blkexec wrote:

joec32033 wrote:

blkexec wrote:

Well Martin, I guess you missed my lecture at Johns Hopkins about Thibs DNA, and the playoffs, blkexec was there

How did I get thrown into this. Don't put me in this Gus, I've had enough friction with all the Thibs lovers on UK site.

But I think even Thibs fans can agree that his distribution of minutes and the timing of them is questionable.

The results is how the players look gasped every 4th quarter. And I love the counter arguement. "Thibs mins are similar to every other NBA coach."

1. Just because every other coach is doing that, doesn't mean it's best for this team as constructed. I can see if we had a starting 5 with mostly all stars and a superstar (or anything close). We have a group of young over achievers. Brunson never played this many minutes. Jules is a 3 quarter player. RJ clanks a few free throws in the 4th. And the TOs is crazy, especially the unforced ones).

2. It's also the timing of those minutes, and inconsistency. EF goes from not playing to playing 9 minutes in crunch time? RJ goes from out for days, with a serious finger injury, to playin 41 mins his first game back? I can go on and on. Just some weird stuff from a well respected old school coach. I don't know if it's political, is it Thibs, or some combination.

Now what I do like is hes developing and winning at the same time. And the team fights for him. They have a great synergistic chemistry across the board.

While you may hate the argument it doesn't make that argument invalid.

1. "Just because every coach is doing it doesn't mean it the best for this team" is very valid. What makes it best for this team is that what he is doing is leading to winning. The argument can be made that the reason they are where they are-on a 46 win pace-because of how he has managed this team.
Brunson was a back up who was upgraded to #1 option. And we have whole thread on how the only trustable player in the clutch is currently Brunson, while RJ has shown some good signs and JR plays tight. You can't have it both ways. Can't blame the minutes for RJ and JR falling off then say Brunson plays the same "absurd" minutes but is the only clutch player we have. That is not a minutes issue, it's a testicular fortitude issue.

2. The timing of those minutes is we have a few really good players, then some players who are very specialized at what they do who are probably end of the rotation players on a winning team playing big minutes for them. Starting 5 is good. Quickley seems to have turned a corner. Deuce is a defensive sub on a good team. Hart is like Dudley with a corner 3. Toppin has been hurt and plays one side of the ball and needs someone to create for him. At best, pthe Knicks are 7 deep with consistent players that would have major roles on winning teams.

Why can't both statements be true (see bold)?

So you are implying that this team is better than where they are now? So used optimally, what is your ceiling for this team?

joec32033 wrote:

blkexec wrote:

joec32033 wrote:

blkexec wrote:

Well Martin, I guess you missed my lecture at Johns Hopkins about Thibs DNA, and the playoffs, blkexec was there

How did I get thrown into this. Don't put me in this Gus, I've had enough friction with all the Thibs lovers on UK site.

But I think even Thibs fans can agree that his distribution of minutes and the timing of them is questionable.

The results is how the players look gasped every 4th quarter. And I love the counter arguement. "Thibs mins are similar to every other NBA coach."

1. Just because every other coach is doing that, doesn't mean it's best for this team as constructed. I can see if we had a starting 5 with mostly all stars and a superstar (or anything close). We have a group of young over achievers. Brunson never played this many minutes. Jules is a 3 quarter player. RJ clanks a few free throws in the 4th. And the TOs is crazy, especially the unforced ones).

2. It's also the timing of those minutes, and inconsistency. EF goes from not playing to playing 9 minutes in crunch time? RJ goes from out for days, with a serious finger injury, to playin 41 mins his first game back? I can go on and on. Just some weird stuff from a well respected old school coach. I don't know if it's political, is it Thibs, or some combination.

Now what I do like is hes developing and winning at the same time. And the team fights for him. They have a great synergistic chemistry across the board.

While you may hate the argument it doesn't make that argument invalid.

1. "Just because every coach is doing it doesn't mean it the best for this team" is very valid. What makes it best for this team is that what he is doing is leading to winning. The argument can be made that the reason they are where they are-on a 46 win pace-because of how he has managed this team.
Brunson was a back up who was upgraded to #1 option. And we have whole thread on how the only trustable player in the clutch is currently Brunson, while RJ has shown some good signs and JR plays tight. You can't have it both ways. Can't blame the minutes for RJ and JR falling off then say Brunson plays the same "absurd" minutes but is the only clutch player we have. That is not a minutes issue, it's a testicular fortitude issue.

