[ IMAGES: Images ON turn off | ACCOUNT: User Status is LOCKED why? ]

I'd re-sign KOQ now
Author Thread
yellowboy90
Posts: 33931
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 4/23/2011
Member: #3538

12/29/2017  1:04 PM
Bonn1997 wrote:
meloshouldgo wrote:
Bonn1997 wrote:
BigRedDog wrote:
Bonn1997 wrote:
meloshouldgo wrote:
Bonn1997 wrote:
martin wrote:To what end to you extend KOQ? I don't like him as a player. Very good passer and rebounder in traffic. Gets blocks against second stringers.

Awful PnR defender and often just sits in the paint, and thus extra rebounds and blocked shots.

Always hesitates when completely wide open on offense when he should shoot immediately. Makes bonehead plays both offensively and defensively that breaks momentum.

Cannot defend stretch offensive players. Is not a stretch player himself out to 3. Is an undersized 5 and a slow 4.

To what end do you extend KOQ? To stay mediocre? To trade him later? What's his replacement opportunity cost?

For me, do I see him as a long term piece on a deep playoff team? No. 9th man on a cost controlled contract for a playoff team? Yes. That's it.


What is the goal if we don't keep him? Is the plan to tank? The only time we consistently outscore opponents is with him in.

Our bench consistently outscores other team's benches. He is part of that bench, but his value is being overstated. He is really bad defensively against bigger players and we can't sign him along with Enes and Noah. If you want Kanter out that's different, I don't think I agree with that.

He's the only bench player with a positive on/off differential.

KOQ is fools gold. Doesn't play well against quality teams. Too short. He is a backup at best.Plays well for a few games then sucks for too many. Makes so many boneheaded plays. Not worth the money it will cost to keep him. Trade him plus opens up a spot for Willy. I think Will plays better with consistent minutes. You really think KOQ is a difference maker???


It is foolish to think of any our centers as gold or even silver. Kanter has some strengths but is definitely fools gold or even fools silver. He is a very nice reserve but is not having the impact you need from a starter. With the on/off differential where it is (worst on team out of regular players), this is not the right role for him.

I still think KOQ is going to give us the best value. I am not suggesting paying him like a starter. A solid 6th man costs at least 8 to 10 mil a year and I think that's all it would take - just double what we gave Ron Baker. That's outstanding value.

You can say he's inconsistent but most of the bad performances are games where he got like 12 min. Inevitably there is random fluctuation in performance. You're asking him to never have a bad quarter!

One guy is getting a block and a half a game against scrubs and bottom feeders. He is racking up a good plus/minus against them. The other has to play behind inefficient starters and go up against the best of the NBA. You want to keep KOQ over Kanter based on stats that don't accommodate for the quality of the opposition? Only one of them is too five in the NBA in any category.


The 10 point differential favoring the sub is really rare. It can't be just level of opponent. It would be more common then. But it's not just the plus/minus that makes me prefer KOQ. It's also my expectation that he'll cost half as much.

O'Quinn is the better all around player but I would sale at the trade deadline because he will be wasted on a team like the knicks going forward and jis value is likely to decrease as he ages and loose athleticism.

AUTOADVERT
Bonn1997
Posts: 58592
Alba Posts: 2
Joined: 2/2/2004
Member: #581
USA
12/29/2017  1:24 PM
yellowboy90 wrote:
Bonn1997 wrote:
meloshouldgo wrote:
Bonn1997 wrote:
BigRedDog wrote:
Bonn1997 wrote:
meloshouldgo wrote:
Bonn1997 wrote:
martin wrote:To what end to you extend KOQ? I don't like him as a player. Very good passer and rebounder in traffic. Gets blocks against second stringers.

Awful PnR defender and often just sits in the paint, and thus extra rebounds and blocked shots.

Always hesitates when completely wide open on offense when he should shoot immediately. Makes bonehead plays both offensively and defensively that breaks momentum.

Cannot defend stretch offensive players. Is not a stretch player himself out to 3. Is an undersized 5 and a slow 4.

To what end do you extend KOQ? To stay mediocre? To trade him later? What's his replacement opportunity cost?

For me, do I see him as a long term piece on a deep playoff team? No. 9th man on a cost controlled contract for a playoff team? Yes. That's it.


What is the goal if we don't keep him? Is the plan to tank? The only time we consistently outscore opponents is with him in.

Our bench consistently outscores other team's benches. He is part of that bench, but his value is being overstated. He is really bad defensively against bigger players and we can't sign him along with Enes and Noah. If you want Kanter out that's different, I don't think I agree with that.

