Moderators: Deeeez Knicks, mpharris36, j4remi, HerSports85, NoLayupRule, GONYK, Jeff Van Gully, dakomish23
mpharris36 wrote:TPA also says IQ is one of our worst players. How can anyone objectively look at that stat and the way IQ has played and tell me that it makes sense.
IQ NET rating is a +11.6 (OFF rating 110.1 and a DEF rating of 98.5)
Yet TPA suggests he is pretty much a negative player on both ends.
Its objectively a **** stat.
HEZI wrote:DaGawd wrote:Chanel Bomber wrote:I was going to add that he and Randle are terrible fits for one another.
They have the same weaknesses but they like to play at a different pace. They're definitely not compatible. The question for me is, should the Knicks trade one of them or both of them? I lean towards the latter.
You made a comment last season buzz that I thought was enlightening and changed my perspective a bit.
You mentioned how you were tired of hearing about which players/style of play RJ (or any of our young players) needs to blossom. Basically how the team should help him, instead of how he should help the team. I think this in large part is true. The only players you want to tailor your team around are superstar talents (like Bron or Giannis for instance).
The issue is, RJ is not a superstar talent, and does not warrant having a roster built around him. He should be part of the answer, not part of the question. RJ so far isn't helping for the most part. Even in a limited role.
I'm not even blaming him - by all accounts he's a hard-worker and I love his character - it just is what it is. It's up to the front office to make the right call. Hopefully his career pans out in a way that the right call was to keep him in NY, but that appears highly questionable.
Faxxx! I’m legit tired of hearing the excuses of who RJ fits well with and what would help him play better.. he’s just not that good to be trying to move Heaven and earth to make him the best version of himself.. which is probably just a really good role player
It's not moving heaven and earth. The starting lineup was a terrible idea from the start. There's nobody in the starting lineup worth keeping for the long term and the only guy with any potential in it is RJ. So whether or not RJ becomes a star or role player isn't about moving heaven and earth its about going in a direction that we should be going in because where we are now is nothing but a dead end street
bearadonisdna wrote:This was a good win , but as a .500 ish team , you will get good wins bad loses.
This was a good watch , knicks had lead through most of the game .
The team looking better lately with thibs low key being benefited from starting lineup tinkering .
Mitch in concussion protocol , kemba gifting him a day off on a back 2 back . This is the issue basically -the starting lineup and right now we getting relief from that dubious lineup we are apparently stuck with .
Ok so maybe I gotta eat sh It because the Knicks won with an adjustment that wasn’t Mitch . My rebuttal is that it’s 1 game.
And I don’t care about being right , I’d this team just adjust and be good . Be watchable but I’ll be 100 that is too much to ask . If you want your team to win you watch and root regardless of what ever dumb stupid stuff the coach decides to do .
There’s a fine line . If the Knicks started winning by going on all 4’s and barking like dog , would you like that ? Watch that ?No not really but a lot of coaches and strategies are bastardizing the game .
Deeeez Knicks wrote:mpharris36 wrote:TPA also says IQ is one of our worst players. How can anyone objectively look at that stat and the way IQ has played and tell me that it makes sense.
IQ NET rating is a +11.6 (OFF rating 110.1 and a DEF rating of 98.5)
Yet TPA suggests he is pretty much a negative player on both ends.
Its objectively a **** stat.
It also says Kemba has been good. But you can't disagree with a graph
Chanel Bomber wrote:HEZI wrote:DaGawd wrote:Faxxx! I’m legit tired of hearing the excuses of who RJ fits well with and what would help him play better.. he’s just not that good to be trying to move Heaven and earth to make him the best version of himself.. which is probably just a really good role player
It's not moving heaven and earth. The starting lineup was a terrible idea from the start. There's nobody in the starting lineup worth keeping for the long term and the only guy with any potential in it is RJ. So whether or not RJ becomes a star or role player isn't about moving heaven and earth its about going in a direction that we should be going in because where we are now is nothing but a dead end street
Scott Perry built the foundation of this starting line-up. Before last season, he had 13 seasons as a senior executive in the NBA - he hadn't reached .500 once.
So trust this foundation at your own peril. That includes Randle and RJ.
WWW drafted IQ. Thibs asked for Derrick Rose. Leon Rose drafted Obi. They (along with Burks) were the difference-makers last year.
