GodSaveTheKnicks wrote:Theory 1: AR is lazy sitting until he either works harder

Theory 2: AR is basketball stupid and is sitting until he gets the offensive/defensive schemes

Theory 3: AR is working hard but just not as conducive to winning as Mozgov.

Perhaps one day MDA writes a book and discloses wtf is going on.

He's been pretty clear. This is from the preseason

"He's got big potential," D'Antoni said of the third-year forward. "What does potential mean? Up to now he hasn't done a whole lot. He's good. He's got talent, great future and we hope all that. We got to keep teaching him and he's got to keep learning. Every once in a while he'll go off on a tangent that he can't do during the regular season. We're trying to get him to understand do the easy things. But it's up to him."

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/blogs/knicks/2010/10/anthony-randolphs-got-big-pote.html#ixzz17SIUigeM

Same article

"He should be a stat magnet," D'Antoni said. "He should go on the floor and have three blocks, five rebounds get to the line three times, have two dunks, come out and he's only played five minutes. And you'll say 'whoa, look at that.' He has to have so much energy that he's changing the game."

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/blogs/knicks/2010/10/anthony-randolphs-got-big-pote.html#ixzz17SJ0vCnG

It's been very clear what they are looking for.

Bippity10 wrote:

GodSaveTheKnicks wrote:Theory 1: AR is lazy sitting until he either works harder

Theory 2: AR is basketball stupid and is sitting until he gets the offensive/defensive schemes

Theory 3: AR is working hard but just not as conducive to winning as Mozgov.

Perhaps one day MDA writes a book and discloses wtf is going on.

He's been pretty clear. This is from the preseason

"He's got big potential," D'Antoni said of the third-year forward. "What does potential mean? Up to now he hasn't done a whole lot. He's good. He's got talent, great future and we hope all that. We got to keep teaching him and he's got to keep learning. Every once in a while he'll go off on a tangent that he can't do during the regular season. We're trying to get him to understand do the easy things. But it's up to him."

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/blogs/knicks/2010/10/anthony-randolphs-got-big-pote.html#ixzz17SIUigeM

Same article

"He should be a stat magnet," D'Antoni said. "He should go on the floor and have three blocks, five rebounds get to the line three times, have two dunks, come out and he's only played five minutes. And you'll say 'whoa, look at that.' He has to have so much energy that he's changing the game."

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/blogs/knicks/2010/10/anthony-randolphs-got-big-pote.html#ixzz17SJ0vCnG

It's been very clear what they are looking for.

sounds like the Knicks want him to play like a young Camby but he wants to play like Kevin Durant.

FistOfOakley wrote:

fishmike wrote:

FistOfOakley wrote:we're actually 22nd in rebound rate.

and we are #2 in the league in PPS (point per possession)
we are #1 in blocks
we are #7 in steals
we are are the 6th WORST in opposing FG%
our rebounding differential is -1.7

clearly rebounding isnt our strength, but I wouldnt call it our weakness either. We score at a VERY high rate (#2). We force tons of turnovers on D, but our opposing FG% is terrible. That translates to not a lot of rebounds.

Its not so bad where I am going to inject a guy in AR who hasnt earned his playing time.

rebound rate is a percentage of available rebounds. how many shots we take does not affect it.

I just dont see us losing games because we are getting pushed around on the boards. Do you?

martin wrote:

FistOfOakley wrote:i don't get why we should wait since we're winning. we should have our best players playing. maybe if AR was playing more that Raptors game would have been over midway through the 4th and we can give our starters some rest. maybe kevin love doesn't get 31 rebounds or michael beasley doesn't go off. maybe we beat denver or golden state. we'll never know.

just because we have an acceptable record doesn't mean everything's been a right move. this probably is one of my only gripes and it's relatively small but i do think it is VERY clear that AR should be seeing some floor time instead of mozgov, at the very least when turiaf's been healthy.

what the F has AR done one the court to suggest that?

he has an elite level of skill rebounding the ball and he's our best rebounder and he's demonstrated this over his 2 seasons at GS and in his limited playing in ny. he's a flawed player but he's no worse than what our russian friend has provided in the other aspects of his game.

and what exactly has mozgov done except having a so-so preseason and a ridiculously bad regular season?

