Nalod wrote:

TPercy wrote:RJ barret is 3rd in the league in total spot up attempts (430)......and has only scored 390 points from these. Some of the worst effiecincy I've seen in a while.

"A spot-up shooter is a player who runs to a spot on the floor, catches the ball and shoots quickly"..........

Yeah, its his worst attribute. I looked it up, he just a tad bit more then Fultz, who I thought fixed his shot some.
Its a bad look for him. In the 24 percentile. he has to fix that **** for sure!

TPercy wrote:

Nalod wrote:

TPercy wrote:RJ barret is 3rd in the league in total spot up attempts (430)......and has only scored 390 points from these. Some of the worst effiecincy I've seen in a while.

"A spot-up shooter is a player who runs to a spot on the floor, catches the ball and shoots quickly"..........

Yeah, its his worst attribute. I looked it up, he just a tad bit more then Fultz, who I thought fixed his shot some.
Its a bad look for him. In the 24 percentile. he has to fix that **** for sure!

Ya its not just a bad look for him its also a bad look for the team because as a team we are 4th in spot ups yet 17th in effiency percentile. Only randle has taken more spot ups but at least he's effient. I think he needs to work on reducing volume of those shots dramatically and put them elsewhere.

47 wins. Yes, Brunson. yes. Randle got more woke.

RJ eFG baked in has his worst 3pt season at 31%. Avg 5.3 attempts. Last year 5.8 Attempts.
If he reverts back to his 40% second season he avg 4.3 attempts vs this year 5.3.
Funny, he hits the same 1.7 per game. Pace is higher and team is scoring more in this new era.
His 2pt fg% climbs 3 of 4 years. .442 last year to 495% this year.
His turnovers are right in line with his career avg this past season.
His assists are at his career avg. 2.8 per game vs. 3.0 last year.
He played 73 games this year. His minutes were 30.4 rookie year, then 34.9, 34.5, and this year 33.9. It dropped when JHart came.

I'm not debating his efficiency. There is room for improvement. All I am saying is it's not god awful. The dynamics of his numbers have changed.
"Torture the numbers enough it will confess and tell you want you want".

joec32033 wrote:

Jmpasq wrote:

joec32033 wrote:

Jmpasq wrote:

joec32033 wrote:

ccch wrote:So in a way he is being "accountable".
I suspect this occurs during the upcoming series with Cavs.

Hope your right. I don't see us going anywhere the way he's been playing!

So the third option on your team dictates where they are going?

He shouldn't be the 3rd option. 3rd option should be Quickley

So you're saying the 4th option dictates where they are going?

Oh no, I want to trade him. He is a bad fit.

How exactly is he a bad fit?

Of course there's those 20 games a year he hits his shots and looks good and its "he's only 22"

Why should he be the 3rd (IQ is better) option? Or the 4th or 5th (Grimes/JHart are better) option?

How about explaining the reverse? Lets pretend there is no RJ bias (love or hate). Lets pretend you know nothing about the Knicks. Can you explain why RJ takes the 3rd most shots yet he's the lowest EF% scorer in the rotation? Why does this happen?

fishmike wrote:

joec32033 wrote:

Jmpasq wrote:

joec32033 wrote:

Jmpasq wrote:

joec32033 wrote:

ccch wrote:So in a way he is being "accountable".
I suspect this occurs during the upcoming series with Cavs.

Hope your right. I don't see us going anywhere the way he's been playing!

So the third option on your team dictates where they are going?

He shouldn't be the 3rd option. 3rd option should be Quickley

So you're saying the 4th option dictates where they are going?

Oh no, I want to trade him. He is a bad fit.

How exactly is he a bad fit?

poor defender. Poor passer. TO prone. Doesnt space the floor. Team looks better with him off the floor.

Of course there's those 20 games a year he hits his shots and looks good and its "he's only 22"

Why should he be the 3rd (IQ is better) option? Or the 4th or 5th (Grimes/JHart are better) option?

How about explaining the reverse? Lets pretend there is no RJ bias (love or hate). Lets pretend you know nothing about the Knicks. Can you explain why RJ takes the 3rd most shots yet he's the lowest EF% scorer in the rotation? Why does this happen?

On the current roster RJ has the best resume to assume that 3rd spot. IQ started coming on a few months into the season, Grimes started playing well a few months after that. Let's not forget RJ's injury where his bone popped through his finger. maybe that had an effect (you know like Grimes' ankle may have led to his slow start)..

