CrushAlot wrote:

KnicksFE wrote:

CrushAlot wrote:

KnicksFE wrote:

CrushAlot wrote:

martin wrote:

nykshaknbake wrote:I think the reasoning is that he should have played the rookies more because the playoffs were clearly looking unobtainable. The fact that he decided to go for max wins minimum development and only won 29 games is pretty bad. The goal isn't to lose games but rather player development, at the cost of some of the games.

i recall the Knicks being within playoff contention at the top of January. Also, Lee, Chandler, Gallo - all young guys to be sure - all got lots of minutes.

Playing to win is also good for an organization that is trying to turn attitude of team around.

Is there any type of middle ground or is it such that MDA should have just played Hill and TD heavy minutes when in fact neither had shown the promise during summer league or early season that they were ready?

And if you do play those players, are you willing to define your players earning minutes ala Curry? Cause that's what it amounts to. Also, are you willing to have a hellish lockerroom that is mostly just discontent, because that's what the vets will bring.

This is obviously not a black and white scenario and yet it being argued as such.

I don't think anyone is saying that Hill should have been getting mega minutes. However, 12-15 minutes a night seems logical given the circumstances. 29 dnps in 53 games on a 29 win team filled with guys that wouldn't be back doesn't make sense.

Well, Hill is playing fifteen minutes per game consistently with the Rockets, how is he a better player or is he trade value any higher at this point? I don’t think so, and I may argue that his trade value is actually lower since is very clear that after two years, he still a project, that has ways to go for a lottery pick selection.

Also, when assessing playing time for one particular player, you have to take into consideration how he fit with the rest of the team, remember that we also had other young player like Gallo and Wilson that were learning their role on the team. So you can’t have a guy on the floor, which is constantly getting in others players way (or don’t know his role), this why some times veteran players are important whether they stay or leave the team.

Last, I don’t understand why you bring TD to this conversation or question his minutes when in fact TD has developed nicely under MD.

Regarding Douglas, I gave very detailed reasons why I included him in making my points. Read back through thread because it involves some numbers, dnps coaches decisions and when he finally got minutes, minutes before and after Walsh traveled with the team etc.

In regards to Hill I am not sure but are you saying the team shouldn't have tried to develop him when they were playing for nothing that year because he is so bad it would hurt his value. I disagree if that is your point. Hill went to Houston, a team actually competing for the playoffs and got more minutes then Jeffries for the rest of that year and put up mumbers. Teams do give players minutes to develop.

I never said that Douglas didn’t get DNPS, what I don’t understand is why you make it look like it was bad thing at that time when in fact Douglas has develop nicely under MD since he arrived in NY. Different players require different approach, and the end result has being positive with Douglas, so I won’t question the method.

Regarding Hill, didn’t I provide you with a link where MD clearly said that the Knicks’ goal was to remain competitive for the year? May be YOU believed that they were “playing for nothing” but that is not necessarily what our coaching staff had in mind so please take a look at the link and you will understand.

As far as developing Hill, he is 6.10 and he was a Knick, so of course I wanted him to develop and become a good player for us; however I can’t really bash MD for not playing someone who still a backup to the league smallest center 6.6 Chuck Hayes on a decent team, nevertheless a non playoff team.
Last, as far as production, Hill averaged with the Knicks was 4.0 points and 2.5 rebounds in 10.5 minutes, with the Rockets he averages 6.4 points and 4.9 rebounds in 16.2 minutes, almost 6 more minutes, how is that putting up numbers? To me, Hill is almost the same player he was with the Knicks, with fewer enigmas obviously .

Please read thru the thread. I did post a link where D'Antoni said this.

So now we can at least agree that the Knicks were playing for something and while unrealistically, making the playoffs was still the goal.

KnicksFE wrote:

CrushAlot wrote:

KnicksFE wrote:

CrushAlot wrote:

KnicksFE wrote:

CrushAlot wrote:

martin wrote:

nykshaknbake wrote:I think the reasoning is that he should have played the rookies more because the playoffs were clearly looking unobtainable. The fact that he decided to go for max wins minimum development and only won 29 games is pretty bad. The goal isn't to lose games but rather player development, at the cost of some of the games.

i recall the Knicks being within playoff contention at the top of January. Also, Lee, Chandler, Gallo - all young guys to be sure - all got lots of minutes.

