Knicks · Ranking Knicks Young Core (page 1)
Pretty harsh.
I should know not to a read an article about all 30 teams that starts off mentioning the Knicks missed on Zion. Someone mentioned it early, it takes no effort to spew the same narrative.
CrushAlot wrote:Another bad article that seems to be capitalizing on getting clicks by criticizing the Knicks. The article is about all 30 teams but the intro is all about the Knicks struggles. Also, my first impression was that they were considering only prospects under 25 that were drafted by the team. Randle was not considered one of the Knicks best under 25 players and wasn’t even mentioned. Not sure why he was left out when D’Angelo Russell was included for the WRriors. Also, not sure why Trier wasn’t mentioned. Trier was 45, 39 and 80.
I should know not to a read an article about all 30 teams that starts off mentioning the Knicks missed on Zion. Someone mentioned it early, it takes no effort to spew the same narrative.
you make it sound as though the entire article is about the Knicks... they used it as their opener. And they didn't mention a lot of under-25 guys. They mentioned Frank and Knox because the former suck and the latter had a shit year. They praised Mitch. I feel like you didn't read the article, because they didn't mention really anyone for Charlotte. They shat on Kuzma. They shat on the Wiz. Didn't mention anything about LAC, etc. It's like a few paragraphs per team at max
SupremeCommander wrote:CrushAlot wrote:Another bad article that seems to be capitalizing on getting clicks by criticizing the Knicks. The article is about all 30 teams but the intro is all about the Knicks struggles. Also, my first impression was that they were considering only prospects under 25 that were drafted by the team. Randle was not considered one of the Knicks best under 25 players and wasn’t even mentioned. Not sure why he was left out when D’Angelo Russell was included for the WRriors. Also, not sure why Trier wasn’t mentioned. Trier was 45, 39 and 80.
I should know not to a read an article about all 30 teams that starts off mentioning the Knicks missed on Zion. Someone mentioned it early, it takes no effort to spew the same narrative.you make it sound as though the entire article is about the Knicks... they used it as their opener. And they didn't mention a lot of under-25 guys. They mentioned Frank and Knox because the former suck and the latter had a shit year. They praised Mitch. I feel like you didn't read the article, because they didn't mention really anyone for Charlotte. They shat on Kuzma. They shat on the Wiz. Didn't mention anything about LAC, etc. It's like a few paragraphs per team at max
I read the article. Pretty sure they mentioned Kuzma as not being a guy that does well with the Carmelo projections. Also, they were pretty harsh on Sexton.
SupremeCommander wrote:CrushAlot wrote:Another bad article that seems to be capitalizing on getting clicks by criticizing the Knicks. The article is about all 30 teams but the intro is all about the Knicks struggles. Also, my first impression was that they were considering only prospects under 25 that were drafted by the team. Randle was not considered one of the Knicks best under 25 players and wasn’t even mentioned. Not sure why he was left out when D’Angelo Russell was included for the WRriors. Also, not sure why Trier wasn’t mentioned. Trier was 45, 39 and 80.
I should know not to a read an article about all 30 teams that starts off mentioning the Knicks missed on Zion. Someone mentioned it early, it takes no effort to spew the same narrative.you make it sound as though the entire article is about the Knicks... they used it as their opener. And they didn't mention a lot of under-25 guys. They mentioned Frank and Knox because the former suck and the latter had a shit year. They praised Mitch. I feel like you didn't read the article, because they didn't mention really anyone for Charlotte. They shat on Kuzma. They shat on the Wiz. Didn't mention anything about LAC, etc. It's like a few paragraphs per team at max
I went back and skimmed it. Starting at their top 10 they included 3-4 young players for every team in their top young player named. For the bottom 20 they listed one player.
