THJ

[TwitterFingers]

He was hurt while he was here. He’s had a borderline AllStar year this year. I think he should have won 6th man.

[Gravy]

Payton's 8 minutes might have been the difference in a 2-point game.

Randle admitted himself he let the team down last year. He deserved the criticism from the fans, and he knows it.

I agree that Timmy was unfortunately the easy scapegoat. He was thrust in a role he couldn't fill - that's on Mills moreso than Timmy. Not that he was perfect and exempt from criticism.

What about Randle's 36 minutes where he went 6-23; completely meaningless, or RJ's 32 minutes where he went 6-15; also meaningless. The only important minutes of the game were Payton's 8 minutes at the beginning of the half because the whole game revolves around everything he does. Whatever he and only he does is the sole difference between winning and losing.

Yeah not obsessed or irrational at all..

They went for a combined 12 - 38 and we lost by 2...... They got to step it up

Listen, it dont matter if Randle, RJ, Bullock, IQ, Rose all go 2 for 80. The only thing that makes a difference is what Payton does in his 8 minutes. If he did not play those 4 minutes each half minutes we would be up at least 30 to 40 points to start every game with enough of a cushion that the other players would not need to do anything. Nate mcmillan stays up all night trying to figure out how to contain those Payton minutes.

[blueNorange]

thj is playing good because luka doncic gets all the attention

anyone can hit a three when nobody is guarding them.

[8516knicks]

How many are ready to admit they were wrong about THJ?

The guy has turned into arguably the Mav's second best player and the best asset that went out in the KP trade. What was seen as a negative asset at the time has turned into gold for them and we should have gotten value back for him. I never was a detractor of Timmy and thought that $18 million wasn't a bad contract for him. He was still young, could shoot the lights out, was clutch and was drafted by us. Yeah he made some boneheaded plays here and there but imagine if he had been given a chance under Thibs? Thibs might have turned him into a legit two way player.

I think Timmy was a victim of the classic fan impatience we have here with young players. He was never given the patience that Frank was given.

Was just wondering if Porzingus was on throw-in on the THJ deal instead of other way around.

[Chanel Bomber]

What about Randle's 36 minutes where he went 6-23; completely meaningless, or RJ's 32 minutes where he went 6-15; also meaningless. The only important minutes of the game were Payton's 8 minutes at the beginning of the half because the whole game revolves around everything he does. Whatever he and only he does is the sole difference between winning and losing.

Yeah not obsessed or irrational at all..

Randle has been good all season. You don't have much control over him having an off-night or being tight as a violin. Unless you bench him, which is ridiculous.

Payton has been garbage all year. You have control over that by benching him.

It's not irrational at all. On the contrary, it's based on a full season of eye test and clear-cut statistical evidence.

Many factors explain the game 1 loss. Including Randle struggling all game long, and Payton sucking on both ends in his limited time. Now tell me, which situation can you remedy with a simple tweak to the rotation? You can't bench Randle. You can (and must) bench Payton.

I'd say benching Payton or not doesn't matter if Randle goes 6-23 again. If Payton's 8 minutes are more important than any other player on the team then Payton should get the super max for being that crucial to every win or loss.

Payton's 8 minutes might have cost the Knicks 2 or 3 points with his lazy defense on Trae, which allowed him to get into an early rhythm, and his two bricks. In a game decided by two minuscule points, this could've been the difference. This is not a random projection or assumption, all the stats point towards him consistently having that level of negative impact over a 72-game sample size (net rating, on/off, plus/minus, all team-lows among rotation players).

Randle shooting 6-23 might have been more detrimental to the team over the duration of the game, but what do you realistically want to do about a player putting too much pressure on himself and missing shots? Do you bench Randle? No, of course you don't.

The Knicks could've still won the game with Randle having an off-night. Small decisions could've tilted the game the other way. Benching Payton was one of them, and BY FAR the most obvious, because you can reasonably predict the outcome based on a full regular season of evidence. The Knicks are better with him off the court.

[Kampuchea]

THJ is still bad defensively, isn't he? Seems like everyone agrees that he was just in a poor role when he was here, he is not a top option. His defense has been bad most of his career besides Atlanta for a season.

https://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/DAL/2021.html

[dakomish23]

Looking forward to the hot takes if KP has a good game though.

