plays like ****: "Knicks FO ****ed up, soneone "I" wanted plays better".
Or, Knicks considered 4 guys, 2 played better, "We still ****ed up".
Some fans always get it right.

jaydh wrote:cool highlight real.

reality is, when he's on the floor our offense plays 4 on 5 where the other team always has a help defender playing off Hart

I mean the dude averaged 13.6pts, 9.6rebs, 5.9ast, 1.5stls on 52% shooting, 33% from 3, 77.6% from FT, 37.6mins per game over 77games on a 51 win team.

While those are very very strong counting stats. Lets look at his analytics.
ORTG: 125
DRTG: 112
TS%: .611
OWS: 5.4
DWS: 3.8
WS: 9.2
WS/48: .153
OBPM: 1.1
DBPM: 1.8
BPM: 2.8
VORP: 3.6
REB%: 14.6
AST%: 20.7
USG%: 15.3
TO%: 15.5

Dude had a monster season overall and greatly contributed to our seasons success given the fact that he was 3rd on the team in WS/48 and 1st in Vorp while playing the 2nd most mins(Mikal)and 2nd most games(Mikal). Also so much for the his defense wasn't good narative.

His showing against the Pacers wasn't great. Yet he averaged 12-9-6ast-1.5stls vs Pistons on 50%fg & 50% 3pt in 37mins. 14.5-8-4.5 on 46%fg 38% 3pt in 37mins vs Boston.

Apparently we need to throw all that away and past playoff heroics and trash on Hart due to the Pacers series which he had 4 out of 6 games with double digit rebounds. Smh Knick fans.

After MDA made it hot to have more 3pt shooters. Over the last 15 years teams have usually had at least one player in the starting lineup that didn't hit threes. Mostly a C or PF. This shouldn't have staggard the offense the way it did. Hart is simply being used as a surface level scapegoat for the deeper fundemental issue with last years starting lineup. Which was lack of rim protection within the starting lineup, inability to maximize OG defensively regarding matchups due to playing him at PF. Lack of effective ball movement overall for a more fluid offense. Interesting how Ihart made that aspet look better with less shooters due to his passing IQ out of the high post. While also offering strong rim protection and rebounding.

newyorknewyork wrote:

jaydh wrote:cool highlight real.

reality is, when he's on the floor our offense plays 4 on 5 where the other team always has a help defender playing off Hart

I mean the dude averaged 13.6pts, 9.6rebs, 5.9ast, 1.5stls on 52% shooting, 33% from 3, 77.6% from FT, 37.6mins per game over 77games on a 51 win team.

While those are very very strong counting stats. Lets look at his analytics.
ORTG: 125
DRTG: 112
TS%: .611
OWS: 5.4
DWS: 3.8
WS: 9.2
WS/48: .153
OBPM: 1.1
DBPM: 1.8
BPM: 2.8
VORP: 3.6
REB%: 14.6
AST%: 20.7
USG%: 15.3
TO%: 15.5

Dude had a monster season overall and greatly contributed to our seasons success given the fact that he was 3rd on the team in WS/48 and 1st in Vorp while playing the 2nd most mins(Mikal)and 2nd most games(Mikal). Also so much for the his defense wasn't good narative.

His showing against the Pacers wasn't great. Yet he averaged 12-9-6ast-1.5stls vs Pistons on 50%fg & 50% 3pt in 37mins. 14.5-8-4.5 on 46%fg 38% 3pt in 37mins vs Boston.

Apparently we need to throw all that away and past playoff heroics and trash on Hart due to the Pacers series which he had 4 out of 6 games with double digit rebounds. Smh Knick fans.

After MDA made it hot to have more 3pt shooters. Over the last 15 years teams have usually had at least one player in the starting lineup that didn't hit threes. Mostly a C or PF. This shouldn't have staggard the offense the way it did. Hart is simply being used as a surface level scapegoat for the deeper fundemental issue with last years starting lineup. Which was lack of rim protection within the starting lineup, inability to maximize OG defensively regarding matchups due to playing him at PF. Lack of effective ball movement overall for a more fluid offense. Interesting how Ihart made that aspet look better with less shooters due to his passing IQ out of the high post. While also offering strong rim protection and rebounding.

Jokic had a 125 offensive rating per NBA.com, you sure Hart did too? i'll take the other #s with a grain of salt.

is it true or not that teams play off him and easily double our other players as a result? OG and Bridges play out of position because he starts. how many times does he shrug in confusion out there or just bolt down the court with the ball only to throw it away because he gets confused on what to do.. maybe its just because i watch the playoffs more than reg season but it wasn't a good look

newyorknewyork wrote:

Nalod wrote:Sign him for one year or two, with a player option and he plays great:
"Knicks FO ****ed up not locking him up".

plays like ****: "Knicks FO ****ed up, soneone "I" wanted plays better".
Or, Knicks considered 4 guys, 2 played better, "We still ****ed up".
Some fans always get it right.