Knixkik wrote:Knox and frank have projections that drive down the ranking. If you just factored in Mitch, Barrett and Randle then it would bump the Knicks significantly. The system they are using views Mitch as one of the best young prospect and views Barrett as a good prospect too. Not a lot of teams have that combo.
agree. we had a friggin awful year last year... the formula is the formula--it isn't gospel or anything. Objectively, I'm pretty happy with being where we're at on the list. Once everyone gets more seasoning the rankings will improve.
the formula loved Memphis and I'm not sold on them. Ja Morant is the ultimate feast or famine pick.. I'm not sure he will work out in the NBA (I'd bet on it but it isn't a certainty). Tyus Jones can play but I think the contract they gave him is absurd. Also, I'm not as high on Jaren Jackson Jr. as a lot of others. he can play but I don't think he can walk on water
So, in short, the article was interesting to me but my reaction is: whatevs brah
Andrew wrote:It seems like a strange way to rank a teams core of young players where a statistically bad player (Knox) decreases the ranking of your overall core. Basically saying if we cut Knox, Frank our ranking jumps. Having lots of first and second year players that project as role players hurts you and having 1 or 2 rookies that project well mean you have a very high ranked young core.
I think I get what you're saying but that's kinda how averages work
SupremeCommander wrote:CrushAlot wrote:Another bad article that seems to be capitalizing on getting clicks by criticizing the Knicks. The article is about all 30 teams but the intro is all about the Knicks struggles. Also, my first impression was that they were considering only prospects under 25 that were drafted by the team. Randle was not considered one of the Knicks best under 25 players and wasn’t even mentioned. Not sure why he was left out when D’Angelo Russell was included for the WRriors. Also, not sure why Trier wasn’t mentioned. Trier was 45, 39 and 80.
I should know not to a read an article about all 30 teams that starts off mentioning the Knicks missed on Zion. Someone mentioned it early, it takes no effort to spew the same narrative.you make it sound as though the entire article is about the Knicks... they used it as their opener. And they didn't mention a lot of under-25 guys. They mentioned Frank and Knox because the former suck and the latter had a shit year. They praised Mitch. I feel like you didn't read the article, because they didn't mention really anyone for Charlotte. They shat on Kuzma. They shat on the Wiz. Didn't mention anything about LAC, etc. It's like a few paragraphs per team at max
DiD any of our young guys get better,or showed any growth as the yr went on. Did they show that they were a good fit for our system..oh wait.. we had no system.
Why didn't we keep Mudiay
why didn't we keep Noah V
why didn't we keep Mario
why didn't we keep burke..who basically took minutes from frank
You can't deny that THJ looked better Playing for The hawks
You think if anyone of these kids showed significant growth or consistency we wouldn't have kept them?
I can sum our development system in 3 words.."KEEP BEING AGGRESSIVE", which translates to keep shooting, keep going 1 on 5.
The only thing we accomplish last season was getting the 3rd pick.
What did we learn about the coach, the defense, the offense, the strategy, most of our young and old players looked lost and bewildered the entire season, and took steps back.
Andrew wrote:It seems like a strange way to rank a teams core of young players where a statistically bad player (Knox) decreases the ranking of your overall core. Basically saying if we cut Knox, Frank our ranking jumps. Having lots of first and second year players that project as role players hurts you and having 1 or 2 rookies that project well mean you have a very high ranked young core.
Exactly right. So because of the Knicks have so many young players, some poorly projected, they get killed. Let’s look at Mitchell Robinson. He is the 13th highest ranked player under 25. Higher than porzingis, Aayton etc. If he were our only 25 and under player the Knicks would shoot up the rankings. That’s not counting Barrett or Randle. But because we have so many young players who are poorly projected, it takes away from the value of Robinson. Makes no sense in terms of rating overall cores. I would be interested to the see ratings if all of our negative players were just listed as 0 value. Might bump them into the top 10.
knicks1248 wrote:SupremeCommander wrote:CrushAlot wrote:Another bad article that seems to be capitalizing on getting clicks by criticizing the Knicks. The article is about all 30 teams but the intro is all about the Knicks struggles. Also, my first impression was that they were considering only prospects under 25 that were drafted by the team. Randle was not considered one of the Knicks best under 25 players and wasn’t even mentioned. Not sure why he was left out when D’Angelo Russell was included for the WRriors. Also, not sure why Trier wasn’t mentioned. Trier was 45, 39 and 80.