Playing to win is also good for an organization that is trying to turn attitude of team around.

Is there any type of middle ground or is it such that MDA should have just played Hill and TD heavy minutes when in fact neither had shown the promise during summer league or early season that they were ready?

And if you do play those players, are you willing to define your players earning minutes ala Curry? Cause that's what it amounts to. Also, are you willing to have a hellish lockerroom that is mostly just discontent, because that's what the vets will bring.

This is obviously not a black and white scenario and yet it being argued as such.

I don't think anyone is saying that Hill should have been getting mega minutes. However, 12-15 minutes a night seems logical given the circumstances. 29 dnps in 53 games on a 29 win team filled with guys that wouldn't be back doesn't make sense.

Well, Hill is playing fifteen minutes per game consistently with the Rockets, how is he a better player or is he trade value any higher at this point? I don’t think so, and I may argue that his trade value is actually lower since is very clear that after two years, he still a project, that has ways to go for a lottery pick selection.

Also, when assessing playing time for one particular player, you have to take into consideration how he fit with the rest of the team, remember that we also had other young player like Gallo and Wilson that were learning their role on the team. So you can’t have a guy on the floor, which is constantly getting in others players way (or don’t know his role), this why some times veteran players are important whether they stay or leave the team.

Last, I don’t understand why you bring TD to this conversation or question his minutes when in fact TD has developed nicely under MD.

Regarding Douglas, I gave very detailed reasons why I included him in making my points. Read back through thread because it involves some numbers, dnps coaches decisions and when he finally got minutes, minutes before and after Walsh traveled with the team etc.

In regards to Hill I am not sure but are you saying the team shouldn't have tried to develop him when they were playing for nothing that year because he is so bad it would hurt his value. I disagree if that is your point. Hill went to Houston, a team actually competing for the playoffs and got more minutes then Jeffries for the rest of that year and put up mumbers. Teams do give players minutes to develop.

I never said that Douglas didn’t get DNPS, what I don’t understand is why you make it look like it was bad thing at that time when in fact Douglas has develop nicely under MD since he arrived in NY. Different players require different approach, and the end result has being positive with Douglas, so I won’t question the method.

Regarding Hill, didn’t I provide you with a link where MD clearly said that the Knicks’ goal was to remain competitive for the year? May be YOU believed that they were “playing for nothing” but that is not necessarily what our coaching staff had in mind so please take a look at the link and you will understand.

As far as developing Hill, he is 6.10 and he was a Knick, so of course I wanted him to develop and become a good player for us; however I can’t really bash MD for not playing someone who still a backup to the league smallest center 6.6 Chuck Hayes on a decent team, nevertheless a non playoff team.
Last, as far as production, Hill averaged with the Knicks was 4.0 points and 2.5 rebounds in 10.5 minutes, with the Rockets he averages 6.4 points and 4.9 rebounds in 16.2 minutes, almost 6 more minutes, how is that putting up numbers? To me, Hill is almost the same player he was with the Knicks, with fewer enigmas obviously .

Please read thru the thread. I did post a link where D'Antoni said this.

So now we can at least agree that the Knicks were playing for something and while unrealistically, making the playoffs was still the goal.

nykshaknbake wrote:

nixluva wrote:

nykshaknbake wrote:

martin wrote:

nykshaknbake wrote:I think the reasoning is that he should have played the rookies more because the playoffs were clearly looking unobtainable. The fact that he decided to go for max wins minimum development and only won 29 games is pretty bad. The goal isn't to lose games but rather player development, at the cost of some of the games.

i recall the Knicks being within playoff contention at the top of January. Also, Lee, Chandler, Gallo - all young guys to be sure - all got lots of minutes.

Playing to win is also good for an organization that is trying to turn attitude of team around.

Is there any type of middle ground or is it such that MDA should have just played Hill and TD heavy minutes when in fact neither had shown the promise during summer league or early season that they were ready?

And if you do play those players, are you willing to define your players earning minutes ala Curry? Cause that's what it amounts to. Also, are you willing to have a hellish lockerroom that is mostly just discontent, because that's what the vets will bring.

