Re: Is RJ Barrett a bust?
Posted: Mon Apr 12, 2021 3:23 am
Lol
Sports is our Business
https://forums.realgm.com/boards/
https://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=2035644
dakomish23 wrote:Chanel Bomber wrote:dakomish23 wrote:
His outlier performances are what are propping his shooting numbers. Just like Austin Rivers, who has a 55% TS mark on the year. They get super hot from 3 a few games and skews the season average. Most nights they’re mediocre from deep. How many games is this guy a no show? Doesn’t stop him from gunning. Take a look at the game log. The 30 games after returning from injury he shot 41% from the field.
I’m not saying spend every dime on assets. I’m saying we had clear opportunities but instead chose bums like Portis, a decision a lot defended when it happened. You could see that train wreck from a mile away. We gave up on a first to pay that bench journeymen 15 mil. It’s not the only one, it’s just one of the more egregious. Don’t get me started on THJ.
Burks won’t be missed IMO. Gunners come and go. He’s fine at the price tag but my problem is with his role. Watch how many iso chucks this guy does in crunch time.
As always, time will be the judge.
I mean you can say that about a lot of players, including RJ and Quickley. In a way, that's why we use averages.
And if you're gonna use TS% for Austin Rivers, then use it for Burks as well instead of conveniently referring to FG%. Bro you know damn well Burks takes a lot of 3s and shoots them well, hence his FG% is not indicative of his scoring efficiency. I'm not letting you get away with this
The team was playing terribly with Rivers, that's the biggest difference between him and Burks. Everybody knew Rivers was playing like trash. Very few people are actually critical of Burks's play or his role, because the team functions well when he's out on the court.
Rivers: -5.1 net rating (lowest among rotation players), -5.7 per 100 on/off.
Burks: +5.4 net rating (3rd highest among rotation players), +7.5 per 100 on/off.
Again, the Knicks don't have a guard who can create his own shot besides Burks. He's the most qualified. RJ and Quickley don't have that in their skill set yet, they aren't ready. Randle is a frontcourt player who can easily get crowded and who - to put it mildly - has struggled in the clutch. So who do you want taking on that role, especially down the stretch? Someone on the team? A free agent signing? Then at what cost?
Reasonably, you have to acknowledge that there's a significant gap between your description of Burks as a "gunner" and as an "iso chucker" and the actual team stats when he's on the floor. The numbers unequivocally show that the team (including RJ, Quickley and Randle) performs significantly better when he plays.
What are you talking about??
YOU brought up TS% for Burks that’s why I brought up Rivers to show how misleading it is
That’s the end of the comparison. B/C you brought up TS% I’m showing you why that doesn’t matter. I’m not defending or praising Rivers. I called it out on him too. Outlier performances carry their shooting. Most nights they suck.
RJB is better than Burks at every aspect of basketball already. Burks needs to sit behind the 3PT line and then maybe create off a closeout. Did you not watch the game tonight? I told you look for all the iso missed in crunch time. Did they happen?
Tron Carter wrote:Y’all compared RJ to Corey Magette? For real?
Worse were the Evan Turner comps.Tron Carter wrote:Y’all compared RJ to Corey Magette? For real?
Chanel Bomber wrote:dakomish23 wrote:Chanel Bomber wrote:I mean you can say that about a lot of players, including RJ and Quickley. In a way, that's why we use averages.
And if you're gonna use TS% for Austin Rivers, then use it for Burks as well instead of conveniently referring to FG%. Bro you know damn well Burks takes a lot of 3s and shoots them well, hence his FG% is not indicative of his scoring efficiency. I'm not letting you get away with this
The team was playing terribly with Rivers, that's the biggest difference between him and Burks. Everybody knew Rivers was playing like trash. Very few people are actually critical of Burks's play or his role, because the team functions well when he's out on the court.
Rivers: -5.1 net rating (lowest among rotation players), -5.7 per 100 on/off.
Burks: +5.4 net rating (3rd highest among rotation players), +7.5 per 100 on/off.
