Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Warriors

1 (33.3%)

Celtics

2 (66.7%)

Total Members Voted: 3

Voting closed: June 13, 2022, 11:38:11 PM

[kidcarter8]

Some terrific NBA Radio this morning included stories from Jeff Ruland on the physicality of the game back in the day - and Sam Mitchell's startling account of the Reggie 8 points in 9 seconds game.

Mitchell was set to be the goat that game, since after Miller tied it up with his second 3, Sam thought they still trailed and fouled John Starks intentionally.

Then the backstory of how JS missed the two free throws is downright hilarious, Miller taunting him the entire way.  Knicks then FOUL Reggie on the rebound of the second Starks miss because they just wanted to mug him for being such an asshole.  Miller of course was 85 feet from the winning basket with just a few ticks left and (I think) no time outs.

Mitchell also recounts how players would intentionally crush opponents when they strayed from proper decorum/respect.  One tale of Derrick McKey, the mild mannered player - being dissed by a young Kobe during a game.  Then with the game out of hand Isiah (Indy coach) was taking McKey out - Derrick says, "no - leave me in - 'cause I am going to take MYSELF out"  Fast forward a bit and Kobe is on a 1 v 2 break vs McKey and TRavis Bets.  Derrick tells Best to let Kobe go - and he just WIPES Bryant out - earning the DQ from the contest.

Oh, the good old days

Mitchell:  "I love Charles Oakley, but back then, if I passed him in the road - and it was minus 50 degrees - I wasnt picking him up.   Maybe the trunk... but no way was he sitting next to me"

On Pat Riley's Knicks:  "You know Riles wouldnt let them even talk to the opposing team.  Patrick would come out and say, ya know...I cant talk to ya'all....."

Mitch also relays the account of how every time a Knicks would foul Reggie, they would get payback by fouling Ewing hard.  Patrick saying to his mates, "guys, ya gotta stop - I'm getting killed here"

A story on a  young Wally Sczerbiak - and how coaches like Jack Ramsey knew he couldnt D, so would iso his ass all night.  MITCH goes to Wally and says - "hey rook - just let your guy go - then wipe his ass the hell out when he grts to the hoop.  Then go over to Ramsey and say, 'I get 6 - got 5 more of those for your boys' - "  Mitch once did the same to "my good friend" Sharif Abdur Rahim, who put a move on Sam and scored easily - then the next time was yo-yoing - setting him up again.  Mitchell just wiped SAR out - telling him - "you can score on me, but you are not gonna clown me"


Love it.

[bodiddley]

Bullocks > Burks
You tend to go for flashy scorers and have little regard for defense

To an extent Randle has had two distinct season already.
First approx. 20 games he was the 1Q MVP.  Just dominant out of the gate.  Scoring, boarding, assists.  He'd drive hard, draw regular double teams and pick out open shooters.  4Q he was less effective and would have more of his turnovers.  Some games he really looked wiped out there playing 36+ minutes (was leading the league in minutes played and top 3 in mpg).

Then the last 15 games (or somesuch), Randle has taken a lesser role in the 1Q.
And been more effective late.  During this period, his shooting has been outrageous, knocking down 3's at a high clip and all Bernard King on the baseline.  A lot fewer drives, not compromising the D by drawing double teams much, scoring at the rim less.  There have even been times where Julius has caught the ball around the FT line open, with his man a few feet away, and Randle has passed instead of looking at the hoop.  He's still moving the ball well, but it's a lot less of the power drives that draw doubles and kicking to open shooters as earlier in the season.

Looks to me like Randle's defense has slipped some.  Partly as teams have adjusted some and forced Julius to guard more on the perimeter.  I think Utah did that with Gobert and 4 shooters.  Also, LAC with PatPat and MaMo.  And I think Randle was more comfortable with Mitch down low, though Noel blocks a lot near the rim.  Maybe just because Mitch was willing to come out further than Nawlins, letting Randle stay down low more.  Would have to watch more replays/film on that.  Would be interesting to hear someone inside the Knix or an outside hoops analyst talk about the Knix defense with Randle and with Noel.  In general, they are rather similar players so you can keep the same coverages and schemes.  But that doesn't mean there aren't some differences and some residual effects.

