LivingLegend wrote:

Clean wrote:

Tweet was deleted or there was problem with the URL:

https://twitter.com/APachecoNBA/status/1734389575462662150

The player we need starting is that Bojan guy on Detroit. He will hit open 3's no matter the situation or amount of touches he gets. He could get the starters to mesh better on offense.

It’s difficult to mesh when 1,2 or 3 players are pounding the rock at any given moment but I do like Bogey

Yes it is.

martin wrote:

nycericanguy wrote:OG had a nice game, he also played 37 minutes and took 20 shots, that wouldn't happen here.

Give IQ or RJ 37 minutes and 20 shots and they'll score alot too. OG's numbers have always been a bit inflated due to high minutes and shot attempts.

OG is definitely not a shot creator as far as I can tell, but he definitely shoots at a much better clip than IQ/RJ.

I mean OG for his career is 38% from 3 but only 1.7 makes per game in 33mpg.

IQ is at 37% with 1.9 makes per game in just 24mpg.

RJ makes 1.7 three's in 33mpg at 35% for his career.

so yea OG shoots it a bit better, but also on low volume.

And RJ and IQ get to the FT line alot more.

So I think it's role more than anything, OG like you said isn't a creator so he gets to pick his spots more and is a bit more efficient. If you played IQ and RJ in that role they'd probably be more efficient too.

OG is just solid all around but he's not a game changer for us. IQ is already better IMO, Grimes could be better, and RJ is better too... I mean RJ & OG play different roles so I guess it's a matter of preference. but OG is a 7 year player who has played a ton of minutes and games already so he pretty much is what he is. I think we all hope there's more room for growth from our youngins.

LivingLegend wrote:Any correlation to 36 assists and no pitch fork hands Mitch tonight?

Probably not but offense looked a little better.

When we have bench group in there it’s clear Thibs offense is not the issue as ball/players move freely — it’s the type of players in unit 1 that slow the movement

Mitch would have to average 5/6 TOs a game for that to be the case. Sims did a great job filling in, but he isnt a DPOY candidate, which Mitch was headed for, before he got hurt. If Sims were more of a scorer, that would be something to talk about.

martin wrote:

nycericanguy wrote:

martin wrote:

nycericanguy wrote:OG had a nice game, he also played 37 minutes and took 20 shots, that wouldn't happen here.

Give IQ or RJ 37 minutes and 20 shots and they'll score alot too. OG's numbers have always been a bit inflated due to high minutes and shot attempts.

OG is definitely not a shot creator as far as I can tell, but he definitely shoots at a much better clip than IQ/RJ.

I mean OG for his career is 38% from 3 but only 1.7 makes per game in 33mpg.

IQ is at 37% with 1.9 makes per game in just 24mpg.

RJ makes 1.7 three's in 33mpg at 35% for his career.

so yea OG shoots it a bit better, but also on low volume.

And RJ and IQ get to the FT line alot more.

So I think it's role more than anything, OG like you said isn't a creator so he gets to pick his spots more and is a bit more efficient. If you played IQ and RJ in that role they'd probably be more efficient too.

OG is just solid all around but he's not a game changer for us. IQ is already better IMO, Grimes could be better, and RJ is better too... I mean RJ & OG play different roles so I guess it's a matter of preference. but OG is a 7 year player who has played a ton of minutes and games already so he pretty much is what he is. I think we all hope there's more room for growth from our youngins.

Do eFG% or 2pt% for all 3 and it seems to tell a different story. There is no doubt they have different roles and a different type of usage.

OG can be a very very good man defender. He can disrupt guys like Tatum, Embiib, Jimmy, and others in a way IQ, RJ cannot. And when the playoffs come, that too is important.

He is also a lower usage player, and maybe that is a good thing long term for others in his rotation.

TS% will also tell a different story as it includes FT's.

There's no question OG has shot the ball better, my point was it's probably more to do with role.

I agree though a lower usage player wouldn't be a bad thing. If OG wasn't so injury prone and wasn't a pending FA i'd probably want him here if it were a straight swap.

