martin wrote:

CrushAlot wrote:

As far as Jordan Hill, he stills a backup Forward/Center with Houston just as he was with the Knicks. He averaged 10 minutes per game with us and is now averaging 15 minutes with the Houston Rockets, wow big difference, such a great player.

Just to clarify about Hill. He had 30 dnps coache's decision over the 54 games he was a knick. He was sitting behind Jeffries and Bender and the team was playing for nothing, going nowhere and the only players who were supposed to be around following the season were Hill, Douglas, Gallo and Chandler. He was the eigth pick in the draft and his value was so low that the Knicks also had to send a 1st overall only protected draft pick to the Rockets. I have yet to hear an explanation as to why Johnathon Bender got minutes over Hill on a team that started 1-10 out of camp and only won 29 games.

then you haven't been paying attention. Or you haven't really taken time to look at the situation.

nixluva wrote:

CrushAlot wrote:

martin wrote:

CrushAlot wrote:

As far as Jordan Hill, he stills a backup Forward/Center with Houston just as he was with the Knicks. He averaged 10 minutes per game with us and is now averaging 15 minutes with the Houston Rockets, wow big difference, such a great player.

Just to clarify about Hill. He had 30 dnps coache's decision over the 54 games he was a knick. He was sitting behind Jeffries and Bender and the team was playing for nothing, going nowhere and the only players who were supposed to be around following the season were Hill, Douglas, Gallo and Chandler. He was the eigth pick in the draft and his value was so low that the Knicks also had to send a 1st overall only protected draft pick to the Rockets. I have yet to hear an explanation as to why Johnathon Bender got minutes over Hill on a team that started 1-10 out of camp and only won 29 games.

then you haven't been paying attention. Or you haven't really taken time to look at the situation.

I guess I haven't been paying attention. Can you provide a link to a thread that explains the 30 dnps Hill got when the team was made up of limited vets that were gone after the season and had no chance to make the playoffs. Or if you can explain it I would love to find out how the 8th pick in the draft was used so little that a basically unprotected first round pick had to be included with him when he was traded in a salary dump.

Why are we still talking about this player? Some disliked how Hill was handled. Fine. However, this is the thing about this kid. The truth is Hill came into SL out of shape. Hill came into camp with a bad work ethic. Hill didn't exactly impress in practice. Hill has the physical talent, but as they had a chance to work with him up close, in person, over time and they didn't like what they saw. Hill was used to help the team build a better future. This is what he's shown to be so far. He isn't exactly bowing anyone away yet. Maybe he does eventually become a major player, but right now he's not. Same goes for AR.

Jordan Hill Stats

 

Year	    Team	G 	Min 	FG	FT	Reb	Ast	TO	Stl	Blk	PF      PPG
 2009-10	NY	24	10:30 	44.6	71.4	2.5	0.3	0.5	0.4	0.4	1.5	4.0
 2009-10	HOU	23	16:11 	53.2	66.0	5.0	0.6	0.8	0.2	0.5	2.4	6.4
 2010-11	HOU	72	15:35 	49.2	70.6	4.3	0.4	0.9	0.2	0.7	2.2	5.6
 Career Totals (Full)	119	14:41 	49.2	69.3	4.0	0.4	0.8	0.2	0.6	2.1	5.5

Agree, and while I still have hope for A.R. since he is younger, bigger and more skill than Hill, at some point these guys have to show something on the court when it matters or move on, we can’t wait forever. Imagine if we keep every player just because they got talent and nothing else, than Eddy Curry should still be in a Knick uniform as our center of the future and Darko our power forward I guess.

martin wrote:

CrushAlot wrote:

martin wrote:

CrushAlot wrote:

As far as Jordan Hill, he stills a backup Forward/Center with Houston just as he was with the Knicks. He averaged 10 minutes per game with us and is now averaging 15 minutes with the Houston Rockets, wow big difference, such a great player.