RJ was an average to above average defender his first few seasons. He took the tough assignments and still increased his scoring average every year until now (where, despite being a 3rd option still averaged a shade under 20). I can't defend his inefficiency from 3 or with his jumper, but he has leaps and bounds improved his finishing around the rim (perhaps at the expense of his long range shot).

No bias, more often than not he comes through in the clutch. No bias I don't think he makes many more (if any, honestly) mistakes or turnovers than Grimes. IQ takes care of the ball better no doubt. For all the great and amazing games IQ has played this season he is still averaging 15 3 and 4. Despite all the love Grimes gets he is still currently averaging 11 3 and 2.

All the talk about efficiency, mentality has to play into this too. Until recently (very recently in Grimes case) IQ and Grimes didn't have the alpha mentality RJ had. And even then he is doing it playing a role where he isn't competing with guys like Randle and Brunson every night. Let's see how it pans out when Grimes has to do it along side the main guns. IQ can do it, he's proved it.

You want to talk like these guys have a better track record than RJ fine. You're wrong but fine. Pure numbers wise, RJ's poor season is twice as good Grimes' numbers wise, and is on par with Quickley. You can throw up advanced stats. Don't care. I already established in the "Grimes Time" thread where straight traditional stats were used to support Grimes and no one screamed for advanced anything.

RJ's weakness is his inefficiency. Grimes weakness is he isn't ready to be an alpha (yet, if ever). Quickley's weakness is he is sometimes to trigger happy and in game erratic.

The one whose numbers have been consistent as a whole is RJ.

But again. I'm sure I'm wrong. Efg% and defensive WAR and win shares say....blah, blah, blah...

fishmike wrote:

Nalod wrote:

fishmike wrote:

joec32033 wrote:

Jmpasq wrote:

joec32033 wrote:

Jmpasq wrote:

joec32033 wrote:

ccch wrote:So in a way he is being "accountable".
I suspect this occurs during the upcoming series with Cavs.

Hope your right. I don't see us going anywhere the way he's been playing!

So the third option on your team dictates where they are going?

He shouldn't be the 3rd option. 3rd option should be Quickley

So you're saying the 4th option dictates where they are going?

Oh no, I want to trade him. He is a bad fit.

How exactly is he a bad fit?

poor defender. Poor passer. TO prone. Doesnt space the floor. Team looks better with him off the floor.

Of course there's those 20 games a year he hits his shots and looks good and its "he's only 22"

Why should he be the 3rd (IQ is better) option? Or the 4th or 5th (Grimes/JHart are better) option?

How about explaining the reverse? Lets pretend there is no RJ bias (love or hate). Lets pretend you know nothing about the Knicks. Can you explain why RJ takes the 3rd most shots yet he's the lowest EF% scorer in the rotation? Why does this happen?

47 wins. Developing a young player.
If you want to dive into more than the eFT% it gets interesting.
IQ and Grimes dont' play the same position.
His minutes are down this season a bit, more so with JHart in rotation.
JHart is a role player. Very efficient one.
OG and Grant are options. Similarly RJ has had a better early career than they did. Not saying RJ needs 3 more years. Just saying thats what they did.
Im not selling, you might not agree, but "Why does this happen?" and I offer something.
Again, Im not blind to his eFT% issues but its really born on his 3pt shooting. Turnovers are very much the same from past years. Pace is up, his touches are up. So more chances for TO. But its not higher!
O-9 no doubt is sticky in the brain than a 1-4 from 3pt.
If you really care, look at this 10 game splits and see what jumps over a longer season.
Has his defense been bad all year or were there lapses due to whatever. Laziness, fat, too much bulk, finger, too much on his mind, too much pancake syrup, hollywood, etc etc.

thanks for the stream of thoughts but none of them gives any valuable insight into what RJ is bringing to the scorers table that his teammates are not.

Knicks could REALLY use an effective RJ in this series.

No doubt! They will leave him open and double dog dare him to shoot.
Every RJ outside shot miss is groaned upon. Even me!!!!
I used to yell at TV for Frank to "Salvage your damn NBA career son and hit that shot!".........

Now its "improve that Damn eFT% and make Fishmike a believer!!!!!"...........

