The Official New York Knicks Thread.

#501
#501
n_huffhines said:
I guess I called that one. Mike Woodson responds by giving JR Smith 43 minutes. He went 11 for 25 with 4 turnovers. Smith went O for 4 with a turnover in the last 4 minutes.They need to play Prignioni and Brewer more.
Click to expand...

There's no way you can watch the Knicks play and think Pablo should play more
 
#502
#502
Per 36 minutes he gets 7.2 assists, 2.5 steals, and only 2.9 turnovers. That's really nice to see out of a rookie. Knicks fans should be excited.
 
#503
#503
n_huffhines said:
Per 36 minutes he gets 7.2 assists, 2.5 steals, and only 2.9 turnovers. That's really nice to see out of a rookie. Knicks fans should be excited.
Click to expand...

he's 35 and probably the least athletic guard in the league. if he played 36 minutes, he would be exposed in a major way. this is one of those cases where you need your eyes, not just the "NYK" tab on the spreadsheet.
 
#504
#504
35?! Hell I thought he was a rookie...well play him sparingly if he plays well with a few minutes here and there.
 
#506
#506
Wish Melo had played. Squeaking by 81-76 doesn't exactly give me a lot of confidence if the Pacers meet the Knicks in the playoffs. Though, Granger wasn't out too. He's not as good as Melo but he's still the Pacers best player.

Paul George lit up the stat sheet yet again... 24pts 11rebs 5asts 6stls 1blk

Only one other player broke double digits on the Pacers, the back up center Ian Mahinimi scored 13 points. And as usual, the Pacers win by defense.
 
#507
#507
TOP said:
Wish Melo had played. Squeaking by 81-76 doesn't exactly give me a lot of confidence if the Pacers meet the Knicks in the playoffs. Though, Granger wasn't out too. He's not as good as Melo but he's still the Pacers best player.

Paul George lit up the stat sheet yet again... 24pts 11rebs 5asts 6stls 1blk

Only one other player broke double digits on the Pacers, the back up center Ian Mahinimi scored 13 points. And as usual, the Pacers win by defense.
Click to expand...

You still believe that? I thought I had already laid that myth to rest. How many games do they have to win without him before you realize this?

Pacers with Granger = .465 (237-273)
Pacers without Granger = .524 (43-39)
__________________
 
#509
#509
n_huffhines said:
You still believe that? I thought I had already laid that myth to rest. How many games do they have to win without him before you realize this?

Pacers with Granger = .465 (237-273)
Pacers without Granger = .524 (43-39)
__________________
Click to expand...

Your way of viewing sports is just really wrong... you talk about players based on stats without even knowing who they are or having watched them. A few posts ago you were giving your thoughts on Pablo while thinking he was a 20 year old and he's 35.

Anyways, you fail to grasp the concept of teams improving and taking into account it's a new season altogether. Giants went 8-8 and then won the Super Bowl and then they missed the playoffs the following season. Why is that? They played with exact same team that was .500 but improved to the point of winning the Super Bowl. They also played with the exact same team as they missed the playoffs the following year.

For whatever reason, you just write off the idea that teams can improve. But that's right, the Pacers would have been the exact same team last year. Really, Lance Stephenson is the reason for this epic improvement. I expected the team to improve from last season, that doesn't connect with you though. Aside from the fact it's a new season, here's a number of factors in reasons they could have improved...

1. Last season was a shortened season with less time to practice/workout heading into the season. --- Couldn't more practice and being in better shape make for a better season?

2. Last season's schedule was more compact with fewer nights off. --- Couldn't playing a regular schedule benefit them?

3. It was Frank Vogel, David West and George Hill's first year with the season. --- Couldn't chemistry improve?

4. David West had returned from an ACL tear --- Most players aren't at full health in their first season back, couldn't he be healthier this season?

5. George Hill wasn't the starter last season --- Couldn't him starting impact their record?

6. Paul George, Roy Hibbert and George Hill were all 25 or younger last season --- A lot of players aren't in their prime at the age of 21-25, could they not have improved?


To answer some of these questions, two different seasons is already flawed. Add in the fact that last season was a shortened season which changes everything makes it really flawed. Not to mention, while a number of teams/coaches already had their system in place, Frank Vogel didn't have time to install his system with it being a shortened season. He just continued dumbing down the system from the previous season when he took over as the interim coach following the firing of O'brien.

Don't discount chemistry either. On top if it being Vogel's first season as head coach, David West and George Hill were in their first season with the Pacers last season. One would hope that their chemistry would have improved coming into this season. I recall a learning curve for the Heat and Knicks. Why are the Pacers exempt to it?

Lastly, the improvement of the younger players can't be overlooked, especially Paul George. Roy Hibbert has been better defensively and George Hill/Paul George are having their best season to date. Hill had never even averaged 3 assists in a season and he's average 5 assists this season. His scoring average is also higher than it's ever been. And Paul George... the team was struggling earlier in the season, but he's completely taken over.

Riddle me this... the team went 8-9 in their first 17 games and 14-5 in their last 19 games. You claim the team is better without Granger because they've won more without him this season but he hasn't played at all this season and the exact same roster has improved. Could it be chemistry? Could it be younger players improve? This might have something to do with it...

