EwingPSD wrote:She makes a point. You guys just hate women

No we dont. Check out just about any game thread. And the Alba thread.

SergioNYK wrote:

joec32033 wrote:

EwingPSD wrote:She makes a point. You guys just hate women

No we dont. Check out just about any game thread. And the Alba thread.

We hate dumb women. How come this wasn't a thing with Iverson, Nash and Curry? Was it a thing in the 80s with Isiah? A smaller lead guard CAN lead a team! It's been proven! Of course it's not the traditional norm but it can and it will happen.

Speaking of women analysts and commentators, I want to acknowledge Monica McNutt. She is FANTASTIC!

Also Kidd back to back NBA Finals appearances

Philc1 wrote:

joec32033 wrote:

martin wrote:

martin wrote:

Tweet was deleted or there was problem with the URL:

https://www.twitter.com/mikeygrogins_/status/1777884861350531296

And lots of those games without Randle and OG

Meanwhile:

You can’t make a finals run if your best player is a pg. Now let me list off a half dozen recent exceptions

Then do it.

First off the comment said "Winning". I assume wining the finals.
Go ahead, name 6 PG were the best player was under 6-1 and won a chip.
Not the exceptions mentioned. She covered that.
Did anyone say Brunson sucked? Was not good? was not a great player? Or just not winning a chip?

Kidd? I'd say Dirk was the best player on that team.
Kidd with Nets? I'd say Vince Carter in his prime was. Kidd is also 6-5.
Again, they did not say "PG", they said "Small". Isiah Thomas was mentioned
She covered Iverson, Curry Stockton and Nash.

Brunson in Dallas had three great games in playoffs without Luka.
I love the guy. Im a fan. I hope in June he is Playoff MVP and celebrated in the canyon of heroes!!
I don't find any thing offensive about what those ladies said in the Context they said it.
PhilC, They said small players, not PG's.
Name your 6 small players whom lead their teams to Chips that were not named Isiah, Iverson, Curry, Stockton or Nash.
Only Curry has a chip BTW.

Nalod wrote:

Philc1 wrote:

joec32033 wrote:

martin wrote:

martin wrote:

Tweet was deleted or there was problem with the URL:

https://www.twitter.com/mikeygrogins_/status/1777884861350531296

And lots of those games without Randle and OG

Meanwhile:

You can’t make a finals run if your best player is a pg. Now let me list off a half dozen recent exceptions

Then do it.

First off the comment said "Winning". I assume wining the finals.
Go ahead, name 6 PG were the best player was under 6-1 and won a chip.
Not the exceptions mentioned. She covered that.
Did anyone say Brunson sucked? Was not good? was not a great player? Or just not winning a chip?

Kidd? I'd say Dirk was the best player on that team.
Kidd with Nets? I'd say Vince Carter in his prime was. Kidd is also 6-5.
Again, they did not say "PG", they said "Small". Isiah Thomas was mentioned
She covered Iverson, Curry Stockton and Nash.

Brunson in Dallas had three great games in playoffs without Luka.
I love the guy. Im a fan. I hope in June he is Playoff MVP and celebrated in the canyon of heroes!!
I don't find any thing offensive about what those ladies said in the Context they said it.
PhilC, They said small players, not PG's.
Name your 6 small players whom lead their teams to Chips that were not named Isiah, Iverson, Curry, Stockton or Nash.
Only Curry has a chip BTW.

Nalod, you need to check your sample sizes on that. It is the analytics stats of 100 games with with 500 shot attempts while averaging 7 assists on Tuesday night games when the pre gane meal was fettucine alfredo.

The sample size of guys under say 6-3 that have the talent level/pure numbers of the guys mentioned is miniscule. Let alone guys you would consider who were leaders of their teams.

You need to quantify this. Let's say players 6-3 (Nash's listed height and tje tallest player mentioned) and under that averaged around 25 points on a finals team. She mentioned 5 of the top 6 NBA players under 6-3.

https://uproxx.com/dimemag/the-20-best-nba-players-6-2-and-under-of-all-time/

Her the cutoff is 6-2.

https://www.si.com/nba/2009/11/26/25best-basketball-players-6-5-and-under

Here the cutoff is 6-5 so remove those guys. I think you Candace and Becky will be surprised at some of the shorter players in NBA history that won a title.

Tweet was deleted or there was problem with the URL:

https://www.twitter.com/swizziee/status/1778593746944245930

I get that there are always going to be folks with agendas (*cough* Shaq *cough*) and that's fine, but the volume of people going out of their way to disregard Brunson as a tier 1 player is kind of weird, given the season he's having and the type of guy he appears to be. I would attribute it to people not being able to admit they were wrong, but there are new names popping up with this stuff.