This is obviously not a black and white scenario and yet it being argued as such.

We're not talking about starter's minutes. Just something above DNP-Coaches decision. It's not starters or no minutes.(black and white) The vets leaving the team shouldn't cause hell over that. If they do you have to do what's better for the team. It's obvious MDA missed the boat on TD who probably would still be warming bench if Walsh hadn't intervened and that when he got minutes it failed to cause 'hell' on earth or in the locker room.

Hill damaged his own chances of seeing more minutes with is poor work ethic. SL out of shape, Training Camp and in practices wasn't going as hard as he could. That's not a good way to convince a coach to play you. TD had some really good games and some really bad ones and that led to him seeing more bench time, but he was going to play, lets not make it sound like the ONLY reason TD got more minutes is cuz Walsh showed up. Hill playing more minutes in his 2nd year didn't do much to improve his game so why would it have been such a big thing in year one? There's just no evidence that it would make a big difference in the long run. This team was going for much bigger fish and Hill was an asset to be traded. I doubt if he played more that he would've been enough to get teams to make a deal without a pick.

Also this idea that vets won't cause a problem if their minutes are reduced is not true. SELFISH vets playing for their next contract will INDEED make a stink if you play some rook that is out there foundering around in stead of them. Remember we had a lot of vets at the end of their contract on this team and they wanted to play to improve their chances of getting a new contract somewhere. What would you rather have a couple of rookies sitting their pouting or a bunch of vets not afraid to talk beefing about a lack of minutes? Vets have a bigger voice.

SO the goal of the franchise is to provide vets who are leaving a better time instead of developing youth. And the fact that hell was not raised when TD starting gets minutes disproves your point. If all minutes are taken away vets will grumble but unless they are stars they won't. Stars will grumble at any minutes taken away which clearly was not a problem on our team back then. Without Walsh TD keeps the bench warm for the rest of the season. By not playing him on a 29 win team it tells everyone he's Jerome James bad. The rockets were a better team and found he was able to contribute 15 min/night which has more value than can't get off the bench on one of the worst teams in the NBA. That is a fact. We wouldn't have had to give a lotto pick just to get rid of Jeffries with Hill.

The goal was to try and make the playoffs. It wasn't about making vets happy, however that is something that has to be taken into consideration. Vets by nature are far more vocal and you don't want things to fall apart when they don't have to. Hill was NOT READY to start the year and that is a FACT!. No amount of 20/20 hindsight reasoning will change that. If he was working hard and showing promise early on he would've gotten more of a shot.

Comparing how Hill did in Houston is also irrelevant. It was later in the year and no one said that Hill didn't make any improvement. In fact the staff felt he was showing some improvement by then. If Hill played a few more minutes in NY I don't see how that changes Houston's requests for a pick. Even after getting more minutes Hill still hasn't been impressive. He's pretty much the same player. Once again I think it need to be restated that during the months of Dec. and Jan. the Knicks went 15-15. The team seemed to be playing better and the had to try to see if the team could catch fire and make a push for the playoffs.

nixluva wrote:

nykshaknbake wrote:

nixluva wrote:

nykshaknbake wrote:

martin wrote:

nykshaknbake wrote:I think the reasoning is that he should have played the rookies more because the playoffs were clearly looking unobtainable. The fact that he decided to go for max wins minimum development and only won 29 games is pretty bad. The goal isn't to lose games but rather player development, at the cost of some of the games.

i recall the Knicks being within playoff contention at the top of January. Also, Lee, Chandler, Gallo - all young guys to be sure - all got lots of minutes.

Playing to win is also good for an organization that is trying to turn attitude of team around.

Is there any type of middle ground or is it such that MDA should have just played Hill and TD heavy minutes when in fact neither had shown the promise during summer league or early season that they were ready?

And if you do play those players, are you willing to define your players earning minutes ala Curry? Cause that's what it amounts to. Also, are you willing to have a hellish lockerroom that is mostly just discontent, because that's what the vets will bring.

This is obviously not a black and white scenario and yet it being argued as such.