[bodiddley]

Overall, Randle's FEB assists were lower and turnovers higher than Jan.
DEC was just 5 games and Randle's DEC turnovers inflated by a near quadruple -double v. CLE (9 turns).
Mid-Feb Randle had an assist lull for 5 of 6 games.
And mid-to-late Feb his turnovers were up for a stretch.

Unsurprisingly, Randle's numbers across the board are lower in second games of B2B's.  Likely to do the workload.

[lesterluv]

Bullocks = Burks

In that

* neither of these guys should ever start on a serious team.
* both can be high quality role players off the bench.

Bullocks a little better defensively, but it's a crevice not a canyon of difference. Burks is a little better offensively, same caveat applies. I'm feeling Bullocks a little more right now cause it gets a wee bit ugly when Burks tries to go beyond his essential skill set, but that changes when he's hot. Thibs rides their streaks pretty well.

Happy to have em both. Will know we've made a leap as a team when neither has to start or play 15 min+.

It's really not worth arguing much over who is "better. "

[chipstern]

Bullocks = Burks

In that

* neither of these guys should ever start on a serious team.
* both can be high quality role players off the bench.

Bullocks a little better defensively, but it's a crevice not a canyon of difference. Burks is a little better offensively, same caveat applies. I'm feeling Bullocks a little more right now cause it gets a wee bit ugly when Burks tries to go beyond his essential skill set, but that changes when he's hot. Thibs rides their streaks pretty well.

Happy to have em both. Will know we've made a leap as a team when neither has to start or play 15 min+.

It's really not worth arguing much over who is "better. "

Well, both were garage sales, both were cheap, both ARE placeholders.  Who knows if they come back next fall. 

Griffin signing with the Nyets, no surprise there.  Good match if he stay healthy.  Was hitting his threes with regularly before the Pistons sat him down. 

Nyets signed him for the vets minimum I believe. 

Either way, a compelling argument for NOT PISSING AWAY YOUR CAP SPACE WILY NILY. 

This time of year, there are often fire sales, buy outs, so talent is available. 

Nice to have cap space to be able to facilitate transactions as the third or fourth team, harvest some of your own expiring contracts for draft assets, etcetera. 

There's an interesting article in today's post about Leon Rose's first year. 

https://nypost.com/2021/03/09/how-leon-rose-rebuilt-the-knicks-an-inside-look/

And the influence of all the people he brought on board, including Thibs, World Wide Wes, Brock Aller, Walt Perrin and how Rose encourages input and debate and sorts through dissent. 

How he resisted Thibs passion to go all in on FAs such as Morris, Hayward and [This Bud's for You, BoD] Bodgdonavich, side with Aller's more conservative approach to second tier FAs, and acceeded to WWW's unceasing UNRELENTING support for Immanuel Quickley.  And Wes was right. 

Aller's thinking being to keep cap space alive, and possibly offload reasonable expiring contracts such as [this one's for Dawg] those of Bullock and Burks at the deadline for possible draft assets. 

We shall see if Aller's right or not.  Can't see Thibs signing off on offloading Payton, but he has surely upped his game and his potential exchange rate. 

Leon Rose did give in to Thibs on Derrick Rose, which really cost us next to nothing, Dennis having fallen out of rotations, and Thibs learned to respect Randle and put his trust in the long term possibilities of RJ, whom, according to the article, could have been in play if Thibs had his way, WHICH HE DID NOT [unlike in Minny where as a GM he traded what, Zach Levine, Dunn and the #1 which turned into Markessen for veteran Jimmy Butler, and which ultimately cost him his job]. 

I am hoping we do not do anything rash at the trade deadline, such as go all in for Oladipo, who is surely a gifted player, but likley a rental, where if so motivated, we could revisit that over the summer.  Would like to better ascertain his health, as well.  Drummond?  If bought out his game and options would more likley suit a team such as the Lakers, who are not shooting for the playoffs but for another ringy dingy. 

Of our one years, who amongst Rose, Rivers, Bullock, Burks, Payton, Noels, Gibson might be in play.  Who has made a case for a second look come summer. 

Of our puppies, Quickley, Toppin, Robinson, Ntilikina [qualifying offer comes due this summer], Knox, Brazdeikis and Harper, who fits our future. 

[elephant]

https://www.espn.com/nba/insider/story/_/id/31027277/nba-insiders-say-all-3s-reaching-critical-mass

I can't access this article but its headline intrigued me.

