blkexec wrote:This is why I love thibs as a coach vs knee jerk reaction fans calling to bench IQ. If thibs had listened to u guys and played grimes instead of iq…..that could’ve extended iq slump. Instead he’s now dripping with confidence after last nights win. Same with Kemba who I said should go to the bench and Iq should start. Another knee jerk reaction by myself. I’m grateful to have thibs as our coach and not knee jerk fans. Good team win.

It took about 10 games for Quick to break of of his slump where he was shooting mid 20%FGs and 3pters. How many of those 4 games we lost during that period could we have won if someone else could have helped us when Quick was obviously still slumping? Guess what when Kemba is having a bad game Rose plays more minutes. I am not sure if you guys understand that is also a form of benching. Remember the game vs the Bucks? Kemba got only 15 minutes. Where was the outrage for that benching? What is the use of even having other people on the bench if it is sacrilegious to even give them any playing time? Have them in street clothes because we have no use for them.

Tweet was deleted or there was problem with the URL:

https://twitter.com/nyknicks/status/1460455082286141445

LinToFields wrote:

Nalod wrote:IF a coach don’t have answers they get fired. They don’t listen to fans hindsights.

I'm curious if anyone here has ever read a candid interview with a modern coach on how he deals with the massive amount of social media criticism available to him at the touch of a keyboard every night? Seems almost impossible to avoid.

And yet that's what they do. Mostly.

Nalod wrote:

LinToFields wrote:

Nalod wrote:IF a coach don’t have answers they get fired. They don’t listen to fans hindsights.

I'm curious if anyone here has ever read a candid interview with a modern coach on how he deals with the massive amount of social media criticism available to him at the touch of a keyboard every night? Seems almost impossible to avoid.

To some extent they answer to the media who kind of speaks for fans. Often what we think are our thoughts are blogs/other fans/and some media who shape our thoughts. Look at Briggs and PhilC. Lots of “We need to……”, or “Thibs needs to tell his players that………”. As if they don’t know these things?

We respond to what is in front of us and extroploate that into the future. Fans are Bipolar. If its good, it shoudd be even better and it will! If its bad, OMG, we are stuck here and its never going to change!

With Selective memory we forget that last season Elf and the team were OK by contrast to the Fiz/Miller team. Thibs bought a great change. We bring in Drose in a minor deal that becomes a great piece for us in the last two thirds of the season. We forget Rose was banged up a bit when he first came in and sat a few games here and there. Then he was our iron man. All the while the dreaded Elf started and we still succeeded. Thats just says he was part of the equation. Nothing more.

My point is media feeds us and we run with it. Some more than others. I doubt they engage in social media as we hover at a very low level. Issue is most fans don’t know what they don’t know. Is Mitch really hurt? Has Thibs given RJ a new assignment which often he takes a few steps back. Instead fans now assign a ceiling to his career or think its a slump. Maybe his mother is ill and he is a bit distracted with life? We don’t know.

For all we know Brock Aller and Perry are cooking up a big trade and perhaps it falls flat and we never knew about it? Fans be “damn, we need to make a deal dude!”.

Thibs get paid millions and knows **** we don’t. Media and Fans are always part of the job and has been since the sport became entertainment years ago.

yeah but in the last 5-7 years it's become a new level of interaction. There are at least 3 hour+ youtube talk shows dissecting and discussing every aspect of the Knicks game now. You're telling me even on a good night he's not tuning in? I'm not buying it.

Clean wrote:

blkexec wrote:This is why I love thibs as a coach vs knee jerk reaction fans calling to bench IQ. If thibs had listened to u guys and played grimes instead of iq…..that could’ve extended iq slump. Instead he’s now dripping with confidence after last nights win. Same with Kemba who I said should go to the bench and Iq should start. Another knee jerk reaction by myself. I’m grateful to have thibs as our coach and not knee jerk fans. Good team win.

First of all what does benching mean to you because it does not seem like we have the same idea of what that consists of. It seems like most of the people here think its an all or nothing proposition. Where if you bench him he will not play again for a month or more. The world has nuance. You can bench people for the rest of the game or a game or two and then give them another try. I don't see how sitting someone who was clearly still slumping for the rest of the game or even for a game will extend his slump. Does every day he get off from basketball extend his slump? During this homestand they will have a lot of off days so I guess Quick might have another slump right? or does off days not count and only when you don't play during a gameday?

It took about 10 games for Quick to break of of his slump where he was shooting mid 20%FGs and 3pters. How many of those 4 games we lost during that period could we have won if someone else could have helped us when Quick was obviously still slumping? Guess what when Kemba is having a bad game Rose plays more minutes. I am not sure if you guys understand that is also a form of benching. Remember the game vs the Bucks? Kemba got only 15 minutes. Where was the outrage for that benching? What is the use of even having other people on the bench if it is sacrilegious to even give them any playing time? Have them in street clothes because we have no use for them.

