TPercy wrote:You swap IQ for Bey who having the bigger impact?
I keep hearing the word "impact" as if this is the most "valuable" rookie award or recognition. It's who had the best rookie season. I remember the year Iverson won rookie of the year. Marbury actually had the bigger impact because his arrival turned Minnesota from a 26 win team into a playoff team. But Iverson posted the better numbers and got the hardware. That's pretty much how its been for a while.
martin wrote:TPercy wrote:You swap IQ for Bey who having the bigger impact?
Bey
Why? Bey is good but he is limited as a shot creator. Almost all his shots are catch and shoot whearas Quickley is pretty good at creating off the dribble for a rookie which was pivotal to us when we were struggling to create.
Welpee wrote:TPercy wrote:You swap IQ for Bey who having the bigger impact?
I keep hearing the word "impact" as if this is the most "valuable" rookie award or recognition. It's who had the best rookie season. I remember the year Iverson won rookie of the year. Marbury actually had the bigger impact because his arrival turned Minnesota from a 26 win team into a playoff team. But Iverson posted the better numbers and got the hardware. That's pretty much how its been for a while.
Who had the best rookie season is who generated the most impact for the team relative to their role. Bey did well as a starter later on in the season, but IQ matched his production coming off the bench and held his own on multiple occasions when he started or finished games for us.
TPercy wrote:Welpee wrote:TPercy wrote:You swap IQ for Bey who having the bigger impact?
I keep hearing the word "impact" as if this is the most "valuable" rookie award or recognition. It's who had the best rookie season. I remember the year Iverson won rookie of the year. Marbury actually had the bigger impact because his arrival turned Minnesota from a 26 win team into a playoff team. But Iverson posted the better numbers and got the hardware. That's pretty much how its been for a while.
Who had the best rookie season is who generated the most impact for the team relative to their role. Bey did well as a starter later on in the season, but IQ matched his production coming off the bench and held his own on multiple occasions when he started or finished games for us.
I think you're adding your own personal criteria to the award and all-rookie team. Not saying that's not how it
should be judged, just don't think that's how it
is judged. I felt the same way about Iverson. Marbury actually had a better impact on dramatically improving his team's success. Iverson was on a bad team with a coach who let him put up as many shots as he wanted and pile up a ton of points. Iverson was the one who got rewarded. I never thought that was right, but it's how it goes.
TPercy wrote:martin wrote:TPercy wrote:You swap IQ for Bey who having the bigger impact?
Bey
Why? Bey is good but he is limited as a shot creator. Almost all his shots are catch and shoot whearas Quickley is pretty good at creating off the dribble for a rookie which was pivotal to us when we were struggling to create.
Well it seems as if you are looking through the lens of exactly 1 particular aspect of what the Knicks was lacking as a team.
I don't feel like IQ is really a shot creator. He can do it and was really good at picking up fouls in the first half of the season, but teams quickly caught on.
I just get the feel that Bey as a SF wing in the Knicks lineup would have added more than IQ did off bench.
Welpee wrote:TPercy wrote:Welpee wrote:TPercy wrote:You swap IQ for Bey who having the bigger impact?
I keep hearing the word "impact" as if this is the most "valuable" rookie award or recognition. It's who had the best rookie season. I remember the year Iverson won rookie of the year. Marbury actually had the bigger impact because his arrival turned Minnesota from a 26 win team into a playoff team. But Iverson posted the better numbers and got the hardware. That's pretty much how its been for a while.
Who had the best rookie season is who generated the most impact for the team relative to their role. Bey did well as a starter later on in the season, but IQ matched his production coming off the bench and held his own on multiple occasions when he started or finished games for us.
I think you're adding your own personal criteria to the award and all-rookie team. Not saying that's not how it should be judged, just don't think that's how it is judged. I felt the same way about Iverson. Marbury actually had a better impact on dramatically improving his team's success. Iverson was on a bad team with a coach who let him put up as many shots as he wanted and pile up a ton of points. Iverson was the one who got rewarded. I never thought that was right, but it's how it goes.
I get that, I just think we need to rethink how we judge it especially given how inconsistent it is given how RJ was shafted last year
martin wrote:TPercy wrote:martin wrote:TPercy wrote:You swap IQ for Bey who having the bigger impact?
Bey
Why? Bey is good but he is limited as a shot creator. Almost all his shots are catch and shoot whearas Quickley is pretty good at creating off the dribble for a rookie which was pivotal to us when we were struggling to create.
Well it seems as if you are looking through the lens of exactly 1 particular aspect of what the Knicks was lacking as a team.
I don't feel like IQ is really a shot creator. He can do it and was really good at picking up fouls in the first half of the season, but teams quickly caught on.
I just get the feel that Bey as a SF wing in the Knicks lineup would have added more than IQ did off bench.
I'm looking at what was the key seperator between the two. Neither Bey nor IQ were great finishers at the rim, nor were they fantastic defenders, and weren't the best playmakers though IQ definitely has the advantage there. Both were pretty good shooters but IQ was better at creating off the dribble while Bey was at his best in spot up situations. Bey will be the better player but IQ was just better for me this season.
TPercy wrote:Welpee wrote:TPercy wrote:Welpee wrote:TPercy wrote:You swap IQ for Bey who having the bigger impact?