You can't compete anymore unless you have a bevy of three-point shooters. Common knowledge. But here's the thing — and I think Bo once talked about this — this shit is turning boring.

When a Knick makes a three? Cool! But in general, truth is, it's often a mechanical and tedious thing to watch. Three-point robots, standing in their spot, waiting for the ball to be kicked their way.

Where's the art and athleticism in that?

[kidcarter8]

Bullocks > Burks


Clearly.....no.

But it doesnt matter

[kidcarter8]

How he resisted Thibs passion to go all in on FAs such as Morris, Hayward and [This Bud's for You, BoD] Bodgdonavich, side with Aller's more conservative approach to second tier FAs, and acceeded to WWW's unceasing UNRELENTING support for Immanuel Quickley.  And Wes was right



Has this been reported?  THat we pulled back?  I hadnt seen that.

[kidcarter8]

https://www.espn.com/nba/insider/story/_/id/31027277/nba-insiders-say-all-3s-reaching-critical-mass

I can't access this article but its headline intrigued me.

You can't compete anymore unless you have a bevy of three-point shooters. Common knowledge. But here's the thing — and I think Bo once talked about this — this shit is turning boring.

When a Knick makes a three? Cool! But in general, truth is, it's often a mechanical and tedious thing to watch. Three-point robots, standing in their spot, waiting for the ball to be kicked their way.

Where's the art and athleticism in that?

The piece:


A COUPLE OF WEEKS back, the Milwaukee Bucks and Minnesota Timberwolves squared off in a game that only a few years ago would have been historic but in 2021 is just another Tuesday night. In a sparsely filled Fiserv Forum, the two teams attempted 96 3-point shots -- one every 30 seconds.

Of the 22 players who took the floor, 19 of them took at least one 3. Wolves rookie Anthony Edwards is a marvel leaping off two feet, as witnessed by his recent dunk of the year spectacular -- though you wouldn't know it from this performance. The 31.4% 3-point shooter jacked up two attempts in the third quarter off the dribble from 26 feet, with 16 and 14 seconds remaining on the shot clock, respectively. Likewise, two-time reigning MVP Giannis Antetokounmpo, the league's most devastating finisher and still trying to cultivate an outside game, twice breezed across half court and launched an early triple.

It was hard to argue with the results: Nine of the 10 Bucks who logged minutes attempted a 3-pointer, and only Antetokounmpo (1-for-3) and Pat Connaughton (1-for-4) hit at worse than a 40% rate for the game. And Minnesota's performance wasn't awful -- a 35.2% clip that is comfortably above the NBA's Mendoza Line.

For a growing number of NBA executives and coaches, the problem isn't that NBA offenses are wrong for firing up an average of 35 attempts per game from long distance. The problem is that they're right. It would be tactical malpractice for any team to swear off the 3-pointer. There are a handful of players whose midrange 2-point attempt represents a high-percentage shot, but for the vast majority of players, the best shot is one from behind the 3-point line or at the rim.

Recent conversations with multiple league insiders about the state of the game reveal a consistent theme: As the rate of 3-pointers has exploded, the NBA might finally be reaching a critical mass. Some raise concerns because they believe the 3-ball has created a monotonous rhythm to each game, while others believe it has distorted the scoring system that determines wins and losses.


"You can go overboard -- those nights you get 45 and 50 [attempts]," said Detroit Pistons coach Dwane Casey, whose team ranks 11th in percentage of field goals attempted that are 3-pointers. "Your quality of shots is going down, and there's going to be quick possessions. It kind of dilutes the spirit of the game and the soul of the game. It's about moving the ball from side to side, not just coming down and jacking up quick 3s."

Measures that have been implemented over the past 20 years to help jump-start scoring are approaching an age of overcorrection. In an effort to lift the game out of the '90s mud -- "The poster-child image of that period is Mark Jackson posting up Charlie Ward," said Dallas Mavericks head coach Rick Carlisle -- the NBA might have created too much of a good thing.

THERE'S LITTLE DESIRE across the league to return to Patrick Ewing vs. Alonzo Mourning, but there's also a sense that the game is losing diversity of identity, at least offensively. This school of thought maintains that a stylistic conformity has overtaken the game. One of the more appealing characteristics of basketball is the number of ways a player can score, but a 3-pointer every 30 to 45 seconds introduces a repetition that isn't so appealing.

