I never know what to make RPM . Has ESPN ever told us what metrics they use to get their RPM? Guess it doesn't matter. We suck regardless of what metric is used.
So based on this we have 3 pretty good players and the rest of the roster terrible players. I guess that sounds about right.
Knixkik wrote:So based on this we have 3 pretty good players and the rest of the roster terrible players. I guess that sounds about right.
Mostly it means the tankathon is in full Zion gear!!
Yikes. Does anyone know how rpm compares to old +/-? It seems just to be a gimmick made to drive traffic to espn.
nykshaknbake wrote:Yikes. Does anyone know how rpm compares to old +/-? It seems just to be a gimmick made to drive traffic to espn.
Would you say that if these guys were on the top of the least, or are you saying this because your in denial.
The last 4 guys on this list are clueless players with talent, but their IQ is so low it doesn't even matter.
nykshaknbake wrote:Yikes. Does anyone know how rpm compares to old +/-? It seems just to be a gimmick made to drive traffic to espn.
I think it's mostly for traffic, but one thing we can agree with it on is Hezonja being terrible.
And people want to blame the coach for the poor play
Uptown wrote:And people want to blame the coach for the poor play
If people are going to complain about the Knicks playing bad, not sure what they expected. We have been better than expected i think.
knicks1248 wrote:nykshaknbake wrote:Yikes. Does anyone know how rpm compares to old +/-? It seems just to be a gimmick made to drive traffic to espn.
Would you say that if these guys were on the top of the least, or are you saying this because your in denial.
The last 4 guys on this list are clueless players with talent, but their IQ is so low it doesn't even matter.
2 first year players, one second year player, and a bust...
What is has to do with IQ? Are they nuclear scientists or what?
When your 4-16, the data is not going to look good.
What does the eye test say? Keep pushing!
arkrud wrote:knicks1248 wrote:nykshaknbake wrote:Yikes. Does anyone know how rpm compares to old +/-? It seems just to be a gimmick made to drive traffic to espn.
Would you say that if these guys were on the top of the least, or are you saying this because your in denial.
The last 4 guys on this list are clueless players with talent, but their IQ is so low it doesn't even matter.
2 first year players, one second year player, and a bust...
What is has to do with IQ? Are they nuclear scientists or what?
You think the knicks are the only team with first and 2nd year players on their roster. The fact that we have 4 on the bottom of a list out of 430 players, is absolutely ridiculous.
The way the knicks are developing their kids is the #1 reason half are on the bottom of the list, as an organization they have been god awful at it. Im sure if willy was still here he would be right there on the bottom, but he is looking much better than he did as a knick
when you go out there to lose games purposely, and try and front like your not, This is what tanking gets you, players that look worse than when they first got here. if players were getting better, smarter, and playing at a high level, you see them in the bottom of every stat category
No plus minus score should ever be used to compare players across teams. Because a good player on a bad team can be a minus player and a bad player on a good team can be a plus player.
meloshouldgo wrote:No plus minus score should ever be used to compare players across teams. Because a good player on a bad team can be a minus player and a bad player on a good team can be a plus player.
this is true, but we have a slew of players in the bottom
knicks1248 wrote:meloshouldgo wrote:No plus minus score should ever be used to compare players across teams. Because a good player on a bad team can be a minus player and a bad player on a good team can be a plus player.
this is true, but we have a slew of players in the bottom
We have a team at or near the bottom of the league, so it naturally follows.
knicks1248 wrote:The way the knicks are developing their kids is the #1 reason half are on the bottom of the list, as an organization they have been god awful at it.
There is actually very little development in the NBA.
Young players need to get a scouting "book" on established NBA opponents. They need to build a rapport with the refs. They need to acclimate to the NBA grind and travel and non game commitments.
Much of the roadblocks are just raw talent.
This is not MLB where you can teach a "thrower" how to be a pitcher.
The Knicks are in this position because of poor resource/draft/asset/cap management. Win the resource management part of the game and winning on the court is a natural byproduct of that.
If a player in the NBA is not very good, it's not like the huge problem is a bunch of coaches who can't teach him. Usually players fail because they lack the athleticism to play at the NBA level or cannot handle game speed at this level.
You believe the G League can help develop players. It generally does not. Most of the players in the G League are there because they aren't truly talented enough to be NBA players. Some break through, most do not.
knicks1248 wrote:meloshouldgo wrote:No plus minus score should ever be used to compare players across teams. Because a good player on a bad team can be a minus player and a bad player on a good team can be a plus player.
this is true, but we have a slew of players in the bottom
Most players who are first or second year players are not impact players. It typically takes a few years for guys to show positively on these advanced metric type systems.
knicks1248 wrote:arkrud wrote:knicks1248 wrote:nykshaknbake wrote:Yikes. Does anyone know how rpm compares to old +/-? It seems just to be a gimmick made to drive traffic to espn.
Would you say that if these guys were on the top of the least, or are you saying this because your in denial.
The last 4 guys on this list are clueless players with talent, but their IQ is so low it doesn't even matter.
2 first year players, one second year player, and a bust...
What is has to do with IQ? Are they nuclear scientists or what?
You think the knicks are the only team with first and 2nd year players on their roster. The fact that we have 4 on the bottom of a list out of 430 players, is absolutely ridiculous.
The way the knicks are developing their kids is the #1 reason half are on the bottom of the list, as an organization they have been god awful at it. Im sure if willy was still here he would be right there on the bottom, but he is looking much better than he did as a knick
when you go out there to lose games purposely, and try and front like your not, This is what tanking gets you, players that look worse than when they first got here. if players were getting better, smarter, and playing at a high level, you see them in the bottom of every stat category
We are not losing purposely - we suck for real.
If we would have finished products why we would develop them.
They are raw, inexperienced, undeveloped physically and mentally.
So we are developing them.
What they will become will be knows in 2-3 years.
So we take what we have and work with it. What else we can do genius?
meloshouldgo wrote:No plus minus score should ever be used to compare players across teams. Because a good player on a bad team can be a minus player and a bad player on a good team can be a plus player.
Klay comes in around 300.
Knixkik wrote:knicks1248 wrote:meloshouldgo wrote:No plus minus score should ever be used to compare players across teams. Because a good player on a bad team can be a minus player and a bad player on a good team can be a plus player.
this is true, but we have a slew of players in the bottom
Most players who are first or second year players are not impact players. It typically takes a few years for guys to show positively on these advanced metric type systems.
Nice that Robinson is so high then.
Knixkik wrote:So based on this we have 3 pretty good players and the rest of the roster terrible players. I guess that sounds about right.
Surprised about Robinson. Not surprised about Frank and Knox, both have been vomit inducing.