Tweet was deleted or there was problem with the URL:

https://twitter.com/nyknicks/status/1460455082286141445

Listen to what Quick said after todays game. 15 guys who will cover for others when they are not playing well. Just like he is covering for the poor play of some of the players now all I wanted for was someone else to cover for his poor play when he was slumping. So no, I don't consider that a knee jerk reaction. I consider that having the players cover for their brothers when they need help. It seems like Quick see it that way also.

Here's the issue with your assessment - you apparently are only looking at a limited view of certain stats to confirm a slump.

- You indicated that it took Quickly about 10 games to break out of his shooting slump. This is just not true. His shooting average was not good in the first 7 games - however in two of those 7 games (Game #2 and #4) he shot well going 5 - 1l from 3 and 7 - 15 overall. So really - his shooting woes over the first 7 games were in 5 (non-consecutive) games.

- Starting with game 8 - he has been on fire. 15-28 from 3 and almost 50% shooting overall.

- I agree with your concept of benching (that it is not absolute and can take different forms). That being said - IQ's minutes in games have generally corresponded with his performance on the court. Thibs gave him more minutes in games where he shot well and less when he was not shooting well. Games 2, 4 and 9-15 saw expanded minutes. The only anomalies to this were games 7 and 8. So in essence, by your definition of "benching", Thibs has been re-distributing his minutes based on performance. I do recall however you saying he should be benched for a few games and replaced (Grimes) until he works through his slump. I'm not sure how that would work logistically. If he was benched after game 7 for instance, the team would not have reaped any benefits of his return to shooting form. My own opinion is to trust the coach to make decisions on rotation and minutes played.

- To your point on how many games the team would have won or lost based on IQ's slump. IMO you are being intellectually dishonest or just not paying attention to the game logs and outcomes. IQ had poor shooting performances in Game 1, 3, 5, 6 and 7. The team won 3 of those 5 games. He only played 12 minutes in game 3 (a loss to Orlando) and had minimal overall impact to the game or loss. He played ~19 minutes in game 7. Although shooting poorly that game - he was a plus 7 while on the floor, so it is difficult to attribute a loss to him or say that his replacement would have performed well enough to equate to the team winning (his replacement would have had to be a plus 18 to make up for the loss differential).

- You talk about nuance and then recommend putting roster players in street clothes because they are not part of the rotation. I'm hoping you understand that the reason some players do not see playing time is nuanced as well. Effort, Motor, Skillset, Injuries performance in practice, situational understanding and awareness, being in position and many other factors I imagine would come into play with regards to a coach's rotation.

foosballnick wrote:

Clean wrote:

blkexec wrote:This is why I love thibs as a coach vs knee jerk reaction fans calling to bench IQ. If thibs had listened to u guys and played grimes instead of iq…..that could’ve extended iq slump. Instead he’s now dripping with confidence after last nights win. Same with Kemba who I said should go to the bench and Iq should start. Another knee jerk reaction by myself. I’m grateful to have thibs as our coach and not knee jerk fans. Good team win.

First of all what does benching mean to you because it does not seem like we have the same idea of what that consists of. It seems like most of the people here think its an all or nothing proposition. Where if you bench him he will not play again for a month or more. The world has nuance. You can bench people for the rest of the game or a game or two and then give them another try. I don't see how sitting someone who was clearly still slumping for the rest of the game or even for a game will extend his slump. Does every day he get off from basketball extend his slump? During this homestand they will have a lot of off days so I guess Quick might have another slump right? or does off days not count and only when you don't play during a gameday?

It took about 10 games for Quick to break of of his slump where he was shooting mid 20%FGs and 3pters. How many of those 4 games we lost during that period could we have won if someone else could have helped us when Quick was obviously still slumping? Guess what when Kemba is having a bad game Rose plays more minutes. I am not sure if you guys understand that is also a form of benching. Remember the game vs the Bucks? Kemba got only 15 minutes. Where was the outrage for that benching? What is the use of even having other people on the bench if it is sacrilegious to even give them any playing time? Have them in street clothes because we have no use for them.

Tweet was deleted or there was problem with the URL:

https://twitter.com/nyknicks/status/1460455082286141445

Listen to what Quick said after todays game. 15 guys who will cover for others when they are not playing well. Just like he is covering for the poor play of some of the players now all I wanted for was someone else to cover for his poor play when he was slumping. So no, I don't consider that a knee jerk reaction. I consider that having the players cover for their brothers when they need help. It seems like Quick see it that way also.

Here's the issue with your assessment - you apparently are only looking at a limited view of certain stats to confirm a slump.