"With all sports or competitive endeavors, you want there to be a strategic dynamic where there are multiple paths to victory," said Daryl Morey, Philadelphia 76ers president of basketball operations. "You want measures and countermeasures that are pretty well-balanced, so that you can go down any one of those paths and get a victory if the path is chosen well and executed well. But the NBA right now appears to be somewhat unbalanced, in large part because the reward given for the 3 being worth 50% more than a 2 is out of balance."

Morey is anything but a back-in-the-day purist, and the Houston Rockets teams he previously presided over helped to fashion the trend of launching 3s with impunity. Today, there is only one ideological school in the NBA regarding these shots: pro. Everyone takes them, which has rendered them anything but special and largely unworthy of extra-credit points. In a dynamic market where a bucket could be worth a fraction of a point, the NBA could reset the value of a 3-pointer to bring it into balance. But "Curry for 2⅝!" would probably doom the game -- deservedly.

There's also the compounding effect of all these deep looks. Just the consistent threat of a 3-pointer allows the spacing for creators to find the other hyperefficient way to score -- a shot at the basket. As offenses now field four or even five shooters on the floor, and dynamos such as Stephen Curry and Damian Lillard must be accounted for at 30 feet or beyond, defenses simply have too much ground to cover to properly challenge the barrage of long-range shots. Efficiency begets efficiency.

"It often looks like no defense is being played," Casey said. "But when there are four shooters on the floor and a big man at the dunker [spot], spacing is inflated and a defense is stretched to its limit. Guys are working, but it's impossible to cover that much ground against NBA speed, quickness and power."

Including the playoffs, 61 games in NBA history have featured at least 90 3-point attempts -- and 45 of the 61 have occurred since the start of last season, according to ESPN Sports & Information. The 3-pointer now represents 39.4% of all field goal attempts -- that's up 61% from the 2011-12 season. For those who welcome or accept the ascendance of the 3, this is a feature not a bug. Carlisle, who has served as the president of the NBA Coaches Association for more than 15 years, believes that change is a defining characteristic of basketball, as is adaptation to the new reality by players and coaches at every level.

Changes to the way the NBA was officiated -- first with regard to illegal defense in the early 2000s, then by severely limiting contact between a defender and a ball handler -- liberated perimeter players and put a newfound premium on outside shooting. The result was a generation of players, irrespective of size, who had to expand their games if they wanted to achieve at the next level.

"I don't think we can call it a bad thing when players are highly skilled, which is what the game should be about," Carlisle said. "The 3-point shot has revolutionized our game. Taking a dribble-up 3 six or seven years ago was a cardinal sin. And now we're all doing drills where guys shoot dribble-up 3s -- and we include our 7-3 center in those drills. The value of this sort of 3-point shot is big. So this may become a shifting conversation to, 'How do we fortify our teams with the right kind of defenders who can still shoot the ball, drive it and make plays?'"

While offenses appear increasingly alike, their firepower has inspired more defensive diversity than ever. The variety of pick-and-roll coverages continues to metastasize, as switching has evolved from a novelty to standard over the last decade. All the while, we've seen everything from the box-and-one to the kind of hybrid zone that Casey cooked up when he presided over the defense a decade ago in Dallas under Carlisle.

Casey says that the volume of 3-point shots is, in large part, a result of those well-intentioned efforts to create more space on the floor for a free-flowing game. The deluge of 3-pointers that has followed isn't entirely a product of kids trying to imitate Curry but a consequence of a game when those kids are often wide open because spacing has been inflated.

"One primary thing that triggers all those 3-point shots is penetration," Casey said. "When you can't touch anybody, you are going to give up penetration. But these are hard conversations."

WHERE AND WHEN the trajectory levels out and 3-pointers are no longer a growth commodity in the NBA is unknown. The league could soon see a day when more than 50% of attempted shots are fired from beyond the arc, or it could see the advent of creative defenses led by a generation of players who can stem the tide. Just as likely, those who govern the NBA may believe that reining in the 3-pointer is a solution in search of a problem.

