entering his sixth season.

Just like even Frank's most ardent supporters won't deny that Frank has been historically bad at offense at this point in his career and needs to improve. Big difference is Frank 21 and has more developmental runway. Plus, he plays defense.

How is that "talking out of both ends"?

You are STILL missing my point.

I love guys like Pascal Siakam and Kawhi Leonard and Bruce Bowen and Ron Artest and Dennis Rodman (the last 2 being 2 of my most favorite players ever...and because they were ferociously intelligent and savage defenders). So NO I'm not griping about posters who appreciate defense or are critical of players that don't play defense (I've said that the chances of Randle playing better defense is slim to nil).

It's about guys defending one player based on dubious justification and railing incessantly about another player without giving them the same rosey jaded POV that you gave the first player.

Just look at my last post in this thread. The notion of Frank Ntilinkina the "lockdown defender" doesn't seem to be justified. In fact the stats seem to indicate that Julius Randle has been the better defender the last 2 years. So shouldn't you guys be getting on Frank for not being as good a defender as he should be or, based on these stats, even as good and impactful defender as Julius Randle has been in the same time period.

You guys are still talking out both ends. Frank has shown nothing. Where is the "lockdown" defender, "great basketball IQ" notion coming from? The stats sure don't seem to indicate Frank is even an average defender. And if a guy ha great BB IQ shouldn't he have figured out how to be more useful on offense than he has been? and yet you guys defend him incessantly saying that he will improve when he hasn't shown a thing that he would. Saying that the KNicks haven't given him a shot and yet we see other young(er) players (and dumber by my guess) getting better all by their lonesome.

There's the reality and there's the fantasy. I'm trying to stay on reality here...harsh as it is.

The team has historically been better with Frank on the floor. Make of that what you will, but it tells me he is valuable already and his value will grow over time.

[Fat Kat]

So basically your gripe is posters who appreciate defense are critical of players who don't play good defense? Seems pretty consistent.

If there is any bias, it is people appreciate defense over offense, not Frank over player X. Mitch is a golden boy as well, and all he has the proven ability to do is dunk.

Nobody has said Julius is a bad player, or that his premium interior scoring isn't valuable. This whole conversation started because he has been a terrible defender over the course of his career and he hasn't really shown much on the floor to demonstrate the desire to improve on that consistently. I don't see how that is unfair criticism for a player entering his sixth season.

Just like even Frank's most ardent supporters won't deny that Frank has been historically bad at offense at this point in his career and needs to improve. Big difference is Frank 21 and has more developmental runway. Plus, he plays defense.

How is that "talking out of both ends"?

You are STILL missing my point.

I love guys like Pascal Siakam and Kawhi Leonard and Bruce Bowen and Ron Artest and Dennis Rodman (the last 2 being 2 of my most favorite players ever...and because they were ferociously intelligent and savage defenders). So NO I'm not griping about posters who appreciate defense or are critical of players that don't play defense (I've said that the chances of Randle playing better defense is slim to nil).

It's about guys defending one player based on dubious justification and railing incessantly about another player without giving them the same rosey jaded POV that you gave the first player.

Just look at my last post in this thread. The notion of Frank Ntilinkina the "lockdown defender" doesn't seem to be justified. In fact the stats seem to indicate that Julius Randle has been the better defender the last 2 years. So shouldn't you guys be getting on Frank for not being as good a defender as he should be or, based on these stats, even as good and impactful defender as Julius Randle has been in the same time period.

You guys are still talking out both ends. Frank has shown nothing. Where is the "lockdown" defender, "great basketball IQ" notion coming from? The stats sure don't seem to indicate Frank is even an average defender. And if a guy ha great BB IQ shouldn't he have figured out how to be more useful on offense than he has been? and yet you guys defend him incessantly saying that he will improve when he hasn't shown a thing that he would. Saying that the KNicks haven't given him a shot and yet we see other young(er) players (and dumber by my guess) getting better all by their lonesome.

There's the reality and there's the fantasy. I'm trying to stay on reality here...harsh as it is.