We're not talking about starter's minutes. Just something above DNP-Coaches decision. It's not starters or no minutes.(black and white) The vets leaving the team shouldn't cause hell over that. If they do you have to do what's better for the team. It's obvious MDA missed the boat on TD who probably would still be warming bench if Walsh hadn't intervened and that when he got minutes it failed to cause 'hell' on earth or in the locker room.

Hill damaged his own chances of seeing more minutes with is poor work ethic. SL out of shape, Training Camp and in practices wasn't going as hard as he could. That's not a good way to convince a coach to play you. TD had some really good games and some really bad ones and that led to him seeing more bench time, but he was going to play, lets not make it sound like the ONLY reason TD got more minutes is cuz Walsh showed up. Hill playing more minutes in his 2nd year didn't do much to improve his game so why would it have been such a big thing in year one? There's just no evidence that it would make a big difference in the long run. This team was going for much bigger fish and Hill was an asset to be traded. I doubt if he played more that he would've been enough to get teams to make a deal without a pick.

Also this idea that vets won't cause a problem if their minutes are reduced is not true. SELFISH vets playing for their next contract will INDEED make a stink if you play some rook that is out there foundering around in stead of them. Remember we had a lot of vets at the end of their contract on this team and they wanted to play to improve their chances of getting a new contract somewhere. What would you rather have a couple of rookies sitting their pouting or a bunch of vets not afraid to talk beefing about a lack of minutes? Vets have a bigger voice.

SO the goal of the franchise is to provide vets who are leaving a better time instead of developing youth. And the fact that hell was not raised when TD starting gets minutes disproves your point. If all minutes are taken away vets will grumble but unless they are stars they won't. Stars will grumble at any minutes taken away which clearly was not a problem on our team back then. Without Walsh TD keeps the bench warm for the rest of the season. By not playing him on a 29 win team it tells everyone he's Jerome James bad. The rockets were a better team and found he was able to contribute 15 min/night which has more value than can't get off the bench on one of the worst teams in the NBA. That is a fact. We wouldn't have had to give a lotto pick just to get rid of Jeffries with Hill.

The goal was to try and make the playoffs. It wasn't about making vets happy, however that is something that has to be taken into consideration. Vets by nature are far more vocal and you don't want things to fall apart when they don't have to. Hill was NOT READY to start the year and that is a FACT!. No amount of 20/20 hindsight reasoning will change that. If he was working hard and showing promise early on he would've gotten more of a shot.

Comparing how Hill did in Houston is also irrelevant. It was later in the year and no one said that Hill didn't make any improvement. In fact the staff felt he was showing some improvement by then. If Hill played a few more minutes in NY I don't see how that changes Houston's requests for a pick. Even after getting more minutes Hill still hasn't been impressive. He's pretty much the same player. Once again I think it need to be restated that during the months of Dec. and Jan. the Knicks went 15-15. The team seemed to be playing better and the had to try to see if the team could catch fire and make a push for the playoffs.

I'll refer to crushalots recent posts about making the playoffs. Fall apart? On a 29 win team ? Wow good thing it didn't fall apart. You don't appease vets leaving the team who suck. No team does that and things don't fall apart when they don't. WHen DUhon finally ate bench, did it make the team fall apart? Hill in Houston is very relevant. It was asid it looked like he missed his entire rookie year becvause he never got any time or communication from our esteemed coach. So in essence Houston was his rookie year.

nykshaknbake wrote:Hill isn't a great player or savior by any means but do we have anyone on our team that would average 10 rebounds if he got ~30 minutes? How was our rebounding last season?

So you think Hill couldn't get lower if he played poorly with more minutes? How about the Rockets say they don't want him? That's lower.

As for Hill helping our rebounding, I think he'd have a very small impact since his overall game didn't allow him to get more than 15 mpg and as KnicksFE pointed out he saw fewer minutes as the season went along.

Here's proof that just cuz you give a guy more minutes it doesn't mean he's going to develop faster:

Nov. 17.9 mpg, 7.4 pts, 4.9 rebs
Dec. 18.5 mpg, 6.7 pts, 4.3 rebs
Jan. 18.6 mpg. 5.4 pts, 4.9 rebs
Feb. 11.7 mpg, 3.3 pts, 3.0 rebs
Mar. 11.9 mpg. 5.6 pts, 4.5 rebs
Apr. 8.0 mpg, 3.0 pts, 2.0 rebs

This isn't to say that Hill won't have a breakout year and go on to be a good NBA player. It's just not true that his not playing really held him back so that his value was lower. Hill started strong and seemed to fade and I don't know why but that's not good.

nykshaknbake wrote:

nixluva wrote:

nykshaknbake wrote:Hill isn't a great player or savior by any means but do we have anyone on our team that would average 10 rebounds if he got ~30 minutes? How was our rebounding last season?

