The uncomfortable "truth" about this season (Julius and RJ)

[Polk377]

The bench was the reason the Knicks got to the 4 seed this year. That fact is undeniable. I don't however blame Randle and RJ for the lack of net positivity for the starting lineup. You had Payton start just about every game giving absolutely nothing on most nights, Noel for half the season contributing nothing to the offense and Bullock as a 1 dimensional streak shooter. This forced Randle and RJ taking tougher contested shots more frequently then they should have. Randle pretty much made an art form of taking those shots this season and knocking them down. Atlanta did a great job of always having a longer defender in his face and providing help without a full closeout to give him no passing lanes. With this element of his game taken away, the Knicks had no secondary playmaker to make things happen for teammates.

First and only order of business this offseason is finding a lead PG who can make others around him better as a distributor and scorer.

[ENYK]

i stand by my statement. a team built around rj & randle is a treadmill team. they're not talented enough. if you trade for/sign someone better than it's not built around them. could they get someone better ? who knows. it's not always so easy.

The problem with that statement is that you're assuming those 2 guys don't get any better when they have already shown a propensity to improve and when paired with non-negative players have produced a pretty big impact on winning given the numbers I've laid out. Also the term "treadmill" is a lazy term IMO, but that's a different conversation...

Also you can still "build around" Julius and RJ while getting better talent. They aren't mutually exclusive terms or ideas.

they're not gonna improve enough to contend for anything. yes, i'm assuming that. i see zero possibility of it.

and i don't want debate the meaning of "treadmill" or "build around". i think we both know what each other means.

What this thread is calling for people to do, and they're not doing it, is to reconsider the impact of RJ/Randle... It's not even about how they can grow and develop, it's about their actual proven impact to winning games. They averaged the most points per game and got the SLAM cover but did they actually make us a 4th seed? All the evidence points to the Rose trade as the difference maker, we're probably in the lotto right now if it wasn't for for that personnel shake up.

That's the truly alarming thing about all of this... if we decided to go all in on some sort of Randle/RJ core would we even be able to be a treadmill team? We'd still need to bring back Rose or get another guard/wing that can create his own offense... And Rose is only available at that price because of all of the injuries... You pour your money into that type of player and surround them with cheap RJs and Juliuses, not the other way around.

[BugginOut]

I don’t understand how people think RJ and Randle aren’t a good fit. They have completely different shot profiles. RJ likes attacking rim and shooting from the wing and the corner 3. Randle operates out of the midrange, likes to shoot 3s from the top of the key and less than 1/5 of his shots come at the rim.

This isn’t Embiid and Simmons. Both players are great shooters and have different games. You can say they aren’t talented enough yet to be a #1 and #2, but that’s a different conversation. What we need to do is upgrade our roster at PG and SF.

[jvsimonetti0514]

Curry is coming next summer so all our problems will be answered I'm not really sure it's right to say the bench carried us, when it really was just Rose. Don't get me wrong, I know that Burks and IQ both had huge games and helped us win a bunch of games but we were a game or two under .500 before Rose came to town. It just shows how starved we are for compete guard play. Burks and IQ can def give you point guard play in stretches but Rose really got everyone into their right spots. Payton was one of the worst players in the league based on net rating, if you remove him from the equation the whole teams net ratings take a jump. It's definitely a littler tougher to look at those numbers without the context of that anchor around their feet. I feel like we should try to add another guard that's at least as good as Rose before we make any panic decisions about RJ and Randle. I'm definitely confident there's another step that they both of them can take this offseason and with just average guard play I think we can do some damage.

Then why was the starting unit still so ineffective with Rose against Atlanta and IQ/Burks/Obi still effective coming off the bench in that series?

It's an open question.

Rose finished the series with a -10.3 net rating. IQ, Burks and Obi with a -0.6, +2.7, +3.1 respectively. I'm aware it's a small sample size, but it's consistent with the regular season. Obviously the Knicks' starting 5 would've performed better with a competent point guard starting instead of Payton, but I'm wondering if a team featuring RJ (in this current form at least) and Randle doesn't simply have a glass ceiling that's lower than we seem to expect and that the team won't be able to break regardless of the personnel around these two players.

I think this also poses the question of IQ's impact/potential. The team consistently performed better with him on the court, but he didn't play much because old dinosaur Thibs didn't trust him despite ample evidence that he should. IQ might be the actual jewel of this team.