Again, the Knicks don't have a guard who can create his own shot besides Burks. He's the most qualified. RJ and Quickley don't have that in their skill set yet, they aren't ready. Randle is a frontcourt player who can easily get crowded and who - to put it mildly - has struggled in the clutch. So who do you want taking on that role, especially down the stretch? Someone on the team? A free agent signing? Then at what cost?
Reasonably, you have to acknowledge that there's a significant gap between your description of Burks as a "gunner" and as an "iso chucker" and the actual team stats when he's on the floor. The numbers unequivocally show that the team (including RJ, Quickley and Randle) performs significantly better when he plays.
What are you talking about??
YOU brought up TS% for Burks that’s why I brought up Rivers to show how misleading it is
That’s the end of the comparison. B/C you brought up TS% I’m showing you why that doesn’t matter. I’m not defending or praising Rivers. I called it out on him too. Outlier performances carry their shooting. Most nights they suck.
RJB is better than Burks at every aspect of basketball already. Burks needs to sit behind the 3PT line and then maybe create off a closeout. Did you not watch the game tonight? I told you look for all the iso missed in crunch time. Did they happen?
Yes you did, and that's fair, but then don't suddenly bring up FG% out of nowhere. You know very well that his FG% gives the impression that he's less efficient than what he's actually been according to TS%.
Again, you say most night Burks sucks when the team has played well with him on the court most of the time. This is backed by the numbers. You cannot escape this reality.
Meanwhile you're still evading the point about his on/off and net rating. The night where Burks sucks is the outlier, not the norm. His impact on the team is completely different if not the opposite to that of Rivers. So again, if he's such a "chucker", how come the team performs so well when he's out on the floor?
Burks had a really bad game tonight. He's not perfectly consistent. That's why he costs $6 million. All the other games where he performs well are the reason these $6 million are a bargain.
You're holding Burks to a completely unrealistically high standard. It's like he has to be perfectly efficient and consistent and cheap and not take the shine away from RJ and the youth. Burks is a baller, not a soulless tool, and he's still one of our better options down the stretch game to game. The fact that he had a bad night against the Raptors doesn't change that.
Nazrmohamed wrote:Spoiler:
I'm always interested in learning or finding the right stat or maybe 2-3 stats. Considering what you said about game logs and how a player can have outlier performances to bring up or down averages what would you use instead
dakomish23 wrote:Chanel Bomber wrote:dakomish23 wrote:
What are you talking about??
YOU brought up TS% for Burks that’s why I brought up Rivers to show how misleading it is
That’s the end of the comparison. B/C you brought up TS% I’m showing you why that doesn’t matter. I’m not defending or praising Rivers. I called it out on him too. Outlier performances carry their shooting. Most nights they suck.
RJB is better than Burks at every aspect of basketball already. Burks needs to sit behind the 3PT line and then maybe create off a closeout. Did you not watch the game tonight? I told you look for all the iso missed in crunch time. Did they happen?
Yes you did, and that's fair, but then don't suddenly bring up FG% out of nowhere. You know very well that his FG% gives the impression that he's less efficient than what he's actually been according to TS%.
Again, you say most night Burks sucks when the team has played well with him on the court most of the time. This is backed by the numbers. You cannot escape this reality.
Meanwhile you're still evading the point about his on/off and net rating. The night where Burks sucks is the outlier, not the norm. His impact on the team is completely different if not the opposite to that of Rivers. So again, if he's such a "chucker", how come the team performs so well when he's out on the floor?
Burks had a really bad game tonight. He's not perfectly consistent. That's why he costs $6 million. All the other games where he performs well are the reason these $6 million are a bargain.
You're holding Burks to a completely unrealistically high standard. It's like he has to be perfectly efficient and consistent and cheap and not take the shine away from RJ and the youth. Burks is a baller, not a soulless tool, and he's still one of our better options down the stretch game to game. The fact that he had a bad night against the Raptors doesn't change that.
Dude look at the game logs. He sucks a lot of nights. Half this season he's been pretty bad.
Again, I'm not comparing his impact to Rivers. Didn't I establish why I used Rivers as an example to show how TS% could be manipulated by outliers? That's the case for Burks. He has some monster games, a few mediocre ones, then a ton of bad games. You'll get to average TS% this way b/c of the impact of 3PT% & FT% on the stat.