2. The timing of those minutes is we have a few really good players, then some players who are very specialized at what they do who are probably end of the rotation players on a winning team playing big minutes for them. Starting 5 is good. Quickley seems to have turned a corner. Deuce is a defensive sub on a good team. Hart is like Dudley with a corner 3. Toppin has been hurt and plays one side of the ball and needs someone to create for him. At best, pthe Knicks are 7 deep with consistent players that would have major roles on winning teams.

Why can't both statements be true (see bold)?

So you are implying that this team is better than where they are now? So used optimally, what is your ceiling for this team?

Not sure I understand your first statement. But the team is better under Thibs rotation change and min distribution. If that’s what your asking.

My projected ceiling for this team is a tough 1st round playoff exit. That’s an improvement because before we have been swept several times. But don’t see us getting past 1st round.

blkexec wrote:

joec32033 wrote:

blkexec wrote:

joec32033 wrote:

blkexec wrote:

Well Martin, I guess you missed my lecture at Johns Hopkins about Thibs DNA, and the playoffs, blkexec was there

How did I get thrown into this. Don't put me in this Gus, I've had enough friction with all the Thibs lovers on UK site.

But I think even Thibs fans can agree that his distribution of minutes and the timing of them is questionable.

The results is how the players look gasped every 4th quarter. And I love the counter arguement. "Thibs mins are similar to every other NBA coach."

1. Just because every other coach is doing that, doesn't mean it's best for this team as constructed. I can see if we had a starting 5 with mostly all stars and a superstar (or anything close). We have a group of young over achievers. Brunson never played this many minutes. Jules is a 3 quarter player. RJ clanks a few free throws in the 4th. And the TOs is crazy, especially the unforced ones).

2. It's also the timing of those minutes, and inconsistency. EF goes from not playing to playing 9 minutes in crunch time? RJ goes from out for days, with a serious finger injury, to playin 41 mins his first game back? I can go on and on. Just some weird stuff from a well respected old school coach. I don't know if it's political, is it Thibs, or some combination.

Now what I do like is hes developing and winning at the same time. And the team fights for him. They have a great synergistic chemistry across the board.

While you may hate the argument it doesn't make that argument invalid.

1. "Just because every coach is doing it doesn't mean it the best for this team" is very valid. What makes it best for this team is that what he is doing is leading to winning. The argument can be made that the reason they are where they are-on a 46 win pace-because of how he has managed this team.
Brunson was a back up who was upgraded to #1 option. And we have whole thread on how the only trustable player in the clutch is currently Brunson, while RJ has shown some good signs and JR plays tight. You can't have it both ways. Can't blame the minutes for RJ and JR falling off then say Brunson plays the same "absurd" minutes but is the only clutch player we have. That is not a minutes issue, it's a testicular fortitude issue.

2. The timing of those minutes is we have a few really good players, then some players who are very specialized at what they do who are probably end of the rotation players on a winning team playing big minutes for them. Starting 5 is good. Quickley seems to have turned a corner. Deuce is a defensive sub on a good team. Hart is like Dudley with a corner 3. Toppin has been hurt and plays one side of the ball and needs someone to create for him. At best, pthe Knicks are 7 deep with consistent players that would have major roles on winning teams.

Why can't both statements be true (see bold)?

So you are implying that this team is better than where they are now? So used optimally, what is your ceiling for this team?

Not sure I understand your first statement. But the team is better under Thibs rotation change and min distribution. If that’s what your asking.

My projected ceiling for this team is a tough 1st round playoff exit. That’s an improvement because before we have been swept several times. But don’t see us getting past 1st round.

Question was probably poorly worded. My question was do you think this team is better than what they have performed this season? I thought this team was a slightly better than .500 team (was right on thisnone so far). But I thought we would have totally different guys performing. Never thought Deuce would factor in, figured it would be Rose (I was wrong). Thought RJ would perform at an all star level (he's performing great but doesnt deserve an all star bid). Thought Brunson would be good but nowhere near this good. Though Reddish would see minutes at backup Sf and eventually possibly start with RJ (SG/SF combo). Figured they would be competitive with teams that were on an even plane and would get nailed by teams better than them (i was wrong they are competitive even against good teams).

Basically I figured we were good, but I was looking at the wrong contributors. I never even think playoffs until I at least see some of the season. This team can win a 1st round match up with just about anyone at best. Reality is they will probably put a good scare into someone if they get in the bottom half of the seeding, And may get into the 2nd round if they seed in the top half.