Fellow Knicks fan friend made a good point about Simmons that he probably won't play much within the rotation. So with the role he would probably play you want a guy in that role to be an incredible locker room guy. That doesn't seem to be Simmons strong suite.

His play making and defensive chops within the frontcourt does have a lot of appeal though.

He's a tough call for me. 1) is he a good presence on the team - especially if he's on bench in street clothes much of the year? How much does his passive offensive game kill spacing?

On the other hand we know 1) he can defend 1-5 at a decent/intelligent level, 2) he can help push pace and relieve Jalen of some ball handling responsibility.

He's just a tough read -- I'd put much weight into what kind of condition Simmons is in. If he looks fully engaged in coming into season in awesome shape that could swing my vote. I tend to think he'd play more than most think simply because we have a vacuum on this team when it comes to competent ball handling, passing and offensive creativity.

U understand if Hart is a net negative who played 37mins for 77 games and playoffs Then that means this Knicks team without him should have been a 60 win team that steam rolled right over the the chip.

I def believe Hart should come off the bench in favor of Mitch though. Makes more sense overall to the makeup of the roster. Don't need to scapegoat Hart to come to that conclusion. I could point my finger at many grievances among the Knicks players. Mikal couldn't effectively eat Tim Hardaway Jrs lunch vs the Pistons and take him off the dribble. Missed a ton of quality looks from 3. KAT disappeared completely for games and allowed smaller players to d him up effectively while struggling defensively. OG has the worst hands in the NBA. Brunson struggles defensively, holds the ball to long and didn't create for others enough. Mitch struggles to hit FTs or shoot or create offense. Deuce missed to many quality looks from 3 and doesn't create enough offense to lead a bench.

newyorknewyork wrote:I mean you guys are telling me I should disregard all the facts showing Hart was a positive contributor on a 51 win team that went to the ECC because you are in your feelings about losing to the Pacers in the playoffs.

U understand if Hart is a net negative who played 37mins for 77 games and playoffs Then that means this Knicks team without him should have been a 60 win team that steam rolled right over the the chip.

I def believe Hart should come off the bench in favor of Mitch though. Makes more sense overall to the makeup of the roster. Don't need to scapegoat Hart to come to that conclusion. I could point my finger at many grievances among the Knicks players. Mikal couldn't effectively eat Tim Hardaway Jrs lunch vs the Pistons and take him off the dribble. Missed a ton of quality looks from 3. KAT disappeared completely for games and allowed smaller players to d him up effectively while struggling defensively. OG has the worst hands in the NBA. Brunson struggles defensively, holds the ball to long and didn't create for others enough. Mitch struggles to hit FTs or shoot or create offense. Deuce missed to many quality looks from 3 and doesn't create enough offense to lead a bench.

I’m not sure how the slander on hart potentially started but nobody is denying harts impact on this team. But for me, I prefer a shooter or Mitch instead of hart, due to the 5 and out culture of basketball now. Harts game is perfect as a 6 man making moment plays on both ends, off the bench.

One game in the playoffs, forget which one. Hart took over the offense and played point forward, pushing the tempo because Brunson wouldn’t or can’t. We won that game because of his playmaking.

Too much of the offense’s stagnation is being put on Hart instead of Brunson. Who has been remarkable for NY, but doesn’t think nearly enough about getting his teammates involved. Despite what the numbers say.

Hart might fit better on the bench. But it really comes down to what Brown does with Brunson in the offense. Players like Hart and Bridges should contribute more if JB is more willing to give up the ball.

blkexec wrote:

newyorknewyork wrote:I mean you guys are telling me I should disregard all the facts showing Hart was a positive contributor on a 51 win team that went to the ECC because you are in your feelings about losing to the Pacers in the playoffs.

U understand if Hart is a net negative who played 37mins for 77 games and playoffs Then that means this Knicks team without him should have been a 60 win team that steam rolled right over the the chip.

I def believe Hart should come off the bench in favor of Mitch though. Makes more sense overall to the makeup of the roster. Don't need to scapegoat Hart to come to that conclusion. I could point my finger at many grievances among the Knicks players. Mikal couldn't effectively eat Tim Hardaway Jrs lunch vs the Pistons and take him off the dribble. Missed a ton of quality looks from 3. KAT disappeared completely for games and allowed smaller players to d him up effectively while struggling defensively. OG has the worst hands in the NBA. Brunson struggles defensively, holds the ball to long and didn't create for others enough. Mitch struggles to hit FTs or shoot or create offense. Deuce missed to many quality looks from 3 and doesn't create enough offense to lead a bench.