Just to clarify about Hill. He had 30 dnps coache's decision over the 54 games he was a knick. He was sitting behind Jeffries and Bender and the team was playing for nothing, going nowhere and the only players who were supposed to be around following the season were Hill, Douglas, Gallo and Chandler. He was the eigth pick in the draft and his value was so low that the Knicks also had to send a 1st overall only protected draft pick to the Rockets. I have yet to hear an explanation as to why Johnathon Bender got minutes over Hill on a team that started 1-10 out of camp and only won 29 games.

then you haven't been paying attention. Or you haven't really taken time to look at the situation.

I guess I haven't been paying attention. Can you provide a link to a thread that explains the 30 dnps Hill got when the team was made up of limited vets that were gone after the season and had no chance to make the playoffs. Or if you can explain it I would love to find out how the 8th pick in the draft was used so little that a basically unprotected first round pick had to be included with him when he was traded in a salary dump.

First 30 DNPs have nothing to do with Bender's time. 2 different topics.

And you can't come up with anything?

- Hill is a PF/C. He was competing with Lee, Harrington, JJ, Chandler, Gallo, Landry, Bender (and for a week Darko).
- He came into camp and season out of shape.
- He's a rookie who really wasn't that good or yet had not found his groove.
- I guess you follow the philosophy of playing a player just to give playing time whether they earn it or not, see Eddie Curry on that. MDA obviously has differing opinion as do many other Championship level coaches.
- the biggest month where Hill got DNPs was December 2010, and the Knicks were actually on a roll until January, where their record ended at 15-20 and still in the playoff hunt. Team went something like 12-8 in that stretch.

Would everyone like to have seen rookie play more? Sure. Do all rookies get to play? no. From Spurs to Memphis to OKC, rookies could have played but didn't. Such is life in the NBA.

Gallo and Chandler are small forwards and I believe that season Chandler played the two quite a bit that year. Both of those guys were signed beyond the summer of 2010 so they definitely were in the teams plans for the future and they needed to be playing. Lee was the best player on the team and Harrington needed to be given minutes. Jeffries and Bender's minutes are the ones that really bothered me. The GM set the team up with expiring contracts. The goal and the plan was all about 2010 not making the playoffs in 09-10. The playoffs were pretty much out of the question after the team came out of camp and went 3-14. Playing a core group of vets makes sense if your are competing for the playoffs and possibly a championship like D'Antoni's teams in Phoenix. However, the Knicks were neither competing for the playoffs or tanking for the lottery. The season was as close to a throw away season as there is possible. Hill and Douglas were supposed to be a part of the future. D'Antoni endorsed the Hill pick and compared him to Amare. Hill isn't a bad kid he just was sent to the end of the bench and apparently forgotten about. If your team goal is to build for 2010 and more than half your roster is going to be gone at the end of the season how do you justify not playing the young guys. It certainly can't be because the team was competing for the playoffs becuase there was no way that team was overcoming the poor start out of training camp. If you are implying that the team had more success in December because Hill was on the bench, I think you have to remember that he only played in 8 games during the 3-14 stretch and averaged about 7 minutes. However, December shouldn't matter. The team was not going to make the playoffs and not finding minutes for the rookies on a team that was going to be blown up at the end of the season didn't and still doesn't make sense. I don't follow the philosophy of a player being given minutes if they didn't earn it. I also don't follow the philosophy of not playing lottery picks or coaching them when your team is playing for nothing, the guys getting the minutes ahead of the rookie are not that good, have expiring contracts and are not a part of the teams future. There were some great quotes about Hill from Shane Battier when he first got to Houston. The one I remember was that he said it was like Hill had missed his entire first year.

KnicksFE wrote:

CrushAlot wrote:

martin wrote:

CrushAlot wrote:

martin wrote:

CrushAlot wrote:

As far as Jordan Hill, he stills a backup Forward/Center with Houston just as he was with the Knicks. He averaged 10 minutes per game with us and is now averaging 15 minutes with the Houston Rockets, wow big difference, such a great player.