It made the claim before the TOR game. Why? B/C it's a pattern that's been happening a lot lately. This dude is given free reign to do whatever he wants on offense and he simply not anywhere good enough to be given this privilege.
MEM game:
6:55 Alec Burks misses 26-foot three point jumper 101 - 90
6:25 Alec Burks makes 26-foot three point jumper (Immanuel Quickley assists) 103 - 93
5:19 Alec Burks misses 23-foot step back jumpshot 108 - 96
2:45 Alec Burks misses 23-foot three point jumper 110 - 102
2:19 Grayson Allen shooting foul 110 - 102
2:19 Alec Burks makes free throw 1 of 2 110 - 103
2:19 Alec Burks makes free throw 2 of 2 110 - 104
1:54 Kyle Anderson shooting foul 110 - 104
1:54 Alec Burks makes free throw 1 of 2 110 - 105
1:54 Alec Burks makes free throw 2 of 2 110 - 106
1:20 Alec Burks misses driving floating jump shot 110 - 106
This journeyman get these ISO shooting possessions rather than our All Star and stud prospect wing in the 4th. What kind of logic would lead you to think that's alright?
You keep brining up individual net rating. Taj Gibson has a net rating of 7.5. Randle has a net rating of 2.3. A difference of 5.2, almost at the current 5.3 that Burks is at. By your logic, it would be justified if we sat Randle more for Gibson. Now use the eye test and all the games you watched. Does that make sense?
We're 10 posts in and we've lost the thread of what I originally brought up: signing mediocre vets to take up minutes from kids instead of getting assets. I'm not aware of any assets we passed on to sign Burks. If we did, then yeah let's have that talk. Otherwise, using him as a way to deflect from the putrid past franchise decisions of signing mediocre vets instead of getting assets is not a good argument.
Meat wrote:NewKnicks wrote:Meat wrote:1)butterfly effect
2)you’ve got no clue how those players would have developed being drafted by the Knicks. I mean you look at Knox or even Frank’s stroke and wonder how they aren’t 40% 3pt shot makers and scratch your head. Maybe they’re drafted my Utah or mia realize their potential
Keep making up excuses for our pathetic front offices. I don't scratch my head after 3-4 years of seeing players not getting any burn. They obviously are not performing in practice, because they don't get to play. And it's not Thibs fault. We're talking about 3-4 different coaches who made the same decisions on them.
Knox - Bust/Possible end of the bench spot up 3 guy
Frank - Bust
Obi -Bust/Possible role player (very limited minutes)
And we got lucky getting the #3 spot in RJ's draft. The front office didn't need to think about that one. It was a 3 player draft.
What's with all these fans defending all of our chit front offices? Don't you want a front office that can do a better job of evaluating players?? I don't get it, but there are a lot of you around.
Don't you want to win?
No you’re right, drafting is an exact science and there’s not years of historical data showing that idk there’s only a 3% chance historically that the 8th pick is an all star.
KnicksGod wrote:NewKnicks wrote:KnicksGod wrote:
You were saying RJ wasn’t that good like two days ago, so forgive us if we are not waiting on your draft acumen.
And you think every player the Knicks have ever had is going to be in the hall of fame. Don't make me dig up your posts. If you keep coming at me with your garbage I'll start posting a lot of your dumb chit evaluations. Don't make me do it.
You've proven to be a complete idiot when it comes to your take on players, and believe me anyone who's been on this board for a long time knows it. You really don't know much about basketball in general.
Now go away.
Says the guy who loved Terrence Williams, like three banned users ago. IIRC you went on and on about him.
Obi doesn’t have a great shot to be a major scorer but it’s too soon to say he’s not a starter, let alone a bust. Some troubling signs but he’s playing noticeably better.
NewKnicks wrote:Meat wrote:NewKnicks wrote:
Keep making up excuses for our pathetic front offices. I don't scratch my head after 3-4 years of seeing players not getting any burn. They obviously are not performing in practice, because they don't get to play. And it's not Thibs fault. We're talking about 3-4 different coaches who made the same decisions on them.