He's the only bench player with a positive on/off differential.

KOQ is fools gold. Doesn't play well against quality teams. Too short. He is a backup at best.Plays well for a few games then sucks for too many. Makes so many boneheaded plays. Not worth the money it will cost to keep him. Trade him plus opens up a spot for Willy. I think Will plays better with consistent minutes. You really think KOQ is a difference maker???


It is foolish to think of any our centers as gold or even silver. Kanter has some strengths but is definitely fools gold or even fools silver. He is a very nice reserve but is not having the impact you need from a starter. With the on/off differential where it is (worst on team out of regular players), this is not the right role for him.

I still think KOQ is going to give us the best value. I am not suggesting paying him like a starter. A solid 6th man costs at least 8 to 10 mil a year and I think that's all it would take - just double what we gave Ron Baker. That's outstanding value.

You can say he's inconsistent but most of the bad performances are games where he got like 12 min. Inevitably there is random fluctuation in performance. You're asking him to never have a bad quarter!

One guy is getting a block and a half a game against scrubs and bottom feeders. He is racking up a good plus/minus against them. The other has to play behind inefficient starters and go up against the best of the NBA. You want to keep KOQ over Kanter based on stats that don't accommodate for the quality of the opposition? Only one of them is too five in the NBA in any category.


The 10 point differential favoring the sub is really rare. It can't be just level of opponent. It would be more common then. But it's not just the plus/minus that makes me prefer KOQ. It's also my expectation that he'll cost half as much.

O'Quinn is the better all around player but I would sale at the trade deadline because he will be wasted on a team like the knicks going forward and jis value is likely to decrease as he ages and loose athleticism.


I didn't realize he turns 28 soon. I think you're right. It would have to be part of serious rebuilding where we get what we can for all players who aren't part of the future though.
BigRedDog
Posts: 21839
Alba Posts: 2
Joined: 1/23/2004
Member: #569
12/29/2017  1:33 PM
yellowboy90 wrote:
Bonn1997 wrote:
meloshouldgo wrote:
Bonn1997 wrote:
BigRedDog wrote:
Bonn1997 wrote:
meloshouldgo wrote:
Bonn1997 wrote:
martin wrote:To what end to you extend KOQ? I don't like him as a player. Very good passer and rebounder in traffic. Gets blocks against second stringers.

Awful PnR defender and often just sits in the paint, and thus extra rebounds and blocked shots.

Always hesitates when completely wide open on offense when he should shoot immediately. Makes bonehead plays both offensively and defensively that breaks momentum.

Cannot defend stretch offensive players. Is not a stretch player himself out to 3. Is an undersized 5 and a slow 4.

To what end do you extend KOQ? To stay mediocre? To trade him later? What's his replacement opportunity cost?

For me, do I see him as a long term piece on a deep playoff team? No. 9th man on a cost controlled contract for a playoff team? Yes. That's it.


What is the goal if we don't keep him? Is the plan to tank? The only time we consistently outscore opponents is with him in.

Our bench consistently outscores other team's benches. He is part of that bench, but his value is being overstated. He is really bad defensively against bigger players and we can't sign him along with Enes and Noah. If you want Kanter out that's different, I don't think I agree with that.

He's the only bench player with a positive on/off differential.

KOQ is fools gold. Doesn't play well against quality teams. Too short. He is a backup at best.Plays well for a few games then sucks for too many. Makes so many boneheaded plays. Not worth the money it will cost to keep him. Trade him plus opens up a spot for Willy. I think Will plays better with consistent minutes. You really think KOQ is a difference maker???


It is foolish to think of any our centers as gold or even silver. Kanter has some strengths but is definitely fools gold or even fools silver. He is a very nice reserve but is not having the impact you need from a starter. With the on/off differential where it is (worst on team out of regular players), this is not the right role for him.

I still think KOQ is going to give us the best value. I am not suggesting paying him like a starter. A solid 6th man costs at least 8 to 10 mil a year and I think that's all it would take - just double what we gave Ron Baker. That's outstanding value.

You can say he's inconsistent but most of the bad performances are games where he got like 12 min. Inevitably there is random fluctuation in performance. You're asking him to never have a bad quarter!

One guy is getting a block and a half a game against scrubs and bottom feeders. He is racking up a good plus/minus against them. The other has to play behind inefficient starters and go up against the best of the NBA. You want to keep KOQ over Kanter based on stats that don't accommodate for the quality of the opposition? Only one of them is too five in the NBA in any category.


