RealGM

In today's NBA who would you rather take?

D.Brasco wrote:In today's NBA who would you rather take?

Hard to imagine any scenario where you want the guy who is a considerably less effective playmaker and also not a better scorer.

Brunson is already the greatest Knick of all-time, so this is an easy call.

One_and_Done wrote:Brunson is already the greatest Knick of all-time, so this is an easy call.

I feel like Patrick Ewing, Willis Reed and Walt Frazier (at least) all have something to say about that. Maybe Bernard King.

tsherkin wrote:

One_and_Done wrote:Brunson is already the greatest Knick of all-time, so this is an easy call.

I feel like Patrick Ewing, Willis Reed and Walt Frazier (at least) all have something to say about that. Maybe Bernard King.

Nah, Brunson is better. He's just playing in a much tougher league.

One_and_Done wrote:

tsherkin wrote:

One_and_Done wrote:Brunson is already the greatest Knick of all-time, so this is an easy call.

I feel like Patrick Ewing, Willis Reed and Walt Frazier (at least) all have something to say about that. Maybe Bernard King.

Nah, Brunson is better. He's just playing in a much tougher league.

That isn't a real argument. Ewing, for example, was playing against all kinds of talent. As were Reed and Frazier, for that matter. But especially the bigs. And Brunson actually has it easier with the way the paint is more cleared-out for him, if you really want to get into era-based differences. And all of those guys were considerably better defenders than Brunson.

tsherkin wrote:

One_and_Done wrote:

tsherkin wrote:
I feel like Patrick Ewing, Willis Reed and Walt Frazier (at least) all have something to say about that. Maybe Bernard King.

Nah, Brunson is better. He's just playing in a much tougher league.

That isn't a real argument. Ewing, for example, was playing against all kinds of talent. As were Reed and Frazier, for that matter. But especially the bigs. And Brunson actually has it easier with the way the paint is more cleared-out for him, if you really want to get into era-based differences. And all of those guys were considerably better defenders than Brunson.

Ewing had all kinds of talent on his team too (relative to the league). I treat Brunson's last 2 playoff runs more seriously than any season Ewing, Walt or Reed had. Walt was a good defender... in that era. Dunno that he'd be great today. Ewing would be a good post defender today, but he'd be weak in some match ups and would be much more exhausted by the demands of modern D.

One_and_Done wrote:

tsherkin wrote:

One_and_Done wrote:Brunson is already the greatest Knick of all-time, so this is an easy call.

I feel like Patrick Ewing, Willis Reed and Walt Frazier (at least) all have something to say about that. Maybe Bernard King.

Nah, Brunson is better. He's just playing in a much tougher league.

Ewing played in a tougher conference

Narigo wrote:

One_and_Done wrote:

tsherkin wrote:
I feel like Patrick Ewing, Willis Reed and Walt Frazier (at least) all have something to say about that. Maybe Bernard King.

Nah, Brunson is better. He's just playing in a much tougher league.

Ewing played in a tougher conference

Yes. Of the 2 conferences that would be rubbish today, Ewing was in the less rubbish one.

D.Brasco wrote:In today's NBA who would you rather take?

I was a Carmelo skeptic during his era and I see little reason to think his relative struggles as a player were due to him being ahead of his time. Instead he was a good player with flaws that could have been fixed but never were. His flaws weren't primarily physical flaws but rather flaws with his approach to the game. Given this, he ended up achieving far less in professional basketball than he should have.

I would gladly take Brunson over Carmelo even if I have doubts that either one can be a true best player on a normal title contender.

Carmelo showed a real petty streak of jealousy during Linsanity. That's alarming even if you are an MVP caliber player, ala Shaq. It is terrifying if you're not certain a player can actually be the best player on a real contender. And Carmelo's skillset doesn't really lend itself to a secondary role given that the real defects in his game were never addressed or even minimized throughout his career.

By contrast, Bronson has a lot more physical flaws than Carmelo. And those physical flaws place a real ceiling on him as a defender. If both guys maximized their physical potential Carmelo would have been the better player as Brunson's physical makeup ensures he would always be a bad defender while Carmelo could have been a positive defender.

But Carmelo never fixed his defensive flaws and they were fixable. So the difference on the defensive side of the court end up being non-existent instead of a large difference, which it should have been.

Brunson has already shown an ability to blend himself off of an elite player in a way that Carmelo never did. And I'm more impressed with his performance on these ensemble Knicks than I am with Carmelo's performance in Denver. Denver more or less played at the same level without Carmelo after he left. I don't think the same would occur if New York traded Brunson.

In conclusion, I just see Brunson having some real advantages that make him the clear choice even if Brunson's advantage isn't massive.

One_and_Done wrote:Brunson is already the greatest Knick of all-time, so this is an easy call.

I am skeptical even one percent of Knicks fans would agree with your assessment that Jalen Brunson in three seasons became the greatest player in a franchise approaching eighty years in age. I am skeptical that anyone in a management capacity with the Knicks agrees with your assessment and that includes Brunson's father. I have no confidence the Knicks would retire Brunson's number if he retired today.

The subtext to this post is the subtext to almost all your posts in this forum that involve comparisons between modern players and older players. Based on your analysis older players are middling relative to modern players. I am not going to attempt to disabuse you of this position as I know your position is entrenched.

Rather than try to persuade you that your position is incorrect I'm going to try to persuade you that you should limit your posting to threads that involve comparisons between modern players . First of all there are numerous topics on this forum for you to post in. You could write 30 high-quality posts a week in thirty different threads comparing two modern players. Those are the most important topics on this forum because those are the only topics limited to the highest level of players, based on your deeply held position.