Knox - Bust/Possible end of the bench spot up 3 guy
Frank - Bust
Obi -Bust/Possible role player (very limited minutes)
And we got lucky getting the #3 spot in RJ's draft. The front office didn't need to think about that one. It was a 3 player draft.
What's with all these fans defending all of our chit front offices? Don't you want a front office that can do a better job of evaluating players?? I don't get it, but there are a lot of you around.
Don't you want to win?
No you’re right, drafting is an exact science and there’s not years of historical data showing that idk there’s only a 3% chance historically that the 8th pick is an all star.
I never said it was an exact science, but I prefer to have a front office than draft better than 3 busts in 4 years.
Don't you have higher expectations for our front office? I don't understand all these posters defending them.
dakomish23 wrote:Chanel Bomber wrote:dakomish23 wrote:
What are you talking about??
YOU brought up TS% for Burks that’s why I brought up Rivers to show how misleading it is
That’s the end of the comparison. B/C you brought up TS% I’m showing you why that doesn’t matter. I’m not defending or praising Rivers. I called it out on him too. Outlier performances carry their shooting. Most nights they suck.
RJB is better than Burks at every aspect of basketball already. Burks needs to sit behind the 3PT line and then maybe create off a closeout. Did you not watch the game tonight? I told you look for all the iso missed in crunch time. Did they happen?
Yes you did, and that's fair, but then don't suddenly bring up FG% out of nowhere. You know very well that his FG% gives the impression that he's less efficient than what he's actually been according to TS%.
Again, you say most night Burks sucks when the team has played well with him on the court most of the time. This is backed by the numbers. You cannot escape this reality.
Meanwhile you're still evading the point about his on/off and net rating. The night where Burks sucks is the outlier, not the norm. His impact on the team is completely different if not the opposite to that of Rivers. So again, if he's such a "chucker", how come the team performs so well when he's out on the floor?
Burks had a really bad game tonight. He's not perfectly consistent. That's why he costs $6 million. All the other games where he performs well are the reason these $6 million are a bargain.
You're holding Burks to a completely unrealistically high standard. It's like he has to be perfectly efficient and consistent and cheap and not take the shine away from RJ and the youth. Burks is a baller, not a soulless tool, and he's still one of our better options down the stretch game to game. The fact that he had a bad night against the Raptors doesn't change that.
Dude look at the game logs. He sucks a lot of nights. Half this season he's been pretty bad.
Again, I'm not comparing his impact to Rivers. Didn't I establish why I used Rivers as an example to show how TS% could be manipulated by outliers? That's the case for Burks. He has some monster games, a few mediocre ones, then a ton of bad games. You'll get to average TS% this way b/c of the impact of 3PT% & FT% on the stat.
It made the claim before the TOR game. Why? B/C it's a pattern that's been happening a lot lately. This dude is given free reign to do whatever he wants on offense and he simply not anywhere good enough to be given this privilege.
MEM game:
6:55 Alec Burks misses 26-foot three point jumper 101 - 90
6:25 Alec Burks makes 26-foot three point jumper (Immanuel Quickley assists) 103 - 93
5:19 Alec Burks misses 23-foot step back jumpshot 108 - 96
2:45 Alec Burks misses 23-foot three point jumper 110 - 102
2:19 Grayson Allen shooting foul 110 - 102
2:19 Alec Burks makes free throw 1 of 2 110 - 103
2:19 Alec Burks makes free throw 2 of 2 110 - 104
1:54 Kyle Anderson shooting foul 110 - 104
1:54 Alec Burks makes free throw 1 of 2 110 - 105
1:54 Alec Burks makes free throw 2 of 2 110 - 106
1:20 Alec Burks misses driving floating jump shot 110 - 106
This journeyman get these ISO shooting possessions rather than our All Star and stud prospect wing in the 4th. What kind of logic would lead you to think that's alright?
You keep brining up individual net rating. Taj Gibson has a net rating of 7.5. Randle has a net rating of 2.3. A difference of 5.2, almost at the current 5.3 that Burks is at. By your logic, it would be justified if we sat Randle more for Gibson. Now use the eye test and all the games you watched. Does that make sense?