Just to clarify about Hill. He had 30 dnps coache's decision over the 54 games he was a knick. He was sitting behind Jeffries and Bender and the team was playing for nothing, going nowhere and the only players who were supposed to be around following the season were Hill, Douglas, Gallo and Chandler. He was the eigth pick in the draft and his value was so low that the Knicks also had to send a 1st overall only protected draft pick to the Rockets. I have yet to hear an explanation as to why Johnathon Bender got minutes over Hill on a team that started 1-10 out of camp and only won 29 games.

then you haven't been paying attention. Or you haven't really taken time to look at the situation.

I guess I haven't been paying attention. Can you provide a link to a thread that explains the 30 dnps Hill got when the team was made up of limited vets that were gone after the season and had no chance to make the playoffs. Or if you can explain it I would love to find out how the 8th pick in the draft was used so little that a basically unprotected first round pick had to be included with him when he was traded in a salary dump.

First 30 DNPs have nothing to do with Bender's time. 2 different topics.

And you can't come up with anything?

- Hill is a PF/C. He was competing with Lee, Harrington, JJ, Chandler, Gallo, Landry, Bender (and for a week Darko).
- He came into camp and season out of shape.
- He's a rookie who really wasn't that good or yet had not found his groove.
- I guess you follow the philosophy of playing a player just to give playing time whether they earn it or not, see Eddie Curry on that. MDA obviously has differing opinion as do many other Championship level coaches.
- the biggest month where Hill got DNPs was December 2010, and the Knicks were actually on a roll until January, where their record ended at 15-20 and still in the playoff hunt. Team went something like 12-8 in that stretch.

Would everyone like to have seen rookie play more? Sure. Do all rookies get to play? no. From Spurs to Memphis to OKC, rookies could have played but didn't. Such is life in the NBA.

First of all I would take Marcus Landry right off of your list of guys Hill was competing with. My guess is Mike D'Antoni couldn't identify Landry in a line up of one.

Gallo and Chandler are small forwards and I believe that season Chandler played the two quite a bit that year. Both of those guys were signed beyond the summer of 2010 so they definitely were in the teams plans for the future and they needed to be playing. Lee was the best player on the team and Harrington needed to be given minutes. Jeffries and Bender's minutes are the ones that really bothered me. The GM set the team up with expiring contracts. The goal and the plan was all about 2010 not making the playoffs in 09-10. The playoffs were pretty much out of the question after the team came out of camp and went 3-14. Playing a core group of vets makes sense if your are competing for the playoffs and possibly a championship like D'Antoni's teams in Phoenix. However, the Knicks were neither competing for the playoffs or tanking for the lottery. The season was as close to a throw away season as there is possible. Hill and Douglas were supposed to be a part of the future. D'Antoni endorsed the Hill pick and compared him to Amare. Hill isn't a bad kid he just was sent to the end of the bench and apparently forgotten about. If your team goal is to build for 2010 and more than half your roster is going to be gone at the end of the season how do you justify not playing the young guys. It certainly can't be because the team was competing for the playoffs becuase there was no way that team was overcoming the poor start out of training camp. If you are implying that the team had more success in December because Hill was on the bench, I think you have to remember that he only played in 8 games during the 3-14 stretch and averaged about 7 minutes. However, December shouldn't matter. The team was not going to make the playoffs and not finding minutes for the rookies on a team that was going to be blown up at the end of the season didn't and still doesn't make sense. I don't follow the philosophy of a player being given minutes if they didn't earn it. I also don't follow the philosophy of not playing lottery picks or coaching them when your team is playing for nothing, the guys getting the minutes ahead of the rookie are not that good, have expiring contracts and are not a part of the teams future. There were some great quotes about Hill from Shane Battier when he first got to Houston. The one I remember was that he said it was like Hill had missed his entire first year.

