per 48 min averages

Blocks - 1.92
steals 2.88
Rebounds - 6.72
TO - 6.08
pts - 12.8
PER - 5.4

again, small samples but unless mozgov shows that he can do a little better on the boards or shoot a lot better and take care of the ball then we cannot afford to play him especially since we have loads of better options.

Candidate A - Turiaf

Turiaf can't really play major minutes, whether it's coaches scared of his heart issues in the past or his conditioning or what have you he's never played more than 25mpg anywhere. However wherever he's been he has been a beast protecting the paint averaging 3.8 blocks per 48minutes this year which is right in line with his career numbers. His rebounding is poor avg'ing 6.8 rebounds per 48 minutes but he does a lot of other things well on defense, like defending the PnR, to make up for it. He also fills the need at C since Amar'e is more comfortable at the 4. He also does not turn the ball over too much which is a godsend given Amare's struggles so far.

Candidate B - Randolph

blocks - 3.69
steals - 2.95
rebounds - 16.96
TO - 3.69
pts - 10.56
PER - 9.6

Those are his per 48 minute numbers and if you compare it to Mozgov's, Randolph gives us everything that he has been lacking. Yes, he has not looked that good but these numbers are not too out of line with his career so far. The exception is his shooting and I doubt he'll finish the year shooting 25% so it's not a longshot that he plays significantly better. If he improves his shot selection then he can be a major contributer and catapult us into playoff contention.

Candidate C - Chandler

If/when Azubuike comes back we will have a logjam at the 2/3 spots. Douglas looks like he'll be playing a lot of 2 with Felton this year and Fields also looks like he is for real as well. Chandler was never suited for the 2 spot anyway as he was never a 3pt shooter. He is similar to a player that a lot of people wanted him to be when D'Antoni came to town, and that is Shawn Marion. Obviously, not a 1 to 1 comparison, but they both were horrible from downtown and both are fairly limited in trying to create for themselves, Chandler being slightly better. Both much better in the open court. Like Marion, he may help us signficantly more at the 4 spot. So far, according to NBA.com, +/- stats, our best lineup includes him playing the 4 alongside Amar'e. Whether it's matching up better against slow 4s, or taking less 3s(averaging almost 5 attempts shooting 25% OUCH) he plays better as a 4 and the team plays better when he's playing the 4. There is some downside playing him there defensively but he's athletic enough not to be a liability there on most nights.

If you count the above 3 players and add in Amar'e that's 4 frontcourt players. There is ABSOLUTELY NO REASON TO PLAY MOZGOV. We have NBA ready players, guys who have proved themselves in multiple years that they are of NBA caliber. At the moment Mosgov has not. If we weren't fighting for a playoff spot and had a first round pick then I'd be all for playing him but at the moment developing him should be relegated to practice. Besides, if there's anyone that needs developing it is Randolph and he should be taking ALL of his minutes. This needs to happen as soon as Randolph is physically able because as bad as Randolph has looked, Mozgov has been worse.

Felton
Fields
Randolph
Amare
Chandler

The rebounding would improve and the Knicks would rely less on threes.

Speaking of the frontcourt, too many times somebody would jack one up and there would be three Bucks ready for a miss and no Knicks. You know the coaching staff saw this but I didn't see it stop. I think its great that D'Antoni is bold enough to give the young guys a real opportunity to play, but he has to do a better job of making adjustments on the fly.

martin wrote:

Vmart wrote:Agreed:
Rebound has been an issue. Lets roll with:

Felton
Fields
Randolph
Amare
Chandler

The rebounding would improve and the Knicks would rely less on threes.

teams will pack the paint cause they know none of those guys are a threat from outside of 18 feet. And then your PnR will fail miserably. And you also have 2 guys in AR and Chandler who constantly break the flow of the offense and just chuck shots.

Also Mosgov is worth developing. Its going to take 40-50 games before he gets comfortable (at least). There is no upside to having an athletic 7'1 guy sitting on your bench. He can do alot of things but he's not going to get good at any of them sitting and watching. I'm happy to take a loss here or there to get him going.

FistOfOakley wrote:The upside is you make better use of 2 players that can be very valuable to your team now. Randolph is one who needs more playing time as he's athletic enough to get more boards for us RIGHT NOW while also helping out on weakside defense. He's also a flawed player but shot selection is something you can work through experience. Chandler needs to get out of the 'I'm a wing player and I need to shoot 3's' mode of thinking. Marion, Odom, Josh Smith all took less 3's after moving to the 4 and it's a move that will do well for him.

You can develop in practice and there will be a time to throw him to the wolves and see how he does with extended minutes. If he did anything useful then I'd be all for it but at the moment there are guys that do things a lot better than he does. It's not like these guys don't have a future with this team either so it makes no sense playing a guy like Mozgov at the expense of guys you need to make a decision sooner on like Randolph or Chandler.

