McK1 wrote:Paladin55 wrote:McK1 wrote:agreed. the price of bayless is likely at a point where we couldn't steal him for hill straight up anyway
Heck, since guys around here go game by game when analyzing young players, we might be able to get him on the cheap after today, since he only shot 2/10 (0/3 from downtown, and 4/7 from the line) in a full 30 minutes. Did have 7 assists, but Roy being on fire probably padded this stat and his +/-.(Added) I like Bayless as a player, by the way. Seems like a good kid who is trying to improve his game. He is a decent defender, draws fouls going to the basket as well as anyone (although he missed a ton of drives in his 31pt outing), and will improve on his jumper as he progresses as a player.
Why do some folks consistently have orgasms over a nice game by players they would rather have taken in the draft than our guys, but seem to be asleep when they have terrible games?
Consider this- why are people not chirping about B. Jennings TERRIBLE December? 36% from the field, 30% from the 3, almost 3 turnovers/game. Has he hit a wall or are teams just adjusting to his game?
ups and downs with young players is expected.
its not a stat argument, its about player attributes and guys like Jennings and Bayless cause phenomema to happen on the court that transcend the stat geek world.
Jennings could be shooting 20% for the month and it still won't stop teams from doubling him and how many people are benefitting from wide open looks because of it, still won't change his speed with teh ball and his ability to find people with the ball, and he still hits shots and knocks down free throws in the clutch.
Bayless is another guy whose speed with the ball is something defenses have to gameplan for. He attacks the rim like Iverson and gets to he freethrow line at an excellent rate - an asset on the wing this team sorely lacks. Unlike most guys today he actually prefers and can make the mid range jumper as oppose to jacking up a bunch of 3's. He also is a good man defender.
It just seems overall speed with the ball at guard would be priority A for any coach that prefers to control the game tempo and look to exploit defenses on the perimeter.
As for Hill
I believe he has average pf skills with below average feel for the game. I really don't feel we'd lose anything "UNIQUE" as a big and this is one of the times where trading big for small really is a non-issue.
Hell- I understand that young players have their ups and downs- I have tried to preach this when looking at our own guys.
The growing pains and ups and downs for young Knicks are not accepted by many around here, though- they are looked at under a different magnifying glass.
...And the posts for certain players almost ALWAYS correspond to a big game they have, while criticism of certain Knicks are buttressed by stats. UK folk rarely start threads of envy or bitterness, missed opportunity in the draft, or not ending up with other players unless those players have some kind of significant statistical showing. That is just how it is around here.
By the way, I would not put Bayless at Jennings' level in terms of ability to influence a game.
I am not saying that we shouldn't have taken Jennings over Hill at this point in time based on the evidence so far, and it was obvious that we wanted (needed) a PG from the past draft, but I may be thinking differently after next year if Hill turns out to be a player. Jennings game may be more NBA ready now-that does not mean Hill won't emerge as the more valuable player someday. AND, if we somehow get Lebron, which is not something I would base my GM decisions on, but seems more likely than it did earlier in the year, we might not want a player like Jennings since James will be the court general.
My big issue is the inconsistency in how folks evaluate our players and those on other teams. We have posters who seem to think summer league performances mean something, and some who get overly excited about a "breakout" game for a guy they like on another team, and then close their eyes to the next 3 or 4 games in which they do nothing for their team. You look at young players over an entire season or long stretch of games, and if a guy is not playing because of certain circumstances, you withhold you judgement of him until he gets a real chance to prove himself on the court. Hill has shown enough flashes in the few minutes he has played to make me think that he can be a good player in this league, but only time will tell.
After last year (Gallinari and his back), you could make a case that we should have taken Gordon or Lopez, maybe Randolph or Thompson, and even done better with Bayless, or Augustin. Now folks are seeing that Gallinari has a game, and has the potential to be as good or better than many or most of the guys in his draft, including those drafted ahead of him. Nobody, including a Gallo defender like myself, could have realistically anticipated the turn of fortune that now has Gallinari not only looking like the kind of complete player a star FA would want to play with-(I thought it would be another 1-2 years before we saw Gallo play the all around game he is playing now.)but more and more he seems like a guy who can be a key component, and maybe even a star, on a good team.
There is no reason why Hill cannot turn things around with substantial playing time and coaching. He doesn't have the BB head that Gallo has, but he has a lot of physical talent, and showed the ability to evolve as a player in college. Gallinari's growth as a player, and even the evolution of Lee's game, should give everyone reason to be more patient with a guy like Hill.
No man is happy without a delusion of some kind. Delusions are as necessary to our happiness as realities- C.N. Bovee