He did have one.

There will never be a thread dedicated to him regretting the trade. It will just be silence if he does well, pettiness if he does bad.

There shouldn't be any thread dedicated to regretting the trade because the trade turned out to be the correct move.

I’m not debating that. You said you can’t wait for the hot takes if he has a good game and I’m saying a thread like this one will never happen for him.

Read on Twitter

[Gravy]

Randle has been good all season. You don't have much control over him having an off-night or being tight as a violin. Unless you bench him, which is ridiculous.

Payton has been garbage all year. You have control over that by benching him.

It's not irrational at all. On the contrary, it's based on a full season of eye test and clear-cut statistical evidence.

Many factors explain the game 1 loss. Including Randle struggling all game long, and Payton sucking on both ends in his limited time. Now tell me, which situation can you remedy with a simple tweak to the rotation? You can't bench Randle. You can (and must) bench Payton.

I'd say benching Payton or not doesn't matter if Randle goes 6-23 again. If Payton's 8 minutes are more important than any other player on the team then Payton should get the super max for being that crucial to every win or loss.

Payton's 8 minutes might have cost the Knicks 2 or 3 points with his lazy defense on Trae, which allowed him to get into an early rhythm, and his two bricks. In a game decided by two minuscule points, this could've been the difference. This is not a random projection or assumption, all the stats point towards him consistently having that level of negative impact over a 72-game sample size (net rating, on/off, plus/minus, all team-lows among rotation players).

Randle shooting 6-23 might have been more detrimental to the team over the duration of the game, but what do you realistically want to do about a player putting too much pressure on himself and missing shots? Do you bench Randle? No, of course you don't.

The Knicks could've still won the game with Randle having an off-night. Small decisions could've tilted the game the other way. Benching Payton was one of them, and BY FAR the most obvious, because you can reasonably predict the outcome based on a full regular season of evidence. The Knicks are better with him off the court.

The full season of evidence is the team is 5-4 when Payton does not play. Where are all those extra wins?

We may just have to agree to disagree, I think Payton makes virtually no difference on wins or losses now, you guys think his 8 minutes are the most important of the whole game and the reason for each loss.

[nedleeds]

THJ is still bad defensively, isn't he? Seems like everyone agrees that he was just in a poor role when he was here, he is not a top option. His defense has been bad most of his career besides Atlanta for a season.

https://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/DAL/2021.html

He takes lots of charges (8th this year?) and tries. Carlisle has gotten way more out of him than our rolling clown car of coaches the past 5 years.

[NYKat]

He always was good. He just had to big of a role in NY

and too big of a contract

[DowNY]

We had to trade him to get that tall guy’s toxic contract off the books

[Chanel Bomber]

I'd say benching Payton or not doesn't matter if Randle goes 6-23 again. If Payton's 8 minutes are more important than any other player on the team then Payton should get the super max for being that crucial to every win or loss.

Payton's 8 minutes might have cost the Knicks 2 or 3 points with his lazy defense on Trae, which allowed him to get into an early rhythm, and his two bricks. In a game decided by two minuscule points, this could've been the difference. This is not a random projection or assumption, all the stats point towards him consistently having that level of negative impact over a 72-game sample size (net rating, on/off, plus/minus, all team-lows among rotation players).

Randle shooting 6-23 might have been more detrimental to the team over the duration of the game, but what do you realistically want to do about a player putting too much pressure on himself and missing shots? Do you bench Randle? No, of course you don't.

The Knicks could've still won the game with Randle having an off-night. Small decisions could've tilted the game the other way. Benching Payton was one of them, and BY FAR the most obvious, because you can reasonably predict the outcome based on a full regular season of evidence. The Knicks are better with him off the court.

The full season of evidence is the team is 5-4 when Payton does not play. Where are all those extra wins?

We may just have to agree to disagree, I think Payton makes virtually no difference on wins or losses now, you guys think his 8 minutes are the most important of the whole game and the reason for each loss.

Did you take strength of schedule into account in this 5-4 record? Or did you choose not to because it doesn't support your conclusion?

Among those 3 losses, the Knicks lost twice to the Sixers (the #1 seed in the East) and once to the Nets (the #2 seed in the East).