I don't think you're wrong at all about worrying about regression with this team cuz I'm definitely worried about it too. I just think you're forgetting about who the starters were matched up with when you're looking at these numbers. That -10 is pretty much in line with the rest of the starters right? I think you're seeing the Clint Capella effect in those net ratings. He was easily the second best player on the floor in this series and his ability to soft double on Randle destroyed our offense scheme. Randle was third in the league in post ups during the regular season and he only had one in the entire series. Thibs couldn't really find an adjustment to get randle to his spots and you can't forget about the rim protection either. Roses finishing was much better in game 1&2 than it was 3-5. That could be cuz he got banged up but I think it's more cuz of spending more floor time with Capella. I would talk about RJ's finishing but once the calendar hit May that went into the tank. I have a feeling that the bench guys didn't have to deal with as elite of defense as the starters did. Don't forget Hunter is no slouch defensively either.

[B8RcDeMktfxC]

[...]
The failure of the playoffs is on coaching[...]
[...]

Good comment all around. Just wanted to pick this sentence out.

[ENYK]

I also think there's a misplaced focus on getting a good PG... Sure we need that, but it's missing the point if you say "Imagine Julius and RJ with a competent PG."

Rose literally carried the Knicks to wins not through insane playmaking, but because he was a go-to scorer when he needed to be... Drives, shooting off the dribble from the perimeter, he was the closest thing to a modern NBA offensive player we had on the roster.

Even if we bring in a more competent PG (god don't overpay for Nunn) we're still not going to have anyone who can consistently score... and all of our money will be tied up in glorified role players.

A lot of you point to the pre-superstar Nets as an example of what we should be doing (which is very simplistic) but even they had a go-to modern day NBA first options of sorts in DLo.

[Knicksfan1992]

The problem with that statement is that you're assuming those 2 guys don't get any better when they have already shown a propensity to improve and when paired with non-negative players have produced a pretty big impact on winning given the numbers I've laid out. Also the term "treadmill" is a lazy term IMO, but that's a different conversation...

Also you can still "build around" Julius and RJ while getting better talent. They aren't mutually exclusive terms or ideas.

they're not gonna improve enough to contend for anything. yes, i'm assuming that. i see zero possibility of it.

and i don't want debate the meaning of "treadmill" or "build around". i think we both know what each other means.

What this thread is calling for people to do, and they're not doing it, is to reconsider the impact of RJ/Randle... It's not even about how they can grow and develop, it's about their actual proven impact to winning games. They averaged the most points per game and got the SLAM cover but did they actually make us a 4th seed? All the evidence points to the Rose trade as the difference maker, we're probably in the lotto right now if it wasn't for for that personnel shake up.

That's the truly alarming thing about all of this... if we decided to go all in on some sort of Randle/RJ core would we even be able to be a treadmill team? We'd still need to bring back Rose or get another guard/wing that can create his own offense... And Rose is only available at that price because of all of the injuries... You pour your money into that type of player and surround them with cheap RJs and Juliuses, not the other way around.

Randle and RJ together without Rose or Payton in the lineup had a +8.7 net rating over a pretty significant sample size of 967 possessions. The numbers say your first paragraph is complete bologna.

Extrapolate that to an entire season and the only team that had a higher net rating than that was the Utah Jazz...

[Marty McFly]

yes? 44% from three is really good.

neither shot that. They both shot 41%. Good for you for thinking one season is enough of a sample to consider both great three point shooters.

What's 4 divided by 9? So unless my calculator is wrong, it's .444444. Also I think 72 games is a very large sample size. It's kinda weird that you don't.

RJ made 1.7 threes on 4.3 shots for a .401 average. Randle made 2.3 on 5.5 attempts for an average of .411. That is not enough volume at those percentages for one season, IMO to be considered a great shooter. Just my opinion. Neither was in the top 30 three point shooters this season, and it was both their best season behind the arc.

[BugginOut]

I also think there's a misplaced focus on getting a good PG... Sure we need that, but it's missing the point if you say "Imagine Julius and RJ with a competent PG."

Rose literally carried the Knicks to wins not through insane playmaking, but because he was a go-to scorer when he needed to be... Drives, shooting off the dribble from the perimeter, he was the closest thing to a modern NBA offensive player we had on the roster.

Even if we bring in a more competent PG (god don't overpay for Nunn) we're still not going to have anyone who can consistently score... and all of our money will be tied up in glorified role players.

