martin wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

martin wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:I'm fine with giving it more time but I agree with the premise of the thread. It won't be easy to keep winning (especially when the schedule gets harder) with our 3 PGs shooting 35, 37, and 41%.

on the list of things the Knicks' PG need to do to help the team winning and (more importantly) growing as a team/players, FG% is like 1 of 10 things that contribute to that and probably the least important.

How can you not look at what Rose did last year - at a healthy 47% FG% - and think that was a good thing over what Jack and Frank are bringing?

FG% is a simple, lazy way of addressing the more important issue of offensive efficiency. None of those players (this year or Rose last year) were efficient on offense. Average production is about 106 points per 100 possessions this year. Right now we have 85 per 100 (Frank), 99 (Sessions), and 101 (Jack). Rose had OK but not good offensive efficiency (right at last year's league average of 108) and had many other problems to his game. He played bad defense and took a lot of shots away from more efficient players.
It's easy to downplay a weakness now (who needs efficient production from the PG?) since the team is winning. If this continues when the team starts playing road games, then that's great.

But it's not only that the team is winning, but the team as a whole is very efficient despite what you are trying to point out at the PG position.

From my above:

All games, top 11 in league: http://stats.nba.com/teams/advanced/?sort=OFF_RATING&dir=-1&Season=2017-18&SeasonType=Regular%20Season

With Jack starting, top 6: http://stats.nba.com/teams/advanced/?sort=OFF_RATING&dir=-1&Season=2017-18&SeasonType=Regular%20Season&LastNGames=14

So skewed by home games they are 29th in Orating on the road

Bonn1997 wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

martin wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

martin wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:I'm fine with giving it more time but I agree with the premise of the thread. It won't be easy to keep winning (especially when the schedule gets harder) with our 3 PGs shooting 35, 37, and 41%.

on the list of things the Knicks' PG need to do to help the team winning and (more importantly) growing as a team/players, FG% is like 1 of 10 things that contribute to that and probably the least important.

How can you not look at what Rose did last year - at a healthy 47% FG% - and think that was a good thing over what Jack and Frank are bringing?

FG% is a simple, lazy way of addressing the more important issue of offensive efficiency. None of those players (this year or Rose last year) were efficient on offense. Average production is about 106 points per 100 possessions this year. Right now we have 85 per 100 (Frank), 99 (Sessions), and 101 (Jack). Rose had OK but not good offensive efficiency (right at last year's league average of 108) and had many other problems to his game. He played bad defense and took a lot of shots away from more efficient players.
It's easy to downplay a weakness now (who needs efficient production from the PG?) since the team is winning. If this continues when the team starts playing road games, then that's great.

But it's not only that the team is winning, but the team as a whole is very efficient despite what you are trying to point out at the PG position.

From my above:

All games, top 11 in league: http://stats.nba.com/teams/advanced/?sort=OFF_RATING&dir=-1&Season=2017-18&SeasonType=Regular%20Season

With Jack starting, top 6: http://stats.nba.com/teams/advanced/?sort=OFF_RATING&dir=-1&Season=2017-18&SeasonType=Regular%20Season&LastNGames=14

And if this continues once we start playing road games, I'll be really happy. Right now we're 9-3 at home and 1-4 on the road. Also, I've focused on offense, but Jack has a pretty bad defensive rating.
I think the point of the thread is that the team is not a finished product. It clearly needs upgrading if we want to achieve anything special. So the natural question is where to upgrade. And the area where we're the weakest now is definitely PG. That doesn't mean a change needs to happen now. I'd rather see what happens as more games are played unless a team gives us an amazing offer.

How is PG the position we are the weakest at? Based on what exactly?

Most stats would make this pretty clear. It's not like these guys look great with the eyeball test either. What do you think is weaker? SG with Lee? You could make a plausible argument there based on the on/off #s I suppose.

I think SF is our biggest need. But I am more interested in why you think its the PG position?
I think i am not a fan of taking one position oit of context in the team stats. So please state what numbers you are looking at.

meloshouldgo wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

martin wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

martin wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:I'm fine with giving it more time but I agree with the premise of the thread. It won't be easy to keep winning (especially when the schedule gets harder) with our 3 PGs shooting 35, 37, and 41%.

on the list of things the Knicks' PG need to do to help the team winning and (more importantly) growing as a team/players, FG% is like 1 of 10 things that contribute to that and probably the least important.

How can you not look at what Rose did last year - at a healthy 47% FG% - and think that was a good thing over what Jack and Frank are bringing?

FG% is a simple, lazy way of addressing the more important issue of offensive efficiency. None of those players (this year or Rose last year) were efficient on offense. Average production is about 106 points per 100 possessions this year. Right now we have 85 per 100 (Frank), 99 (Sessions), and 101 (Jack). Rose had OK but not good offensive efficiency (right at last year's league average of 108) and had many other problems to his game. He played bad defense and took a lot of shots away from more efficient players.
It's easy to downplay a weakness now (who needs efficient production from the PG?) since the team is winning. If this continues when the team starts playing road games, then that's great.