Philc1 wrote:I remember Knicks fans being insanely negative about Ewing in the 90’s. If this messageboard existed back then Oh my God

https://www.basketball-reference.com/players/e/ewingpa01.html

Career eFG of .505 from the 5 spot is only good when you look at the historic comparisons. Safe to say it was a different game back then. League eFG was .488. That midrange jumper was about a 32% shot. We don't really take those shots any more. Don't ask me about his finger roll percentage.

blkexec wrote:

Alpha1971 wrote:Rjs problem is his shooting from outside. Darn, if he fixes it, with his bully ball he can be a wrecking ball on offense. Unless you get an upgrade or a better fit, you don't risk him being better somewhere else

It's difficult for a coach to have more than 2 non shooters on the team. RJ, Hart, Mitch......The players defending these guys will simply back off and help on the dribble drives. If I'm guarding the knicks, I rather leave RJ wide open and force him to beat me. I can see RJ developing a consistent jumper when his young legs get old, similar to Jason Kidd. But RJ's passing in the last game was impressive. Getting to the rim, scoring and playmaking, is what we need. Shooting 9 or 10 threes is not utilizing his strengths.

look up his 3pt avg attempts per game.

EwingsGlass wrote:

Philc1 wrote:

EwingsGlass wrote:

Philc1 wrote:I remember Knicks fans being insanely negative about Ewing in the 90’s. If this messageboard existed back then Oh my God

https://www.basketball-reference.com/players/e/ewingpa01.html

Career eFG of .505 from the 5 spot is only good when you look at the historic comparisons. Safe to say it was a different game back then. League eFG was .488. That midrange jumper was about a 32% shot. We don't really take those shots any more. Don't ask me about his finger roll percentage.

Oh my God again with the sabometrics nonsense. If eFG is as important as you RJ Haters keep swearing it is than Nic Claxton and Mason Plumlee are better than Steph Curry and Lebron. Jakob Poetl is now better than Kevin Durant

The ability to be efficient with volume is what makes superstars. And to continually adapt to the defenses as they try to stop efficient players. Or make them less efficient.

If you take the time to understand the information provided by these numbers and really look at the statements I am saying without blowing them out of proportion emotionally, you will see that my conclusions are far more limited than your exaggerations.

My conclusion is the Knicks should allocate more shots from RJ to IQ and QG. I’m comparing Knick wings. Your conclusion is that the numbers have no meaning because Jacob Poetl has a higher eFG than Steph Curry. Clearly you don’t understand the material.

But if the question is whether Ewings midrange jumper was a good shot, it may have been for the game of that era, but it would not be considered a good shot today.

It was a different game back then-I figured the stronger defense of old balanced out the lower percentage 3's of the modern day game-but I posted a while ago the eFG of top players current and past and RJ's number was not out of wack.

From the Fire Thibs thread. March 22.

2 different perspectives. I currently see Grimes as the weak link in the starting rotation (agree about Obi off the bench). Grimes and RJ offer 2 different skill sets, but I think the illusion of lost opportunity will always make Grimes look shinier (same principle as everyone loving the backup quarterback).

Grimes played great against c level competition in summer league (although he choked in the chamionship game), and played well in an exhibition where no one is playing defense. Me personally, I think Grimes is a very good player but I think the illusion of lost opportunity really gets people thinking he is better than he is. I have seen no signs against NBA competition that Grimes offensively can perform like RJ.

I know you like to use efg%, so I'll use that...

Barett (47.7) has a higher career efg% than

Sprewell (46.4)
Rip Hamilton (46.9)
Caron Butler (46.9)
Ron Harper (46.8)
Starks (47.6)
Horton Tucker (47.5)
Tracy McGrady (47)

And is in range of:
Houston (49.8)
Drexler (49.5)
Richmond (49.7)
Pierce (50)
Roy (49.2)
Anthony (48.5)
Wade (49.5)
Marion (50)
Butler (49.7)
Derozan (48.2)
Jason Richardson (50.2)
Wiggins (49)
Pippen (50.4)
Kukoc (49.2)
Majerle (50.5)
Glenn Robinson (48.5)
Mike Redd (50.3)
Larry Johnson (50.5)
Grant Hill (49.2)
Vince Carter (48.9)

Most stars seem to be at arouns the 49-51% mark (give or take), and guys that are fringe all stars seem to come in just below that (yes, I individually searched players-more than I listed- to get a sample size and I tried to keep to swing players. I probably looked at about 40 players-you'll just have to take my word for it)

Grimes is at 56.9 career.
AS a comparison, the only players that are up that high are a few superstars (Curry, Durant, Kawai, Klay) and specialized shooters or post players.
https://www.basketball-reference.com/leaders/efg_pct_career.html

~You can't run from who you are.~

EwingsGlass wrote:

joec32033 wrote:

EwingsGlass wrote:

Philc1 wrote:

EwingsGlass wrote:

Philc1 wrote:I remember Knicks fans being insanely negative about Ewing in the 90’s. If this messageboard existed back then Oh my God

https://www.basketball-reference.com/players/e/ewingpa01.html

Career eFG of .505 from the 5 spot is only good when you look at the historic comparisons. Safe to say it was a different game back then. League eFG was .488. That midrange jumper was about a 32% shot. We don't really take those shots any more. Don't ask me about his finger roll percentage.