End of the day, winning this postseason - especially without Randle - will be the the right answer to all this. This is the most I've enjoyed Knicks basketball wince Ewing, Oakley and Mason were patrolling the paint and I don't want it to stop.

martin wrote:

Tweet was deleted or there was problem with the URL:

https://www.twitter.com/jeffeisenband/status/1778586520053571731

Some players outperform their contracts and some under.
That deal was more than enough to get him out of Dallas and some were critical of it. He was a back up who had some nice stretches. Question was could he do it full time. Context the moment he signed the deal.

After year three he will have an opt out. He will be a few years older and perhaps he makes top 10 in pay.
Then a few years later some twitter dude will show his salary after an injury and lambast how over paid he is.
He is not on commercials and is starting now get more and more respect that he is earning. Likewise, players get to rest on laurels once they achieved.
For example Melos last allstar game was on his cred. He was not playing to his usual self. Fact is he played on that contract way below his career stats the last two years. He came back slimmer and in shape but was paid far less.
Chris Paul is paid 30 mil to come off the bench at age 38.

This is how it works. Keep the readers engaged by SHORT incomplete contextual facts and focus on a few bites of info to engage emotions.

Will Jalen start for team USA in the olympics? Win a gold? If so it is going to propel his celebrity status big time.
This kid does that, and wins a chip he is HOF material even if he lacks career stat ranking. Why?

High school state Chip.
Mr. Illinois
two NCAA chips.
National player of the year NCAA
All star
All NBA
Olympic Gold?
That with a long career might do it. Add an NBA chip and it should not be debated.

Its not the NBA HOF, its the "basketball HOF"!

Nalod wrote:

nycdan wrote:It seems like there is a hidden competition among a growing number of talking heads to see who can downplay Brunson's impact on this team more. Whether it's leaving him off of lists he clearly should be on, or outright picking at something ludicrous to downplay his ascendence, it's turning into some form of mass delusion. Sure, you can absolutely say he's not the MVP, but if your list is more than 3 players and he's not on it, that's just an agenda rearing its head.

I get that there are always going to be folks with agendas (*cough* Shaq *cough*) and that's fine, but the volume of people going out of their way to disregard Brunson as a tier 1 player is kind of weird, given the season he's having and the type of guy he appears to be. I would attribute it to people not being able to admit they were wrong, but there are new names popping up with this stuff.

End of the day, winning this postseason - especially without Randle - will be the the right answer to all this. This is the most I've enjoyed Knicks basketball wince Ewing, Oakley and Mason were patrolling the paint and I don't want it to stop.

I think some fans are not fully reading the quotes from Hammon and Parker and get offended by anything that is not pure adulation.
Fact is since January he has been quite elite and we have cut and past stats that have agenda from Twitter dudes to feed this wonderful thing into something even more wonderful. Social media like this is fun but start debating his levels of greatness and now try to extract "an agenda of hate"? I don't see it really.
I think the talking heads will always make waves or create conversations. its their job. Thus I don't have any issues with what they said as they likely were talking up how great he has been but to what level and accomplishment. I don't think he is quite up being coronated into superstardom until after the post season. I would guess he will score points but knicks don't win a chip. Then the knock is "he didn't get us to the next level". Two things, small players rarely do. That was the point from Hammon and Parker. But my point is you need others to do it!!!! Obvious to all of us. Perhaps Larry Browns Pistons was the last team to win without a super duper star. Other than that you have mostly some heavy big dudes. Warriors? They did win one without Durant, but he was there for two of them. The one 22' still had a few HOF players rostered and Wiggins played his best ball.

I think the pushback on Brunson is not his legitimacy but the sample size. This kid in less than two seasons has blown minds. Last year he was not an allstar for that reason. This year he took it another notch and it was never in question. Now he is All NBA. Randle is twice all NBA and look at the lack of respect he gets from us and the league. Brunson at this moment has yet to. As noted by all, he is an improbable looking star player with a style not really conducive to what many think of. Jah Mordant amazes with athletic greatness. Curry is smooth, handsome and personable. He has also been doing it for some time now.

Fair and good points.

I do wonder how much of it is a bias against the Knicks. Maybe just a little, but if you look at the way Randle and now Brunson have been regarded outside of NY, it's a debatable point.

I agree on the point about smaller stars. It does seem to me some other guys of similar stature (Young, Maxey) have gotten less pushback about their size, but it's very possible my social feeds are providing an uneven sample to work with so I defer on that one.

Last point, I agree on sample size when it's one year. But we have seen two solid years now that suggest this is the new Brunson. In the NBA, that's not really a small sample size. Especially playing for Thibs.

Fun fact: Brunson has played just over 5,000 minutes the last two seasons. Haliburton has played just under 5,000 minutes the last 3. I don't know what that means, but it does speak to sample size as being more than just seasons played.

martin wrote:Keep it rolling Perk!

Tweet was deleted or there was problem with the URL:

https://www.twitter.com/nba_newyork/status/1778870604633964745

Carry on, fella