The 10 point differential favoring the sub is really rare. It can't be just level of opponent. It would be more common then. But it's not just the plus/minus that makes me prefer KOQ. It's also my expectation that he'll cost half as much.

O'Quinn is the better all around player but I would sale at the trade deadline because he will be wasted on a team like the knicks going forward and jis value is likely to decrease as he ages and loose athleticism.

KOQ better than Kanter??? Really ??? I guess you aren't watching the games at all or maybe put your glasses on.

Briggs-- Frank is 2 yrs away from being 2 years away
Bonn1997
Posts: 58592
Alba Posts: 2
Joined: 2/2/2004
Member: #581
USA
12/29/2017  1:55 PM
BigRedDog wrote:
yellowboy90 wrote:
Bonn1997 wrote:
meloshouldgo wrote:
Bonn1997 wrote:
BigRedDog wrote:
Bonn1997 wrote:
meloshouldgo wrote:
Bonn1997 wrote:
martin wrote:To what end to you extend KOQ? I don't like him as a player. Very good passer and rebounder in traffic. Gets blocks against second stringers.

Awful PnR defender and often just sits in the paint, and thus extra rebounds and blocked shots.

Always hesitates when completely wide open on offense when he should shoot immediately. Makes bonehead plays both offensively and defensively that breaks momentum.

Cannot defend stretch offensive players. Is not a stretch player himself out to 3. Is an undersized 5 and a slow 4.

To what end do you extend KOQ? To stay mediocre? To trade him later? What's his replacement opportunity cost?

For me, do I see him as a long term piece on a deep playoff team? No. 9th man on a cost controlled contract for a playoff team? Yes. That's it.


What is the goal if we don't keep him? Is the plan to tank? The only time we consistently outscore opponents is with him in.

Our bench consistently outscores other team's benches. He is part of that bench, but his value is being overstated. He is really bad defensively against bigger players and we can't sign him along with Enes and Noah. If you want Kanter out that's different, I don't think I agree with that.

He's the only bench player with a positive on/off differential.

KOQ is fools gold. Doesn't play well against quality teams. Too short. He is a backup at best.Plays well for a few games then sucks for too many. Makes so many boneheaded plays. Not worth the money it will cost to keep him. Trade him plus opens up a spot for Willy. I think Will plays better with consistent minutes. You really think KOQ is a difference maker???


It is foolish to think of any our centers as gold or even silver. Kanter has some strengths but is definitely fools gold or even fools silver. He is a very nice reserve but is not having the impact you need from a starter. With the on/off differential where it is (worst on team out of regular players), this is not the right role for him.

I still think KOQ is going to give us the best value. I am not suggesting paying him like a starter. A solid 6th man costs at least 8 to 10 mil a year and I think that's all it would take - just double what we gave Ron Baker. That's outstanding value.

You can say he's inconsistent but most of the bad performances are games where he got like 12 min. Inevitably there is random fluctuation in performance. You're asking him to never have a bad quarter!

One guy is getting a block and a half a game against scrubs and bottom feeders. He is racking up a good plus/minus against them. The other has to play behind inefficient starters and go up against the best of the NBA. You want to keep KOQ over Kanter based on stats that don't accommodate for the quality of the opposition? Only one of them is too five in the NBA in any category.


The 10 point differential favoring the sub is really rare. It can't be just level of opponent. It would be more common then. But it's not just the plus/minus that makes me prefer KOQ. It's also my expectation that he'll cost half as much.

O'Quinn is the better all around player but I would sale at the trade deadline because he will be wasted on a team like the knicks going forward and jis value is likely to decrease as he ages and loose athleticism.

KOQ better than Kanter??? Really ??? I guess you aren't watching the games at all or maybe put your glasses on.


Watch both ends of the court carefully. Watch the scoreboard carefully too. The big problem with the eyeball test though is that people usually just see what they want to see.
yellowboy90
Posts: 33931
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 4/23/2011
Member: #3538

12/29/2017  2:52 PM
Kanter is a higher usage scorer but Kyle scores with similar efficiency. Kanter does rebound slightly better on the offensive boards but Kyle is the much better passer and while getting another offensive possession is great it does not always lead to pts. Kyle assist making actually leads to points and he still has a better ast to turnover rate than Kanter. Plus when you add in defensive impact and the ledger goes to O'quinn being the better player not to mention he is being paid less money and can fit into most teams cap plans which hopefully will bring value come deadline time.