Oh my God again with the sabometrics nonsense. If eFG is as important as you RJ Haters keep swearing it is than Nic Claxton and Mason Plumlee are better than Steph Curry and Lebron. Jakob Poetl is now better than Kevin Durant

The ability to be efficient with volume is what makes superstars. And to continually adapt to the defenses as they try to stop efficient players. Or make them less efficient.

If you take the time to understand the information provided by these numbers and really look at the statements I am saying without blowing them out of proportion emotionally, you will see that my conclusions are far more limited than your exaggerations.

My conclusion is the Knicks should allocate more shots from RJ to IQ and QG. I’m comparing Knick wings. Your conclusion is that the numbers have no meaning because Jacob Poetl has a higher eFG than Steph Curry. Clearly you don’t understand the material.

But if the question is whether Ewings midrange jumper was a good shot, it may have been for the game of that era, but it would not be considered a good shot today.

It was a different game back then-I figured the stronger defense of old balanced out the lower percentage 3's of the modern day game-but I posted a while ago the eFG of top players current and past and RJ's number was not out of wack.

From the Fire Thibs thread. March 22.

2 different perspectives. I currently see Grimes as the weak link in the starting rotation (agree about Obi off the bench). Grimes and RJ offer 2 different skill sets, but I think the illusion of lost opportunity will always make Grimes look shinier (same principle as everyone loving the backup quarterback).

Grimes played great against c level competition in summer league (although he choked in the chamionship game), and played well in an exhibition where no one is playing defense. Me personally, I think Grimes is a very good player but I think the illusion of lost opportunity really gets people thinking he is better than he is. I have seen no signs against NBA competition that Grimes offensively can perform like RJ.

I know you like to use efg%, so I'll use that...

Barett (47.7) has a higher career efg% than

Sprewell (46.4)
Rip Hamilton (46.9)
Caron Butler (46.9)
Ron Harper (46.8)
Starks (47.6)
Horton Tucker (47.5)
Tracy McGrady (47)

And is in range of:
Houston (49.8)
Drexler (49.5)
Richmond (49.7)
Pierce (50)
Roy (49.2)
Anthony (48.5)
Wade (49.5)
Marion (50)
Butler (49.7)
Derozan (48.2)
Jason Richardson (50.2)
Wiggins (49)
Pippen (50.4)
Kukoc (49.2)
Majerle (50.5)
Glenn Robinson (48.5)
Mike Redd (50.3)
Larry Johnson (50.5)
Grant Hill (49.2)
Vince Carter (48.9)

Most stars seem to be at arouns the 49-51% mark (give or take), and guys that are fringe all stars seem to come in just below that (yes, I individually searched players-more than I listed- to get a sample size and I tried to keep to swing players. I probably looked at about 40 players-you'll just have to take my word for it)

Grimes is at 56.9 career.
AS a comparison, the only players that are up that high are a few superstars (Curry, Durant, Kawai, Klay) and specialized shooters or post players.
https://www.basketball-reference.com/leaders/efg_pct_career.html

~You can't run from who you are.~

I don’t think that analysis works though. I think you have to compare to the eFG of the current league, todays player keep an eFG about 40 points higher than the 90s teams. His efficiency is below average for todays game. This is because 1) he has a relatively average fg% from 2) He shoots below average from the ft line and 3 point line. We all see the potential and the #3 pick labeled him as a potential star. But he needs to work on that shot. You can’t argue that. It’s below average.

To be fair, I used this as a comparison when forced too. I hate this statistic. I think it is stupid. The guys with the highest ones are bigs who only shoot around the hoop (Deandre Jordan, Gobert, Mitch, Capella), so you need to figure out where to draw the line in the sand.

League average this year is 54.5.
https://www.statmuse.com/nba/ask?q=nba+league+average+efg%25+2023

Average by position in 2023 is
PG 52.1
SG 53.3
SF 54
PF 55.5
C 60.5
https://www.statmuse.com/nba/ask?q=nba+league+average+efg%25+2023+by+position