A lot of you point to the pre-superstar Nets as an example of what we should be doing (which is very simplistic) but even they had a go-to modern day NBA first options of sorts in DLo.

Rose was good as a creator, but people are overvaluing his effect on the roster because of the playoffs. The Hawks were happy to let Rose get his as long as Randle couldn’t orchestrate the offense.

The biggest effect Rose had was limiting Payton’s minutes who was a complete negative anyway you slice it. Rose was good for us but he only played 35 games for us this season. The first 10 games before the allstar break he averaged 12 points on 52% TS%. After the allstar break he took his game to the next level, but still only averaged 16 points in the last 25 games.

Randle was the main reason we were good this year

[Chanel Bomber]

Curry is coming next summer so all our problems will be answered I'm not really sure it's right to say the bench carried us, when it really was just Rose. Don't get me wrong, I know that Burks and IQ both had huge games and helped us win a bunch of games but we were a game or two under .500 before Rose came to town. It just shows how starved we are for compete guard play. Burks and IQ can def give you point guard play in stretches but Rose really got everyone into their right spots. Payton was one of the worst players in the league based on net rating, if you remove him from the equation the whole teams net ratings take a jump. It's definitely a littler tougher to look at those numbers without the context of that anchor around their feet. I feel like we should try to add another guard that's at least as good as Rose before we make any panic decisions about RJ and Randle. I'm definitely confident there's another step that they both of them can take this offseason and with just average guard play I think we can do some damage.

Then why was the starting unit still so ineffective with Rose against Atlanta and IQ/Burks/Obi still effective coming off the bench in that series?

It's an open question.

Rose finished the series with a -10.3 net rating. IQ, Burks and Obi with a -0.6, +2.7, +3.1 respectively. I'm aware it's a small sample size, but it's consistent with the regular season. Obviously the Knicks' starting 5 would've performed better with a competent point guard starting instead of Payton, but I'm wondering if a team featuring RJ (in this current form at least) and Randle doesn't simply have a glass ceiling that's lower than we seem to expect and that the team won't be able to break regardless of the personnel around these two players.

I think this also poses the question of IQ's impact/potential. The team consistently performed better with him on the court, but he didn't play much because old dinosaur Thibs didn't trust him despite ample evidence that he should. IQ might be the actual jewel of this team.

I don't think you're wrong at all about worrying about regression with this team cuz I'm definitely worried about it too. I just think you're forgetting about who the starters were matched up with when you're looking at these numbers. That -10 is pretty much in line with the rest of the starters right? I think you're seeing the Clint Capella effect in those net ratings. He was easily the second best player on the floor in this series and his ability to soft double on Randle destroyed our offense scheme. Randle was third in the league in post ups during the regular season and he only had one in the entire series. Thibs couldn't really find an adjustment to get randle to his spots and you can't forget about the rim protection either. Roses finishing was much better in game 1&2 than it was 3-5. That could be cuz he got banged up but I think it's more cuz of spending more floor time with Capella. I would talk about RJ's finishing but once the calendar hit May that went into the tank. I have a feeling that the bench guys didn't have to deal with as elite of defense as the starters did. Don't forget Hunter is no slouch defensively either.

No you're right of course, that's why I mentioned that (the quality of the opposition) in the original post. A disclaimer if you will.

My question is really about RJ and Randle putting a ceiling on the team. I think their inefficiency as scorers and their inability to get easy baskets need to be put under a microscope because they're pulling our offensive efficiency back down to average (or below-average) instead of elevating it.

Among the 16 playoff teams, they probably were the most inefficient "stars" in the playoffs alongside Westbrook (going by regular season numbers, not even their postseason numbers). All the players who have led their teams to the second round blow RJ and Julius out the water in terms of scoring efficiency.

What made our offense go is Randle's playmaking, not his scoring. It's Bullock's 3s (etc) that really made our offense somewhat efficient. Randle and RJ as scorers are not making this a good team, and that's an issue moving forward. Against smart playoff defenses that don't overreact to Julius's ISO scoring, Randle doesn't have the passing lanes to find our (actual) efficient scoring options.

About your point regarding the post-ups, the Hawks were a match-up nightmare with Capela being able to show since they weren't worried about Noel or Taj. Which is why I was hoping Thibs would go small with Randle at the 5 so McMillan couldn't cheat off our centers.