In all honesty, RJ's been part of the problem more than part of the solution. He's my favorite Knick, but you (us, not you) have to look at him realistically.
HEZI wrote:
Randle would have caught that, jab stepped and then taken a step back mid range
I’m just kidding we know Randle can’t make that catch
Kidding again, Randle isn’t sprinting up the floor like that to even be in position for that catch
moocow007 wrote:KnixtapeH20 wrote:moocow007 wrote:
Improving the handle (to the degree of "superstar" type guys like Trae Young) is probably one of the hardest skill wise traits to do is the problem. Improving free thrown shooting, improving a 3 point shot, improving ability to play team defense, those are relatively easy to do.
IQ is terrific at what he does but expecting him to be a superstar type like Trae Young? I think that's just a setup for failure...like what fans have done with so many talented but flawed guys that have put on a Knicks uniform in most of today's fans' lifetime.
Realistic for IQ is probably something along a John Starks level player or maybe a Lou Williams level player assuming everything clicks, he continues to improve and he remains healthy. And I'd be hell a ecstatic if that happened.
I dont know about that moo, think about makes trae so good. His confidence in himself. That correlates with his shooting, facilitating, free throws... . IQ has all that. You cant teach confidence or that "clutch" ability that makes the great ones great. We've just seen a small sample size.
Look at how much his handle has improved from last season to now. He's got a mini crossover that still needs work, hes quicker and more decisive.
What makes Trae great is his elite court vision, otherworldly feel for the game on offense and his top tier ball skills...added to his superb high end developed offensive game. Those are NOT easy things to learn. Some of those are things that guys are born with that is part of the fabric of who they are and what makes them tick. I think you guys are either seriously underrating Trae Young or overrating what IQ has actually shown he can do. Otherwise a whole bunch of other teams have players like IQ that will realistically soon be Trae Young level. And Young is what? One of the top 5 point guards in the NBA (top 3 offensively?). It's not an easy thing to be, or grow into. Knick fans (actually all fans) keep doing stuff like this. Set unrealistic expectations on players and then when they don't meat them (cause it's not realistic) the fans flip on the guy. If IQ can learn to become Trae Young then with IQ's defensive ability (Trae Young's one weakness and it's a big one) we're talking probably top 75 all time here?
KnixtapeH20 wrote:thebuzzardman wrote:Chanel Bomber wrote:Burks is a much better defender than Elfraud. He doesn't just die on every screen.
You can make the case he's better defensively than RJ too, although I'd say they're about equal. He's miles better than Kemba, Fournier and Rose.
On offense he's more versatile and more efficient than RJ, more dynamic than Fournier, can play on and off the ball, although he can have tunnel vision and make silly turnovers. He's still one of our 3 best offensive players.
He's one of our few players who are good in their roles. The Knicks would be a better team if he played more minutes. Same with IQ.
Knick fans are reluctant to admit it, but Burks is a better player than RJ. I mean, on the one hand he should be, being 10 years older. And I'm fully aware that when Burks' minutes goes up, so does his tendency to start missing, or at least get streaky and force stuff. But even with all that, he's better.
Right now it's not even a question. If NYKmentality took a lie detector test he'd fail miserably.
RJ is far from a finished product he's going to will himself to be a great player but right now he's shaky and lately the invisible man. Played better yesterday.
thebuzzardman wrote:DickGrayson wrote:Alec Burks never averaged double digit points until his 3rd season in Utah and spent most of his career being a net negative on the court(way worse over players you dramatically cry about). He was never a good defender in Utah. His defense is average at best right now because he has Robinson/Noel behind him for when he gets beat. You can't even make a list of players Burks has "shut down" with his defense, so stop acting like he can clamp dudes up. Burks defense...if it was so great, why did Utah fans for multiple seasons begged management to ship Burks away? Most Jazz fans were pissed when they resigned him and he didnt live up to his contract. Burks did absolutely nothing for us in the playoffs.
career in the playoffs:
10 ppg
39% FG
32% 3PT
Burks is fine where he is now. A reserve off the bench on limited minutes. We win one game with Burks starting and dramaboys, want to proclaim Burks the franchise player of this team.
RJ in his 3rd year is light years ahead of Burks in his 3rd year and overall RIGHT NOW despite RJ's slump
RJ shot 40% in his SOPHMORE season on 17 ppg and good defense.