I’m not sure how the slander on hart potentially started but nobody is denying harts impact on this team. But for me, I prefer a shooter or Mitch instead of hart, due to the 5 and out culture of basketball now. Harts game is perfect as a 6 man making moment plays on both ends, off the bench.

I agree. Hart was the 5th option in the starting lineup. Being the 5th option your job is to find ways to contribute and be effective without having plays called for you with low usage. With that Hart averaged 14pts 10rebs 6ast 1.5stls. He effectively causes havoc as a 5th option role player for the most part. But it may just not be ideal for the players he plays with in the starting lineup.

We need the ability to slide OG between both forward spots effectively. And need KAT paired with someone who can protect the rim effectively. 5 out in for the starting lineup isn't going to solve all problems, unless that 5th piece is of the Jaren Jackson Jr, Miles Turner, Evan Mobley, Brock Lope mold.

jaydh wrote:

newyorknewyork wrote:I mean you guys are telling me I should disregard all the facts showing Hart was a positive contributor on a 51 win team that went to the ECC because you are in your feelings about losing to the Pacers in the playoffs.

It was more than the pacer series. The pistons played off hart as well. I'm just not a fan of letting an opponent's player roam because they don't care if Hart shoots...most times he's not going to.

I agree;
But unfortunately;
It doesn’t matter where u put him;
He’s not shooting the 3……
#barz

But hart is better in a fast break system. With clarkson and deuce, hart will impact better off the bench. And it will not matter who’s playing off him.

But the starting unit runs more half court sets. That’s a problem for Josh. It’s up to Mike brown to see this and put Josh where he can succeed. Running with the second unit.

LivingLegend wrote:

jaydh wrote:

newyorknewyork wrote:

jaydh wrote:cool highlight real.

reality is, when he's on the floor our offense plays 4 on 5 where the other team always has a help defender playing off Hart

I mean the dude averaged 13.6pts, 9.6rebs, 5.9ast, 1.5stls on 52% shooting, 33% from 3, 77.6% from FT, 37.6mins per game over 77games on a 51 win team.

While those are very very strong counting stats. Lets look at his analytics.
ORTG: 125
DRTG: 112
TS%: .611
OWS: 5.4
DWS: 3.8
WS: 9.2
WS/48: .153
OBPM: 1.1
DBPM: 1.8
BPM: 2.8
VORP: 3.6
REB%: 14.6
AST%: 20.7
USG%: 15.3
TO%: 15.5

Dude had a monster season overall and greatly contributed to our seasons success given the fact that he was 3rd on the team in WS/48 and 1st in Vorp while playing the 2nd most mins(Mikal)and 2nd most games(Mikal). Also so much for the his defense wasn't good narative.

His showing against the Pacers wasn't great. Yet he averaged 12-9-6ast-1.5stls vs Pistons on 50%fg & 50% 3pt in 37mins. 14.5-8-4.5 on 46%fg 38% 3pt in 37mins vs Boston.

Apparently we need to throw all that away and past playoff heroics and trash on Hart due to the Pacers series which he had 4 out of 6 games with double digit rebounds. Smh Knick fans.

After MDA made it hot to have more 3pt shooters. Over the last 15 years teams have usually had at least one player in the starting lineup that didn't hit threes. Mostly a C or PF. This shouldn't have staggard the offense the way it did. Hart is simply being used as a surface level scapegoat for the deeper fundemental issue with last years starting lineup. Which was lack of rim protection within the starting lineup, inability to maximize OG defensively regarding matchups due to playing him at PF. Lack of effective ball movement overall for a more fluid offense. Interesting how Ihart made that aspet look better with less shooters due to his passing IQ out of the high post. While also offering strong rim protection and rebounding.

Jokic had a 125 offensive rating per NBA.com, you sure Hart did too? i'll take the other #s with a grain of salt.

is it true or not that teams play off him and easily double our other players as a result? OG and Bridges play out of position because he starts. how many times does he shrug in confusion out there or just bolt down the court with the ball only to throw it away because he gets confused on what to do.. maybe its just because i watch the playoffs more than reg season but it wasn't a good look

He was bad and it wasn't just 1 or 2 things -- he simply had his head up his arss often and his effort was concentrated on putting up stats towards triple doubles that often were empty and influenced by high minutes/usage on the court.