So is this 5-4 record indicative of how good the Knicks are without Payton? Or are stats over a 72-game schedule (63 for Payton) more relevant to read how good the Knicks are with or without him?

You arguing that the Knicks aren't worse with Payton because of a 5-4 record, with 3 losses coming against the #1 and #2 seeds in the Conference (games the Knicks were expected to lose with or without Payton), is conveniently selective at best, intellectually dishonest at worst.

And you know it.

Finally, I'm not "you guys", I'm me. I'm not responsible for what other people's opinions are. Don't lump me in with other people to make a caricature of my opinion in order to dismiss it.

And I never said his 8 minutes are the most important in the whole game, in fact I specifically said it was just one factor among others, only the one you can most easily and obviously remedy, especially because of the predictability of its outcome. So you're resorting to straw man, and I like you believe you're better than that.

[GONYK]

Payton's 8 minutes might have cost the Knicks 2 or 3 points with his lazy defense on Trae, which allowed him to get into an early rhythm, and his two bricks. In a game decided by two minuscule points, this could've been the difference. This is not a random projection or assumption, all the stats point towards him consistently having that level of negative impact over a 72-game sample size (net rating, on/off, plus/minus, all team-lows among rotation players).

Randle shooting 6-23 might have been more detrimental to the team over the duration of the game, but what do you realistically want to do about a player putting too much pressure on himself and missing shots? Do you bench Randle? No, of course you don't.

The Knicks could've still won the game with Randle having an off-night. Small decisions could've tilted the game the other way. Benching Payton was one of them, and BY FAR the most obvious, because you can reasonably predict the outcome based on a full regular season of evidence. The Knicks are better with him off the court.

The full season of evidence is the team is 5-4 when Payton does not play. Where are all those extra wins?

We may just have to agree to disagree, I think Payton makes virtually no difference on wins or losses now, you guys think his 8 minutes are the most important of the whole game and the reason for each loss.

Did you take strength of schedule into account in this 5-4 record? Or did you choose not to because it doesn't support your conclusion?

Among those 3 losses, the Knicks lost twice to the Sixers (the #1 seed in the East) and once to the Nets (the #2 seed in the East).

So is this 5-4 record indicative of how good the Knicks are without Payton? Or are stats over a 72-game schedule (63 for Payton) more relevant to read how good the Knicks are with or without him?

You arguing that the Knicks aren't worse with Payton because of a 5-4 record, with 3 losses coming against the #1 and #2 seeds in the Conference (games the Knicks were expected to lose with or without Payton), is conveniently selective at best, intellectually dishonest at worst.

And you know it.

Finally, I'm not "you guys", I'm me. I'm not responsible for what other people's opinions are. Don't lump me in with other people to make a caricature of my opinion in order to dismiss it.

And I never said his 8 minutes are the most important in the whole game, in fact I specifically said it was just one factor among others, only the one you can most easily and obviously remedy, especially because of the predictability of its outcome. So you're resorting to straw man, and I like you believe you're better than that.

The 5-4 stat is also nonsense because the 4 losses coincided with Rose being out

[Chanel Bomber]

The full season of evidence is the team is 5-4 when Payton does not play. Where are all those extra wins?

We may just have to agree to disagree, I think Payton makes virtually no difference on wins or losses now, you guys think his 8 minutes are the most important of the whole game and the reason for each loss.

Did you take strength of schedule into account in this 5-4 record? Or did you choose not to because it doesn't support your conclusion?

Among those 3 losses, the Knicks lost twice to the Sixers (the #1 seed in the East) and once to the Nets (the #2 seed in the East).

So is this 5-4 record indicative of how good the Knicks are without Payton? Or are stats over a 72-game schedule (63 for Payton) more relevant to read how good the Knicks are with or without him?

You arguing that the Knicks aren't worse with Payton because of a 5-4 record, with 3 losses coming against the #1 and #2 seeds in the Conference (games the Knicks were expected to lose with or without Payton), is conveniently selective at best, intellectually dishonest at worst.

And you know it.

Finally, I'm not "you guys", I'm me. I'm not responsible for what other people's opinions are. Don't lump me in with other people to make a caricature of my opinion in order to dismiss it.

