I don't really understand what Thibs standards are for rotation time. From the outside looking in, it seems like Vets start higher in the rotation pecking order and only lose their role based on practice and not their actual performance? So if you show up and give it at practice, you can be -20 plus minus and keep your starting role? I'm guessing here.

In game, you can lose minutes (not your role) based on performance (e.g. Payton starts for 8 minutes and then pulled for the rest of the game behind Rose??).

It speaks of a profound loyalty to vets and belief that vet players will work their way out of slumps. Perhaps there is a protectionism there that rooks may need more practice to become NBA worthy.

My best guess is that the FO and Thibs give promises to Vets when they sign contracts that they will get specific roles and Thibs honors those promises - for better or worse.

In this theory, Kemba and Fournier have starting role promises that they are holding onto despite the fact that the team doesn't work.

EwingsGlass wrote:I'm bullish on McBride. He looks like he is getting stronger.

I don't really understand what Thibs standards are for rotation time. From the outside looking in, it seems like Vets start higher in the rotation pecking order and only lose their role based on practice and not their actual performance? So if you show up and give it at practice, you can be -20 plus minus and keep your starting role? I'm guessing here.

In game, you can lose minutes (not your role) based on performance (e.g. Payton starts for 8 minutes and then pulled for the rest of the game behind Rose??).

It speaks of a profound loyalty to vets and belief that vet players will work their way out of slumps. Perhaps there is a protectionism there that rooks may need more practice to become NBA worthy.

My best guess is that the FO and Thibs give promises to Vets when they sign contracts that they will get specific roles and Thibs honors those promises - for better or worse.

In this theory, Kemba and Fournier have starting role promises that they are holding onto despite the fact that the team doesn't work.

EwingsGlass wrote:

fishmike wrote:

EwingsGlass wrote:I'm bullish on McBride. He looks like he is getting stronger.

I don't really understand what Thibs standards are for rotation time. From the outside looking in, it seems like Vets start higher in the rotation pecking order and only lose their role based on practice and not their actual performance? So if you show up and give it at practice, you can be -20 plus minus and keep your starting role? I'm guessing here.

In game, you can lose minutes (not your role) based on performance (e.g. Payton starts for 8 minutes and then pulled for the rest of the game behind Rose??).

It speaks of a profound loyalty to vets and belief that vet players will work their way out of slumps. Perhaps there is a protectionism there that rooks may need more practice to become NBA worthy.

My best guess is that the FO and Thibs give promises to Vets when they sign contracts that they will get specific roles and Thibs honors those promises - for better or worse.

In this theory, Kemba and Fournier have starting role promises that they are holding onto despite the fact that the team doesn't work.

his loyalty is part of what gets these guys to overachieve (or did last year). However Fournier has lost minutes to a rookie and Kemba is only playing because Rose is hurt and we need a warm body at PG, otherwise he would be on the shelf still. There is some given leeway based on contract and history... that's just how the league works but Thibs has shown a kid can take a vet's minutes. We are seeing that in real time.

1) Payton did not overachieve. The Knicks commitment to the gym allowed them to win, not overachieve.

2) Kemba was starting before Rose got hurt. He was benched and then earned minutes back with some electric performances. But those performances were still in losing efforts. His minutes and Burks minutes appear to be moving in a bit of correlation. For instance, 1/31 Burks played 26 minutes and Walker played 16. 1/28 Burks played 18 and Walker played 29. They can both play under 20 minutes, but if one is over 27 minutes the other is under 20.

3) Arguably, Grimes is getting his minutes from Rose's absence, not from Fournier. Fournier's average minutes have not really been diminished despite Grimes increase to approximately 20 mins per game. Quickley slots in at PG and Grimes comes in at SG instead of the reverse. When Rose returns, this theory will be put to the test - who loses their minutes when a Vet comes back. Its possible that its actually Quickley that loses minutes. Yes, they are both sharing the SG minutes but time Grimes is taking from Fournier is game by game based on in game performance, not Fournier losing his spot in the rotation. No different that when Quickley was slotted at SG.