I should know not to a read an article about all 30 teams that starts off mentioning the Knicks missed on Zion. Someone mentioned it early, it takes no effort to spew the same narrative.you make it sound as though the entire article is about the Knicks... they used it as their opener. And they didn't mention a lot of under-25 guys. They mentioned Frank and Knox because the former suck and the latter had a shit year. They praised Mitch. I feel like you didn't read the article, because they didn't mention really anyone for Charlotte. They shat on Kuzma. They shat on the Wiz. Didn't mention anything about LAC, etc. It's like a few paragraphs per team at max
DiD any of our young guys get better,or showed any growth as the yr went on. Did they show that they were a good fit for our system..oh wait.. we had no system.
Why didn't we keep Mudiay
why didn't we keep Noah V
why didn't we keep Mario
why didn't we keep burke..who basically took minutes from frankYou can't deny that THJ looked better Playing for The hawks
You think if anyone of these kids showed significant growth or consistency we wouldn't have kept them?
I can sum our development system in 3 words.."KEEP BEING AGGRESSIVE", which translates to keep shooting, keep going 1 on 5.
The only thing we accomplish last season was getting the 3rd pick.
What did we learn about the coach, the defense, the offense, the strategy, most of our young and old players looked lost and bewildered the entire season, and took steps back.
they were rentals that were the equivalent of lottery tickets.
THJ was average in his contract year and we overpaid
I think the article is about this year's young guys not last season's...
So other than that I am not sure how to respond because it really has nothing to do with the article or any of the other comments
SupremeCommander wrote:Andrew wrote:It seems like a strange way to rank a teams core of young players where a statistically bad player (Knox) decreases the ranking of your overall core. Basically saying if we cut Knox, Frank our ranking jumps. Having lots of first and second year players that project as role players hurts you and having 1 or 2 rookies that project well mean you have a very high ranked young core.I think I get what you're saying but that's kinda how averages work
Taking the average of all under 25 players on a roster is a terrible way to rate a young core. Like Andrew said, Knox and franks presence on the roster should not decrease the value of other players. If the rankings think only Robinson, Barrett DSJ and Randle are good prospects, than that’s fine. They should be rated as the Knicks core alone. Frank won’t be a rotation player this year, and Knox will need to show a big jump to remain in the rotation.
Knixkik wrote:SupremeCommander wrote:Andrew wrote:It seems like a strange way to rank a teams core of young players where a statistically bad player (Knox) decreases the ranking of your overall core. Basically saying if we cut Knox, Frank our ranking jumps. Having lots of first and second year players that project as role players hurts you and having 1 or 2 rookies that project well mean you have a very high ranked young core.I think I get what you're saying but that's kinda how averages work
Taking the average of all under 25 players on a roster is a terrible way to rate a young core. Like Andrew said, Knox and franks presence on the roster should not decrease the value of other players. If the rankings think only Robinson, Barrett DSJ and Randle are good prospects, than that’s fine. They should be rated as the Knicks core alone. Frank won’t be a rotation player this year, and Knox will need to show a big jump to remain in the rotation.
Right Knickik.
Supreme....this article is using totals, and not averages and still its a weird way to look at it.
Take the following hypothetical player and ranking scenerio.
Team 1: P1 : 10, P2 : 10, P3: 10, P4 : -20. That totals 10.
Team 2: P1 : 3, P2: 5, P3 : 2. Totals 10.
Would you say the young core's here are equal?
