Knixkik wrote:

Welpee wrote:

Knixkik wrote:

Welpee wrote:

Knixkik wrote:

Welpee wrote:

knicks1248 wrote:

Knixkik wrote:IQ was the most impactful rookie of the year. He was a major difference-maker on a playoff team all year. He could have played in orlando or Houston and played 30 mpg and averaged 18-20, but he was in a smaller role on a good team. Unfortunately impact typically doesn't mean much in the rookie rankings.

What gets me is Barrett doesn't make a team because he was perceived as a guy getting numbers without impact. Now watch IQ get dinged because he's a high impact guy without big numbers.

Dude Ball and Edward were much better than IQ, hands down.

I believe IQ should make an all rookie team, but he's not better than those 2

Yeah, that didn't make much sense. Also don't forget Haliburton.

Not saying at all he deserves rookie of the year. Just saying he was the most impactful rookie in terms on role on a winning team. You guys need to re read what I wrote. I just think his impact will be undervalued and he may not even make first team rookie.

I read what you wrote and still don't see it. So if a rookie is out performed by other rookies but his team happens to win more, that means he had more impact? Based on that logic should we mention Tyrese Maxey since Philly had a better record than us?

Look at most advanced stats. IQ had the most impact outside of Ball this year I think. It was ball, Haliburton and IQ. Edwards wasn’t in the picture.

lol...seems like "advance stats" is always the go to card to prove what you lying eyes aren't really seeing.

Maybe we aren’t talking about the same Edward? Edwards was awful for most of the season on the worse team in the league. Got some rhythm late in the year when no one cares anymore. Again edwards has huge upside. But the majority of his season was like a half step up from rookie Knox.

I also find it interesting that when you focus on impact you're ignoring the following: in the first half of the season when Edwards was "awful" and he put up 15 ppg, 4 rebs, 2.5 assists Minnesota was 7-29. In the second half when Edwards put up 23.8 ppg, 5.3 rebs, 3.4 assists Minnesota's record was 16-20. I hope you're not going to claim it was a coincidence and his play had nothing to do with the 2nd half improvement.

The Knox comparison is so insane it's not even worth addressing.

foosballnick wrote:

Welpee wrote:

BigDaddyG wrote:

Welpee wrote:

Knixkik wrote:

Welpee wrote:

Knixkik wrote:

Welpee wrote:

knicks1248 wrote:

Knixkik wrote:IQ was the most impactful rookie of the year. He was a major difference-maker on a playoff team all year. He could have played in orlando or Houston and played 30 mpg and averaged 18-20, but he was in a smaller role on a good team. Unfortunately impact typically doesn't mean much in the rookie rankings.

What gets me is Barrett doesn't make a team because he was perceived as a guy getting numbers without impact. Now watch IQ get dinged because he's a high impact guy without big numbers.

Dude Ball and Edward were much better than IQ, hands down.

I believe IQ should make an all rookie team, but he's not better than those 2

Yeah, that didn't make much sense. Also don't forget Haliburton.

Not saying at all he deserves rookie of the year. Just saying he was the most impactful rookie in terms on role on a winning team. You guys need to re read what I wrote. I just think his impact will be undervalued and he may not even make first team rookie.

I read what you wrote and still don't see it. So if a rookie is out performed by other rookies but his team happens to win more, that means he had more impact? Based on that logic should we mention Tyrese Maxey since Philly had a better record than us?

Look at most advanced stats. IQ had the most impact outside of Ball this year I think. It was ball, Haliburton and IQ. Edwards wasn’t in the picture.

lol...seems like "advance stats" is always the go to card to prove what you lying eyes aren't really seeing.

In this case, I think upside gets confused with performance. Do I think Haliburton or IQ have Edward's upside? No. Do I think they had more even performances throughout their rookie years? Yeah
I still think the award goes to Ball.

Not sure I agree with that either. If you look at pre and post all-star game numbers(roughly the halfway mark of the season) Quickley's stats dropped slightly in spite of his minutes being bumped up a little. Haliburton stayed relatively consistent. Edwards jumped from 15 ppg to 24 ppg in the second half. Honestly, I love IQ but the last thing I think of when describing Quickley's rookie year would be "even performances."

How much defense was Halliburton (or Edwards for that matter) asked to play on the worst defensive team in the NBA? I wonder if its easier or more difficult to play consistent offense when your coach is constantly on your case to put out maximum effort on D or he will get in your face?