It took Burks 5 seasons to become that kind of shooter and his defense was very ass in his 5th year.
a developing 21 year old who averaging 6 rebounds per game, dropped a career high (higher than Burks goofy)
RJ will be a better defender as the season comes along. His potential is CLEARLY there and you guys eat too much within 20 games. Do you guys even watch games at this point or just check scoreboards? RJ constantly fighting over screens and his strength has been an asset.
the end this debate comes by asking the forum who they would rather have if their shooting % average out through the season.
It's easy to claim "Burks is better" because RJ is shooting below his career averages. But if you project RJ to stay around 39% shooting, obviously the K2 consumption is real in your life and you need serious help.
RJ will have a long season to drop multiple 30 point games. His numbers will be normalized and so will Burks. It's not even close. RJ is a legit corner stone of this franchise at age 21 and Alec Burks is just a reserve who can be easily replaced.
People take small sample sizes and want to run a non-sensible take. At best, Alec Burks is Tim Hardaway Jr with less offense slightly better defense, but not good enough defense to say he's "good".
What will put RJ ahead of Burks always is RJ has very active hands and feet. Plus has strength to absorb bumps on picks, where as Burks get devoured for free. RJ had one of the best plu-minus in defensive ratings at his position last year(way larger sample size than 20 games)
RJ was drafted into a system that matches his skill-set...Burks was sign to be a reserve.
Imagine if we had a situation like Jimmy Butler or Paul George who took a while to develop (longer than RJ), bussychild would of raged over a few losses and streaky games and proclaimed someone like Burks is better right now without considering skillset.
K2 consumption is dangerous and I invite you guys to use post like that as an example on why to never experiment with drugs. RJ is still 5 years from his prime. Butler wasn't even in the NBA at age 21. RJ already has 3 seasons on his belt. RJ was holding guys to 35-40% in the season and bussy was quiet af. When RJ comes back and does it again, you'll know who will get quiet. Fake Knick fans giving up on a 21 year old
Burks is playing better than RJ right now. I pointed out he should be because he's 10 years older.
RJ has been pretty bad for pretty long stretch, that's a fact. I'm not the only poster on his case.
RJ has been pretty ordinary even for a young player, for a guy drafted at #3. That's ok; it happens. Can't control who is in what draft after the draft order is set.
I think he'll be an average wing. I hope I'm wrong. He has a lot to get better at to be more than that. Some of which are based on quickness and explosiveness, which I don't think are going to change. Or to get elite at dribbling and adding hesitations and change of pace, which theoretically could be done, but I don't think NBA players elevate their handle that much. Do they improve? Absolutely.
I don't know about other posters on here, but all I'll generally say about Burks, going back to last year and this offseason, is that he's a really good bench player with the all around game the Knicks desperately need, which is why he should have been and was a priority to resign over Bullocks, in spite of Bullocks being a better defender.
I was quiet when RJ was playing well because I expect guys drafted #3 and given tons of minutes to produce.
NoDopeOnSundays wrote:Even further into the numbers, Randle had a 22.9 usage rate (Nba.com) while Basketball ref has it at 23.6, either way it was the 4th lowest of the season for him. He had a net rating of -0.3 while Obi had a +21.2, we are reaching a point where these numbers are starting to state the obvious, which is our offense is appreciably better when he's off the floor. On the season we had a 106.6 ORTG when he's on the court, and a 116.8 when he's off. He shared the court with IQ/Burks a lot last night and his individual ORTG for the game was 108.5 (Nba.com) while basketball-reference has it at a putrid 77, his career ORTG is 108 excluding his rookie year of 1 game. He has reverted back to what he was pre-contract season, while still trying to demand the same type of offensive possessions.
We are without a doubt a worse team with him on the floor this season, on both sides of the ball. All the people who swore we can't score without him haven't been looking at the numbers, we're scoring in spite of him. Without him on the floor the offense gets faster, we play more to the strengths of the guards, and the defense also gets better. I'm going to start keeping track of individual game ratings.
FutureKnicksGM wrote:NoDopeOnSundays wrote:Even further into the numbers, Randle had a 22.9 usage rate (Nba.com) while Basketball ref has it at 23.6, either way it was the 4th lowest of the season for him. He had a net rating of -0.3 while Obi had a +21.2, we are reaching a point where these numbers are starting to state the obvious, which is our offense is appreciably better when he's off the floor. On the season we had a 106.6 ORTG when he's on the court, and a 116.8 when he's off. He shared the court with IQ/Burks a lot last night and his individual ORTG for the game was 108.5 (Nba.com) while basketball-reference has it at a putrid 77, his career ORTG is 108 excluding his rookie year of 1 game. He has reverted back to what he was pre-contract season, while still trying to demand the same type of offensive possessions.