4) I don't think we are really seeing a rookie take vet minutes. I think for the above reasons, you see injured minutes made available to the next man up. But when that player comes back, watch those minutes revert. Your best argument is that Austin Rivers seems to have lost his minutes to Quickley last year, but in truth, River's minutes were given to Derrick Rose.

There are promises on both sides, regardless of it’s discussed or not. For example, thibs or FO promise Kemba and EF to play starter mins or be a starter. We also promised to pay them x amount of money to be a knick.

Kemba and EF promised to make the Knicks better on offense. Whether that was discussed or not. Otherwise why sign here. And so far that promise has been broken.

Guess who else has promises? Thibs promised to make the Knicks better. Last year check. This year not met. Thibs promised to hold players accountable. He promised to show team improvement each year. Thibs promised to play the guys that helps them win. He preaches this all the time. He plays to win. Well thibs, u broke that promise by playing Kemba knowing he hasn’t produced wins. You preach defense is a high priority even though Kemba is a bad defender.

Thibs is a veteran coach and veteran players love him. Mainly because vets are consistent in practice and they bring it on defense for the most part. When we hired thibs I was instantly worried about playing vets over rookies.

I’m also curious to see if grimes mins get cut when rose comes back. Will be interesting.

• PG - McBride
• SG - Barrett
• SF - Grimes
• PF - Randle
• C - Robinson

Lineups are more than just individual talent, it is about Balance.
I think this lineup would be Elite defensively and would make the game easier for everyone.

Moving Barret to Shooting Guard would create a lot of match-up problems due to his size and strength and it is more his natural position.

blkexec wrote:

EwingsGlass wrote:

fishmike wrote:

EwingsGlass wrote:I'm bullish on McBride. He looks like he is getting stronger.

I don't really understand what Thibs standards are for rotation time. From the outside looking in, it seems like Vets start higher in the rotation pecking order and only lose their role based on practice and not their actual performance? So if you show up and give it at practice, you can be -20 plus minus and keep your starting role? I'm guessing here.

In game, you can lose minutes (not your role) based on performance (e.g. Payton starts for 8 minutes and then pulled for the rest of the game behind Rose??).

It speaks of a profound loyalty to vets and belief that vet players will work their way out of slumps. Perhaps there is a protectionism there that rooks may need more practice to become NBA worthy.

My best guess is that the FO and Thibs give promises to Vets when they sign contracts that they will get specific roles and Thibs honors those promises - for better or worse.

In this theory, Kemba and Fournier have starting role promises that they are holding onto despite the fact that the team doesn't work.

his loyalty is part of what gets these guys to overachieve (or did last year). However Fournier has lost minutes to a rookie and Kemba is only playing because Rose is hurt and we need a warm body at PG, otherwise he would be on the shelf still. There is some given leeway based on contract and history... that's just how the league works but Thibs has shown a kid can take a vet's minutes. We are seeing that in real time.

1) Payton did not overachieve. The Knicks commitment to the gym allowed them to win, not overachieve.

2) Kemba was starting before Rose got hurt. He was benched and then earned minutes back with some electric performances. But those performances were still in losing efforts. His minutes and Burks minutes appear to be moving in a bit of correlation. For instance, 1/31 Burks played 26 minutes and Walker played 16. 1/28 Burks played 18 and Walker played 29. They can both play under 20 minutes, but if one is over 27 minutes the other is under 20.

3) Arguably, Grimes is getting his minutes from Rose's absence, not from Fournier. Fournier's average minutes have not really been diminished despite Grimes increase to approximately 20 mins per game. Quickley slots in at PG and Grimes comes in at SG instead of the reverse. When Rose returns, this theory will be put to the test - who loses their minutes when a Vet comes back. Its possible that its actually Quickley that loses minutes. Yes, they are both sharing the SG minutes but time Grimes is taking from Fournier is game by game based on in game performance, not Fournier losing his spot in the rotation. No different that when Quickley was slotted at SG.