Andrew wrote:Knixkik wrote:SupremeCommander wrote:Andrew wrote:It seems like a strange way to rank a teams core of young players where a statistically bad player (Knox) decreases the ranking of your overall core. Basically saying if we cut Knox, Frank our ranking jumps. Having lots of first and second year players that project as role players hurts you and having 1 or 2 rookies that project well mean you have a very high ranked young core.I think I get what you're saying but that's kinda how averages work
Taking the average of all under 25 players on a roster is a terrible way to rate a young core. Like Andrew said, Knox and franks presence on the roster should not decrease the value of other players. If the rankings think only Robinson, Barrett DSJ and Randle are good prospects, than that’s fine. They should be rated as the Knicks core alone. Frank won’t be a rotation player this year, and Knox will need to show a big jump to remain in the rotation.
Right Knickik.
Supreme....this article is using totals, and not averages and still its a weird way to look at it.
Take the following hypothetical player and ranking scenerio.
Team 1: P1 : 10, P2 : 10, P3: 10, P4 : -20. That totals 10.
Team 2: P1 : 3, P2: 5, P3 : 2. Totals 10.
Would you say the young core's here are equal?
this is a two in one post - maybe I wasn't clear enough - I don't think a formula is a good way to evaluate things. I don't see the point of splitting hairs because I don't really care about the conclusion of the article
My previous comments had more to do with everyone getting butt hurt by the output. who cares
Andrew wrote:Knixkik wrote:SupremeCommander wrote:Andrew wrote:It seems like a strange way to rank a teams core of young players where a statistically bad player (Knox) decreases the ranking of your overall core. Basically saying if we cut Knox, Frank our ranking jumps. Having lots of first and second year players that project as role players hurts you and having 1 or 2 rookies that project well mean you have a very high ranked young core.I think I get what you're saying but that's kinda how averages work
Taking the average of all under 25 players on a roster is a terrible way to rate a young core. Like Andrew said, Knox and franks presence on the roster should not decrease the value of other players. If the rankings think only Robinson, Barrett DSJ and Randle are good prospects, than that’s fine. They should be rated as the Knicks core alone. Frank won’t be a rotation player this year, and Knox will need to show a big jump to remain in the rotation.
Right Knickik.
Supreme....this article is using totals, and not averages and still its a weird way to look at it.
Take the following hypothetical player and ranking scenerio.
Team 1: P1 : 10, P2 : 10, P3: 10, P4 : -20. That totals 10.
Team 2: P1 : 3, P2: 5, P3 : 2. Totals 10.
Would you say the young core's here are equal?
So I did the math for Robinson, Randle, Barrett, Smith , and ntilikina. Total is 46.7 WAR over a 5 year span. It would be good for top 10 on the list. Knox hurts the rating badly. Also thinking Randle is not being accounted for based on the numbers. Trier and Brazdeikis hurt it too. Seems like you take Knox out of the picture and the ratings have an entirely different view on the Knicks players. It’s fine if they don’t like Knox. But for it to completely change the trajectory of the Knicks core obviously isn’t a fair assessment. Without Knox it’s a top 10 core based on numbers.
Javascript is not enabled or there was problem with the URL: https://twitter.com/knicksguy1/status/1153715021094019077?s=21
Click here to view the Tweet
SupremeCommander wrote:knicks1248 wrote:SupremeCommander wrote:CrushAlot wrote:Another bad article that seems to be capitalizing on getting clicks by criticizing the Knicks. The article is about all 30 teams but the intro is all about the Knicks struggles. Also, my first impression was that they were considering only prospects under 25 that were drafted by the team. Randle was not considered one of the Knicks best under 25 players and wasn’t even mentioned. Not sure why he was left out when D’Angelo Russell was included for the WRriors. Also, not sure why Trier wasn’t mentioned. Trier was 45, 39 and 80.
I should know not to a read an article about all 30 teams that starts off mentioning the Knicks missed on Zion. Someone mentioned it early, it takes no effort to spew the same narrative.you make it sound as though the entire article is about the Knicks... they used it as their opener. And they didn't mention a lot of under-25 guys. They mentioned Frank and Knox because the former suck and the latter had a shit year. They praised Mitch. I feel like you didn't read the article, because they didn't mention really anyone for Charlotte. They shat on Kuzma. They shat on the Wiz. Didn't mention anything about LAC, etc. It's like a few paragraphs per team at max
DiD any of our young guys get better,or showed any growth as the yr went on. Did they show that they were a good fit for our system..oh wait.. we had no system.