Halliburton > Kobe

The media told me

BigDaddyG wrote:

Welpee wrote:

BigDaddyG wrote:

Welpee wrote:

Knixkik wrote:

Welpee wrote:

Knixkik wrote:

Welpee wrote:

knicks1248 wrote:

Knixkik wrote:IQ was the most impactful rookie of the year. He was a major difference-maker on a playoff team all year. He could have played in orlando or Houston and played 30 mpg and averaged 18-20, but he was in a smaller role on a good team. Unfortunately impact typically doesn't mean much in the rookie rankings.

What gets me is Barrett doesn't make a team because he was perceived as a guy getting numbers without impact. Now watch IQ get dinged because he's a high impact guy without big numbers.

Dude Ball and Edward were much better than IQ, hands down.

I believe IQ should make an all rookie team, but he's not better than those 2

Yeah, that didn't make much sense. Also don't forget Haliburton.

Not saying at all he deserves rookie of the year. Just saying he was the most impactful rookie in terms on role on a winning team. You guys need to re read what I wrote. I just think his impact will be undervalued and he may not even make first team rookie.

I read what you wrote and still don't see it. So if a rookie is out performed by other rookies but his team happens to win more, that means he had more impact? Based on that logic should we mention Tyrese Maxey since Philly had a better record than us?

Look at most advanced stats. IQ had the most impact outside of Ball this year I think. It was ball, Haliburton and IQ. Edwards wasn’t in the picture.

lol...seems like "advance stats" is always the go to card to prove what you lying eyes aren't really seeing.

In this case, I think upside gets confused with performance. Do I think Haliburton or IQ have Edward's upside? No. Do I think they had more even performances throughout their rookie years? Yeah
I still think the award goes to Ball.

Not sure I agree with that either. If you look at pre and post all-star game numbers(roughly the halfway mark of the season) Quickley's stats dropped slightly in spite of his minutes being bumped up a little. Haliburton stayed relatively consistent. Edwards jumped from 15 ppg to 24 ppg in the second half. Honestly, I love IQ but the last thing I think of when describing Quickley's rookie year would be "even performances."

IQ dropped "slightly". Edward was god awful for the first half. And I'm not even talking ppg. Efficiency was abysmal as well. That's what I mean by more even performances.

Again, I like Quickley but I think you guys are really overrating the season he had. And as I've said a million times about other players, you can't take stats for 18 minutes per game and extrapolate them over 36 minutes and assume that would actually come to fruition.

BigDaddyG wrote:

Welpee wrote:

BigDaddyG wrote:

Welpee wrote:

BigDaddyG wrote:

Welpee wrote:

Knixkik wrote:

Welpee wrote:

Knixkik wrote:

Welpee wrote:

knicks1248 wrote:

Knixkik wrote:IQ was the most impactful rookie of the year. He was a major difference-maker on a playoff team all year. He could have played in orlando or Houston and played 30 mpg and averaged 18-20, but he was in a smaller role on a good team. Unfortunately impact typically doesn't mean much in the rookie rankings.

What gets me is Barrett doesn't make a team because he was perceived as a guy getting numbers without impact. Now watch IQ get dinged because he's a high impact guy without big numbers.

Dude Ball and Edward were much better than IQ, hands down.

I believe IQ should make an all rookie team, but he's not better than those 2

Yeah, that didn't make much sense. Also don't forget Haliburton.

Not saying at all he deserves rookie of the year. Just saying he was the most impactful rookie in terms on role on a winning team. You guys need to re read what I wrote. I just think his impact will be undervalued and he may not even make first team rookie.

I read what you wrote and still don't see it. So if a rookie is out performed by other rookies but his team happens to win more, that means he had more impact? Based on that logic should we mention Tyrese Maxey since Philly had a better record than us?

Look at most advanced stats. IQ had the most impact outside of Ball this year I think. It was ball, Haliburton and IQ. Edwards wasn’t in the picture.

lol...seems like "advance stats" is always the go to card to prove what you lying eyes aren't really seeing.

In this case, I think upside gets confused with performance. Do I think Haliburton or IQ have Edward's upside? No. Do I think they had more even performances throughout their rookie years? Yeah
I still think the award goes to Ball.

Not sure I agree with that either. If you look at pre and post all-star game numbers(roughly the halfway mark of the season) Quickley's stats dropped slightly in spite of his minutes being bumped up a little. Haliburton stayed relatively consistent. Edwards jumped from 15 ppg to 24 ppg in the second half. Honestly, I love IQ but the last thing I think of when describing Quickley's rookie year would be "even performances."