So you think Hill couldn't get lower if he played poorly with more minutes? How about the Rockets say they don't want him? That's lower.

As for Hill helping our rebounding, I think he'd have a very small impact since his overall game didn't allow him to get more than 15 mpg and as KnicksFE pointed out he saw fewer minutes as the season went along.

Here's proof that just cuz you give a guy more minutes it doesn't mean he's going to develop faster:

Nov. 17.9 mpg, 7.4 pts, 4.9 rebs
Dec. 18.5 mpg, 6.7 pts, 4.3 rebs
Jan. 18.6 mpg. 5.4 pts, 4.9 rebs
Feb. 11.7 mpg, 3.3 pts, 3.0 rebs
Mar. 11.9 mpg. 5.6 pts, 4.5 rebs
Apr. 8.0 mpg, 3.0 pts, 2.0 rebs

This isn't to say that Hill won't have a breakout year and go on to be a good NBA player. It's just not true that his not playing really held him back so that his value was lower. Hill started strong and seemed to fade and I don't know why but that's not good.

Far more contribution and value than he had with us. So I don't think his value could have gotten any lower, no. Big men on their rookie contract will garner some interest no matter what but the worst thing you can do to them is bury them on a bench when you have no size on your team.

When Hill did see more minutes, there was no big explosion of development that resulted from Hill getting more than 2x the number of minutes he had with us. Now if in his rookie year he had played more there's no reason to believe that he would've shown more improvement. For whatever reason Hill shrank back as the season went along. The Knicks had a good look at the kid everyday in practice and they felt secure in trading him. No matter what Walsh says about not wanting to trade him, they let him go cuz they didn't believe in him.

nykshaknbake wrote:

nixluva wrote:

nykshaknbake wrote:

nixluva wrote:

nykshaknbake wrote:Hill isn't a great player or savior by any means but do we have anyone on our team that would average 10 rebounds if he got ~30 minutes? How was our rebounding last season?

So you think Hill couldn't get lower if he played poorly with more minutes? How about the Rockets say they don't want him? That's lower.

As for Hill helping our rebounding, I think he'd have a very small impact since his overall game didn't allow him to get more than 15 mpg and as KnicksFE pointed out he saw fewer minutes as the season went along.

Here's proof that just cuz you give a guy more minutes it doesn't mean he's going to develop faster:

Nov. 17.9 mpg, 7.4 pts, 4.9 rebs
Dec. 18.5 mpg, 6.7 pts, 4.3 rebs
Jan. 18.6 mpg. 5.4 pts, 4.9 rebs
Feb. 11.7 mpg, 3.3 pts, 3.0 rebs
Mar. 11.9 mpg. 5.6 pts, 4.5 rebs
Apr. 8.0 mpg, 3.0 pts, 2.0 rebs

This isn't to say that Hill won't have a breakout year and go on to be a good NBA player. It's just not true that his not playing really held him back so that his value was lower. Hill started strong and seemed to fade and I don't know why but that's not good.

Far more contribution and value than he had with us. So I don't think his value could have gotten any lower, no. Big men on their rookie contract will garner some interest no matter what but the worst thing you can do to them is bury them on a bench when you have no size on your team.

You realize that the stats I just posted were for Hill's 2nd year in the league? In his rookie year Hill wasn't ready early on and as the team struggled to figure things out it certainly wasn't a good time to try and fit him in. Then when MDA went with a more vet rotation, things stabilized and the team won more games. After going 3-14 from Oct.-Nov. they played .500 ball over the course of the next 2 months.

