Lasry: Knight is Going to Be With Milwaukee (Contact Will Get Done)

[RayRayJones]

Let's hope this 4/44 doesn't work out as badly as the last one.

I'm fine paying Knight $11mil a year, especially given those 4 years will run out just as Giannis/Jabari's extensions take place. There's also a chance BK would take a pay cut (or at least stay at $11mil) to stay with the Bucks by the time he hits 27-28 and has developed into an above-average player. $11 mil outta the $80 mil projected cap for a 6th man is pretty much the right number - and I think Knight has more upside than just a 6th man.

[WeekapaugGroove]

I asked my work contact at the Cousins Center about Knight as well as if the league still allows mid season extensions.

He said he heard Hammond mention 4/44, wasn't sure which end this number came from.

My work contact was not sure on the mid season extension rules anymore, are those still around? Thanks

***EDIT

I also wanted to mention that I heard Larry and his group of advisers are considering a 25m dollar buyout. Interesting news for sure, was hoping he would figure this out and get back on the court.

No teams are not allowed to work out extensions with restricted FA's after the Oct. deadline. It's a really dumb rule IMO.

[Bernman]

Of course this could just be a tactic to drive the price down ala the Suns with Bledsoe.

[ampd]

Also, the NBA advanced stats guys have access to stats that the public does not. Maybe they actually see something that they like.

21-19

Again that's the stat.

The team was projected to be terrible. They aren't. Brandon Knight is the leading scorer. He's doing something to contribute here more than Michael Redd did based on team performance.

It's happening while he's sitting down watching. I'd love to hear the argument for how much worse than -11.7 points per 36 we'd be without him.

According to nba.com as of yesterday Knight has a -2.3 /100 possessions net rating while on the court. No idea where you are getting -11.7 from? BBref has him at -3.1.

[AussieBuck]

21-19

Again that's the stat.

The team was projected to be terrible. They aren't. Brandon Knight is the leading scorer. He's doing something to contribute here more than Michael Redd did based on team performance.

It's happening while he's sitting down watching. I'd love to hear the argument for how much worse than -11.7 points per 36 we'd be without him.

According to nba.com as of yesterday Knight has a -2.3 /100 net rating while on the court. No idea where you are getting -11.7 from? BBref has him at -3.1.

82games per 48 x.75. He's -13 per 100 from basketball reference.

[drew881]

Let's hope this 4/44 doesn't work out as badly as the last one.

I'm fine paying Knight $11mil a year, especially given those 4 years will run out just as Giannis/Jabari's extensions take place. There's also a chance BK would take a pay cut (or at least stay at $11mil) to stay with the Bucks by the time he hits 27-28 and has developed into an above-average player. $11 mil outta the $80 mil projected cap for a 6th man is pretty much the right number - and I think Knight has more upside than just a 6th man.

Knight taking a paycut? This is the guy who is a stat whore on every level and always has to get his. What makes you think he is going to leave money on the table?

[ampd]

It's happening while he's sitting down watching. I'd love to hear the argument for how much worse than -11.7 points per 36 we'd be without him.

According to nba.com as of yesterday Knight has a -2.3 /100 net rating while on the court. No idea where you are getting -11.7 from? BBref has him at -3.1.

82games per 48 x.75. He's -13 per 100 from basketball reference.

From 82 games -

Net points per 100 possessions -5.2

Knight on court per 48 (as of 1/7)

Offense 101.6
Defense 106.9
Net per 48 -5.3

Net per 36 -3.975

I guess you are looking at on vs off? We are not -11.7 (or -13) with Knight on the court.

[AussieBuck]

From 82 games -

Net points per 100 possessions -5.2

Knight on court per 48 (as of 1/7)

Offense 101.6
Defense 106.9
Net per 48 -5.3

Net per 36 -3.975

I think you missed something somewhere.

Yes you're referring to how much we suck with Knight on the court, I'm talking about how much we suck with Knight on court compared to when he's off the court. PP is attributing wins to Knight, I'm explaining that the winning part comes from the bench saving the day constantly.

[ampd]

From 82 games -

Net points per 100 possessions -5.2

Knight on court per 48 (as of 1/7)

Offense 101.6
Defense 106.9
Net per 48 -5.3

Net per 36 -3.975

I think you missed something somewhere.

Yes you're referring to how much we suck with Knight on the court, I'm talking about how much we suck with Knight on court compared to when he's off the court. PP is attributing wins to Knight, I'm explaining that the winning part comes from the bench saving the day constantly.

