Nalod wrote:blkexec wrote:Nalod wrote:blkexec wrote:Nalod wrote:Save the 10 min. What Hahn said was "Fuck you Danny!"......
Not really.
He did a good breakdown. Super important is fan and subsequent media pressure. That tanked/sucked it up for two years in our back court to get here with Brunson, a more developed IQ, Grimes, and RJ gives us options. We collected picks also. We could have used that capital but team has a vision of sorts.
Media and fans are not in on this. If fans have "Trade fatigue" that's because your lapping up the media stuff and react. The longer it goes on the better I feel about not over paying. Sure we'll be uncomfortable. Some of you love Obi and hate randle and want what you want, others see IQ as a future star and would not be happy to see him go. Others like me see RJ as a Jimmy Butler type who will still develop into his own brand of player.
Jimmy Butler is a good comp for RJ. I originally thought he was be a better shooting version and lesser defensive version of Jimmy, but still close as far as career ceiling.
I actually don't hate Randle, I hate management for putting Obi and Thibs in this situation. Randle is a beast and he can carry a team, he's already proved that. But still think he's better as the #2 or #1b on this team. But having Obi, Randle and Thibs on the same team next season doesn't work for me. And I believe that feeling is mutual. It creates a glut in the rotation and makes the relationship between Obi and Randle difficult. Moving on from Randle is a personal preference and quick fix, as far as chemistry and team style of play. I believe this team is moving from a half court team (Randle Style) to an up and down team (Obi Style).
I'm not confident in Randle taking 3 or 4 back seats (D.Mith, RJ, Brunson), when he struggled to take 1 back seat last year (RJ). Randle didn't seem engaged and spent more time focusing on the refs and allowing his man to run free or with the thumbs down gesture to the fans. RJ meanwhile was a solid professional during that time and simply got better and better each year. He's primed to have a solid year.
What Obi brings is something Randle cannot. Thats speed and easy transition buckets (with momentum shifting dunks), without dribbling the air out the ball. Now that we have Brunson and RJ, who will dominate the ball (and D.Mitch), we need to compliment them with players that fit, who are efficient scorers that do not have to over dribble to score (Grimes and Obi). And I'm sorry but Randle hasn't shown us he can play off the ball, while RJ dominated the ball. How do you think Randle will play as the 4th option, if he couldn't handle the 2nd option?
Obi in crunch time is not that free flowing fun player we enjoy. His history is as a slow adaptor and given that, and how covid hit rookies to be that year it might have hurt him more than others. By that, March shutdown and summer lockdown. Draft was 2-3 weeks before camp that year. Weird stuff. I'm not negative on him at all. Simmons on Utah makes little sense given his contract and age. might as well keep DM. Nets have Joe harris and seth curry for shooter. EF is redundant if that his only purpose.
There is nothing we can think of or worry that the knicks themselves have not addressed or thought thru regarding Randle. They have film, advance breakdowns and all kinds of things that tells them far more than we can.
I get it and understand they know more or SHOULD know more. But what fun is that? The fun part is to play GM. Thats what fans do and why forums like this is so fun and growing fast. Also, some of the people working for GM's go through or sign up to forums like this to get different ideas and perspectives. I don't remember where I read this, but it was in some article I read some time ago.
But GM's and the FO are humans and not robots, regardless how much film they watch. And they make mistakes. And clearly drafting Obi then giving Randle a huge contract extension was a calculated mistake. Adding Kemba (eventhough fans who supposedly doesn't know any better than the professional GMs) was another mistake, which is why we had to add a pick to get rid of certain players. So I don't put all my faith into people or humans who haven't shown to be perfect. Plus it takes the fun out of it. Otherwise this is how these discussions will go:
"Thibs is a pro and he's been a coach before some of these fans were born. Thibs knows talent and knows what to do better than any fan, they see these guys in practice all the time." yes thats very true and also very boring. Theres no challenge in saying he's a pro and he knows best.
VS
"Thibs needs to play X....Doesn't Thibs see that Deuce is a lockdown defender? Why add Brunson, if we already have IQ, Rose, Deuce and Grimes who used to be a PG."
Now thats fun. You should try it sometime. We all know they watch these guys all the time and have film from every angle on these guys. And they still made mistakes that fans called them out on. The Obi situation is something they could've avoided, if they listened to fans. We needed a PG, we had a PF. So we pass on a PG and draft a PF.
Maybe it's only me, but I challenge professionals all the time. I challenge my teachers all the time. I might be wrong most of the time, but its that one time where the teacher says, "you know what, thats a good idea".
Let these fans play GM....Play coach...Play owner. You should try it!
Pretend play by adults pretending to know ****? Ok for player movement stuff but we transpose coaching of the past to the future and label like we expert. Thats a bit weird. Questioning is ok but they not here to ansswer. So you state your opinion. Thats cool. But back it up with what is known is cool. Hindsight stuff, I get it. Fans do it all the time and think they know better. But Then to back it up as you know what others are thinking? Thats silly.
Are you arguing we shouldn’t discuss Knicks moves on a Knick forum? Or that we shouldn’t be critical of Knicks management decisions because we are not in charge?
A simplistic disproof of your position is just cognitive bias. That is, people in positions of management and control end up anchored to belief structures that may deviate from reality in the absence of quantitative analysis that shows actual statistical patterns.
Consider “Moneyball” next to “Trouble with the Curve”. One highlights analytics in sports while the other points out the flaws in ignoring time tested “gut” decisions. That is, if you don’t include the sound a kids bat makes when making contact, you may miss a critical flaw. More simply, there are gaps in analytics.
The simplest answer is aggregation. There is no actual limit on the number of opinions that can be aggregated. You simply have to choose how to weight those decisions.
Long story short, opinions on this board should be weighted for what they are - amateur opinions without the benefit of professional training or the consequences of being wrong. That said, the professional opinions should be more heavily weighted (as in all of the decisions). It would be intelligent for them to consider the “wisdom of the crowd” to understand how lots of professionals are considering things. But that mechanic doesn’t really exist. MSG could create a fan based model GM game and aggregate data from that for additional input to the decision-makers, but without a method to test outcomes, it’s not possible to determine which decision makers are best.
So, instead, we can just daydream and make up posts about how we should have gotten FVV, Christian Wood and Jerami Grant instead of Alec Burks and others.
I think there is a lot of wisdom on this board and many posters change my opinion on whether ideas are good or not.
8/27/2022 10:09 AM