When Hill did see more minutes, there was no big explosion of development that resulted from Hill getting more than 2x the number of minutes he had with us. Now if in his rookie year he had played more there's no reason to believe that he would've shown more improvement. For whatever reason Hill shrank back as the season went along. The Knicks had a good look at the kid everyday in practice and they felt secure in trading him. No matter what Walsh says about not wanting to trade him, they let him go cuz they didn't believe in him.

It's called player development, rookie wall whatever. MDA WASTED his rookie year essentially. That is the problem with MDA - player development. Big men often need longer to develop. Yeah! 0.500 ball! And then what happened when we still didn't play Hill? I think we used a veterna rotation almost all season and Hill didn't lose games for us in the garbage time minuntes he got. So it's not like over that stretch we won games because MDA finally decided to go with the vets. And as your friend Martin has made clear trends don't count. Only your record at the end of the season. Additionally, you can't use the argument that MDA looks at the kid everyday and made the best deceision; that's circular reasoning!

Mike Kurylo: What did you learn about adjusting to the NBA from summer league?

Jordan Hill: D’Antoni’s system is up & down and I was definitely out of shape during the summer league. I’ve been working really hard to get back in shape, and now I’m there.

Jordan Hill started for injured Luis Scola (knee) on Saturday, scoring eight points on 4-of-5 shooting with four rebounds and a block in 18 minutes.
He hasn't shown us anything to justify too much attention, even in deep leagues. He could possibly fall out of the rotation once Scola returns. Mar 13, 1:45 AM

It's just stupid to say that specifics don't matter when it comes to a rookie getting PT, just cuz the final record of the team was a losing one. They started off terribly and he wasn't ready then anyway. For one thing HE WAS A DAMN ROOKIE!!! He wasn't even a very experienced young player having started late in organized BB. Then the team starts playing well and you think MDA is gonna be worried about Hill at that point? Come on. If Hill came in with a better work ethic he could've perhaps won the staff over but he didn't.

Look you can go all in on this Hill thing, but MDA has helped to improve more players than he has failed to develop. You simply can't hold Hill up and then totally ignore all the other players who have done well under MDA. Perhaps the argument would be more convincing if it wasn't for the fact that Hill really didn't show that much when he did get a ton of minutes. The Rockets seriously needed size and Hill had a great shot to be the man on the Rockets and he didn't do it. I really could care less about him and it's such a weak argument to hold this kid's development against MDA. Let's move on and leave this crap in the past.

Now is when we can really start to take MDA work seriously. Now that we're going with a true core that will be here for a while. A core that you can win with.

KnicksFE wrote:

nykshaknbake wrote:

nixluva wrote:

nykshaknbake wrote:

nixluva wrote:

nykshaknbake wrote:

nixluva wrote:

nykshaknbake wrote:Hill isn't a great player or savior by any means but do we have anyone on our team that would average 10 rebounds if he got ~30 minutes? How was our rebounding last season?

So you think Hill couldn't get lower if he played poorly with more minutes? How about the Rockets say they don't want him? That's lower.

As for Hill helping our rebounding, I think he'd have a very small impact since his overall game didn't allow him to get more than 15 mpg and as KnicksFE pointed out he saw fewer minutes as the season went along.

Here's proof that just cuz you give a guy more minutes it doesn't mean he's going to develop faster:

Nov. 17.9 mpg, 7.4 pts, 4.9 rebs
Dec. 18.5 mpg, 6.7 pts, 4.3 rebs
Jan. 18.6 mpg. 5.4 pts, 4.9 rebs
Feb. 11.7 mpg, 3.3 pts, 3.0 rebs
Mar. 11.9 mpg. 5.6 pts, 4.5 rebs
Apr. 8.0 mpg, 3.0 pts, 2.0 rebs

This isn't to say that Hill won't have a breakout year and go on to be a good NBA player. It's just not true that his not playing really held him back so that his value was lower. Hill started strong and seemed to fade and I don't know why but that's not good.

Far more contribution and value than he had with us. So I don't think his value could have gotten any lower, no. Big men on their rookie contract will garner some interest no matter what but the worst thing you can do to them is bury them on a bench when you have no size on your team.

You realize that the stats I just posted were for Hill's 2nd year in the league? In his rookie year Hill wasn't ready early on and as the team struggled to figure things out it certainly wasn't a good time to try and fit him in. Then when MDA went with a more vet rotation, things stabilized and the team won more games. After going 3-14 from Oct.-Nov. they played .500 ball over the course of the next 2 months.