They both need to go before/at the deadline.

BRIGGS
Posts: 50228
Alba Posts: 8
Joined: 7/30/2002
Member: #303
12/29/2017  5:02 PM
I like koq
If the money is good I'm with ya
5 yrs 33mm
reub
Posts: 21595
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 1/13/2016
Member: #6227

12/29/2017  5:11 PM
yellowboy90 wrote:Kanter is a higher usage scorer but Kyle scores with similar efficiency. Kanter does rebound slightly better on the offensive boards but Kyle is the much better passer and while getting another offensive possession is great it does not always lead to pts. Kyle assist making actually leads to points and he still has a better ast to turnover rate than Kanter. Plus when you add in defensive impact and the ledger goes to O'quinn being the better player not to mention he is being paid less money and can fit into most teams cap plans which hopefully will bring value come deadline time.

They both need to go before/at the deadline.


Kanter is a higher usage player because he's rebounding all of the missed shots and placing them directly in the basket.
Bonn1997
Posts: 58592
Alba Posts: 2
Joined: 2/2/2004
Member: #581
USA
12/29/2017  5:30 PM    LAST EDITED: 12/29/2017  5:31 PM
reub wrote:
yellowboy90 wrote:Kanter is a higher usage scorer but Kyle scores with similar efficiency. Kanter does rebound slightly better on the offensive boards but Kyle is the much better passer and while getting another offensive possession is great it does not always lead to pts. Kyle assist making actually leads to points and he still has a better ast to turnover rate than Kanter. Plus when you add in defensive impact and the ledger goes to O'quinn being the better player not to mention he is being paid less money and can fit into most teams cap plans which hopefully will bring value come deadline time.

They both need to go before/at the deadline.


Kanter is a higher usage player because he's rebounding all of the missed shots and placing them directly in the basket.

We could all agree KOQ is better than Kanter on defense, right?
It's not even clear Kanter is better on offense though. If you count assists as 2 points, KOQ is bringing more scoring per 36 min than Kanter is. The offensive rebounding probably makes the overall offensive contribution about even though. But then you have to factor in the defense and that KOQ would cost half and allow us to spend 8 figures on a PG or SF.
KOQ's age does make me hesitant though. I'm not certain I'd bring either back.
Welpee
Posts: 21870
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 1/22/2016
Member: #6239

12/29/2017  7:13 PM
Bonn1997 wrote:
reub wrote:
yellowboy90 wrote:Kanter is a higher usage scorer but Kyle scores with similar efficiency. Kanter does rebound slightly better on the offensive boards but Kyle is the much better passer and while getting another offensive possession is great it does not always lead to pts. Kyle assist making actually leads to points and he still has a better ast to turnover rate than Kanter. Plus when you add in defensive impact and the ledger goes to O'quinn being the better player not to mention he is being paid less money and can fit into most teams cap plans which hopefully will bring value come deadline time.

They both need to go before/at the deadline.


Kanter is a higher usage player because he's rebounding all of the missed shots and placing them directly in the basket.

We could all agree KOQ is better than Kanter on defense, right?
It's not even clear Kanter is better on offense though. If you count assists as 2 points, KOQ is bringing more scoring per 36 min than Kanter is. The offensive rebounding probably makes the overall offensive contribution about even though. But then you have to factor in the defense and that KOQ would cost half and allow us to spend 8 figures on a PG or SF.
KOQ's age does make me hesitant though. I'm not certain I'd bring either back.
KOQ is a better shot blocker, I'll give you that. He may indeed be a slightly better all around defensive player but not by much. Kanter certainly isn't as bad as advertised when he arrived. And if you're going to drop some advanced metrics you need to factor in KOQ comes off the bench playing against the other team's 2nd unit.
Bonn1997
Posts: 58592
Alba Posts: 2
Joined: 2/2/2004
Member: #581
USA
12/29/2017  7:33 PM
Welpee wrote:
Bonn1997 wrote:
reub wrote:
yellowboy90 wrote:Kanter is a higher usage scorer but Kyle scores with similar efficiency. Kanter does rebound slightly better on the offensive boards but Kyle is the much better passer and while getting another offensive possession is great it does not always lead to pts. Kyle assist making actually leads to points and he still has a better ast to turnover rate than Kanter. Plus when you add in defensive impact and the ledger goes to O'quinn being the better player not to mention he is being paid less money and can fit into most teams cap plans which hopefully will bring value come deadline time.

They both need to go before/at the deadline.