There are two primary reasons someone who shares your perception of older players to post in threads comparing modern players to older players.

First you're trying to persuade people that your position is correct. If you want to persuade us that you are correct your posting doesn't show it. Instead your posting is mainly "X is older than Y thus X is inferior to Y." It doesn't seem like you're trying to persuade us.

Second you enjoy denigrating older players and the history of the NBA its teams. This thread compared a player from the early teens to the early twenties. There was no need for you to issue this aside that Brunson had become the Knicks GOAT. It was off topic. But you did it because you enjoy it.

Denigrate is the word that best fits your aside that a player in year three with a nearly eighty year old team has become its GOAT. The only exception would be if a player had a run similar to Lebron's tenure in Miami. No person, sensible or insensible, feels Brunson has performed at a level similar to Lebron in Miamis. Thus you're just being intentionally dismissive.

It would be really weird to write "country music is bad" or "hip hop isn't music" day after day, month after month, if this was a music forum and we were discussing American music genres influence on the culture. Your comment would fall on deaf ears and would lead to people ignoring you on other topics in which you had more measured positions. It would be weird unless your purpose was just to denigrate something you dislike which I suspect is the reason you feel the need to issue these asides.

sp6r=underrated wrote:

One_and_Done wrote:Brunson is already the greatest Knick of all-time, so this is an easy call.

I am skeptical even one percent of Knicks fans would agree with your assessment that Jalen Brunson in three seasons became the greatest player in a franchise approaching eighty years in age. I am skeptical that anyone in a management capacity with the Knicks agrees with your assessment and that includes Brunson's father. I have no confidence the Knicks would retire Brunson's number if he retired today.

The subtext to this post is the subtext to almost all your posts in this forum that involve comparisons between modern players and older players. Based on your analysis older players are middling relative to modern players. I am not going to attempt to disabuse you of this position as I know your position is entrenched.

Rather than try to persuade you that your position is incorrect I'm going to try to persuade you that you should limit your posting to threads that involve comparisons between modern players . First of all there are numerous topics on this forum for you to post in. You could write 30 high-quality posts a week in thirty different threads comparing two modern players. Those are the most important topics on this forum because those are the only topics limited to the highest level of players, based on your deeply held position.

There are two primary reasons someone who shares your perception of older players to post in threads comparing modern players to older players.

First you're trying to persuade people that your position is correct. If you want to persuade us that you are correct your posting doesn't show it. Instead your posting is mainly "X is older than Y thus X is inferior to Y." It doesn't seem like you're trying to persuade us.

Second you enjoy denigrating older players and the history of the NBA its teams. This thread compared a player from the early teens to the early twenties. There was no need for you to issue this aside that Brunson had become the Knicks GOAT. It was off topic. But you did it because you enjoy it.

Denigrate is the word that best fits your aside that a player in year three with a nearly eighty year old team has become its GOAT. The only exception would be if a player had a run similar to Lebron's tenure in Miami. No person, sensible or insensible, feels Brunson has performed at a level similar to Lebron in Miamis. Thus you're just being intentionally dismissive.

It would be really weird to write "country music is bad" or "hip hop isn't music" day after day, month after month, if this was a music forum and we were discussing American music genres influence on the culture. Your comment would fall on deaf ears and would lead to people ignoring you on other topics in which you had more measured positions. It would be weird unless your purpose was just to denigrate something you dislike which I suspect is the reason you feel the need to issue these asides.

I'm saying he's the best player to ever don a Knicks jersey, not that he's achieved the most. Obviously other guys have him beat there unless he sticks around for a long while and keeps this up.

I feel like alot of people make the mistake of conflating stature/fame with ability. Players of yore like Mikan and Walt and Ewing should all be honoured for their contributions to the game. Build statues of them, etc, retire their jersey, etc. They earned it. The question of your legacy and your ability to play basketball are two completely distinct things.

In theory, would rather have Carmelo Anthony as a no. 2 than Brunson as a no. 2. Carmelo Anthony was an explosive, powerful rim finisher in Denver; solid 3P shooter and was a better scorer than Jalen Brunson.

Jalen Brunson is essentially a slightly watered down Allen Iverson with a Houston Harden-Ball play style. His scoring game is primarily reliant on tough shot making and Foul Grifting. Despite Brunson's excellent shooting, Brunson's eFG% in 2023 was -2.1% Below league average. EFG% in 2024 was -0.3% Below league average. 2025 eFG% is +0.7% above average. With rTS% of +1.6%, +1.6%, +2.1% respectively. League Average at the rim in Brunson's NYK years was 70%, while Brunson finished at a 64% clip. His Playoffs rTS% against his Opponents in his NYK years is -0.9% below average.

Despite being a serious ball stopper, Carmelo Anthony is still significantly less of a ball hog/ball stopper than Brunson. If paired with a better Offensive player(ala Chauncey Billups or Giannis, Luka etc), would take Carmelo Anthony over Brunson.

One_and_Done wrote:Ewing had all kinds of talent on his team too (relative to the league). I treat Brunson's last 2 playoff runs more seriously than any season Ewing, Walt or Reed had. Walt was a good defender...

I cannot take this comment seriously.

in that era. Dunno that he'd be great today. Ewing would be a good post defender today, but he'd be weak in some match ups and would be much more exhausted by the demands of modern D.

Ewing was quite mobile for his size; I doubt he'd have much of an issue today, unless you're basing your entire evaluation off of what he looked like at the end of his career after the injuries.