[NYKnickerbocker]

neither shot that. They both shot 41%. Good for you for thinking one season is enough of a sample to consider both great three point shooters.

What's 4 divided by 9? So unless my calculator is wrong, it's .444444. Also I think 72 games is a very large sample size. It's kinda weird that you don't.

RJ made 1.7 threes on 4.3 shots for a .401 average. Randle made 2.3 on 5.5 attempts for an average of .411. That is not enough volume at those percentages for one season, IMO to be considered a great shooter. Just my opinion. Neither was in the top 30 three point shooters this season, and it was both their best season behind the arc.

id say being near or above 2 made threes a game indicates that your a good reliable shooter.

[Marty McFly]

What's 4 divided by 9? So unless my calculator is wrong, it's .444444. Also I think 72 games is a very large sample size. It's kinda weird that you don't.

RJ made 1.7 threes on 4.3 shots for a .401 average. Randle made 2.3 on 5.5 attempts for an average of .411. That is not enough volume at those percentages for one season, IMO to be considered a great shooter. Just my opinion. Neither was in the top 30 three point shooters this season, and it was both their best season behind the arc.

id say being near or above 2 made threes a game indicates that your a good reliable shooter.

good and reliable is good and reliable. That doesn’t make you a great shooter.

[Chanel Bomber]

What's 4 divided by 9? So unless my calculator is wrong, it's .444444. Also I think 72 games is a very large sample size. It's kinda weird that you don't.

RJ made 1.7 threes on 4.3 shots for a .401 average. Randle made 2.3 on 5.5 attempts for an average of .411. That is not enough volume at those percentages for one season, IMO to be considered a great shooter. Just my opinion. Neither was in the top 30 three point shooters this season, and it was both their best season behind the arc.

id say being near or above 2 made threes a game indicates that your a good reliable shooter.

I think 3P% needs to be put into context. A guy shooting 39% from 3 scoring off-the dribble, on the move coming off screens and in spot-up situations is a better shooter than a guy shooting 41% strictly in spot-up situations.

RJ is an excellent spot-up shooter, which is a remarkable development considering where he was as a rookie. That doesn't make him a "shooter" imo (not saying that's your argument, just saying in general).

[Knicksfan1992]

Then why was the starting unit still so ineffective with Rose against Atlanta and IQ/Burks/Obi still effective coming off the bench in that series?

It's an open question.

Rose finished the series with a -10.3 net rating. IQ, Burks and Obi with a -0.6, +2.7, +3.1 respectively. I'm aware it's a small sample size, but it's consistent with the regular season. Obviously the Knicks' starting 5 would've performed better with a competent point guard starting instead of Payton, but I'm wondering if a team featuring RJ (in this current form at least) and Randle doesn't simply have a glass ceiling that's lower than we seem to expect and that the team won't be able to break regardless of the personnel around these two players.

I think this also poses the question of IQ's impact/potential. The team consistently performed better with him on the court, but he didn't play much because old dinosaur Thibs didn't trust him despite ample evidence that he should. IQ might be the actual jewel of this team.

I don't think you're wrong at all about worrying about regression with this team cuz I'm definitely worried about it too. I just think you're forgetting about who the starters were matched up with when you're looking at these numbers. That -10 is pretty much in line with the rest of the starters right? I think you're seeing the Clint Capella effect in those net ratings. He was easily the second best player on the floor in this series and his ability to soft double on Randle destroyed our offense scheme. Randle was third in the league in post ups during the regular season and he only had one in the entire series. Thibs couldn't really find an adjustment to get randle to his spots and you can't forget about the rim protection either. Roses finishing was much better in game 1&2 than it was 3-5. That could be cuz he got banged up but I think it's more cuz of spending more floor time with Capella. I would talk about RJ's finishing but once the calendar hit May that went into the tank. I have a feeling that the bench guys didn't have to deal with as elite of defense as the starters did. Don't forget Hunter is no slouch defensively either.

No you're right of course, that's why I mentioned that (the quality of the opposition) in the original post. A disclaimer if you will.

My question is really about RJ and Randle putting a ceiling on the team. I think their inefficiency as scorers and their inability to get easy baskets need to be put under a microscope because they're pulling our offensive efficiency back down to average (or below-average) instead of elevating it.

Among the 16 playoff teams, they probably were the most inefficient "stars" in the playoffs alongside Westbrook (going by regular season numbers, not even their postseason numbers). All the players who have led their teams to the second round blow RJ and Julius out the water in terms of scoring efficiency.

