Pretty harsh.

SupremeCommander wrote:

CrushAlot wrote:Another bad article that seems to be capitalizing on getting clicks by criticizing the Knicks. The article is about all 30 teams but the intro is all about the Knicks struggles. Also, my first impression was that they were considering only prospects under 25 that were drafted by the team. Randle was not considered one of the Knicks best under 25 players and wasn’t even mentioned. Not sure why he was left out when D’Angelo Russell was included for the WRriors. Also, not sure why Trier wasn’t mentioned. Trier was 45, 39 and 80.
I should know not to a read an article about all 30 teams that starts off mentioning the Knicks missed on Zion. Someone mentioned it early, it takes no effort to spew the same narrative.

you make it sound as though the entire article is about the Knicks... they used it as their opener. And they didn't mention a lot of under-25 guys. They mentioned Frank and Knox because the former suck and the latter had a **** year. They praised Mitch. I feel like you didn't read the article, because they didn't mention really anyone for Charlotte. They shat on Kuzma. They shat on the Wiz. Didn't mention anything about LAC, etc. It's like a few paragraphs per team at max

Knixkik wrote:Knox and frank have projections that drive down the ranking. If you just factored in Mitch, Barrett and Randle then it would bump the Knicks significantly. The system they are using views Mitch as one of the best young prospect and views Barrett as a good prospect too. Not a lot of teams have that combo.

agree. we had a friggin awful year last year... the formula is the formula--it isn't gospel or anything. Objectively, I'm pretty happy with being where we're at on the list. Once everyone gets more seasoning the rankings will improve.

the formula loved Memphis and I'm not sold on them. Ja Morant is the ultimate feast or famine pick.. I'm not sure he will work out in the NBA (I'd bet on it but it isn't a certainty). Tyus Jones can play but I think the contract they gave him is absurd. Also, I'm not as high on Jaren Jackson Jr. as a lot of others. he can play but I don't think he can walk on water

So, in short, the article was interesting to me but my reaction is: whatevs brah

SupremeCommander wrote:

CrushAlot wrote:Another bad article that seems to be capitalizing on getting clicks by criticizing the Knicks. The article is about all 30 teams but the intro is all about the Knicks struggles. Also, my first impression was that they were considering only prospects under 25 that were drafted by the team. Randle was not considered one of the Knicks best under 25 players and wasn’t even mentioned. Not sure why he was left out when D’Angelo Russell was included for the WRriors. Also, not sure why Trier wasn’t mentioned. Trier was 45, 39 and 80.
I should know not to a read an article about all 30 teams that starts off mentioning the Knicks missed on Zion. Someone mentioned it early, it takes no effort to spew the same narrative.

you make it sound as though the entire article is about the Knicks... they used it as their opener. And they didn't mention a lot of under-25 guys. They mentioned Frank and Knox because the former suck and the latter had a **** year. They praised Mitch. I feel like you didn't read the article, because they didn't mention really anyone for Charlotte. They shat on Kuzma. They shat on the Wiz. Didn't mention anything about LAC, etc. It's like a few paragraphs per team at max

DiD any of our young guys get better,or showed any growth as the yr went on. Did they show that they were a good fit for our system..oh wait.. we had no system.

Why didn't we keep Mudiay
why didn't we keep Noah V
why didn't we keep Mario
why didn't we keep burke..who basically took minutes from frank

You can't deny that THJ looked better Playing for The hawks

You think if anyone of these kids showed significant growth or consistency we wouldn't have kept them?

I can sum our development system in 3 words.."KEEP BEING AGGRESSIVE", which translates to keep shooting, keep going 1 on 5.

The only thing we accomplish last season was getting the 3rd pick.

What did we learn about the coach, the defense, the offense, the strategy, most of our young and old players looked lost and bewildered the entire season, and took steps back.

knicks1248 wrote:

SupremeCommander wrote:

CrushAlot wrote:Another bad article that seems to be capitalizing on getting clicks by criticizing the Knicks. The article is about all 30 teams but the intro is all about the Knicks struggles. Also, my first impression was that they were considering only prospects under 25 that were drafted by the team. Randle was not considered one of the Knicks best under 25 players and wasn’t even mentioned. Not sure why he was left out when D’Angelo Russell was included for the WRriors. Also, not sure why Trier wasn’t mentioned. Trier was 45, 39 and 80.
I should know not to a read an article about all 30 teams that starts off mentioning the Knicks missed on Zion. Someone mentioned it early, it takes no effort to spew the same narrative.

you make it sound as though the entire article is about the Knicks... they used it as their opener. And they didn't mention a lot of under-25 guys. They mentioned Frank and Knox because the former suck and the latter had a **** year. They praised Mitch. I feel like you didn't read the article, because they didn't mention really anyone for Charlotte. They shat on Kuzma. They shat on the Wiz. Didn't mention anything about LAC, etc. It's like a few paragraphs per team at max

DiD any of our young guys get better,or showed any growth as the yr went on. Did they show that they were a good fit for our system..oh wait.. we had no system.

Why didn't we keep Mudiay
why didn't we keep Noah V
why didn't we keep Mario
why didn't we keep burke..who basically took minutes from frank

You can't deny that THJ looked better Playing for The hawks

You think if anyone of these kids showed significant growth or consistency we wouldn't have kept them?

I can sum our development system in 3 words.."KEEP BEING AGGRESSIVE", which translates to keep shooting, keep going 1 on 5.

The only thing we accomplish last season was getting the 3rd pick.