When Hill did see more minutes, there was no big explosion of development that resulted from Hill getting more than 2x the number of minutes he had with us. Now if in his rookie year he had played more there's no reason to believe that he would've shown more improvement. For whatever reason Hill shrank back as the season went along. The Knicks had a good look at the kid everyday in practice and they felt secure in trading him. No matter what Walsh says about not wanting to trade him, they let him go cuz they didn't believe in him.

It's called player development, rookie wall whatever. MDA WASTED his rookie year essentially. That is the problem with MDA - player development. Big men often need longer to develop. Yeah! 0.500 ball! And then what happened when we still didn't play Hill? I think we used a veterna rotation almost all season and Hill didn't lose games for us in the garbage time minuntes he got. So it's not like over that stretch we won games because MDA finally decided to go with the vets. And as your friend Martin has made clear trends don't count. Only your record at the end of the season. Additionally, you can't use the argument that MDA looks at the kid everyday and made the best deceision; that's circular reasoning!

Mike Kurylo: What did you learn about adjusting to the NBA from summer league?

Jordan Hill: D’Antoni’s system is up & down and I was definitely out of shape during the summer league. I’ve been working really hard to get back in shape, and now I’m there.

Jordan Hill started for injured Luis Scola (knee) on Saturday, scoring eight points on 4-of-5 shooting with four rebounds and a block in 18 minutes.
He hasn't shown us anything to justify too much attention, even in deep leagues. He could possibly fall out of the rotation once Scola returns. Mar 13, 1:45 AM

It's just stupid to say that specifics don't matter when it comes to a rookie getting PT, just cuz the final record of the team was a losing one. They started off terribly and he wasn't ready then anyway. For one thing HE WAS A DAMN ROOKIE!!! He wasn't even a very experienced young player having started late in organized BB. Then the team starts playing well and you think MDA is gonna be worried about Hill at that point? Come on. If Hill came in with a better work ethic he could've perhaps won the staff over but he didn't.

Look you can go all in on this Hill thing, but MDA has helped to improve more players than he has failed to develop. You simply can't hold Hill up and then totally ignore all the other players who have done well under MDA. Perhaps the argument would be more convincing if it wasn't for the fact that Hill really didn't show that much when he did get a ton of minutes. The Rockets seriously needed size and Hill had a great shot to be the man on the Rockets and he didn't do it. I really could care less about him and it's such a weak argument to hold this kid's development against MDA. Let's move on and leave this crap in the past.

Well Hill is one example. But I agree about moving on. MDA has failed in more important areas than player development.

In that case the example also applies to Rick Adelman and the Houston Rockets, since they also limited Hill’s minutes and relegated him to the bench, when it was clear that they had no starting center and were not making the playoffs. And just like MD, failed to develop the next Bill Russell.

*rolls eyes* Yes everyone was saying he was the next Bill Russell.

nykshaknbake wrote:

nixluva wrote:I submit that MDA hasn't "failed" in lots of areas. I just think he hasn't overcome the circumstances as much as we may have liked. Yea you have to overcome a lot when you get handed a job and told that for 2 years you'll get no stability or help, cuz we're tearing it down for the summer of 2010!!! How can you not recognize how much that would impact ANY COACH, Phil Jax included. Phil wouldn't take that kind of job!!! WHY? Cuz he knows that his legacy would take a huge hit cuz he wouldn't be able to win. Heck he didn't win the title with a great roster compared to ours. Imagine we had Kobe, Gasol, Odom and Bynum. You think that was a much better situation for a coach than having Duhon, Gallo, Chandler, Al Harrington, Eddy Curry and all the other losers we've had in MDA's 1st 2 years? It's kind of hard to win with a changing roster that only includes kids and castoffs on final yr contracts!!!

Now is when we can really start to take MDA work seriously. Now that we're going with a true core that will be here for a while. A core that you can win with.

I think I've heard you say that multiple times in the past. Does it count now or just like before?

every year since he has been here MDA has had the roster turn over.

hard to judge any coach on those terms, no?

that's not to say we can't nit-pick, but not much long term value to be drawn either.