We are without a doubt a worse team with him on the floor this season, on both sides of the ball. All the people who swore we can't score without him haven't been looking at the numbers, we're scoring in spite of him. Without him on the floor the offense gets faster, we play more to the strengths of the guards, and the defense also gets better. I'm going to start keeping track of individual game ratings.
Last year a Randle led team got us 41 wins (out of 72) & a first round knock out. If we didn't play Randle at all, how many wins do we get and how far do we go in the playoffs without Randle holding us back?
NoDopeOnSundays wrote:FutureKnicksGM wrote:NoDopeOnSundays wrote:Even further into the numbers, Randle had a 22.9 usage rate (Nba.com) while Basketball ref has it at 23.6, either way it was the 4th lowest of the season for him. He had a net rating of -0.3 while Obi had a +21.2, we are reaching a point where these numbers are starting to state the obvious, which is our offense is appreciably better when he's off the floor. On the season we had a 106.6 ORTG when he's on the court, and a 116.8 when he's off. He shared the court with IQ/Burks a lot last night and his individual ORTG for the game was 108.5 (Nba.com) while basketball-reference has it at a putrid 77, his career ORTG is 108 excluding his rookie year of 1 game. He has reverted back to what he was pre-contract season, while still trying to demand the same type of offensive possessions.
We are without a doubt a worse team with him on the floor this season, on both sides of the ball. All the people who swore we can't score without him haven't been looking at the numbers, we're scoring in spite of him. Without him on the floor the offense gets faster, we play more to the strengths of the guards, and the defense also gets better. I'm going to start keeping track of individual game ratings.
Last year a Randle led team got us 41 wins (out of 72) & a first round knock out. If we didn't play Randle at all, how many wins do we get and how far do we go in the playoffs without Randle holding us back?
Is it last year?
FutureKnicksGM wrote:NoDopeOnSundays wrote:FutureKnicksGM wrote:
Last year a Randle led team got us 41 wins (out of 72) & a first round knock out. If we didn't play Randle at all, how many wins do we get and how far do we go in the playoffs without Randle holding us back?
Is it last year?
Its this years. But last year Randle was 'touching the ball' to much and still 'inefficient' and all that stuff you have figured out. But fine divert away.
We're 11-9. What's our record end up this season, if we can get rid of the guy who you say is making us worse on both sides of the ball?
mpharris36 wrote:Deeeez Knicks wrote:mpharris36 wrote:TPA also says IQ is one of our worst players. How can anyone objectively look at that stat and the way IQ has played and tell me that it makes sense.
IQ NET rating is a +11.6 (OFF rating 110.1 and a DEF rating of 98.5)
Yet TPA suggests he is pretty much a negative player on both ends.
Its objectively a **** stat.
It also says Kemba has been good. But you can't disagree with a graph
it favors stat accumulation so its why it suggests Randle has been good because he has such a high usage and gets a lot of rebounds.
When I found out TPA is just Box score plus/minus adjusted for possessions I completely threw that for how terrible box score plus/minus is in evaluating a players impact on his specific team.
thebuzzardman wrote:KnixtapeH20 wrote:thebuzzardman wrote:
Knick fans are reluctant to admit it, but Burks is a better player than RJ. I mean, on the one hand he should be, being 10 years older. And I'm fully aware that when Burks' minutes goes up, so does his tendency to start missing, or at least get streaky and force stuff. But even with all that, he's better.
Right now it's not even a question. If NYKmentality took a lie detector test he'd fail miserably.
RJ is far from a finished product he's going to will himself to be a great player but right now he's shaky and lately the invisible man. Played better yesterday.
Yup. I've been bashing on RJ, but as I said in another post, mainly pissed that I thought he'd turned the corner but then he regressed hard. Repeating again, in fairness to RJ, not all progress is linear.
Still can't shake the feeling that without elite athleticism he'll always been kind of uneven because he can be scouted, he has to pick his spots to score, etc etc. Again, hope to be wrong. He's got height, he's strong AF and obviously a hard worker.