We're 10 posts in and we've lost the thread of what I originally brought up: signing mediocre vets to take up minutes from kids instead of getting assets. I'm not aware of any assets we passed on to sign Burks. If we did, then yeah let's have that talk. Otherwise, using him as a way to deflect from the putrid past franchise decisions of signing mediocre vets instead of getting assets is not a good argument.
dakomish23 wrote:That's the case for Burks. He has some monster games, a few mediocre ones, then a ton of bad games.
Clyde_Style wrote:dakomish23 wrote:Chanel Bomber wrote:Yes you did, and that's fair, but then don't suddenly bring up FG% out of nowhere. You know very well that his FG% gives the impression that he's less efficient than what he's actually been according to TS%.
Again, you say most night Burks sucks when the team has played well with him on the court most of the time. This is backed by the numbers. You cannot escape this reality.
Meanwhile you're still evading the point about his on/off and net rating. The night where Burks sucks is the outlier, not the norm. His impact on the team is completely different if not the opposite to that of Rivers. So again, if he's such a "chucker", how come the team performs so well when he's out on the floor?
Burks had a really bad game tonight. He's not perfectly consistent. That's why he costs $6 million. All the other games where he performs well are the reason these $6 million are a bargain.
You're holding Burks to a completely unrealistically high standard. It's like he has to be perfectly efficient and consistent and cheap and not take the shine away from RJ and the youth. Burks is a baller, not a soulless tool, and he's still one of our better options down the stretch game to game. The fact that he had a bad night against the Raptors doesn't change that.
Dude look at the game logs. He sucks a lot of nights. Half this season he's been pretty bad.
Again, I'm not comparing his impact to Rivers. Didn't I establish why I used Rivers as an example to show how TS% could be manipulated by outliers? That's the case for Burks. He has some monster games, a few mediocre ones, then a ton of bad games. You'll get to average TS% this way b/c of the impact of 3PT% & FT% on the stat.
It made the claim before the TOR game. Why? B/C it's a pattern that's been happening a lot lately. This dude is given free reign to do whatever he wants on offense and he simply not anywhere good enough to be given this privilege.
MEM game:
6:55 Alec Burks misses 26-foot three point jumper 101 - 90
6:25 Alec Burks makes 26-foot three point jumper (Immanuel Quickley assists) 103 - 93
5:19 Alec Burks misses 23-foot step back jumpshot 108 - 96
2:45 Alec Burks misses 23-foot three point jumper 110 - 102
2:19 Grayson Allen shooting foul 110 - 102
2:19 Alec Burks makes free throw 1 of 2 110 - 103
2:19 Alec Burks makes free throw 2 of 2 110 - 104
1:54 Kyle Anderson shooting foul 110 - 104
1:54 Alec Burks makes free throw 1 of 2 110 - 105
1:54 Alec Burks makes free throw 2 of 2 110 - 106
1:20 Alec Burks misses driving floating jump shot 110 - 106
This journeyman get these ISO shooting possessions rather than our All Star and stud prospect wing in the 4th. What kind of logic would lead you to think that's alright?
You keep brining up individual net rating. Taj Gibson has a net rating of 7.5. Randle has a net rating of 2.3. A difference of 5.2, almost at the current 5.3 that Burks is at. By your logic, it would be justified if we sat Randle more for Gibson. Now use the eye test and all the games you watched. Does that make sense?
We're 10 posts in and we've lost the thread of what I originally brought up: signing mediocre vets to take up minutes from kids instead of getting assets. I'm not aware of any assets we passed on to sign Burks. If we did, then yeah let's have that talk. Otherwise, using him as a way to deflect from the putrid past franchise decisions of signing mediocre vets instead of getting assets is not a good argument.
Burks is still a journeyman for us just like Morris was last season. They are good at the right price, but you do not prioritize them when adjusting the roster during the off-season. If there is money left over and he doesn't become redundant after making higher level moves, then you make an offer. Otherwise, you pick up someone else or you keep Bullock for less instead.