Given the 50% premium for a shot that's rarely 50% more difficult, getting players to wean themselves off 3-pointers wouldn't come without some significant changes to the incentive structure

If it wanted to, the NBA could afford defenders more latitude in impeding penetration. At the beginning of the 2018 season, "freedom of movement" was a point of emphasis for game officials, with the intention of almost eliminating any hint of grabbing and arm wraps. The return of handchecking is a non-starter, but finding a happy medium between aggravated assault and a spa day could give NBA defenses a fighting chance to impede today's shot creators. Fans would still be treated to Luka Doncic's unconscionable crossover and step-back 3, but they would also be spared more than five breezy attempts per night from Darius Bazley.

Freeing up big men to zone up however they see fit would add another speed bump in front of drivers and slashers. If the center wants to patrol the paint in a "perma-drop" scheme, that's the defense's prerogative. My ESPN colleague Kirk Goldsberry has a bevy of interesting suggestions, ranging from custom lines to getting rid of the short corner 3.

A more radical proposal from a longtime league power broker who wishes to remain anonymous (unless the idea gains traction) would curb inflation by limiting supply: Cap the amount of 3-pointers a team can take over the course of a game.

Over the first 42 minutes of the game, each team would have the chance to attempt 20 shots from beyond the arc that would count for three points. Once an offense runs out of those 20 attempts, it can keep shooting from behind the line, but each subsequent make would count for only two points -- until the 6:00 mark of the fourth quarter, when attempts would once again worth three points until the game is over. The 3-ball is still the most reliable and entertaining way for teams to mount comebacks at all levels of basketball, so it's smart to showcase them at the game's most dramatic moments.

Under these rules, an offense would need to be strategic and selective with its 3s. Use up all your attempts before halftime and you'll have trouble keeping the opposing defense honest. Leaving a shooter open in the corner is far less punitive when it costs only two points. Every impulse attempt used by Antetokounmpo is one fewer for Bryn Forbes (45.6%) or Khris Middleton (43.6%). For the first time in years, offenses would be forced to truly discriminate between good, average and bad 3-point looks.

The reform would also encourage every kind of player to broaden his skill set. For the past 15 years, big men have been told they need to learn to expand their range. Under the new rule, unidimensional shooters would need to pick up some new tricks to stay on the floor. No one should want to see less of the Damian Lillard and Steph Curry half-court show from Sunday's All-Star Game. But the value of parking a 35% 3-point shooter in the corner to maximize a middle pick-and-roll would plummet, as offenses would have to grow more creative if they want to truly stretch a defense or force a rotation.

A successful league remains in a constant state of vigilance about the character of its product and the path of its trends. Scoring, and the 3-pointer in particular, revitalized NBA basketball at some of its most precarious moments when it threatened to fall behind the NHL, then again two decades later when it lost its aesthetic appeal. But uniformity presents its own risk. The more times you witness a phenomenon, the less phenomenal it is.

[kidcarter8]

Of our one years, who amongst Rose, Rivers, Bullock, Burks, Payton, Noels, Gibson might be in play.  Who has made a case for a second look come summer.


ALL

But with Rivers if they dont PICK UP the pact he will likely be elsewhere (read:  he wouldnt want to rework his deal)

[kidcarter8]

Well, both were garage sales, both were cheap, both ARE placeholders.  Who knows if they come back next fall.


Burks got 6 mil guaranteed

Bullock - 4,2 mil non guaranteed (1 mil)

[facilitatorn]

We got Bullock on a discount because we let him rehab here last year. His original number was 8. Both he and Burks are bargains who’d be hard to replace.

[kidcarter8]

8?

4.25 is the most he has ever made.

Initial 8.2 mil - for TWO years - is what he is playing out this year.-

Burks made more in 2 years than Reggie his entire career - and is easily the better talent. 

[carlos123]

8?

4.25 is the most he has ever made.

Initial 8.2 mil - for TWO years - is what he is playing out this year.-

Burks made more in 2 years than Reggie his entire career - and is easily the better talent.

Chamaco insisting on this just to trigger BoZ.

Interesting!


... I think the target when he said this was Chip, or maybe all of us.

Then he goes to 8chan and tells them he owns the libs 🤪

[facilitatorn]

8?

4.25 is the most he has ever made.

Initial 8.2 mil - for TWO years - is what he is playing out this year.-

Burks made more in 2 years than Reggie his entire career - and is easily the better talent.

Not 8. 2 year 21 mil before discovering the injury.

http://www.google.com/amp/s/syndication.bleacherreport.com/amp/2845797-reggie-bullock-knicks-agree-to-revised-2-year-contract-worth-less-than-47m.amp.html