Kanter is a higher usage player because he's rebounding all of the missed shots and placing them directly in the basket.

We could all agree KOQ is better than Kanter on defense, right?
It's not even clear Kanter is better on offense though. If you count assists as 2 points, KOQ is bringing more scoring per 36 min than Kanter is. The offensive rebounding probably makes the overall offensive contribution about even though. But then you have to factor in the defense and that KOQ would cost half and allow us to spend 8 figures on a PG or SF.
KOQ's age does make me hesitant though. I'm not certain I'd bring either back.
KOQ is a better shot blocker, I'll give you that. He may indeed be a slightly better all around defensive player but not by much. Kanter certainly isn't as bad as advertised when he arrived. And if you're going to drop some advanced metrics you need to factor in KOQ comes off the bench playing against the other team's 2nd unit.

He probably plays a little more against 2nd units but I suspect this excuse is overused. Coaches don't sub at the same time and Kanter and KOQ have an unusual minute distribution (Kanter playing much less than most starters). The big point though is Kanter is going to cost way more than KOQ. He needs to be unambiguously better on both ends or way better on one end of the court. He doesn't meet that standard or even come close.
I think people are overeating Kanter because he talks tough and plays through injury. Arguably, that matters a little but you have to base your decisions on the player's production not talk.
BigRedDog
Posts: 21839
Alba Posts: 2
Joined: 1/23/2004
Member: #569
12/29/2017  7:49 PM
Bonn1997 wrote:
reub wrote:
yellowboy90 wrote:Kanter is a higher usage scorer but Kyle scores with similar efficiency. Kanter does rebound slightly better on the offensive boards but Kyle is the much better passer and while getting another offensive possession is great it does not always lead to pts. Kyle assist making actually leads to points and he still has a better ast to turnover rate than Kanter. Plus when you add in defensive impact and the ledger goes to O'quinn being the better player not to mention he is being paid less money and can fit into most teams cap plans which hopefully will bring value come deadline time.

They both need to go before/at the deadline.


Kanter is a higher usage player because he's rebounding all of the missed shots and placing them directly in the basket.

We could all agree KOQ is better than Kanter on defense, right?
It's not even clear Kanter is better on offense though. If you count assists as 2 points, KOQ is bringing more scoring per 36 min than Kanter is. The offensive rebounding probably makes the overall offensive contribution about even though. But then you have to factor in the defense and that KOQ would cost half and allow us to spend 8 figures on a PG or SF.
KOQ's age does make me hesitant though. I'm not certain I'd bring either back.

You mean the part where KOQ leaves his man alone outside then runs out to him? KOQ's man fakes the shot , KOQ jumps for the fake and his man goes in for a layup. Yeah he really plays great defense, not. When Embid played against KOQ it was like KOQ wasn't there. At least Kanter played him tougher. KOQ can't get a rebound in traffic, I think he gets most of his rebounds from foul shots. Backup at best. The Knicks with KOQ as a starting center would be a recipe for disaster.

Briggs-- Frank is 2 yrs away from being 2 years away
Bonn1997
Posts: 58592
Alba Posts: 2
Joined: 2/2/2004
Member: #581
USA
12/29/2017  8:12 PM    LAST EDITED: 12/29/2017  8:15 PM
BigRedDog wrote:
Bonn1997 wrote:
reub wrote:
yellowboy90 wrote:Kanter is a higher usage scorer but Kyle scores with similar efficiency. Kanter does rebound slightly better on the offensive boards but Kyle is the much better passer and while getting another offensive possession is great it does not always lead to pts. Kyle assist making actually leads to points and he still has a better ast to turnover rate than Kanter. Plus when you add in defensive impact and the ledger goes to O'quinn being the better player not to mention he is being paid less money and can fit into most teams cap plans which hopefully will bring value come deadline time.

They both need to go before/at the deadline.


Kanter is a higher usage player because he's rebounding all of the missed shots and placing them directly in the basket.

We could all agree KOQ is better than Kanter on defense, right?
It's not even clear Kanter is better on offense though. If you count assists as 2 points, KOQ is bringing more scoring per 36 min than Kanter is. The offensive rebounding probably makes the overall offensive contribution about even though. But then you have to factor in the defense and that KOQ would cost half and allow us to spend 8 figures on a PG or SF.
KOQ's age does make me hesitant though. I'm not certain I'd bring either back.