Just because the Knicks were trading for expiring contracts, that didn’t mean that they were quitting on the season, the goal was to remained competitive while maneuvering the cap (See the link below). Also remember that aside from Hill, they also had other young players that were farther developed and needed to show these guys how to win more games, even if it was just 30 wins.

http://articles.nydailynews.com/2008-12-22/sports/17912614_1_knicks-danilo-gallinari-donnie-walsh

As far as Shane Battiers comments, I wonder what he would say now that his boy Hill still averaging just 15 minutes per game in Houston and Hill just turned 24 yesterday, meaning that while still young, he wasn’t necessarily a teenager when we drafted him.

nixluva wrote:Lets's at least try to be fair when it comes to Mike and young players. Gallo, Chandler, Fields all played cuz they were ready to contribute. TD was struggling to learn the PG spot and still hasn't gotten the hang of it. Timo showed some promise for the future and got an early look at C. It's really only Hill and AR that people tend to keep throwing up in Mike's face and yet they forget guys like Walker and S. Williams that have developed nicely under Mike. His overall record with young players on the Knicks has been quite good. Young players have had a huge contribution for this team. Being a young team we've had to rely on them and most of them have played meaningful minutes.

You may want to add David Lee to the list, since he was solid, but not the all start (80 million) player that he became under Mike. And what about Felton? He didn’t even get a contract from the Bobcats, yet he was playing near all start level for us.

nixluva wrote:

KnicksFE wrote:

nixluva wrote:Lets's at least try to be fair when it comes to Mike and young players. Gallo, Chandler, Fields all played cuz they were ready to contribute. TD was struggling to learn the PG spot and still hasn't gotten the hang of it. Timo showed some promise for the future and got an early look at C. It's really only Hill and AR that people tend to keep throwing up in Mike's face and yet they forget guys like Walker and S. Williams that have developed nicely under Mike. His overall record with young players on the Knicks has been quite good. Young players have had a huge contribution for this team. Being a young team we've had to rely on them and most of them have played meaningful minutes.

You may want to add David Lee to the list, since he was solid, but not the all start (80 million) player that he became under Mike. And what about Felton? He didn’t even get a contract from the Bobcats, yet he was playing near all start level for us.

Exactly. MDA haters tend to completely overlook his ability to develop players and get more out of them than they've shown up to the point they play for him. Some writers have said that MDA is the wrong coach for this team now that it has CB and Melo, but Melo actually improved under MDA!!! He was becoming more efficient and starting to do things he has never done. Like play some D and play within the flow of the offense as opposed to always going solo. Billups was actually getting his game going when he injured his knee against the Magic. The only thing people can really hold against MDA is the 2 horrible seasons when we were basically preparing for the Summer of 2010. You can't really bash him over a winning season and 6th seed last year.

nixluva wrote:

CrushAlot wrote:

nixluva wrote:

KnicksFE wrote:

nixluva wrote:Lets's at least try to be fair when it comes to Mike and young players. Gallo, Chandler, Fields all played cuz they were ready to contribute. TD was struggling to learn the PG spot and still hasn't gotten the hang of it. Timo showed some promise for the future and got an early look at C. It's really only Hill and AR that people tend to keep throwing up in Mike's face and yet they forget guys like Walker and S. Williams that have developed nicely under Mike. His overall record with young players on the Knicks has been quite good. Young players have had a huge contribution for this team. Being a young team we've had to rely on them and most of them have played meaningful minutes.

You may want to add David Lee to the list, since he was solid, but not the all start (80 million) player that he became under Mike. And what about Felton? He didn’t even get a contract from the Bobcats, yet he was playing near all start level for us.

Exactly. MDA haters tend to completely overlook his ability to develop players and get more out of them than they've shown up to the point they play for him. Some writers have said that MDA is the wrong coach for this team now that it has CB and Melo, but Melo actually improved under MDA!!! He was becoming more efficient and starting to do things he has never done. Like play some D and play within the flow of the offense as opposed to always going solo. Billups was actually getting his game going when he injured his knee against the Magic. The only thing people can really hold against MDA is the 2 horrible seasons when we were basically preparing for the Summer of 2010. You can't really bash him over a winning season and 6th seed last year.