- You indicated that it took Quickly about 10 games to break out of his shooting slump. This is just not true. His shooting average was not good in the first 7 games - however in two of those 7 games (Game #2 and #4) he shot well going 5 - 1l from 3 and 7 - 15 overall. So really - his shooting woes over the first 7 games were in 5 (non-consecutive) games.

- Starting with game 8 - he has been on fire. 15-28 from 3 and almost 50% shooting overall.

- I agree with your concept of benching (that it is not absolute and can take different forms). That being said - IQ's minutes in games have generally corresponded with his performance on the court. Thibs gave him more minutes in games where he shot well and less when he was not shooting well. Games 2, 4 and 9-15 saw expanded minutes. The only anomalies to this were games 7 and 8. So in essence, by your definition of "benching", Thibs has been re-distributing his minutes based on performance. I do recall however you saying he should be benched for a few games and replaced (Grimes) until he works through his slump. I'm not sure how that would work logistically. If he was benched after game 7 for instance, the team would not have reaped any benefits of his return to shooting form. My own opinion is to trust the coach to make decisions on rotation and minutes played.

- To your point on how many games the team would have won or lost based on IQ's slump. IMO you are being intellectually dishonest or just not paying attention to the game logs and outcomes. IQ had poor shooting performances in Game 1, 3, 5, 6 and 7. The team won 3 of those 5 games. He only played 12 minutes in game 3 (a loss to Orlando) and had minimal overall impact to the game or loss. He played ~19 minutes in game 7. Although shooting poorly that game - he was a plus 7 while on the floor, so it is difficult to attribute a loss to him or say that his replacement would have performed well enough to equate to the team winning (his replacement would have had to be a plus 18 to make up for the loss differential).

- You talk about nuance and then recommend putting roster players in street clothes because they are not part of the rotation. I'm hoping you understand that the reason some players do not see playing time is nuanced as well. Effort, Motor, Skillset, Injuries performance in practice, situational understanding and awareness, being in position and many other factors I imagine would come into play with regards to a coach's rotation.

Good post reply! I couldn't have said it better.

Players are not robots or video games, where you bench someone, them put them back in (whenever you feel like it) and expect them to now shoot better? I do not understand this logic. We just have to agree to disagree on this. Maybe because I'm talking from personal experience. How can IQ simulate game time reactions and speed, sitting on the bench? If you said, put him in the G league, then maybe I can understand your logic. But foosballnick also touched on another hole in your logic Clean. What about the games he shot poorly and we won. The games he shot poorly, with a positive plus minus. Just doesn't make since, regardless how many times you repeat yourself. But I'm not the coach of the knicks, so not sure if this is even worth debating. I'm glad we have Thibs, and I'm looking forward to how we play today.

franco12 wrote:

martin wrote:

Tweet was deleted or there was problem with the URL:

https://twitter.com/TommyBeer/status/1460635335063486479

why the heck are we not switching them around?

Don't want to mess with the 2nd unit because they are playing well together?

No NBA Champion is known for having a fantastic 2nd unit, and depressing 1st.

Maybe Rose & IQ take a step down production wise, but hopefully Walker and Fournier improve.

foosballnick wrote:

Clean wrote:

blkexec wrote:This is why I love thibs as a coach vs knee jerk reaction fans calling to bench IQ. If thibs had listened to u guys and played grimes instead of iq…..that could’ve extended iq slump. Instead he’s now dripping with confidence after last nights win. Same with Kemba who I said should go to the bench and Iq should start. Another knee jerk reaction by myself. I’m grateful to have thibs as our coach and not knee jerk fans. Good team win.

First of all what does benching mean to you because it does not seem like we have the same idea of what that consists of. It seems like most of the people here think its an all or nothing proposition. Where if you bench him he will not play again for a month or more. The world has nuance. You can bench people for the rest of the game or a game or two and then give them another try. I don't see how sitting someone who was clearly still slumping for the rest of the game or even for a game will extend his slump. Does every day he get off from basketball extend his slump? During this homestand they will have a lot of off days so I guess Quick might have another slump right? or does off days not count and only when you don't play during a gameday?

It took about 10 games for Quick to break of of his slump where he was shooting mid 20%FGs and 3pters. How many of those 4 games we lost during that period could we have won if someone else could have helped us when Quick was obviously still slumping? Guess what when Kemba is having a bad game Rose plays more minutes. I am not sure if you guys understand that is also a form of benching. Remember the game vs the Bucks? Kemba got only 15 minutes. Where was the outrage for that benching? What is the use of even having other people on the bench if it is sacrilegious to even give them any playing time? Have them in street clothes because we have no use for them.

Tweet was deleted or there was problem with the URL:

https://twitter.com/nyknicks/status/1460455082286141445

Listen to what Quick said after todays game. 15 guys who will cover for others when they are not playing well. Just like he is covering for the poor play of some of the players now all I wanted for was someone else to cover for his poor play when he was slumping. So no, I don't consider that a knee jerk reaction. I consider that having the players cover for their brothers when they need help. It seems like Quick see it that way also.

