Allanfan20 wrote:Perhaps the Knicks arent so willing to trade Nate, as ive said all along, Nd did this for his own good. I feel this and felt that. D`Antoni played this perfectly. I supported this move from the start and Nate, more importantly, handled it well. Now he has to keep it up.

yeah, they don't want to trade Nate so much that Donnie was quoted as saying he'd discuss buyout options for Nate w/his agent last week.

oohah wrote:Nate Robinson: "People think I joke around, but that's just me, I'm a free spirit"

He Ends the interview with: "Shake and Bake!"

Yes, Robinson is quite humbled. A changed man.

oohah

lol... i made reference to that in another thread just now... come on guys, Nate is the same old Nate we all knew & loved/hated... this is who he is, either deal with it or figure out a way to get something back in return.

i like Nate for what he is but i don't think he'll ever be a good match for MDA or his system... we really should be trying to showcase him now, so that we can either dump Fishlips or Curry's contract or get a future 1st round pick, cuz i don't see the Knicks signing Nate to a longterm extension this year.

PresIke wrote:your arguments for allowing nate to do what he wants because we need his scoring

I wrote that? You're arguing with a straw man.

oohah

to suggest duhon was the problem and nate wasn't is like saying, we're not winning because lee is playing well because chandler is playing better!

Are you big on facts pres or do you prefer truthiness?

The facts are that Nate Robinson missed the first 6 games of November. The Knicks went 1 and 5 The facts are that when Nate Robinson came back he produced and helped the Knicks be more competitive. And they were 2 and 6.

The facts are that Duhon, who plays the most important position in this offense was terrible in November, and when he started playing better in December the team started playing better.

The fact is that because Duhon started playing better coincided with Robinson's benching does not make Robinson's benching the reason the Knicks put up a good record in December.

The facts are that the Knicks had some real lucky schedule breaks in December.

But don't let the facts get in the way of truthiness.

oohah

PresIke wrote:care to respond to my other points, or just the ones where you can bring up "facts" like this one":

The facts are that the Knicks had some real luck schedule breaks in December.

i wasn't aware of luck being something we can measure as factual...or is that truthiness?

The Knicks got Portland right after 2 major injuries, Gerald Wallace went down with a headache right before the Charlotte game, Josh Smith got thrown out early in the Atlanta game.

I think those are fairly lucky schedule breaks, in fact.

oohah

PresIke wrote:care to respond to my other points, or just the ones where you can bring up "facts" like this one":

The facts are that the Knicks had some real luck schedule breaks in December.

i wasn't aware of luck being something we can measure as factual...or is that truthiness?

i'm confused.

factorial #1:

i have never suggested that the knicks better play is necessarily correlated to nate's benching.

you are the one arguing with a straw man, my friend.

I don't have time to respond to all your points, simply read my posts throughout the night. I have made a bunch and backed them with hard data.

But I will respond to this one:

PresIke wrote:your arguments for allowing nate to do what he wants because we need his scoring, as a means of saying mda is a bad coach in this case, goes against mounds of peer reviewed literature...based on real life evidence not just "an opinion"...that shows holding people to high expectations, and eventually giving them chances to succeed (aka: nate has played before after making major mistakes, and now tonight...as it was also never stated he would not get a chance to play again) is essential to building people up to what they truly can become. mda has used this approach with nate from day 1 as coach, as has been stated ad nauseum (at least from this poster)...like when he asked nate to channel his strengths to stealing rather than blocking shots on d, by saying he could lead the league in steals.

This ain't nothing new from Nate Robinson! He had 10 similar games last season where he willed the team to wins! He scored 22 points in a quarter in November!

Then after this game he basically said: "I am who I am, deal with it!"

So if you are suggesting that Robinson has emerged from some sort of cocoon a new butterfly...you're wrong. He is the same player doing the same things as before.

What really happened is that D'Antoni finally realized that he needs Nate's spark if he wants to keep winning, not this Tony Robbins mumbo jumbo.

oohah'

PresIke wrote:oohah (and any others that think his argument here is the correct one:

repeat the idea that the goal of mda sitting nate was to screw him and see if that makes any kind of sense for a team that needs to win.

instead of being happy about nate responding, perhaps to the benching and doing well, fans have to go back and say that the good performance therefore suggests the benching was unjustified. this is just poor, or at a minimum, faulty logic

i don't think there's a fan here who wasn't happy about Nate responding to his benching by playing the way he did tonight, whether we supported MDA's decision to bench Nate for 14 games or not... what would lead you to believe otherwise?

your arguments for allowing nate to do what he wants because we need his scoring, as a means of saying mda is a bad coach in this case, goes against mounds of peer reviewed literature.

who is saying MDA is a bad coach? am i missing something here?

dismissing nixluva's completely legit point about not seeing what is perhaps behind nate's benching is beyond flawed...

please explain... how is it flawed to dismiss a premise based completely on assumptions & not proven fact? the only facts we know are that MDA grew tired of Nate's idiotic shenanigans on the court so he decided to bench him... no one is putting that into question... nixluva is proposing the idea that something may have happened behind the scenes that none of us know about that justified a prolonged benching... that could be true, or it might not... it's assumptions of fact, nothing more.

to suggest duhon was the problem and nate wasn't is like saying, we're not winning because lee is playing well because chandler is playing better!

Duhon was the main problem early in the season... i don't think that can be debated... he was playing like garbage & he was the guy handling the ball & orchestrating the offense... Nate wasn't playing great either but he at least had an excuse, he wasn't fully healthy... i've been a Duhon defender but even i can't make up any excuses for how poorly he played to start off the season... he looked fat, slow & tired & his head just wasn't into the game at all... to his credit he turned his season around & the rest of the team improved their game as well... all of this coincided with Nate's benching... i think anyone who takes the stand that Nate's benching had a direct correlation to the improved play in the team over the past month are taking an overly simplistic approach, which is flawed logic in itself... there were several different factors that were the cause of the team's improved play.

nate's behavior was deemed a problem, quite fairly.

being a good or "winning" player in the nba is more than just talent.

Nate's behavior was deemed a problem quite fairly, i agree with you 100%... but having one of our best players riding pine is not conducive to winning... do u really think Nate couldn't have helped in games where we needed his offensive spark off the bench that we lost over the past month? was this really all about winning games & nothing personal? i don't believe that for a second... i think Nate will always be a knucklehead, he's never going to change... u either have to learn to accept that & try & work with what u have, or trade him & get something back, cuz he's too damn talented a ballplayer to just watch him walk for nothing after this season is over.

Get the **** outta here with that bull**** son