Lee averaged 11 and 9 the year before D'Antoni. I am sure some of his development can be credited to D'Antoni but his minutes increased by 5 per game each of the years he played for D'Antoni. I still don't think there has been any explanation on why Hill and Douglas could not get minutes on the team that won 29 games and only a few of the players on the team were considered a part of the future after that season.

IMO you have a flawed premise. You seem to think that the only consideration was getting the rookies minutes and developing them by throwing them out there and letting them flounder around. There are other views and one is that the final record doesn't deal with the details of what actually happened during the season. Winning only 29 games makes is seem like it was a no brainer that the kids should get a ton of minutes. In reality tho, there was a stretch during the season where the team was playing better and the team still had a chance to win more games and get into the playoffs. The team was going to keep trying as long as it was still feasible that they could make the playoffs.

You may have given up on the season after the 3-14 start, but that wasn't the thinking of the team. On January 7th the team was 5 games under .500 after posting a 9-6 record in December. In January the team went 6-9. By January 26th the team fell to 18-26, 8 games under .500 and the season started to truly slip away. So as much as you keep framing it that it was clear the team wasn't going anywhere, it actually wasn't until deeper into the season before that became a fact.

The next point is that Hill if of no consequence since the team didn't see fit to keep him. If they thought he was worth keeping they wouldn't have traded him. TD wasn't harmed by not playing more minutes. He still has developed as a player, like most rookies that don't log heavy minutes in year one.

D’Antoni’s Words Meaningless
March 22nd, 2010 by Mike Kurylo | Comments | Permalink |

Over the course of evolution, mankind has developed language in order to convey thoughts, ideas and feelings. Probably minutes after the first formal language, man discovered using words to mislead others or to hide their true intention. This probably first occurred when Uga asked Grog if the lion skin she was wearing made her bottom look like a hippopotamus’. Deception is used in language by everyone, so it should be no surprise when a public figure does it.

Yesterday D’Antoni tried to defend his benching of Jordan Hill by saying he liked rookies, just not the “bad” ones. Minutes later he followed with “I love Toney Douglas”, which is ironic since D’Antoni ignored the rookie for the 4 months of the season. Although if you really wanted to make sense of his words, you probably could make a case. Perhaps earlier in the season D’Antoni didn’t love Toney Douglas, but now he does. And when he says the Knicks couldn’t play the 6-11 Hill because the team was in the ‘playoff hunt’, it doesn’t mean the Rockets, who really are in the playoff hunt and play Hill 16.4 minutes a night, have to adhere to the same criteria.

Perhaps I’ve been burned too often in life, but I tend to look at people’s actions more than their words. It’s easy to say what you want someone to hear, it’s more difficult to consistently go against your principles. So that D’Antoni claims that he loves rookies or that Hill was a “bad” rookie and the Knicks were in a playoff race, really doesn’t mean those are the his true feelings. Instead it’s more significant to look at what the Knicks coach actually did. Obviously early in the year D’Antoni didn’t see much value in these players. One was traded and the other all of a sudden has become a valued contributor (and starter). The real reasons we probably never know.

Ultimately his job as coach is to appropriate the playing time to the best interests in his team. And with these two rookies it appears that he failed at his task. When the team was suffering from poor point guard play and a lack of a big center, D’Antoni went with Duhon and Harrington. So he can laugh when the press asks him about liking rookies, and point to his record with Amar’e Stoudamire. But if you’re trying to prove you play rookies more than the average coach, and your best example is a future All Star that just about every coach would have played, then perhaps your actions are speaking louder than words

http://knickerblogger.net/dantonis-words-meaningless/

nixluva wrote:What exactly did it matter that the Rockets played Hill? What did he really accomplish with more time the next season. He's the same damn player. So it basically proves that just cuz you give a kid more minutes it doesn't guarantee he'll produce. TD had plenty of games in his rookie year where he got a load of minutes, but he also had periods of time where he didn't play well and so he fell out of the rotation. That is kind of what happens to most rookies. It's on in this bizarro world of MDA haters that rookies just get to play no matter whether they deserve the minutes or not.