As I said earlier, the question isn't whether our bench has outperformed our starters relative to their competition, its whether our bench is actually better than our starters. And to answer that you need more than on/off numbers, and you need to be able to explain why our bench remains better no matter who we put on it, while when we take guys like Zaza, Giannis, and Mayo who had massive on/off when they were only bench players, but when they are starters they don't.

You can make the argument it's all Knight, but for that you need more than on/off stats

ESPN's flavor of APM (real plus minus, based on rapm if i remember correctly) has knight at -0.53/100 for example. If that's close to accurate, it would appear you're way off attributing the differential to him.

I don't want Knight anointed as our future superstar, but I don't mind keeping him either.

[GHOSTofSIKMA]

The trend is guys on the bench look good, guys who start don't, and Knight has been the only real constant in the starting lineup.

And Knight has been the only constant finishing games as well.

I'm not saying I'm thrilled with the guy or want to pay him $50 million. But something is going right here despite his complete brain malfunctions each game.

most of the board is completely sleeping on him imo. hes part of the reason im excited to see the season out. I want to see what this team is capable of. and I want to see if he keeps raising his game. maybe he will do something between now and the playoffs or even in the playoffs when the chips are down that could raise the ceiling on what id pay him.

[ReasonablySober]

21-19

Again that's the stat.

The team was projected to be terrible. They aren't. Brandon Knight is the leading scorer. He's doing something to contribute here more than Michael Redd did based on team performance.

It's happening while he's sitting down watching. I'd love to hear the argument for how much worse than -11.7 points per 36 we'd be without him.

According to nba.com as of yesterday Knight has a -2.3 /100 possessions net rating while on the court. No idea where you are getting -11.7 from? BBref has him at -3.1.

Like you said, that's his on-court rating.

The offense improves from 98.5 to 106.9, and the defense improves from 100.8 to 96.2 when he's on the bench. Only K-Mart is worse.

[Matches Malone]

I just want Knight to work on passing on the fast break and keeping his head up on drives. Those are his big weaknesses that make him so turnover prone on the pick and rolls and driving to the hoop. Maybe once he gets financial security, he won't feel like he has to do so much and can look for his teammates more.

[AussieBuck]

From 82 games -

Net points per 100 possessions -5.2

Knight on court per 48 (as of 1/7)

Offense 101.6
Defense 106.9
Net per 48 -5.3

Net per 36 -3.975

I think you missed something somewhere.

Yes you're referring to how much we suck with Knight on the court, I'm talking about how much we suck with Knight on court compared to when he's off the court. PP is attributing wins to Knight, I'm explaining that the winning part comes from the bench saving the day constantly.

As I said earlier, the question isn't whether our bench has outperformed our starters relative to their competition, its whether our bench is actually better than our starters. And to answer that you need more than on/off numbers, and you need to be able to explain why our bench remains better no matter who we put on it, while when we take guys like Zaza, Giannis, and Mayo who had massive on/off when they were only bench players, but when they are starters they don't.

You can make the argument it's all Knight, but for that you need more than on/off stats

ESPN's flavor of APM (real plus minus, based on rapm if i remember correctly) has knight at -0.53/100 for example. If that's close to accurate, it would appear you're way off attributing the differential to him.

I don't want Knight anointed as our future superstar, but I don't mind keeping him either.

I'm not attributing the difference to him in this thread, I'm explaining that when he's on the court we are a crap team. The winning record part is because we have a great team when Knight isn't on the court. I personally don't think it's a coincidence but I'm not attributing all the fail to Knight just pointing out where the winning is happening. The ESPN RPM thing I have no idea about, I tend to assume it's some butchered maths given the source but I'm not a fan of single year RAPM and certainly not a half years worth. (that's just me personally) Regardless, if that was an accurate measure of his impact then he's a MLE guy at best. Kind of what a lot of the board you argue with is saying.

[GHOSTofSIKMA]

As I said earlier, the question isn't whether our bench has outperformed our starters relative to their competition, its whether our bench is actually better than our starters. And to answer that you need more than on/off numbers, and you need to be able to explain why our bench remains better no matter who we put on it, while when we take guys like Zaza, Giannis, and Mayo who had massive on/off when they were only bench players, but when they are starters they don't.

You can make the argument it's all Knight, but for that you need more than on/off stats

ESPN's flavor of APM (real plus minus, based on rapm if i remember correctly) has knight at -0.53/100 for example. If that's close to accurate, it would appear you're way off attributing the differential to him.