This is a man that has crafted a very specific way to play the game and it's proven to be successful. Right now he knows that he needs the type of player AR could be one day, but right now he's not the player. He's a Minus player rather than a Plus player. They're gonna keep working with him until he gets better. I have no doubt that at some point he's going to play and likely do well.

8 dnp's out of 11 games is pretty ridiculous if you ask me.

FistOfOakley wrote:anyway, to elaborate on my gripe i am more angry at the fact that mozgov continues to see minutes. if AR's seen as much playing time as he did earlier in the season, 10-15 minutes a game with a few dnp's along the way, i'd be fine with that because he hasn't played all that well either.

8 dnp's out of 11 games is pretty ridiculous if you ask me.

That's because you are a fan that really, really, really wants to see him play. You aren't the coach that sees the affect that he has on your offense and defense. Only the coaching staff sees that stuff because they designed the offesne

FistOfOakley wrote:

Bippity10 wrote:In the one game where AR got major minutes we were outrebounded by 11. Why would we assume he would have kept Love off the boards when he couldn't keep Milwuaukee of the boards or stop their front line from destroying us. I'm not sure I understand how he is affecting the game. Stats are great, but it's affect on the game that matters and so far he hasn't had any positive affect that we can document. We are making a lot of assumptions that aren't really based on anything.

Maybe he can change these things one day, but there is absolutely no evidence that it's a done deal.

we were outrebounded because we had more missed shots. defensive rebounds usually goto the opposing team.

but on the whole yes we were outrebounded that game but the disparity isn't as large as you think it is. we lost cause they shot well and we didn't.

So in other words he had no effect on the offensive boards or on the defense.

Affect on the game is more important then stats. He has had little to know positive effect on the game. Eventually he will, right now he does not

Plus, don't forget that Love had no problem getting offensive rebounds against us in his game that Randolph was supposedly going to stop him in, so if Randolph is a change the game dominant rebounder why has he not done this yet?

TMS wrote:

Panos wrote:

Bippity10 wrote:Guys, coaches don't play their best players. They play the best TEAM.

Remember teh YMCA champion is not always the team with the most talent. Usually, it's the group of old guys that play best together. AR has struggled to fit into our offense and has not showed the intensity to make the coachign staff forget that he doesn't fit in. Soon enough, he will get time. Trust me on this. He's just not ready, and we are winning. When we need him, they will play him. He better be ready

YMCA? We talkin' 'bout YMCA?
Not the NBA. Not the NBA.
We talkin' bout YMCA.

that's just wrong

I know I'm wrong for this but....LMAO!!!!!!

FistOfOakley wrote:

Bippity10 wrote:So in other words he had no effect on the offensive boards or on the defense.

Affect on the game is more important then stats. He has had little to know positive effect on the game. Eventually he will, right now he does now.

it's all moot since we lost by a ridiculous amount anyway.

Exactly my point. While you are obsessed with his rebounding you fail to grasp that despite his ability to rebound he had no affect on the game. We were still out rebounded and still destroyed. In the other 11 games he played we are 4-7. When he did not play we aer 9-2. The losing is clearly not his fault and the winning is not because he is on the bench. But just further evidence that he has not affected the game when he has played. Not sure where I'm seeing evidence that his play has made us a better team. The team still wins at a rate of 67 wins over a 82 game season when he does not play. The team at this point is saying that they don't need him.

Both he and Mozgov have struggled, so it's going to have to come down to more then just stats to get time. Mozgov gets the advantage right now because he at least can run the offense. He has set a low bar and Randolph shoudl be able to obliterate this debate adn yet he has not.

I keep backing things up with actual evidence and you keep saying things like I think we would have won because I think he is a good rebounder. Doesn't your argument have to be stronger then that.

Again, if DAntoni played him over Mozgov tomorrow I would be okay with it. My argument would be the same in reverse. Mozgov has done nothing to end the debate in the other direction. Right now it comes down to who the caoch is okay with. Right now it's Mozgov If Randolph doesn't like it he needs to obliterate the debate by performing.