What made our offense go is Randle's playmaking, not his scoring. It's Bullock's 3s (etc) that really made our offense somewhat efficient. Randle and RJ as scorers are not making this a good team, and that's an issue moving forward. Against smart playoff defenses that don't overreact to Julius's ISO scoring, Randle doesn't have the passing lanes to find our (actual) efficient scoring options.

About your point regarding the post-ups, the Hawks were a match-up nightmare with Capela being able to show since they weren't worried about Noel or Taj. Which is why I was hoping Thibs would go small with Randle at the 5 so McMillan couldn't cheat off our centers.

I'd argue that the bolded is a bigger reason to be optimistic that these 2 will get better rather than stagnate. It's harder to be a playmaker for others and scorer than it is to just score on your own in this league IMO... It's why the Jordan Clarkson's of the wordl are relegated to 6th man duties..

Also Julius has a history of being extremely efficient in lower usage roles. This was the first year he was trusted to be the main cog and he was still relatively efficient doing it. Lower than his usual TS% but was still right at league average taking a lot harder shots than usual. Let's say the Knicks don't get big fish but get better, more well rounded complimentary guys this offseason. WOuld it be that crazy to think Randle and RJ's efficiency would take another bump with that? I don't think so.

This also doesn't mean that the Knicks have to view RJ and Randle as the next Shaq and Kobe and treat them as such. But also to say this doesn't work is short sighted IMO. Like I said in my first post this is really the first time the Knicks have been both respectable and flexible at the same time...Let the chips fall where they may. I think we all have a little bit too much Knick fan PTSD and are expecting a shoe to drop at some point.

[Ghetto Gospel]

RJ made 1.7 threes on 4.3 shots for a .401 average. Randle made 2.3 on 5.5 attempts for an average of .411. That is not enough volume at those percentages for one season, IMO to be considered a great shooter. Just my opinion. Neither was in the top 30 three point shooters this season, and it was both their best season behind the arc.

id say being near or above 2 made threes a game indicates that your a good reliable shooter.

I think 3P% needs to be put into context. A guy shooting 39% from 3 scoring off-the dribble, on the move coming off screens and in spot-up situations is a better shooter than a guy shooting 41% strictly in spot-up situations.

RJ is an excellent spot-up shooter, which is a remarkable development considering where he was as a rookie. That doesn't make him a "shooter" imo (not saying that's your argument, just saying in general).

Facts, RJ is a bruce bowen type shooter, and there's nothing wrong with that. At his current level of progression he is only really good at shooting on-balance 3's only which means he can't create them for himself and we can't easily get him open looks from 3 by having him running around screens.

Randle has a little bit more ability to create his own 3-pt shot but his shooting mechanics while shooting that step-back really fall apart. Though it went down for stretches during the season, it was wildly inconsistent and unreliable in the playoffs.

I wouldn't be surprised to see both of these guys regress out of 40% from 3 next year and be closer to the mid 30's again

[Ghetto Gospel]

I don't think you're wrong at all about worrying about regression with this team cuz I'm definitely worried about it too. I just think you're forgetting about who the starters were matched up with when you're looking at these numbers. That -10 is pretty much in line with the rest of the starters right? I think you're seeing the Clint Capella effect in those net ratings. He was easily the second best player on the floor in this series and his ability to soft double on Randle destroyed our offense scheme. Randle was third in the league in post ups during the regular season and he only had one in the entire series. Thibs couldn't really find an adjustment to get randle to his spots and you can't forget about the rim protection either. Roses finishing was much better in game 1&2 than it was 3-5. That could be cuz he got banged up but I think it's more cuz of spending more floor time with Capella. I would talk about RJ's finishing but once the calendar hit May that went into the tank. I have a feeling that the bench guys didn't have to deal with as elite of defense as the starters did. Don't forget Hunter is no slouch defensively either.

No you're right of course, that's why I mentioned that (the quality of the opposition) in the original post. A disclaimer if you will.

My question is really about RJ and Randle putting a ceiling on the team. I think their inefficiency as scorers and their inability to get easy baskets need to be put under a microscope because they're pulling our offensive efficiency back down to average (or below-average) instead of elevating it.

Among the 16 playoff teams, they probably were the most inefficient "stars" in the playoffs alongside Westbrook (going by regular season numbers, not even their postseason numbers). All the players who have led their teams to the second round blow RJ and Julius out the water in terms of scoring efficiency.