Why didn't we keep Mudiay
why didn't we keep Noah V
why didn't we keep Mario
why didn't we keep burke..who basically took minutes from frankYou can't deny that THJ looked better Playing for The hawks
You think if anyone of these kids showed significant growth or consistency we wouldn't have kept them?
I can sum our development system in 3 words.."KEEP BEING AGGRESSIVE", which translates to keep shooting, keep going 1 on 5.
The only thing we accomplish last season was getting the 3rd pick.
What did we learn about the coach, the defense, the offense, the strategy, most of our young and old players looked lost and bewildered the entire season, and took steps back.
they were rentals that were the equivalent of lottery tickets.
THJ was average in his contract year and we overpaid
I think the article is about this year's young guys not last season's...
So other than that I am not sure how to respond because it really has nothing to do with the article or any of the other comments
But rankings are based on stats,and what you have done in the recent past, they surely are not basing future stats.
I brought those guys up because even though they were rentals, they were young guys who were lottery picks 2 to 3 yrs ago..which is not long.
I guess I had High hopes that we would be able to level them up
knicks1248 wrote:SupremeCommander wrote:knicks1248 wrote:SupremeCommander wrote:CrushAlot wrote:Another bad article that seems to be capitalizing on getting clicks by criticizing the Knicks. The article is about all 30 teams but the intro is all about the Knicks struggles. Also, my first impression was that they were considering only prospects under 25 that were drafted by the team. Randle was not considered one of the Knicks best under 25 players and wasn’t even mentioned. Not sure why he was left out when D’Angelo Russell was included for the WRriors. Also, not sure why Trier wasn’t mentioned. Trier was 45, 39 and 80.
I should know not to a read an article about all 30 teams that starts off mentioning the Knicks missed on Zion. Someone mentioned it early, it takes no effort to spew the same narrative.you make it sound as though the entire article is about the Knicks... they used it as their opener. And they didn't mention a lot of under-25 guys. They mentioned Frank and Knox because the former suck and the latter had a shit year. They praised Mitch. I feel like you didn't read the article, because they didn't mention really anyone for Charlotte. They shat on Kuzma. They shat on the Wiz. Didn't mention anything about LAC, etc. It's like a few paragraphs per team at max
DiD any of our young guys get better,or showed any growth as the yr went on. Did they show that they were a good fit for our system..oh wait.. we had no system.
Why didn't we keep Mudiay
why didn't we keep Noah V
why didn't we keep Mario
why didn't we keep burke..who basically took minutes from frankYou can't deny that THJ looked better Playing for The hawks
You think if anyone of these kids showed significant growth or consistency we wouldn't have kept them?
I can sum our development system in 3 words.."KEEP BEING AGGRESSIVE", which translates to keep shooting, keep going 1 on 5.
The only thing we accomplish last season was getting the 3rd pick.
What did we learn about the coach, the defense, the offense, the strategy, most of our young and old players looked lost and bewildered the entire season, and took steps back.
they were rentals that were the equivalent of lottery tickets.
THJ was average in his contract year and we overpaid
I think the article is about this year's young guys not last season's...
So other than that I am not sure how to respond because it really has nothing to do with the article or any of the other comments
But rankings are based on stats,and what you have done in the recent past, they surely are not basing future stats.
I brought those guys up because even though they were rentals, they were young guys who were lottery picks 2 to 3 yrs ago..which is not long.
I guess I had High hopes that we would be able to level them up
I could make the case that the guys you mentioned did get leveled. All those guys had one foot put the league when they came to us. I'm kinda surprised Hezonja even signed a deal with his summer, but I guess that says a lot about his potential.