And I never said his 8 minutes are the most important in the whole game, in fact I specifically said it was just one factor among others, only the one you can most easily and obviously remedy, especially because of the predictability of its outcome. So you're resorting to straw man, and I like you believe you're better than that.

The 5-4 stat is also nonsense because the 4 losses coincided with Rose being out

Yep, Rose only played in 3 of those 9 games. The Knicks were 3-0 in those three games.

[sol537]

If THJ and Brunson want to come to NYK on reasonable 3-4 year deals, I wouldn't say no.

Mitch, Randle, RJ, THJ, Brunson... NY tough.

[Gravy]

Did you take strength of schedule into account in this 5-4 record? Or did you choose not to because it doesn't support your conclusion?

Among those 3 losses, the Knicks lost twice to the Sixers (the #1 seed in the East) and once to the Nets (the #2 seed in the East).

So is this 5-4 record indicative of how good the Knicks are without Payton? Or are stats over a 72-game schedule (63 for Payton) more relevant to read how good the Knicks are with or without him?

You arguing that the Knicks aren't worse with Payton because of a 5-4 record, with 3 losses coming against the #1 and #2 seeds in the Conference (games the Knicks were expected to lose with or without Payton), is conveniently selective at best, intellectually dishonest at worst.

And you know it.

Finally, I'm not "you guys", I'm me. I'm not responsible for what other people's opinions are. Don't lump me in with other people to make a caricature of my opinion in order to dismiss it.

And I never said his 8 minutes are the most important in the whole game, in fact I specifically said it was just one factor among others, only the one you can most easily and obviously remedy, especially because of the predictability of its outcome. So you're resorting to straw man, and I like you believe you're better than that.

The 5-4 stat is also nonsense because the 4 losses coincided with Rose being out

Yep, Rose only played in 3 of those 9 games. The Knicks were 3-0 in those three games.

Embiid wasnt in either of those games too, that changes a lot for the Sixers.

If taking Payton out of the lineup was an easy remedy it would have been done a long time ago. Thibs sees value there even if the stats say there is none.

[Chanel Bomber]

The 5-4 stat is also nonsense because the 4 losses coincided with Rose being out

Yep, Rose only played in 3 of those 9 games. The Knicks were 3-0 in those three games.

Embiid wasnt in either of those games too, that changes a lot for the Sixers.

If taking Payton out of the lineup was an easy remedy it would have been done a long time ago. Thibs sees value there even if the stats say there is none.

Fair point, I forgot about Embiid missing those games.

Rose and Payton (not just Payton) missed both games. Which was the biggest factor in those losses, missing Rose or missing Payton? Personally, I think they win both games with Rose and without Payton. I think they lose both still with Payton and without Rose. I think that's a reasonable expectation knowing the impact that both have on the court - which can be validated by the eye test and the numbers.

Assuming he doesn't have his hands tied, obviously Thibs sees value in starting Payton. And he's wrong.

He just doesn't want to tweak a rotation that has helped him exceed expectations, even if that means not getting the absolute best out of his team. It's a shame. And you know why? Because the bench rotation was working just fine when Burks was out with an injury, which means he could be thrust into a starting role without affecting the effectiveness of the bench units led by Rose and Quickley.

Thibs is coaching scared and it'll cost him - and us - big picture.

To clarify, I also want Thibs to save Payton the embarrassment because he's not fit to assume this role and the fans and the viewers know it. I don't want Payton to have to get booed. I don't want him to get hurt emotionally or psychologically. I take no pleasure in seeing a man get booed for being incompetent at his job. Thibs is throwing him to the wolves, and it's a bad look for everyone involved. The problem (I assume) is that Thibs sees him as a competent NBA guard because he put up empty stats on losing teams - especially late in the season when they had nothing to play for - and he's expecting him to break out of a slump, when that's just who he is as a basketball player.

[Gravy]

Yep, Rose only played in 3 of those 9 games. The Knicks were 3-0 in those three games.

Embiid wasnt in either of those games too, that changes a lot for the Sixers.

If taking Payton out of the lineup was an easy remedy it would have been done a long time ago. Thibs sees value there even if the stats say there is none.

Fair point, I forgot about Embiid missing those games.