IQ dropped "slightly". Edward was god awful for the first half. And I'm not even talking ppg. Efficiency was abysmal as well. That's what I mean by more even performances.

Have you actually looked at Quickley's numbers? If you have, please share them to justify this. So being consistently solid (though I would challenge that with Quickley) carries more weight than struggling in the first half of the year and being very good in the second half?

Again, I like Quickley but I think you guys are really overrating the season he had. And as I've said a million times about other players, you can't take stats for 18 minutes per game and extrapolate them over 36 minutes and assume that would actually come to fruition.

I didn't say that. What I said was Hal and IQ were more consistent throughout their rookie years thanks Edwards. Edwards was historically bad in the first half for a player with his useage and he picked it up in the second half. Hal and IQ stayed at or above replacement level pretty much throughout. I even conceded that Edward's showed more upside than both. My point is that it doesn't really matter because the award should go to Ball.

Philc1 wrote:

Welpee wrote:

Philc1 wrote:None of the rookies this year were anything special. If the writers weren’t all lazy knick haters IQ would be getting serious consideration even as a guy coming off the bench

Wow, you guys really need to venture out of the knicks bubble every now and then. Do you only watch the games where Quickley plays well and ignore his ineffective games? Quickley should make the all-rookie team but no way he deserves rookie of the year consideration. I'm shocked this is even being debated.

Welpee wrote:

BigDaddyG wrote:

Welpee wrote:

BigDaddyG wrote:

Welpee wrote:

Knixkik wrote:

Welpee wrote:

Knixkik wrote:

Welpee wrote:

knicks1248 wrote:

Knixkik wrote:IQ was the most impactful rookie of the year. He was a major difference-maker on a playoff team all year. He could have played in orlando or Houston and played 30 mpg and averaged 18-20, but he was in a smaller role on a good team. Unfortunately impact typically doesn't mean much in the rookie rankings.

What gets me is Barrett doesn't make a team because he was perceived as a guy getting numbers without impact. Now watch IQ get dinged because he's a high impact guy without big numbers.

Dude Ball and Edward were much better than IQ, hands down.

I believe IQ should make an all rookie team, but he's not better than those 2

Yeah, that didn't make much sense. Also don't forget Haliburton.

Not saying at all he deserves rookie of the year. Just saying he was the most impactful rookie in terms on role on a winning team. You guys need to re read what I wrote. I just think his impact will be undervalued and he may not even make first team rookie.

I read what you wrote and still don't see it. So if a rookie is out performed by other rookies but his team happens to win more, that means he had more impact? Based on that logic should we mention Tyrese Maxey since Philly had a better record than us?

Look at most advanced stats. IQ had the most impact outside of Ball this year I think. It was ball, Haliburton and IQ. Edwards wasn’t in the picture.

lol...seems like "advance stats" is always the go to card to prove what you lying eyes aren't really seeing.

In this case, I think upside gets confused with performance. Do I think Haliburton or IQ have Edward's upside? No. Do I think they had more even performances throughout their rookie years? Yeah
I still think the award goes to Ball.

Not sure I agree with that either. If you look at pre and post all-star game numbers(roughly the halfway mark of the season) Quickley's stats dropped slightly in spite of his minutes being bumped up a little. Haliburton stayed relatively consistent. Edwards jumped from 15 ppg to 24 ppg in the second half. Honestly, I love IQ but the last thing I think of when describing Quickley's rookie year would be "even performances."

IQ dropped "slightly". Edward was god awful for the first half. And I'm not even talking ppg. Efficiency was abysmal as well. That's what I mean by more even performances.

Have you actually looked at Quickley's numbers? If you have, please share them to justify this. So being consistently solid (though I would challenge that with Quickley) carries more weight than struggling in the first half of the year and being very good in the second half?

Again, I like Quickley but I think you guys are really overrating the season he had. And as I've said a million times about other players, you can't take stats for 18 minutes per game and extrapolate them over 36 minutes and assume that would actually come to fruition.

Let’s compare Quickley and Edwards shooting percentages

Edwards fg 41% 3pt 32%
IQ fg 39% 3pt 39%

Edwards averaged just 2 more rebounds per game than Quickley and less than one more assist per game despite averaging 32 minutes per game and Quickley averaging 19 minutes per game

Oh and then there’s the small fact that Edwards’ team was the worst in the league and IQ helped his team get to a 4th seed

Edwards leads in: fg%, 2pt %, rebs, steals, blocks, points, and fewer fouls.
Quickley leads in: 3 pt%, FT%, assists, fewer TO.