Here's the issue with your assessment - you apparently are only looking at a limited view of certain stats to confirm a slump.

- You indicated that it took Quickly about 10 games to break out of his shooting slump. This is just not true. His shooting average was not good in the first 7 games - however in two of those 7 games (Game #2 and #4) he shot well going 5 - 1l from 3 and 7 - 15 overall. So really - his shooting woes over the first 7 games were in 5 (non-consecutive) games.

- Starting with game 8 - he has been on fire. 15-28 from 3 and almost 50% shooting overall.

- I agree with your concept of benching (that it is not absolute and can take different forms). That being said - IQ's minutes in games have generally corresponded with his performance on the court. Thibs gave him more minutes in games where he shot well and less when he was not shooting well. Games 2, 4 and 9-15 saw expanded minutes. The only anomalies to this were games 7 and 8. So in essence, by your definition of "benching", Thibs has been re-distributing his minutes based on performance. I do recall however you saying he should be benched for a few games and replaced (Grimes) until he works through his slump. I'm not sure how that would work logistically. If he was benched after game 7 for instance, the team would not have reaped any benefits of his return to shooting form. My own opinion is to trust the coach to make decisions on rotation and minutes played.

- To your point on how many games the team would have won or lost based on IQ's slump. IMO you are being intellectually dishonest or just not paying attention to the game logs and outcomes. IQ had poor shooting performances in Game 1, 3, 5, 6 and 7. The team won 3 of those 5 games. He only played 12 minutes in game 3 (a loss to Orlando) and had minimal overall impact to the game or loss. He played ~19 minutes in game 7. Although shooting poorly that game - he was a plus 7 while on the floor, so it is difficult to attribute a loss to him or say that his replacement would have performed well enough to equate to the team winning (his replacement would have had to be a plus 18 to make up for the loss differential).

- You talk about nuance and then recommend putting roster players in street clothes because they are not part of the rotation. I'm hoping you understand that the reason some players do not see playing time is nuanced as well. Effort, Motor, Skillset, Injuries performance in practice, situational understanding and awareness, being in position and many other factors I imagine would come into play with regards to a coach's rotation.

On the point of him having a random not terrible shooting game here and there. One good game and then going back to a couple bad games again does not constitute breaking a slump. What he is doing now constitutes breaking a slump. Where he has gone multiple games.

If you read what I said carefully I never blamed IQ for any losses. It is extremely hard for a bench player to be the main reason why a team loses the game. The question I asked was how many more games could we have won if someone else could have helped while he was slumping. For example, during the Magic game we lost there was points in the game when it was competitive and in the game thread I said if 1 person can get hot we can win this game. No one could make a shot and we lost. IQ was 0-4 that game and still clearly slumping so maybe Grimes who is shooting 50% FGs and 50% 3pters with good D could have maybe helped that game. Maybe with Grimes on Ross he does not go crazy in the 4th. How am I being intellectually dishonest? I literally asked a question about how many games we could have won. I never even gave an opinion on how many more games we could have won because that would be impossible to know.

You said starting with game 8 he was on fire. He shot better but he was not on fire until after game 10 which is why I said his slump lasted about 10 games. Speaking of being intellectually dishonest. You are using his recent games to buoy these games. Shooting 40% Fgs and 37% 3pters is considered on fire for you? When compared to how he was shooting at periods of the season mid 20% it is way better but not on fire.

Game 8 - was 2 - 5 = 40% and 0 - 0 = 00% from 3pt
Game 9 - was 4 - 9 = 44% and 1 - 3 = 33% from 3pt
Game 10 - was 3 - 8 = 37% and 2 - 5 = 40%from 3pt

I think you missed the point I was making with my street clothes comment. Our whole debate is centered around me wanting to use the bench players to help in the case of other players being in a bad slump. So how could you not notice the thick layer of sarcasm I used with that statement? Why would I recommend putting bench players in street clothes when my whole point is I want to use them? I am saying we might as well put them in street clothes if no one ever wants to use them(Thibs and fans who disagree with me). I was clearly being sarcastic and it should have been easy to notice given my stancs on using bench players.

I also noticed you ignored the point Quick said in the interview I posted. How they have 15 guys who can cover for each other when other teammates are not playing well. Notice that he said 15 guys. That means he includes bench players. The same bench players people are coming at me for wanting to play. How ironic is it that the guy you guys are fighting for agrees with my position. Who better to have an opinion on it than him since he has been on both sides of it this season?

Tweet was deleted or there was problem with the URL:

https://twitter.com/JCMacriNBA/status/1462407089687572484

In an alternative universe we benched him after the first 5 games of the season...