You mean the part where KOQ leaves his man alone outside then runs out to him? KOQ's man fakes the shot , KOQ jumps for the fake and his man goes in for a layup. Yeah he really plays great defense, not. When Embid played against KOQ it was like KOQ wasn't there. At least Kanter played him tougher. KOQ can't get a rebound in traffic, I think he gets most of his rebounds from foul shots. Backup at best. The Knicks with KOQ as a starting center would be a recipe for disaster.


Like as badly as they're getting beaten with Kanter as center? For the record, I never said I would pay KOQ starter's money or plan for him to be the long-term starter. But I can't give Kanter double what KOQ costs. He's not double the player. At best, they are comparable and have off-setting weaknesses.
Bonn1997
Posts: 58592
Alba Posts: 2
Joined: 2/2/2004
Member: #581
USA
12/29/2017  8:22 PM
BigRedDog wrote:
Bonn1997 wrote:
reub wrote:
yellowboy90 wrote:Kanter is a higher usage scorer but Kyle scores with similar efficiency. Kanter does rebound slightly better on the offensive boards but Kyle is the much better passer and while getting another offensive possession is great it does not always lead to pts. Kyle assist making actually leads to points and he still has a better ast to turnover rate than Kanter. Plus when you add in defensive impact and the ledger goes to O'quinn being the better player not to mention he is being paid less money and can fit into most teams cap plans which hopefully will bring value come deadline time.

They both need to go before/at the deadline.


Kanter is a higher usage player because he's rebounding all of the missed shots and placing them directly in the basket.

We could all agree KOQ is better than Kanter on defense, right?
It's not even clear Kanter is better on offense though. If you count assists as 2 points, KOQ is bringing more scoring per 36 min than Kanter is. The offensive rebounding probably makes the overall offensive contribution about even though. But then you have to factor in the defense and that KOQ would cost half and allow us to spend 8 figures on a PG or SF.
KOQ's age does make me hesitant though. I'm not certain I'd bring either back.

You mean the part where KOQ leaves his man alone outside then runs out to him?


Whatever he's doing is working. He's holding his man to 46.5% (Kanter is at 49.2%). And, no, that's not because he's going up against 2nd units. KOQ's opposing players actually have a similar baseline shooting percentage to Kanter's (shooting percentage for the season as a whole - 47.6 vs 47.5%).
BigRedDog
Posts: 21839
Alba Posts: 2
Joined: 1/23/2004
Member: #569
12/30/2017  1:12 AM
Bonn1997 wrote:
BigRedDog wrote:
Bonn1997 wrote:
reub wrote:
yellowboy90 wrote:Kanter is a higher usage scorer but Kyle scores with similar efficiency. Kanter does rebound slightly better on the offensive boards but Kyle is the much better passer and while getting another offensive possession is great it does not always lead to pts. Kyle assist making actually leads to points and he still has a better ast to turnover rate than Kanter. Plus when you add in defensive impact and the ledger goes to O'quinn being the better player not to mention he is being paid less money and can fit into most teams cap plans which hopefully will bring value come deadline time.

They both need to go before/at the deadline.


Kanter is a higher usage player because he's rebounding all of the missed shots and placing them directly in the basket.

We could all agree KOQ is better than Kanter on defense, right?
It's not even clear Kanter is better on offense though. If you count assists as 2 points, KOQ is bringing more scoring per 36 min than Kanter is. The offensive rebounding probably makes the overall offensive contribution about even though. But then you have to factor in the defense and that KOQ would cost half and allow us to spend 8 figures on a PG or SF.
KOQ's age does make me hesitant though. I'm not certain I'd bring either back.

You mean the part where KOQ leaves his man alone outside then runs out to him? KOQ's man fakes the shot , KOQ jumps for the fake and his man goes in for a layup. Yeah he really plays great defense, not. When Embid played against KOQ it was like KOQ wasn't there. At least Kanter played him tougher. KOQ can't get a rebound in traffic, I think he gets most of his rebounds from foul shots. Backup at best. The Knicks with KOQ as a starting center would be a recipe for disaster.


Like as badly as they're getting beaten with Kanter as center? For the record, I never said I would pay KOQ starter's money or plan for him to be the long-term starter. But I can't give Kanter double what KOQ costs. He's not double the player. At best, they are comparable and have off-setting weaknesses.

I would try to give Kanter $15 mil per I think KOQ will get $10 mil per. Kanter could be a starting center on a winning team , no way is KOQ ever a stsrting center on any team.