What did we learn about the coach, the defense, the offense, the strategy, most of our young and old players looked lost and bewildered the entire season, and took steps back.

they were rentals that were the equivalent of lottery tickets.

THJ was average in his contract year and we overpaid

I think the article is about this year's young guys not last season's...

So other than that I am not sure how to respond because it really has nothing to do with the article or any of the other comments

Knixkik wrote:

SupremeCommander wrote:

Andrew wrote:It seems like a strange way to rank a teams core of young players where a statistically bad player (Knox) decreases the ranking of your overall core. Basically saying if we cut Knox, Frank our ranking jumps. Having lots of first and second year players that project as role players hurts you and having 1 or 2 rookies that project well mean you have a very high ranked young core.

I think I get what you're saying but that's kinda how averages work

Taking the average of all under 25 players on a roster is a terrible way to rate a young core. Like Andrew said, Knox and franks presence on the roster should not decrease the value of other players. If the rankings think only Robinson, Barrett DSJ and Randle are good prospects, than that’s fine. They should be rated as the Knicks core alone. Frank won’t be a rotation player this year, and Knox will need to show a big jump to remain in the rotation.

Right Knickik.

Supreme....this article is using totals, and not averages and still its a weird way to look at it.

Take the following hypothetical player and ranking scenerio.

Team 1: P1 : 10, P2 : 10, P3: 10, P4 : -20. That totals 10.

Team 2: P1 : 3, P2: 5, P3 : 2. Totals 10.

Would you say the young core's here are equal?

Andrew wrote:

Knixkik wrote:

SupremeCommander wrote:

Andrew wrote:It seems like a strange way to rank a teams core of young players where a statistically bad player (Knox) decreases the ranking of your overall core. Basically saying if we cut Knox, Frank our ranking jumps. Having lots of first and second year players that project as role players hurts you and having 1 or 2 rookies that project well mean you have a very high ranked young core.

I think I get what you're saying but that's kinda how averages work

Taking the average of all under 25 players on a roster is a terrible way to rate a young core. Like Andrew said, Knox and franks presence on the roster should not decrease the value of other players. If the rankings think only Robinson, Barrett DSJ and Randle are good prospects, than that’s fine. They should be rated as the Knicks core alone. Frank won’t be a rotation player this year, and Knox will need to show a big jump to remain in the rotation.

Right Knickik.

Supreme....this article is using totals, and not averages and still its a weird way to look at it.

Take the following hypothetical player and ranking scenerio.

Team 1: P1 : 10, P2 : 10, P3: 10, P4 : -20. That totals 10.

Team 2: P1 : 3, P2: 5, P3 : 2. Totals 10.

Would you say the young core's here are equal?

So I did the math for Robinson, Randle, Barrett, Smith , and ntilikina. Total is 46.7 WAR over a 5 year span. It would be good for top 10 on the list. Knox hurts the rating badly. Also thinking Randle is not being accounted for based on the numbers. Trier and Brazdeikis hurt it too. Seems like you take Knox out of the picture and the ratings have an entirely different view on the Knicks players. It’s fine if they don’t like Knox. But for it to completely change the trajectory of the Knicks core obviously isn’t a fair assessment. Without Knox it’s a top 10 core based on numbers.

SupremeCommander wrote:

knicks1248 wrote:

SupremeCommander wrote:

CrushAlot wrote:Another bad article that seems to be capitalizing on getting clicks by criticizing the Knicks. The article is about all 30 teams but the intro is all about the Knicks struggles. Also, my first impression was that they were considering only prospects under 25 that were drafted by the team. Randle was not considered one of the Knicks best under 25 players and wasn’t even mentioned. Not sure why he was left out when D’Angelo Russell was included for the WRriors. Also, not sure why Trier wasn’t mentioned. Trier was 45, 39 and 80.
I should know not to a read an article about all 30 teams that starts off mentioning the Knicks missed on Zion. Someone mentioned it early, it takes no effort to spew the same narrative.

you make it sound as though the entire article is about the Knicks... they used it as their opener. And they didn't mention a lot of under-25 guys. They mentioned Frank and Knox because the former suck and the latter had a **** year. They praised Mitch. I feel like you didn't read the article, because they didn't mention really anyone for Charlotte. They shat on Kuzma. They shat on the Wiz. Didn't mention anything about LAC, etc. It's like a few paragraphs per team at max

DiD any of our young guys get better,or showed any growth as the yr went on. Did they show that they were a good fit for our system..oh wait.. we had no system.

Why didn't we keep Mudiay
why didn't we keep Noah V
why didn't we keep Mario
why didn't we keep burke..who basically took minutes from frank

You can't deny that THJ looked better Playing for The hawks

You think if anyone of these kids showed significant growth or consistency we wouldn't have kept them?

I can sum our development system in 3 words.."KEEP BEING AGGRESSIVE", which translates to keep shooting, keep going 1 on 5.

The only thing we accomplish last season was getting the 3rd pick.

What did we learn about the coach, the defense, the offense, the strategy, most of our young and old players looked lost and bewildered the entire season, and took steps back.

they were rentals that were the equivalent of lottery tickets.

THJ was average in his contract year and we overpaid

I think the article is about this year's young guys not last season's...

So other than that I am not sure how to respond because it really has nothing to do with the article or any of the other comments

But rankings are based on stats,and what you have done in the recent past, they surely are not basing future stats.

I brought those guys up because even though they were rentals, they were young guys who were lottery picks 2 to 3 yrs ago..which is not long.

I guess I had High hopes that we would be able to level them up