Iron Mantis wrote:Chanel Bomber wrote:Year 2 showed RJ could have a role on a winning team. To say that it showed he was a "winner" is too vague of a description. By the same token, Elfrid Payton showed he was a "winner" too, and that sentence seems devoid of any meaning or relevance.
You said "He hasn't exactly proven to be a winner"....yet he hasn't exactly proven to be a losing player...so then what has he proven?
Too early to tell, right? Exactly.
Chanel Bomber wrote:What you said about Grimes, you can say about RJ. Wide-open C&S 3s are the only shot type that RJ's demonstrably good at (he's ok on post-ups). He's pretty awful at everything else: his pull-up is terribly inefficient, he can drive but his drives are wildly inefficient, his midrange game is practically non-existent, as the ball-handler in the P&R he's inefficient, and he's mediocre at best from the line. This is backed by the numbers.
The only real difference between the two players outside of C&S 3s is opportunity.
The game of basketball is far more dynamic than squarely isolating individual efficiency, which doesn't account for how every moving part on the court affects the other. Empirical data shows the opposing team's defensive stopper, the NBA's best of the best, has to be stuck to RJ, which gives every other Knicks player on offense an easier path to scoring.
Still, RJ puts immense pressure on NBA defenses and is elite at getting to the rim and drawing fouls. This changes the entire way a team can defend you when the whistles are blowing and guys are getting into foul trouble and the bonus.
Chanel Bomber wrote:Your point about the defense is either an excuse, or an acknowledgment that his burden in 2021-22 was too much for him. Which is a fair point. So what should they prioritize? RJ saving some energy on offense (by focusing on what he's actually good at) to become a more impactful defender, or focusing his energy on being a high-usage offensive player and relaxing on defense (as a team defender) like he did this past season? I think the answer is pretty obvious.
The point about defense was a simple empirical fact. The data showed RJ was tasked with the toughest matchups. Is fatigue a real factor? Yes. The now 22 year old should work on his strength, conditioning, and playmaking for his new role and carry the heck on.
Chanel Bomber wrote:You're right that development isn't always linear. But there is no precedent of NBA players this inefficient (without genius playmaking skills to make up for it) later becoming offensive superstars. So in terms of expectations, you can safely assume that this is not going to happen. The historical precedents for RJ's statistical archetype top out as #3 options on championship contenders (Antoine Walker, Jrue Holiday, KCP etc.), unless you consider Wiggins's to be Golden State's #2, and not only is this outcome not a given, these players all needed a change of scenery to be willing to take on a lesser role in which they could be more efficient and impactful.
RJ doesn't have to later become a superstar aka a generational talent to be a very good starter or a perennial all-star...Just like Grimes, When people are attached to RJ, it's because they project what he can be in the future. There's no precedent that says Grimes will become anything more than Reggie Bullock. The bet is that RJ will add to his moves and become more efficient...he was 21 all last season. He has at least 6 years before his prime and is a tireless worker...He can't improve? There's no magical formula that gives you the authority to say he will not become more efficient just because of what Antoine Walker did or didn't do......development is not linear.. I say he will improve...it's just your opinion vs mine.
Chanel Bomber wrote:We'll learn a lot about his mindset and his priorities in year 4. I am willing to keep an open mind. But I see no reason to extend him before seeing him demonstrate that he's on an upwards trajectory in terms of development, and that he can earn a big contract. Worst-case scenario, the Knicks can always match in RFA if he has a great year, by which point an overpay is not as risky as it is today.
Agreed
What he is (a winner or a loser) is dependent on his role. He contributed on a winning team as a role player in 2020-21. He certainly didn't do that as a high-usage player in 2021-22.
I'm sorry but there is no excuse when you score
less efficiently than Russell Westbrook on high volume.
RJ was generally guarded by the opposing team's best
wing defender, ok, but shouldn't that be the standard if he were to be that good?
If he can't create his own shot semi-efficiently - be it off drives of the PNR - shouldn't he cut down his number of attempts, especially if he's guarded by strong defenders? Isn't that the whole point? The Knicks can't ask opposing teams to put their worst wing defender on him to bump up his (in)efficiency.
RJ's elite at drawing fouls like Monta Ellis and Tyreke Evans were elite at drawing fouls. He has the ability to get to the line, a useful skill that hopefully he can build on, but taking it at face value completely ignores the process that leads him to getting free throws. He's one of the most inefficient drivers in the NBA for instance, so every successful trip to the line (on average) off a drive comes at a price: failed drives to the basket, and more inefficiency in general. He's also not a good free throw shooter, which mitigates the value of his trips to the line. Bottom line is he needs to become more efficient overall, otherwise the value of his free throws will remain fairly anecdotal, as opposed to being a real difference-maker.
RJ had a significant burden defensively. He did well guarding opposing wings in isolation. But he didn't keep his end of the bargain as a team defender. If he hadn't been so focused on reaching his individualistic goal of reaching 20ppg on abject inefficiency, and expanding most of his energy on offense, maybe he would have been able to save some energy to make an impact as a help defender?
As for what Grimes projects as, there's a multitude of outcomes historically speaking, but as I've already laid out there are precedents to rookies like him (statistically) becoming All-Stars: Middleton, Brown, Butler, PG13, among others. Their rookie numbers including their league-adjusted efficiency were close to his. The Bullock ceiling seems pretty arbitrary.
I never said RJ will not improve. But I don't think he'll ever score 20 ppg on above league-average efficiency, because he's coming from too-far behind (a 90 in TS+). And I highly doubt he'll ever have a positive impact on winning as a high-usage player. But I think he can improve if his role gets scaled back, and his usage reduced. A better player in a lesser role.
I may not have a magic formula, but we can look back at NBA history to see what young players who were as inefficient as RJ early in their careers turned out to be. There aren't too many precedents, because young players this inefficient generally aren't rewarded with a high usage, but there are a few. The list isn't great, but some guys did manage to make a significant impact on winning teams in a lesser role (e.g. Wiggins and Walker). Though it's not a coincidence their transformation happened away from the teams that drafted them.
RIP mags