Briggs-- Frank is 2 yrs away from being 2 years away
Bonn1997
Posts: 58592
Alba Posts: 2
Joined: 2/2/2004
Member: #581
USA
12/30/2017  6:10 AM    LAST EDITED: 12/30/2017  7:14 AM
BigRedDog wrote:
Bonn1997 wrote:
BigRedDog wrote:
Bonn1997 wrote:
reub wrote:
yellowboy90 wrote:Kanter is a higher usage scorer but Kyle scores with similar efficiency. Kanter does rebound slightly better on the offensive boards but Kyle is the much better passer and while getting another offensive possession is great it does not always lead to pts. Kyle assist making actually leads to points and he still has a better ast to turnover rate than Kanter. Plus when you add in defensive impact and the ledger goes to O'quinn being the better player not to mention he is being paid less money and can fit into most teams cap plans which hopefully will bring value come deadline time.

They both need to go before/at the deadline.


Kanter is a higher usage player because he's rebounding all of the missed shots and placing them directly in the basket.

We could all agree KOQ is better than Kanter on defense, right?
It's not even clear Kanter is better on offense though. If you count assists as 2 points, KOQ is bringing more scoring per 36 min than Kanter is. The offensive rebounding probably makes the overall offensive contribution about even though. But then you have to factor in the defense and that KOQ would cost half and allow us to spend 8 figures on a PG or SF.
KOQ's age does make me hesitant though. I'm not certain I'd bring either back.

You mean the part where KOQ leaves his man alone outside then runs out to him? KOQ's man fakes the shot , KOQ jumps for the fake and his man goes in for a layup. Yeah he really plays great defense, not. When Embid played against KOQ it was like KOQ wasn't there. At least Kanter played him tougher. KOQ can't get a rebound in traffic, I think he gets most of his rebounds from foul shots. Backup at best. The Knicks with KOQ as a starting center would be a recipe for disaster.


Like as badly as they're getting beaten with Kanter as center? For the record, I never said I would pay KOQ starter's money or plan for him to be the long-term starter. But I can't give Kanter double what KOQ costs. He's not double the player. At best, they are comparable and have off-setting weaknesses.

I would try to give Kanter $15 mil per I think KOQ will get $10 mil per. Kanter could be a starting center on a winning team , no way is KOQ ever a stsrting center on any team.


You're just making statements not arguments. I think you missed the point of a discussion board. Almost any NBA player could start on a winning or losing team depending on their role. That said, the numbers are clear that KOQ is better than Kanter on defense and at least comparable on offense.
Welpee
Posts: 21870
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 1/22/2016
Member: #6239

12/30/2017  8:33 AM
If Kanter and KOQ were free agents Kanter would get paid way more than KOQ by every team in the league because he is a better player, not to mention younger. KOQ is a nice guy to have come off your bench but he would be severely exposed if anyone relied on him for heavy minutes regularly.
Bonn1997
Posts: 58592
Alba Posts: 2
Joined: 2/2/2004
Member: #581
USA
12/30/2017  8:36 AM    LAST EDITED: 12/30/2017  8:47 AM
Welpee wrote:If Kanter and KOQ were free agents Kanter would get paid way more than KOQ by every team in the league because he is a better player, not to mention younger. KOQ is a nice guy to have come off your bench but he would be severely exposed if anyone relied on him for heavy minutes regularly.

Of course he would get paid less. We're keeping his minutes down, which deflates his numbers. The whole point is that he is a better value. The purpose of trying to figure out a player's market value is to figure out who will be a steal, not to inform yourself about how good a player is. There are much better ways to do that.
Welpee
Posts: 21870
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 1/22/2016
Member: #6239

12/30/2017  9:19 AM
Bonn1997 wrote:
Welpee wrote:
Bonn1997 wrote:
reub wrote:
yellowboy90 wrote:Kanter is a higher usage scorer but Kyle scores with similar efficiency. Kanter does rebound slightly better on the offensive boards but Kyle is the much better passer and while getting another offensive possession is great it does not always lead to pts. Kyle assist making actually leads to points and he still has a better ast to turnover rate than Kanter. Plus when you add in defensive impact and the ledger goes to O'quinn being the better player not to mention he is being paid less money and can fit into most teams cap plans which hopefully will bring value come deadline time.

They both need to go before/at the deadline.


Kanter is a higher usage player because he's rebounding all of the missed shots and placing them directly in the basket.