Rose and Payton (not just Payton) missed both games. Which was the biggest factor in those losses, missing Rose or missing Payton? Personally, I think they win both games with Rose and without Payton. I think they lose both still with Payton and without Rose. I think that's a reasonable expectation knowing the impact that both have on the court - which can be validated by the eye test and the numbers.

Assuming he doesn't have his hands tied, obviously Thibs sees value in starting Payton. And he's wrong.

He just doesn't want to tweak a rotation that has helped him exceed expectations, even if that means not getting the absolute best out of his team. It's a shame. And you know why? Because the bench rotation was working just fine when Burks was out with an injury, which means he could be thrust into a starting role without affecting the effectiveness of the bench units led by Rose and Quickley.

Thibs is coaching scared and it'll cost him - and us - big picture.

To clarify, I also want Thibs to save Payton the embarrassment because he's not fit to assume this role and the fans and the viewers know it. I don't want Payton to have to get booed. I don't want him to get hurt emotionally or psychologically. I take no pleasure in seeing a man get booed for being incompetent at his job. Thibs is throwing him to the wolves, and it's a bad look for everyone involved. The problem (I assume) is that Thibs sees him as a competent NBA guard because he put up empty stats on losing teams - especially late in the season when they had nothing to play for - and he's expecting him to break out of a slump, when that's just who he is as a basketball player.

The season is almost over whether Payton plays or not, our ceiling is the second round. I'm more focused on all the other more important players. I think we spend waaaaay too much time on a guy playing 8 minutes who makes little to no difference at all.

[Chanel Bomber]

Embiid wasnt in either of those games too, that changes a lot for the Sixers.

If taking Payton out of the lineup was an easy remedy it would have been done a long time ago. Thibs sees value there even if the stats say there is none.

Fair point, I forgot about Embiid missing those games.

Rose and Payton (not just Payton) missed both games. Which was the biggest factor in those losses, missing Rose or missing Payton? Personally, I think they win both games with Rose and without Payton. I think they lose both still with Payton and without Rose. I think that's a reasonable expectation knowing the impact that both have on the court - which can be validated by the eye test and the numbers.

Assuming he doesn't have his hands tied, obviously Thibs sees value in starting Payton. And he's wrong.

He just doesn't want to tweak a rotation that has helped him exceed expectations, even if that means not getting the absolute best out of his team. It's a shame. And you know why? Because the bench rotation was working just fine when Burks was out with an injury, which means he could be thrust into a starting role without affecting the effectiveness of the bench units led by Rose and Quickley.

Thibs is coaching scared and it'll cost him - and us - big picture.

To clarify, I also want Thibs to save Payton the embarrassment because he's not fit to assume this role and the fans and the viewers know it. I don't want Payton to have to get booed. I don't want him to get hurt emotionally or psychologically. I take no pleasure in seeing a man get booed for being incompetent at his job. Thibs is throwing him to the wolves, and it's a bad look for everyone involved. The problem (I assume) is that Thibs sees him as a competent NBA guard because he put up empty stats on losing teams - especially late in the season when they had nothing to play for - and he's expecting him to break out of a slump, when that's just who he is as a basketball player.

The season is almost over whether Payton plays or not, our ceiling is the second round. I'm more focused on all the other more important players. I think we spend waaaaay too much time on a guy playing 8 minutes who makes little to no difference at all.

We can debate whether his impact is overblown compared to other factors that explain our losses, but bro you can't say his play makes little to no difference at all.

Of course he's having an impact when he plays. Every player has an impact when he's on the floor, whether positive, neutral or negative. All the stats point towards him having a significantly negative impact across the board. Granted, his playing time reduces the scale of the damage that he does when he's the court (no floor spacing, horrid scoring inefficiency, puts Knicks against zones, no effort on defense, inability to guard the pick-and-roll), but that doesn't mean the minutes he does play are not damaging.

It's the fact that he's not one of those important players, yet he keeps getting opportunity after opportunity, that makes it so maddening. He should be treated like Knox or Frank imo. He belongs to that tier of players (regardless of who's better or worse among those 3 scrubs).

Also I don't see many people (who complain about the Payton criticism) starting conversations about other facets of the game. Usually it's just complaints with no other alternatives for discussion being provided. Maybe I missed some of your posts.

[Nostrand Ave]

Does he play acceptable defense this time around?