As you can probably tell I'm a bit of an old school guy when it comes to minutes. These guys are trained professional athletes and I've looked statistically the minutes are not bad, but in the age of load management, anything above 30 minutes a game seems alot. I do believe this, if you want Thibs to adjust his minutes you are going to need players who are major upgrades to the ones we have coming off the bench that are coachable and playba Thibs style game.

joec32033 wrote:

Kemet wrote:

blkexec wrote:

joec32033 wrote:

blkexec wrote:

joec32033 wrote:

blkexec wrote:

Well Martin, I guess you missed my lecture at Johns Hopkins about Thibs DNA, and the playoffs, blkexec was there

How did I get thrown into this. Don't put me in this Gus, I've had enough friction with all the Thibs lovers on UK site.

But I think even Thibs fans can agree that his distribution of minutes and the timing of them is questionable.

The results is how the players look gasped every 4th quarter. And I love the counter arguement. "Thibs mins are similar to every other NBA coach."

1. Just because every other coach is doing that, doesn't mean it's best for this team as constructed. I can see if we had a starting 5 with mostly all stars and a superstar (or anything close). We have a group of young over achievers. Brunson never played this many minutes. Jules is a 3 quarter player. RJ clanks a few free throws in the 4th. And the TOs is crazy, especially the unforced ones).

2. It's also the timing of those minutes, and inconsistency. EF goes from not playing to playing 9 minutes in crunch time? RJ goes from out for days, with a serious finger injury, to playin 41 mins his first game back? I can go on and on. Just some weird stuff from a well respected old school coach. I don't know if it's political, is it Thibs, or some combination.

Now what I do like is hes developing and winning at the same time. And the team fights for him. They have a great synergistic chemistry across the board.

While you may hate the argument it doesn't make that argument invalid.

1. "Just because every coach is doing it doesn't mean it the best for this team" is very valid. What makes it best for this team is that what he is doing is leading to winning. The argument can be made that the reason they are where they are-on a 46 win pace-because of how he has managed this team.
Brunson was a back up who was upgraded to #1 option. And we have whole thread on how the only trustable player in the clutch is currently Brunson, while RJ has shown some good signs and JR plays tight. You can't have it both ways. Can't blame the minutes for RJ and JR falling off then say Brunson plays the same "absurd" minutes but is the only clutch player we have. That is not a minutes issue, it's a testicular fortitude issue.

2. The timing of those minutes is we have a few really good players, then some players who are very specialized at what they do who are probably end of the rotation players on a winning team playing big minutes for them. Starting 5 is good. Quickley seems to have turned a corner. Deuce is a defensive sub on a good team. Hart is like Dudley with a corner 3. Toppin has been hurt and plays one side of the ball and needs someone to create for him. At best, pthe Knicks are 7 deep with consistent players that would have major roles on winning teams.

Why can't both statements be true (see bold)?

So you are implying that this team is better than where they are now? So used optimally, what is your ceiling for this team?

Not sure I understand your first statement. But the team is better under Thibs rotation change and min distribution. If that’s what your asking.

My projected ceiling for this team is a tough 1st round playoff exit. That’s an improvement because before we have been swept several times. But don’t see us getting past 1st round.

The Knicks got swept because coach Tom Thibs changed assistant coach Mike Woodson 10 Man rotation that beat the Hawks 101-92 .. into a 9 man rotation the next 3 playoff games losses.
Coach Tom Thibs career of running 6 to 8 man rotation throughout a regular season is so true.
And has been so unsafe for the players.
The Knicks 2022-23 roster has decent winning depth this season.
Mark Jackson where are you when Brunson and his pops need you asap

Before the Feb. deadline the Knicks will give Cam Reddish up-tempo 2-Way talent to the (Lebron) Lakers .. Good or Bad ?
Instead of keeping Reddish depth to put in a D.Rose 2nd unit bench lineup to go deep into the midseason games having 11 healthy/mental/physical players receiving decent minutes throughout the midseason games playing team ball, instead of one on one (ISO) ball the next 40 games

I believe or depth is not as good as you believe. I believe other than Quickley, we have a bunch of 1 skill subs that need to be upgraded to really affect anything.

Like I said to blkexec above, I have an old school belief in minutes. In this age of load management, I think people put too much stock in minutes played. I mean damn, there's a stat PER 36 minutes. That leans heavily on the fact that a player should get about 36 minutes per game. I don't believe the minutes are crazy.

Joe, you know whats interesting? When Thibs went 10-11 deep, our bench was known for being deep. And most of the time, the bench was able to save the starters. Then when we added JB and Thibs went 9 then 8 then 7 deep. Now our bench is not good?

I understand your point about our bench is full of one dimensional players. But that was always the case, even when everybody agreed that we have a deep team and a deep bench. But when you sit Cam, EF, Rose, Obi hurt, RJ's finger....Then yes the bench will look very weak. But it's the same bench as before when they was deep. So what changed?