martin wrote:foosballnick wrote:Philc1 wrote:foosballnick wrote:martin wrote:Philc1 wrote:KnickDanger wrote:martin wrote:Philc1 wrote:martin wrote:Philc1 wrote:KnickDanger wrote:ESOMKnicks wrote:KnickDanger wrote:This is all time machine stuff, which means projecting ahead as well as reconsidering. But looking back, I think it is very unlikely we would have picked Quickley later if we had chosen Hali or another PG at 8. So a question for me would be would you prefer Obi and IQ or Halliburton and...?
This is a very good point. Especially given that IQ is not all that far behind Hali. Almost the same point average at 2/3 of Hali's playing time. Hali a better 3pt shooter right now and assists-man, but then Sancto probably trusts him more with the ball and runs plays for him.
And we can't know what Halliburton's development would be here. He might be getting Obi's minutes -- or less.
We don’t draft Quickley if we take Halliburton at 8. Both are combo guards and Quickley > Halliburton
How? Seems like Hali is more than holding his own and doing it better than IQ
Quickley is averaging almost as much ppg (12.3 for Quick versus 13.1 for Halliburton) despite coming off the bench while Halliburton starts and plays 35-40 minutes per game
Do you want to try again or is just throwing stuff against a wall and hoping it turns out right is good enough?
35-40 minutes per game... I mean at this rate I'm just banging Rebecca every night and we'll just call that a thing
It seems a good percentage of the threads on this board are "what if?" or regret threads. Unless we are going to ban these threads (I'm okay with that) countering the premise that Obi is a bust and we should have taken Halliburton with we likely wouldn't have then taken IQ seems fair enough. And then to compare the two rookie guards. That's what we do here right?
What if Quickley was averaging almost as many points as Halliburton despite coming off the bench while Halliburton starts?
Oh wait, that’s actually currently happening
I just dont get it. Your comparison of 2 players, one bench one starting, is limited to and defined by Points Scored?
While Haliburton has a better shooting percentage and is higher in assists per - they are fairly close in a number of per 36 / per 100 stats including TS% and scoring. Also, the starting vs. bench is a BS argument when Haliburton has only become a starter over the past 11-12 games and is alongside Fox who garners much of the defensive focus.
Points per 36 - IQ (22.2) / TH (15.5)
Points per 100 possessions - IQ (30.8) / TH (20.7)
Free Throw % - IQ (89.4) / TH (87.5)
TS% : IQ (54.3%) / TH (59.9%)
I love how you conveniently leave out this stat - MINUTES PER GAME:
Halliburton: 30 minutes per game avg for the entire regular season
Quickley: 19
I think you may have missed the point. Per 36 / Per 100 stats are meant to take into account minute differentials. Point being, in terms of shooting, while Haliburton is slightly more efficient, but IQ appears to be a more dynamic scorer.
It's difficult to project how Haliburton would be if on the Knicks. Best guess is that if they drafted him, they would have went elsewhere in the draft instead of IQ and with Thib's defense first focus, TH would likely be coming off the bench in a similar role that IQ currently has.
I loved your initial response cause it had actual thought in it, thanks.
I do feel that there is some diminishing returns on the PER 36 when one guy is near that number and the next you need to double. I am sure there is some math formula that would show those diminishing returns when you get at some multiplier level (ie, we know that if a guy only plays 5 minutes and has a bucket or 2, the per 36 is not reflective of anything).
Its an interesting question. In fairness, IQ is averaging 19 mins per game - so the per 36 factor/outliers should be more accurate than say a guy averaging 8 mins per game. But I agree that we won's know for sure until he achieves a higher degree of sustainable minutes. Stats aside - a lot comes into play when comparing guys that is not often taken into account. For instance, IQ is in an offensive scheme at the bottom of the NBA in possessions per game and is part of a 2nd unit that does not have an offensive focal point. So essentially there is more pressure on him to score and more end of shot clock heaves. TH is in a more high powered offense with a bunch of guys who can put it in the hole generally better than most on the Knicks.
Conversely - the Knicks are near the top in Defense - which requires significant effort. How much draw does the focus on Defensive energy take away from offensive output? Sacramento is almost at rock bottom in team defensive stats. If TH is being coached to focus most attention on one half of the floor - how much of a plus is that for his offensive game when compared to IQ?
Pet Peeve of mine - Nalod reference Berman's article today on IQ - who pointed out his deficiencies such as not being good on Defense. It kind of pisses me off that they're bashing the kid who's playing on a team with significantly high defensive standards.....while in the same article praising TH for being at the top of the Kia Rookie rankings (he's actually #2) and playing on a team where Defense is avoided like a leper colony. PS - IQ was number 3 in the same rankings but Berman conveniently left that fact out.
4/24/2021 6:57 PM