What made our offense go is Randle's playmaking, not his scoring. It's Bullock's 3s (etc) that really made our offense somewhat efficient. Randle and RJ as scorers are not making this a good team, and that's an issue moving forward. Against smart playoff defenses that don't overreact to Julius's ISO scoring, Randle doesn't have the passing lanes to find our (actual) efficient scoring options.

About your point regarding the post-ups, the Hawks were a match-up nightmare with Capela being able to show since they weren't worried about Noel or Taj. Which is why I was hoping Thibs would go small with Randle at the 5 so McMillan couldn't cheat off our centers.

I'd argue that the bolded is a bigger reason to be optimistic that these 2 will get better rather than stagnate. It's harder to be a playmaker for others and scorer than it is to just score on your own in this league IMO... It's why the Jordan Clarkson's of the wordl are relegated to 6th man duties..

Also Julius has a history of being extremely efficient in lower usage roles. This was the first year he was trusted to be the main cog and he was still relatively efficient doing it. Lower than his usual TS% but was still right at league average taking a lot harder shots than usual. Let's say the Knicks don't get big fish but get better, more well rounded complimentary guys this offseason. WOuld it be that crazy to think Randle and RJ's efficiency would take another bump with that? I don't think so.

This also doesn't mean that the Knicks have to view RJ and Randle as the next Shaq and Kobe and treat them as such. But also to say this doesn't work is short sighted IMO. Like I said in my first post this is really the first time the Knicks have been both respectable and flexible at the same time...Let the chips fall where they may. I think we all have a little bit too much Knick fan PTSD and are expecting a shoe to drop at some point.

I'd argue that the bolded is a bigger reason to be pessimistic rather than optimistic. Randle's spot on the court is the elbow ~18 feet out and he can start making plays when he sucks the defense in or force doubles. The Hawks took away his left hand thereby taking away his ability to drive because he can't go right, and didn't hard double; negating Randle's ability to be a playmaker. He isn't good enough at hitting that mid-range like say Kawhi for you to have an efficient offense in the playoffs

[ENYK]

they're not gonna improve enough to contend for anything. yes, i'm assuming that. i see zero possibility of it.

and i don't want debate the meaning of "treadmill" or "build around". i think we both know what each other means.

What this thread is calling for people to do, and they're not doing it, is to reconsider the impact of RJ/Randle... It's not even about how they can grow and develop, it's about their actual proven impact to winning games. They averaged the most points per game and got the SLAM cover but did they actually make us a 4th seed? All the evidence points to the Rose trade as the difference maker, we're probably in the lotto right now if it wasn't for for that personnel shake up.

That's the truly alarming thing about all of this... if we decided to go all in on some sort of Randle/RJ core would we even be able to be a treadmill team? We'd still need to bring back Rose or get another guard/wing that can create his own offense... And Rose is only available at that price because of all of the injuries... You pour your money into that type of player and surround them with cheap RJs and Juliuses, not the other way around.

Randle and RJ together without Rose or Payton in the lineup had a +8.7 net rating over a pretty significant sample size of 967 possessions. The numbers say your first paragraph is complete bologna.

Extrapolate that to an entire season and the only team that had a higher net rating than that was the Utah Jazz...

How much of that was due to their offense? Both guys played virtually the entire season and the offense wasn't even middle of the pack, it was ranked 23rd in efficiency... Also, not coincidentally, both players were inefficient scorers all season, and in the post season... Well, we don't have to even discuss that.

Miami was 22nd in offensive efficiency, and they started Kendrick Nunn at PG all season... So maybe we can pull up a spot or two in offensive efficiency when our FO adds Nunn to the RJ-Randle core as it appears they're looking to do.

Nobody is saying that RJ and Randle are bad players or even all around bad together... We're just questioning the wisdom in building around those two (Julius and RJ eventually have to get paid)...

You can't be a terrible offense in today's NBA and compete for much... The playoffs have kind of put that on full display. That's what we are with RJ and Randle. Not sure if anyone short of the second coming of Magic Johnson could correct that.

[Deeeez Knicks]

Then why was the starting unit still so ineffective with Rose against Atlanta and IQ/Burks/Obi still effective coming off the bench in that series?

It's an open question.