You are going to have to be patient with this guy. Giving a guy 35 minutes is not the way to success. Making them earn things is. If handing minutes was the only way to develop someone, then Toney Douglas would be a bumb. Right now we are trying to teach AR some of the things he did not get a chance to learn in 1 year in college. He's learning about discipline, intensity and consistency. The quicker he learns, the more his minutes will rise.

Vmart wrote:

martin wrote:

Vmart wrote:Agreed:
Rebound has been an issue. Lets roll with:

Felton
Fields
Randolph
Amare
Chandler

The rebounding would improve and the Knicks would rely less on threes.

teams will pack the paint cause they know none of those guys are a threat from outside of 18 feet. And then your PnR will fail miserably. And you also have 2 guys in AR and Chandler who constantly break the flow of the offense and just chuck shots.

All you need is an occasional three here and there and teams have to respect the three. Gallo hasn't been able to do that because he is hurt so go with Chandler. Besides teams aren't respecting the Knicks shooting so you are actually gaining a player that will be close to the rim, which helps rebounding on the offensive end instead of having Gallo hanging around three point line. Felton, Fields and Chandler can hit the occasional three so floor spreading is overrated and they still have to be respected. I will not put Gallo in the starting lineup it is a bad idea he is hurt and teams know it he make no bones about it always flexing his wrist. You think he would try and cover up injuries but he lets the opponents know he is hurt and they slack off of him.

The plan to start this line up is a solid one it will help the Knicks and bringing Gallo of the bench isn't a bad idea, he can come in firing away.

your words are not matching what is actually going on on the court.

Vmart wrote:Felton, Fields and Chandler can hit the occasional three so floor spreading is overrated

Felton, Fields, Chandler is not better spacing than Felton, Fields, Gallo. Gallo was hurt the first 3 games but is shooting .500 from 3point land since then. And Felton is running the PnR (or should be) so having Fields and Chandler on wings is not a threat such that teams wont just pack the paint, thus making the PnR less a threat and forcing more 3pointers.

Vmart wrote:Bip, Randolph has played in 100 games since coming into the NBA. That is equivalent to three years in college plus his one year that make about 130+ games. He is still getting the college treatment? He needs to play and he should be told what mistakes he's made that is how you get better. MDA should play him because he is talented, he should be told what is expected out of him and he needs to know what the consequence are if he doesn't perform to his ability or give his full effort. When do you take the training wheels off and say go out there and get the job done. A lot of the Knicks are in their 3-4th year its time for them to step up and come through. Enough with the babying. Take Hickson for example, Byron Scott called him out instead of pouting about his coach calling him out he stepped his game up. He worked harder in practice spent more time with video research. This is what needs to be done with Randolph.

Why does it matter how many games he's played. You don't coach a player based on how many games he's played, you coach a guy based on what you see on the floor. The kid is 21, struggles with decision making, and has his concentration wane consistently. NOw you can again, ignore the mistakes, but when he is not hustlign and being a terror on the court you take him out. What will he learn from that? he will learn that if he wants to get minutes he has to hustle and be a terror on the court. If you hand him minutes despite the energy level, then what does that do for you?

You say that he needs to know what the consequences are. The consequences have been thoroughly communicated. If he doesn't give maximum effort, then he sits. What other consequences should there be? Should D'Antoni shoot him?

martin wrote:

Vmart wrote:Agreed:
Rebound has been an issue. Lets roll with:

Felton
Fields
Randolph
Amare
Chandler

The rebounding would improve and the Knicks would rely less on threes.

teams will pack the paint cause they know none of those guys are a threat from outside of 18 feet. And then your PnR will fail miserably. And you also have 2 guys in AR and Chandler who constantly break the flow of the offense and just chuck shots.

I don't think these guy's are just chuking shots up, hell, we have been saying that for 2 years and there been 20 new players..what is that a coincedence??? If thats the case, we have been chucking shots since MDA got here, at some point it maybe safe to say, thats what he wants he's players to do

Bippity10 wrote:Why does it matter how many games he's played. You don't coach a player based on how many games he's played, you coach a guy based on what you see on the floor. The kid is 21, struggles with decision making, and has his concentration wane consistently. NOw you can again, ignore the mistakes, but when he is not hustlign and being a terror on the court you take him out. What will he learn from that? he will learn that if he wants to get minutes he has to hustle and be a terror on the court. If you hand him minutes despite the energy level, then what does that do for you?

You say that he needs to know what the consequences are. The consequences have been thoroughly communicated. If he doesn't give maximum effort, then he sits. What other consequences should there be? Should D'Antoni shoot him?

I get a lot of what you're saying and if we were in rebuilding mode I'd be all for it however this team was meant to be competitive now with some pieces for the future. Mozgov was handed minutes because of flashes of what he can do instead of what he actually does and what he actually does, in aggregate is not much. Give those minutes to people who can do something, while they may take some things off the table as well, but no player is perfect.

This is Mozgov's first year and Randolph's third yet they're being treated the opposite of what you would think, at least so far. We'll see if this actually changes but Mozgov playing is hurting us now.