We could all agree KOQ is better than Kanter on defense, right?
It's not even clear Kanter is better on offense though. If you count assists as 2 points, KOQ is bringing more scoring per 36 min than Kanter is. The offensive rebounding probably makes the overall offensive contribution about even though. But then you have to factor in the defense and that KOQ would cost half and allow us to spend 8 figures on a PG or SF.
KOQ's age does make me hesitant though. I'm not certain I'd bring either back.
KOQ is a better shot blocker, I'll give you that. He may indeed be a slightly better all around defensive player but not by much. Kanter certainly isn't as bad as advertised when he arrived. And if you're going to drop some advanced metrics you need to factor in KOQ comes off the bench playing against the other team's 2nd unit.

He probably plays a little more against 2nd units but I suspect this excuse is overused. Coaches don't sub at the same time and Kanter and KOQ have an unusual minute distribution (Kanter playing much less than most starters). The big point though is Kanter is going to cost way more than KOQ. He needs to be unambiguously better on both ends or way better on one end of the court. He doesn't meet that standard or even come close.
I think people are overeating Kanter because he talks tough and plays through injury. Arguably, that matters a little but you have to base your decisions on the player's production not talk.
Kanter is averaging a little over 25 minutes per game. At minimum 10 of those minutes (start of the game and start of the 2nd half) are coming against the other team's best big man. Unless you go through the box score of each game and reconcile who is on the court when each is in the game (or unless there's some metric out there logging any of this) you will never know for sure, but from the eye test KOQ is probably posting most of his minutes against the other team's 2nd unit.

Do you really think KOQ is capable of posting 20 pts/16 reb games as often as Kanter? KOQ is a diminishing returns type player. Consistently give him more minutes and watch what happens with his numbers and level of play. There's a reason he has never averaged more than 15-17 minutes per game.

Whether folks like it or not, players posting double/doubles playing only 25 minutes per game will get paid.

Welpee
Posts: 21870
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 1/22/2016
Member: #6239

12/30/2017  9:30 AM    LAST EDITED: 12/30/2017  9:31 AM
Bonn1997 wrote:
Welpee wrote:If Kanter and KOQ were free agents Kanter would get paid way more than KOQ by every team in the league because he is a better player, not to mention younger. KOQ is a nice guy to have come off your bench but he would be severely exposed if anyone relied on him for heavy minutes regularly.

Of course he would get paid less. We're keeping his minutes down, which deflates his numbers. The whole point is that he is a better value. The purpose of trying to figure out a player's market value is to figure out who will be a steal, not to inform yourself about how good a player is. There are much better ways to do that.
We're not artificially keeping KOQ's minutes down. He's playing the minutes and role to maximize his effectiveness.

So you resign KOQ who is a "steal." Who are you signing to play the other 30+ minutes? You think you're getting a "steal" to fill that gap and produce like Kanter? Or do you plan to sign a multitude of "steal" centers and just throw bargain basement big men in the game each playing around 15 minutes per?

KOQ is not an NBA starting center.

meloshouldgo
Posts: 24737
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 5/3/2014
Member: #5801

12/30/2017  9:43 AM
Welpee wrote:
Bonn1997 wrote:
Welpee wrote:If Kanter and KOQ were free agents Kanter would get paid way more than KOQ by every team in the league because he is a better player, not to mention younger. KOQ is a nice guy to have come off your bench but he would be severely exposed if anyone relied on him for heavy minutes regularly.

Of course he would get paid less. We're keeping his minutes down, which deflates his numbers. The whole point is that he is a better value. The purpose of trying to figure out a player's market value is to figure out who will be a steal, not to inform yourself about how good a player is. There are much better ways to do that.
We're not artificially keeping KOQ's minutes down. He's playing the minutes and role to maximize his effectiveness.

So you resign KOQ who is a "steal." Who are you signing to play the other 30+ minutes? You think you're getting a "steal" to fill that gap and produce like Kanter? Or do you plan to sign a multitude of "steal" centers and just throw bargain basement big men in the game each playing around 15 minutes per?

KOQ is not an NBA starting center.

I think the problem here is a forced comparison between a starter and bench player. To Bonnie's point KOQ is better value. The point we were making is he is not a starter and both are correct. My point was we can't pay a guy to be our backup center with Noah already on the books while not getting yet another starting center at which point we are getting a "steal" we don't need. Basically the Noah situation sets the bar higher for KOQ perhaps unfairly. But it is what it is.

The only things that trickle down are wages and horse shit
I'd re-sign KOQ now

©2001-2012 ultimateknicks.com All rights reserved. About Us.
This site is not affiliated with the NY Knicks or the National Basketball Association in any way.
You may visit the official NY Knicks web site by clicking here.

All times (GMT-05:00) Eastern Time.