4) I don't think we are really seeing a rookie take vet minutes. I think for the above reasons, you see injured minutes made available to the next man up. But when that player comes back, watch those minutes revert. Your best argument is that Austin Rivers seems to have lost his minutes to Quickley last year, but in truth, River's minutes were given to Derrick Rose.

There are promises on both sides, regardless of it’s discussed or not. For example, thibs or FO promise Kemba and EF to play starter mins or be a starter. We also promised to pay them x amount of money to be a knick.

Kemba and EF promised to make the Knicks better on offense. Whether that was discussed or not. Otherwise why sign here. And so far that promise has been broken.

Guess who else has promises? Thibs promised to make the Knicks better. Last year check. This year not met. Thibs promised to hold players accountable. He promised to show team improvement each year. Thibs promised to play the guys that helps them win. He preaches this all the time. He plays to win. Well thibs, u broke that promise by playing Kemba knowing he hasn’t produced wins. You preach defense is a high priority even though Kemba is a bad defender.

Thibs is a veteran coach and veteran players love him. Mainly because vets are consistent in practice and they bring it on defense for the most part. When we hired thibs I was instantly worried about playing vets over rookies.

I’m also curious to see if grimes mins get cut when rose comes back. Will be interesting.

Panos wrote:What about:
PG McBride
SG IQ
SF Grimes
PF RJ
C Mitch

?

I like all the youth, but I think this lineup would only work if other team is playing small ball.
Although RJ is tough, I think he would have a hard time with opposing PF.

I would also be VERY interesting in seeing lineup below:
PG McBride
SG RJ
SF Grimes
PF Reddish (6'8" with 7' wingspan)
C Mitch

I know Reddish would struggle on defense at first, but he would have his way on offense.

blkexec wrote:

nyvector16 wrote:

Panos wrote:What about:
PG McBride
SG IQ
SF Grimes
PF RJ
C Mitch

?

I like all the youth, but I think this lineup would only work if other team is playing small ball.
Although RJ is tough, I think he would have a hard time with opposing PF.

I would also be VERY interesting in seeing lineup below:
PG McBride
SG RJ
SF Grimes
PF Reddish (6'8" with 7' wingspan)
C Mitch

I know Reddish would struggle on defense at first, but he would have his way on offense.

Since we are dreaming up potential post trade deadline lineups. I want to see (assuming Randle and fox are traded per rumors, here’s my ideal starting and bench lineup):

1. Fox / Deuce
2. Grimes / Rose
3. RJ / Fournier
4. Obi / Cam
5. Mitch / Noel

Love this 10 man rotation

martin wrote:

blkexec wrote:

nyvector16 wrote:

Panos wrote:What about:
PG McBride
SG IQ
SF Grimes
PF RJ
C Mitch

?

I like all the youth, but I think this lineup would only work if other team is playing small ball.
Although RJ is tough, I think he would have a hard time with opposing PF.

I would also be VERY interesting in seeing lineup below:
PG McBride
SG RJ
SF Grimes
PF Reddish (6'8" with 7' wingspan)
C Mitch

I know Reddish would struggle on defense at first, but he would have his way on offense.

Since we are dreaming up potential post trade deadline lineups. I want to see (assuming Randle and fox are traded per rumors, here’s my ideal starting and bench lineup):

1. Fox / Deuce. IQ?
2. Grimes / Rose
3. RJ / Fournier
4. Obi / Cam
5. Mitch / Noel

Love this 10 man rotation

I’ve heard 3 trade scenarios so far and this is the one that makes since. But look at that Fournier and Rose lineup? That’s tough off the bench to guard, with Noel and cam. I like the bench. Or IQ instead of deuce

11 man rotation……?