The team has historically been better with Frank on the floor. Make of that what you will, but it tells me he is valuable already and his value will grow over time.

How are you measuring his impact Clyde? Which stat?

[Clyde_Style]

You are STILL missing my point.

I love guys like Pascal Siakam and Kawhi Leonard and Bruce Bowen and Ron Artest and Dennis Rodman (the last 2 being 2 of my most favorite players ever...and because they were ferociously intelligent and savage defenders). So NO I'm not griping about posters who appreciate defense or are critical of players that don't play defense (I've said that the chances of Randle playing better defense is slim to nil).

It's about guys defending one player based on dubious justification and railing incessantly about another player without giving them the same rosey jaded POV that you gave the first player.

Just look at my last post in this thread. The notion of Frank Ntilinkina the "lockdown defender" doesn't seem to be justified. In fact the stats seem to indicate that Julius Randle has been the better defender the last 2 years. So shouldn't you guys be getting on Frank for not being as good a defender as he should be or, based on these stats, even as good and impactful defender as Julius Randle has been in the same time period.

You guys are still talking out both ends. Frank has shown nothing. Where is the "lockdown" defender, "great basketball IQ" notion coming from? The stats sure don't seem to indicate Frank is even an average defender. And if a guy ha great BB IQ shouldn't he have figured out how to be more useful on offense than he has been? and yet you guys defend him incessantly saying that he will improve when he hasn't shown a thing that he would. Saying that the KNicks haven't given him a shot and yet we see other young(er) players (and dumber by my guess) getting better all by their lonesome.

There's the reality and there's the fantasy. I'm trying to stay on reality here...harsh as it is.

The team has historically been better with Frank on the floor. Make of that what you will, but it tells me he is valuable already and his value will grow over time.

How are you measuring his impact Clyde? Which stat?

The Clyde-O-Meter. It watches Knicks games year in and year out and despite crushing boredom and countless disappointments it keeps on ticking.

C.O.M. is an infallible system that relies strictly on direct observation and eschews any reliance on statistical data. Its findings are that compared to every other guard the team has played since drafting him, Frank's units have performed better, both in terms of offensive unit cohesion and team defense.

C.O.M. out.

[KnicksGod]

Oh God, I've just realized I'm being hopelessly optimistic. I believe that Frank can raise his offensive game to average and Randle can do the same for his defensive game. Randle has improved every year in the league, Frank is 21 and has shown marked offensive improvement at FIBA and the first preseason game. Plus if Randle keeps improving offensively and Frank does the same defensively (both I feel are givens), then you can scheme out ways to hide them on their weaker sides of the court even if they top out at mediocre.

Yeah I made the point earlier that BFS is causing us to think that it’s either a clear 2-way player about equally strong on both sides or a bust. Nah.

I didn’t like what I saw from Randle yet on D. I’ll be watching in my great and unmatched wisdom.

[MaseInYourFace]

It's incredible. Frank Ntilikina now has me curious for years already. I don't think he has the talent to make it in the league - not the handle, not the explosiveness at all, not even the on-the-ball skill level of almost any other two-way player around the league - but I want to know if he can make it in the league more than watching any game including the Wolves, Suns, Hawks, Pels, Lakers and so many more. I'm rooting for him and tuning in those meaningless games because of his demeanor and approach and because I can't believe he's still around.

Then again his defense is off the charts compared to virtually any shooting guard in the league and that's what I always valued the most when I played. But that's his only skill if you don't count his shooting form (which is worth **** as long as he can't connect). He can't create his own shot at all, but he's a guard. This is so fascinating, it's ridiculously strange.

Are you French?


Lol

[MaseInYourFace]

Erhem....


It’s way too early for this Randle is a bad defender talk. I can understand some wanting to set that narrative already but dude literally hasn’t sweated out his first nyc pizza. I think this is a discussion you can maybe start having 15-20 regular season games on not after first preseason game.

Yikes!!!

P.S. and before y’all bring it up, I know his past and I realize he’s had issues on defense with other teams but you gotta give dude the benefit of the doubt at this point. Give him a chance at least to prove you wrong.