Paul George first 17 games(8-9)
13.4pts(38.1%fg, 36.2%3pt) 6.4rebs 3.4asts 1.1stls .6blks

Paul George last 19 games(14-5)
20.1pts(43.0%fg, 37.1%3pt) 8.5rebs 3.5asts 2.0stls .9blks



You didn't lay anything to rest, I just let it go because you're so completely wrong. The team having a better record this season proves absolutely nothing. Because you don't watch the games or know anything about the Pacers, you write of the human factor and I just point out a ton of stuff that plays an impact. Seriously, tell me how the exact same roster went from 8-9 to 14-5 with the exact same roster? Granger or no Granger, this team had so many variables to improve from last season. Granger is their best player, I'm sorry you can't accept being wrong on this. They'd be even better right now if they had him. You want to know how I know this? Because I actually watch the Pacers and it's not hard to see he's better than Lance Stephenson.

Knowing what I know about the Pacers, I expected them to be better this season. With a shortened season, a 22 year old, two 25 year olds, a player coming off a torn acl, two players new to the team and a first time head coach... wouldn't you believe it's possible the team could improve this season on those reasons alone? You just want to be so right that you can't look at it objectively. I really am looking forward to your explanation on the teams turn around after the first 17 games with the exact same roster though. After all, you think the team having a better record is as simple as Granger not playing. Teams improve and get worse all the time trotting out the same roster but for some reason, the only explanation in your mind for the Pacers record is Granger is irrelevant or they're better without him. I'm sorry, but that's dumb.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#510
#510
TBrown said:
Paul George is the pacers best player. Easily.
Click to expand...

He's turning into it but he wasn't in the past couple of seasons. Hence averaging 9 and 12 points.

No doubt he is now or going to be.

For whatever reason though, Huff is just so convinced the team having a better record without Granger without acknowledging human error. Paul George being young and improving is just one factor in the Pacers improving. The Pacers having a better record isn't as simple as claiming Granger is overrated and the team is overrated. By that logic, Lance Stephenson is better than Danny Granger. Other than the bench being entirely knew aside from Hansbrough, Stephenson is the guy who replaced Granger. I can attest to Stephenson not being better than Granger. Though, he's young, athletic with room for improvement too. He's actually been able to hit 3's this season. He's never been able to do that in the past.
 
#511
#511
TOP said:
Your way of viewing sports is just really wrong... you talk about players based on stats without even knowing who they are or having watched them. A few posts ago you were giving your thoughts on Pablo while thinking he was a 20 year old and he's 35.
Click to expand...

Solid reasoning. Because I don't know the age of a guy who gets 14 MPG, I must not watch basketball.

Way too long to read. You'll see when Granger gets back...they won't do any better. You'll still think he's their best player, though.
 
#512
#512
TOP said:
He's turning into it but he wasn't in the past couple of seasons. Hence averaging 9 and 12 points.

No doubt he is now or going to be.

For whatever reason though, Huff is just so convinced the team having a better record without Granger without acknowledging human error. Paul George being young and improving is just one factor in the Pacers improving. The Pacers having a better record isn't as simple as claiming Granger is overrated and the team is overrated. By that logic, Lance Stephenson is better than Danny Granger. Other than the bench being entirely knew aside from Hansbrough, Stephenson is the guy who replaced Granger. I can attest to Stephenson not being better than Granger. Though, he's young, athletic with room for improvement too. He's actually been able to hit 3's this season. He's never been able to do that in the past.
Click to expand...

Paul George was better last year, LOL.

Stephenson is their most productive player this year. Then George Hill. Then Paul George.

I don't really know what to expect from Stephenson since he was nothing in his first 2 seasons, so I wonder if he'll keep this up, but he's definitely playing better than Granger has ever played.
 
#513
#513
n_huffhines said:
Solid reasoning. Because I don't know the age of a guy who gets 14 MPG, I must not watch basketball.

Way too long to read. You'll see when Granger gets back...they won't do any better. You'll still think he's their best player, though.
Click to expand...

For the absolutes you speak in, you should at least know who the players are that you're talking about. It's one thing to have a different view point. It's another to be clueless.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#514
#514
TBrown said:
For the absolutes you speak in, you should at least know who the players are that you're talking about. It's one thing to have a different view point. It's another to be clueless.
Click to expand...

Are you seriously talking about Prignioni? Oh, I probably just spelled his name wrong. You're right...I must not watch any basketball or know the players.

I don't understand why people don't give me more credit. My prediction of how the Pacers would do is much more accurate than what TOP predicted, and he supposedly watches them every game. I predicted the Knicks would be awesome. I predicted the T-Wolves would be much improved (and they are, even without Love).
 
Last edited:
#515
#515
Mike Woodson is an idiot. Ronnie Brewer gets 8 minutes yesterday, and has not entered the game today. Maybe benching your best wing defender isn't such a good idea? Melo and JR Smith combining for 6/23 so far.

I really don't get the common consensus in basketball. Watching the Knicks last night Reggie Miller kept on saying stuff like, "without Melo, JR Smith is going to have to be selfish". Well he went 10 for 29...how did that work out for the Knicks? I watched the last quarter and a half and the only effective offense they had was off the pick & roll with Chandler, but remember? He's a terrible offensive player.
 
#516
#516
Melo and Smith combined for 18 for 49.

Meanwhile Chicago's wings, Rip and Deng, combined for 19 for 27.

Based on league average shooting efficiency those 2 results put New York at a 20 point disadvantage.
 
#518
#518
TBrown said:
There's no way you can watch the Knicks play and think Pablo should play more
Click to expand...

Coming back to this, Pablo was excellent this year. Only 1200 minutes, but he was twice as productive as the average PG when he did get burn.
 
New Posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

Advertisement



Back
Top