I don't want Knight anointed as our future superstar, but I don't mind keeping him either.

ive watched every game and your analysis makes perfect sense. I find it hard to draw any other conclusion. start somebody instead of knight and then knight can come in to save the day

plus these stats are dumb anyway. john henson last year vs this year is a prime example. they are virtually useless to determine the talent or complete value of a player. there is possibly some general value for coaches to find trends to possibly alter lineups and systems or something of that nature tho. I will give them that.

[RayRayJones]

Let's hope this 4/44 doesn't work out as badly as the last one.

I'm fine paying Knight $11mil a year, especially given those 4 years will run out just as Giannis/Jabari's extensions take place. There's also a chance BK would take a pay cut (or at least stay at $11mil) to stay with the Bucks by the time he hits 27-28 and has developed into an above-average player. $11 mil outta the $80 mil projected cap for a 6th man is pretty much the right number - and I think Knight has more upside than just a 6th man.

Knight taking a paycut? This is the guy who is a stat whore on every level and always has to get his. What makes you think he is going to leave money on the table?

I was implying that if Jabari and Giannis pan out the way we hope, when Knight's 4 year deal is up, I don't foresee him demanding a huge contract at that time. If he remains here, he'll have spent 6 or 7 seasons when he's due for a new contract. All reports I've seen describe him as a nice guy, good character, and well respected. I don't think it's unreasonable to think he could stay with the Bucks at the $11mil mark, even if he could get more in the FA market at that time with the inflated salary cap.

I don't get where he's a stat whore? If he was, he'd work on refining his TO rate

[JimmyTheKid]

Lasry: Knight is Going to Be With Milwaukee (Contact Will Get Done)

Wow. Really? What are the chances its a reasonable, 6th man money type deal? Knight is less frustrating than he was early in the season, but ugh, just ugh.

[worthlessBucks]

He has his faults, such as probably not being a PG, but he's a young kid with talent. In the scenario we'd all like to see where we're selling the veterans, we'd actually be looking to acquire a bunch of other young pieces like Knight to put on our roster. Hopefully the rate is decent, but if he continues to improve with coaching and maturity while we add other pieces to the roster, paying Knight won't cripple us. He'll be moveable in the worst case scenario, it's not like he'll hold us for ransom and want to quit basketball like Sanders is doing.

Viva la Knight.

[ampd]

Yes you're referring to how much we suck with Knight on the court, I'm talking about how much we suck with Knight on court compared to when he's off the court. PP is attributing wins to Knight, I'm explaining that the winning part comes from the bench saving the day constantly.

As I said earlier, the question isn't whether our bench has outperformed our starters relative to their competition, its whether our bench is actually better than our starters. And to answer that you need more than on/off numbers, and you need to be able to explain why our bench remains better no matter who we put on it, while when we take guys like Zaza, Giannis, and Mayo who had massive on/off when they were only bench players, but when they are starters they don't.

You can make the argument it's all Knight, but for that you need more than on/off stats

ESPN's flavor of APM (real plus minus, based on rapm if i remember correctly) has knight at -0.53/100 for example. If that's close to accurate, it would appear you're way off attributing the differential to him.

I don't want Knight anointed as our future superstar, but I don't mind keeping him either.

I'm not attributing the difference to him in this thread, I'm explaining that when he's on the court we are a crap team. The winning record part is because we have a great team when Knight isn't on the court. I personally don't think it's a coincidence but I'm not attributing all the fail to Knight just pointing out where the winning is happening. The ESPN RPM thing I have no idea about, I tend to assume it's some butchered maths given the source but I'm not a fan of single year RAPM and certainly not a half years worth. (that's just me personally) Regardless, if that was an accurate measure of his impact then he's a MLE guy at best. Kind of what a lot of the board you argue with is saying.

Really though, if hypothetically we were starting Bayless and playing Knight off the bench, and their on/off numbers were reversed because of the way our roster is constructed, would that make Knight a better player?

Most teams have almost all their talent in the starting lineup and maybe have a project player and a couple solid bench guys. We have very evenly distributed talent and so our starters are often slightly worse while our bench is often much, much better than their opponents.

I don't see the significance in bringing up on/off numbers regarding Knight (and anyone else when they are inserted in the starting lineup) unless we are attributing them mostly to his play as opposed to that dynamic.

I don't think anyone sees him as a current superstar who is lifting the level of his teammates significantly, but that doesn't make him a player that isn't worth keeping.

[AussieBuck]

I see they are using JE's xRAPM. I guess Knight's box score numbers are giving him a nice boost there. Such a stupid idea mixing +/- with boxscores.

[GoldenAntlers]

Knight has grown on me more than I expected this season.

Not saying I am thrilled, but I'm not necessarily upset.

Indifferent at the moment.

I still think we need a floor general.