But it's not only that the team is winning, but the team as a whole is very efficient despite what you are trying to point out at the PG position.

From my above:

All games, top 11 in league: http://stats.nba.com/teams/advanced/?sort=OFF_RATING&dir=-1&Season=2017-18&SeasonType=Regular%20Season

With Jack starting, top 6: http://stats.nba.com/teams/advanced/?sort=OFF_RATING&dir=-1&Season=2017-18&SeasonType=Regular%20Season&LastNGames=14

And if this continues once we start playing road games, I'll be really happy. Right now we're 9-3 at home and 1-4 on the road. Also, I've focused on offense, but Jack has a pretty bad defensive rating.
I think the point of the thread is that the team is not a finished product. It clearly needs upgrading if we want to achieve anything special. So the natural question is where to upgrade. And the area where we're the weakest now is definitely PG. That doesn't mean a change needs to happen now. I'd rather see what happens as more games are played unless a team gives us an amazing offer.

How is PG the position we are the weakest at? Based on what exactly?

Most stats would make this pretty clear. It's not like these guys look great with the eyeball test either. What do you think is weaker? SG with Lee? You could make a plausible argument there based on the on/off #s I suppose.

I think SF is our biggest need. But I am more interested in why you think its the PG position?
I think i am not a fan of taking one position oit of context in the team stats. So please state what numbers you are looking at.

Jmpasq wrote:Net statistics say PG is overwhelmingly our worst position followed by SF. Our best lineups are with Hardaway at the 2 "Where he belongs" and Mcbuckets or Lance at the 3. You get a star SF move Hardaway to the 2, Put Lee on the 2nd unit with Mcdermott and you have a talented 2nd team. the whole thing was predicated on getting a SF through the draft but we are going to win to many games. A few extra days of watchable basketball may ruin a 5-10 years of being able to compete

It's pretty clear... You can't rebuild the right way in NY by tanking. The fans.....the culture.....the coach.....wants them to play hard and figure out how to win games. So we need to forget about tanking......and think about packing the two picks for a higher pick......instead of depending on our win loss record.

Bonn1997 wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

martin wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

martin wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:I'm fine with giving it more time but I agree with the premise of the thread. It won't be easy to keep winning (especially when the schedule gets harder) with our 3 PGs shooting 35, 37, and 41%.

on the list of things the Knicks' PG need to do to help the team winning and (more importantly) growing as a team/players, FG% is like 1 of 10 things that contribute to that and probably the least important.

How can you not look at what Rose did last year - at a healthy 47% FG% - and think that was a good thing over what Jack and Frank are bringing?

FG% is a simple, lazy way of addressing the more important issue of offensive efficiency. None of those players (this year or Rose last year) were efficient on offense. Average production is about 106 points per 100 possessions this year. Right now we have 85 per 100 (Frank), 99 (Sessions), and 101 (Jack). Rose had OK but not good offensive efficiency (right at last year's league average of 108) and had many other problems to his game. He played bad defense and took a lot of shots away from more efficient players.
It's easy to downplay a weakness now (who needs efficient production from the PG?) since the team is winning. If this continues when the team starts playing road games, then that's great.

But it's not only that the team is winning, but the team as a whole is very efficient despite what you are trying to point out at the PG position.

From my above:

All games, top 11 in league: http://stats.nba.com/teams/advanced/?sort=OFF_RATING&dir=-1&Season=2017-18&SeasonType=Regular%20Season

With Jack starting, top 6: http://stats.nba.com/teams/advanced/?sort=OFF_RATING&dir=-1&Season=2017-18&SeasonType=Regular%20Season&LastNGames=14

And if this continues once we start playing road games, I'll be really happy. Right now we're 9-3 at home and 1-4 on the road. Also, I've focused on offense, but Jack has a pretty bad defensive rating.
I think the point of the thread is that the team is not a finished product. It clearly needs upgrading if we want to achieve anything special. So the natural question is where to upgrade. And the area where we're the weakest now is definitely PG. That doesn't mean a change needs to happen now. I'd rather see what happens as more games are played unless a team gives us an amazing offer.

How is PG the position we are the weakest at? Based on what exactly?

Most stats would make this pretty clear. It's not like these guys look great with the eyeball test either. What do you think is weaker? SG with Lee? You could make a plausible argument there based on the on/off #s I suppose.

That's where it lies with me. You can clearly see that we're lacking certain elements and overall punch at the point, more than any other position.

As for glaring deficiencies I don't see things I'm too unhappy with. Maybe better length/athleticism at the 3, and better bench scoring, and of course we can always use better rebounders. But overall I'm fine with how the Knicks are performing at this point. This will be a journey and right now the important thing is that the brass at the top have a consistent vision they are building towards and we have players who communicate and play well with one another.