Rose finished the series with a -10.3 net rating. IQ, Burks and Obi with a -0.6, +2.7, +3.1 respectively. I'm aware it's a small sample size, but it's consistent with the regular season. Obviously the Knicks' starting 5 would've performed better with a competent point guard starting instead of Payton, but I'm wondering if a team featuring RJ (in this current form at least) and Randle doesn't simply have a glass ceiling that's lower than we seem to expect and that the team won't be able to break regardless of the personnel around these two players.

I think this also poses the question of IQ's impact/potential. The team consistently performed better with him on the court, but he didn't play much because old dinosaur Thibs didn't trust him despite ample evidence that he should. IQ might be the actual jewel of this team.

I don't think you're wrong at all about worrying about regression with this team cuz I'm definitely worried about it too. I just think you're forgetting about who the starters were matched up with when you're looking at these numbers. That -10 is pretty much in line with the rest of the starters right? I think you're seeing the Clint Capella effect in those net ratings. He was easily the second best player on the floor in this series and his ability to soft double on Randle destroyed our offense scheme. Randle was third in the league in post ups during the regular season and he only had one in the entire series. Thibs couldn't really find an adjustment to get randle to his spots and you can't forget about the rim protection either. Roses finishing was much better in game 1&2 than it was 3-5. That could be cuz he got banged up but I think it's more cuz of spending more floor time with Capella. I would talk about RJ's finishing but once the calendar hit May that went into the tank. I have a feeling that the bench guys didn't have to deal with as elite of defense as the starters did. Don't forget Hunter is no slouch defensively either.

No of course, that's why I mentioned that (the quality of the opposition) in the original post. A disclaimer if you will.

My question is really about RJ and Randle putting a ceiling on the team. I think their inefficiency as scorers and their inability to get easy baskets need to be put under a microscope because they're pulling our offensive efficiency back down to average (or below-average) instead of elevating it.

Among the 16 playoff teams, they probably were the most inefficient "stars" in the playoffs alongside Westbrook (going by regular season numbers, not even their postseason numbers). All the players who have led their teams to the second round blow RJ and Julius out the water in terms of scoring efficiency.

What made our offense go is Randle's playmaking, not his scoring. It's Bullock's 3s (etc) that really made our offense somewhat efficient. Randle and RJ as scorers are not making this a good team, and that's an issue moving forward. Against smart playoff defenses that don't overreact to Julius's ISO scoring, Randle doesn't have the passing lanes to find our (actual) efficient scoring options.

About your point regarding the post-ups, the Hawks were a match-up nightmare with Capela being able to show since they weren't worried about Noel or Taj. Which is why I was hoping Thibs would go small with Randle at the 5 so McMillan couldn't cheat off our centers.

You are right about them not being as efficient compared to other #1 options. But part of it is that Randle was playing as a #1 option and we can all agree he is not really a #1 option. And RJ is not really a #2 right now. They need more help overall. We were playing 3 on 5 a lot of times with the starters and it got to be ugly sometimes. Its amazing they did what they did considering that. That doesnt excuse the playoffs. It exposed a lot of things. Even the addition of Rose exposed a lot of things we were lacking in terms of PG play and how much of a difference that makes.

The biggest I saw is that they had a legit #1 and great PG in Trae and we didnt. We are still missing that #1 guy which makes a huge difference in the playoffs and we really only have 1 PG. Randle is not that guy, but doesnt mean he can't be a good complimentary player. If we add a legit #1 and more help overall it opens things up and make things easier for everyone. THJ is a great example. He struggled as the primary focus but in Dallas he is much more efficient playing in a lesser role. Bullock, played really well cause Randle opened things up for him.

Not that we can get Luka and the problem is trying to find that #1 type guy, which isn't easy. But we have a ton of cap space, a bunch of picks, and some pieces we can package together. I see this roster as more of a start then anywhere near a finished product...so we can try to keep adding to it and take it from there.

[BugginOut]

We really blaming RJ and Randle for the team offense when we started two players in Payton and Noel who are both complete nonfactors offensively and mess up spacing? Just replace Noel with Mitch and get a legit PG and we will automatically become an above average offensive team.

[Ghetto Gospel]

They don't even play well on the court together. How often do you see them playing good basketball together on offense. It's similar to the Brown/Tatum and Kawhi/PG combo. Most of the time it's just Randle doing his own thing with RJ getting a few opportunities a quarter when Randle decides to give him a turn. it's like an older brother letting his little brother hop on the ps4 for a bit