Problem is TOR hates us and probably would want young player + multiple picks that will take us out of the running for a true star trade later.

but RJ is younger, will be cheaper, is a workhorse and has upside potential.

OG is older, will cost more, misses alot of games, and TOR probably wouldn't do it straight up b/c they overvalue their players.

Josh Hart was a monster last night. He is the reason for our assist totals. He looked like Draymond Green out there, getting boards and pushing tempo off rebounds, creating great ball movement and opportunities. It was wonderful to see. Brunson-RJ-Hart-Randle-Hartenstein lineup actually looked really good out there to finish the game.

My biggest concern right now is defense. We aren't a good team if we are giving up 130 per game. That's not the identify we should be going for or the optimal way for us to win games. We need to be a top 5-10 defensive team.

DLeethal wrote:I don't think it's that concerning that the starting 2 gets neutered while playing with Brunson/Randle/RJ. Most teams with "star" offensive players have a couple guys who get freezed out and are there to hit open shots off kickouts. Whoever plays in the starting lineup is going to turn into a 3&D guy. That's just reality, and not necessarily a bad thing as long as the unit plays well overall. We have 3 guys who can get buckets and they favor isolation to do it, so the 4th guy is going to be a kickout-for-3 guy. You can name 20 teams that probably do the same thing in the starting lineup and find guys who play the "Grimes role" for those respective teams.

Josh Hart was a monster last night. He is the reason for our assist totals. He looked like Draymond Green out there, getting boards and pushing tempo off rebounds, creating great ball movement and opportunities. It was wonderful to see. Brunson-RJ-Hart-Randle-Hartenstein lineup actually looked really good out there to finish the game.

My biggest concern right now is defense. We aren't a good team if we are giving up 130 per game. That's not the identify we should be going for or the optimal way for us to win games. We need to be a top 5-10 defensive team.

this didn't start when we added the 3rd high-usage guy. I agree with what you are saying about Hart though. He has shown the ability to make the unit move at times (regardless of who is out there)

EwingPSD wrote:

DLeethal wrote:I don't think it's that concerning that the starting 2 gets neutered while playing with Brunson/Randle/RJ. Most teams with "star" offensive players have a couple guys who get freezed out and are there to hit open shots off kickouts. Whoever plays in the starting lineup is going to turn into a 3&D guy. That's just reality, and not necessarily a bad thing as long as the unit plays well overall. We have 3 guys who can get buckets and they favor isolation to do it, so the 4th guy is going to be a kickout-for-3 guy. You can name 20 teams that probably do the same thing in the starting lineup and find guys who play the "Grimes role" for those respective teams.

Josh Hart was a monster last night. He is the reason for our assist totals. He looked like Draymond Green out there, getting boards and pushing tempo off rebounds, creating great ball movement and opportunities. It was wonderful to see. Brunson-RJ-Hart-Randle-Hartenstein lineup actually looked really good out there to finish the game.

My biggest concern right now is defense. We aren't a good team if we are giving up 130 per game. That's not the identify we should be going for or the optimal way for us to win games. We need to be a top 5-10 defensive team.

this didn't start when we added the 3rd high-usage guy. I agree with what you are saying about Hart though. He has shown the ability to make the unit move at times (regardless of who is out there)

When did it start? Didn't EF break the Knick record for 3s a couple years ago when we sucked. There's always been shots there for a shotmaker. There's less now, but they are still there for a shotmaker.

Nalod wrote:

DLeethal wrote:I honestly think we should go back to the Grimes starting unit. We need his size and defensive ability. DDV is scrappy but Grimes is a legitimate defensive weapon you can put on the teams best player. I'm not sure why we made a change so abruptly tbh.

Grimes could not hit a shot.
Thibs places more value on who finishes the game vs. start.
DDV defense is very good.

I agree. I think DDV is good enough defensively to hold up. He fits better with the starters and Grimes actually gives the bench a boost I think.

martin wrote:

Tweet was deleted or there was problem with the URL:

https://www.twitter.com/nba_newyork/status/1734373141894307961

I wonder how Sims would play if he wasn't so baked.