Please, let's stop it with the need for some kind of explosive score first PG. This is such an antiquated way of thinking. Slashing, cutting, multiple passes, pressuring the defense. There is great value in making the defense work on possessions and tiring the opposing team out. Let's stop with the score first pg fool's gold that isn't effective in today's nba.

GustavBahler wrote:

knickstorrents wrote:The team needs help but I don't see PG being a big issue. For a team that needs help at the PG position, see the Cavs.

As for glaring deficiencies I don't see things I'm too unhappy with. Maybe better length/athleticism at the 3, and better bench scoring, and of course we can always use better rebounders. But overall I'm fine with how the Knicks are performing at this point. This will be a journey and right now the important thing is that the brass at the top have a consistent vision they are building towards and we have players who communicate and play well with one another.

Please, let's stop it with the need for some kind of explosive score first PG. This is such an antiquated way of thinking. Slashing, cutting, multiple passes, pressuring the defense. There is great value in making the defense work on possessions and tiring the opposing team out. Let's stop with the score first pg fool's gold that isn't effective in today's nba.

Strawman argument. Few, if any here are pushing for a score first PG, most were happy to see Rose go. Most are arguing for a PG who can get to the rim. Reasons to do that other than scoring.

Point Guards who can't make a layup with some consistency is a problem for any team. No tactical advantage to that. Again, doesn't have to be one extreme or the other. Our PGs are contributing in other ways, doesn't mean there isnt room for improvement at that position. Cant go into next season with the same problem.

There's a lot of people pushing for score first PGs, even if you are not. I think a large body of the discussion has been about production from the PG spot and mostly about points being scored.

meloshouldgo wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:

knickstorrents wrote:The team needs help but I don't see PG being a big issue. For a team that needs help at the PG position, see the Cavs.

As for glaring deficiencies I don't see things I'm too unhappy with. Maybe better length/athleticism at the 3, and better bench scoring, and of course we can always use better rebounders. But overall I'm fine with how the Knicks are performing at this point. This will be a journey and right now the important thing is that the brass at the top have a consistent vision they are building towards and we have players who communicate and play well with one another.

Please, let's stop it with the need for some kind of explosive score first PG. This is such an antiquated way of thinking. Slashing, cutting, multiple passes, pressuring the defense. There is great value in making the defense work on possessions and tiring the opposing team out. Let's stop with the score first pg fool's gold that isn't effective in today's nba.

Strawman argument. Few, if any here are pushing for a score first PG, most were happy to see Rose go. Most are arguing for a PG who can get to the rim. Reasons to do that other than scoring.

Point Guards who can't make a layup with some consistency is a problem for any team. No tactical advantage to that. Again, doesn't have to be one extreme or the other. Our PGs are contributing in other ways, doesn't mean there isnt room for improvement at that position. Cant go into next season with the same problem.

There's a lot of people pushing for score first PGs, even if you are not. I think a large body of the discussion has been about production from the PG spot and mostly about points being scored.

Not so much "score first" but score more. A happy median between score first and gun shy. Don't believe we need a score first PG, just one who does a better job of taking what the defense gives him. Don't really have that right now.

Our PGs pass on too many opportunities to score. Just makes it harder on their teammates. You can tell teams are scouting Frank now, they are anticipating a pass when he drives, they are playing the passing lanes closer, and forcing turnovers. One area affects another, and another.

New York struggled all night to contain Schroder, who easily weaved through the lane and around the baseline to keep the Hawks' passing game fluid. The fourth-year point guard finished with eight assists, and often whipped the ball around to set up assists.

"Schroder does a great job coming off those pick-and-rolls," Knicks coach Jeff Hornacek said. "And he's got a lot of hesitation and he's able to find their bigs. Other times, when we did help out properly and stop him, he made great passes."

like I said, if we have a pg like this, it would open up the perimeter for guys like lance, thj, and MCd to shoot more 3's, kanter would get a slew of uncontested dunks and layups from the penetration alone, plus unlimited P&R play, and kp would thrive even more..

newyorknewyork wrote:

knicks1248 wrote:

New York struggled all night to contain Schroder, who easily weaved through the lane and around the baseline to keep the Hawks' passing game fluid. The fourth-year point guard finished with eight assists, and often whipped the ball around to set up assists.

"Schroder does a great job coming off those pick-and-rolls," Knicks coach Jeff Hornacek said. "And he's got a lot of hesitation and he's able to find their bigs. Other times, when we did help out properly and stop him, he made great passes."

like I said, if we have a pg like this, it would open up the perimeter for guys like lance, thj, and MCd to shoot more 3's, kanter would get a slew of uncontested dunks and layups from the penetration alone, plus unlimited P&R play, and kp would thrive even more..

ATL drafted and developed him over 4 years. His rookie yr he put up 3.7pts 1.9ast 38fg% on 13.6mins per game.

Was about to post the exact same thing, thank you.