I keep hearing the word "impact" as if this is the most "valuable" rookie award or recognition. It's who had the best rookie season. I remember the year Iverson won rookie of the year. Marbury actually had the bigger impact because his arrival turned Minnesota from a 26 win team into a playoff team. But Iverson posted the better numbers and got the hardware. That's pretty much how its been for a while.
Who had the best rookie season is who generated the most impact for the team relative to their role. Bey did well as a starter later on in the season, but IQ matched his production coming off the bench and held his own on multiple occasions when he started or finished games for us.
I think you're adding your own personal criteria to the award and all-rookie team. Not saying that's not how it should be judged, just don't think that's how it is judged. I felt the same way about Iverson. Marbury actually had a better impact on dramatically improving his team's success. Iverson was on a bad team with a coach who let him put up as many shots as he wanted and pile up a ton of points. Iverson was the one who got rewarded. I never thought that was right, but it's how it goes.
I get that, I just think we need to rethink how we judge it especially given how inconsistent it is given how RJ was shafted last year
Agreed. Last year all these other guys beat out Barrett because of impact even in lesser roles like Terence Davis and Brandon Clarke. This year it seems like it's the opposite where the guys playing the most minutes got the credit regardless of their role in terms of winning. Can't have it both ways.
martin wrote:TPercy wrote:martin wrote:TPercy wrote:You swap IQ for Bey who having the bigger impact?
Bey
Why? Bey is good but he is limited as a shot creator. Almost all his shots are catch and shoot whearas Quickley is pretty good at creating off the dribble for a rookie which was pivotal to us when we were struggling to create.
Well it seems as if you are looking through the lens of exactly 1 particular aspect of what the Knicks was lacking as a team.
I don't feel like IQ is really a shot creator. He can do it and was really good at picking up fouls in the first half of the season, but teams quickly caught on.
I just get the feel that Bey as a SF wing in the Knicks lineup would have added more than IQ did off bench.
I think there's a good chance Bey plays even less. I have a hard time believing he siphons minutes from RJ, Bullock and Burks. IQ hardly played and he filled a niche that was badly needed. I'm not upset with Bey getting the nod. It was close enough. Also, look at past award winners. This award means nothing, sorry Willy Hernangomez.
TheGame wrote:Other than Jesean Tate, those other players did have a better year than Quickley, so I don’t see it as a huge snub. I am more concerned with Quick improving his game because he has a lot he needs to work on including his ball handling and decision making. The RJ snub was far worse.
He was his most effective the first 2 months of the season. He tailed off in April and May. He was really bad in the playoffs
knicks1248 wrote:TheGame wrote:Other than Jesean Tate, those other players did have a better year than Quickley, so I don’t see it as a huge snub. I am more concerned with Quick improving his game because he has a lot he needs to work on including his ball handling and decision making. The RJ snub was far worse.
Agreed, only thing he showed us is that he can shoot, no ones really raving about any other part of his game.
He definitely needs to step up his defense because we should have been able to put him on Trae
THis is a coherent concept I agree with. I don’t think its a snub. He was the highest vote recipient for the second team and perhaps if not positional he’d have made first team.
THis kind of post season award is meaningless (not to him or his family). Playoffs did not factor into the vote so we can kind of put it away.
As good as IQ was, and perhaps we can celebrate the glass half full that a low 1st rounder made the team, his performance this year was uneven. Thibs had him in and out depending on his play and his defense and playmaking was not great. If he was not hitting his bombs as 1248 mentioned what was he brining? His playmaking skills are not great.
So lets just celebrate what he is and still marvel as his potential. I won’t label a young guy as to what he can and can’t be. He has work to do still.
https://www.nba.com/stats/players/advanced-leaders/
Knicks fans are certainly fickle. There's IQ right up there in the NBA top 10 for defensive efficiency rating and all I read here is how one dimensional he is, how inconsistent he was, or how he sucked in the playoffs, how he needs to pick it up on D.....while the same fans are pining for rookies because of their offensive output while not held accountable for their D on suck ass bottom feeding teams. IQ is not the best rookie - but the denigration in comparison to other rooks is curious without examining their inconsistencies, lack of ability to stay healthy and lack of playoffs.
foosballnick wrote:Knicks fans are certainly fickle. There's IQ right up there in the NBA top 10 for defensive efficiency rating...
Proof that the adage "stat don't lie" is a myth.
I totally agree with Nalod. Can we appreciate IQ without gassing him up to be better than he was? I'm excited about his potential too but you can't just focus on his big performances and ignore his ineffective ones.
Welpee wrote:foosballnick wrote:Knicks fans are certainly fickle. There's IQ right up there in the NBA top 10 for defensive efficiency rating...
Proof that the adage "stat don't lie" is a myth.I totally agree with Nalod. Can we appreciate IQ without gassing him up to be better than he was? I'm excited about his potential too but you can't just focus on his big performances and ignore his ineffective ones.
Not gassing him up. You fall exactly into the point of my post. Which is that Knicks fans almost always take the glass half empty view. Have you also evaluated him against the inconsistencies and innefective performances of the other rookies? You want to discount stats so how are equally evaluating him?
foosballnick wrote:Welpee wrote:foosballnick wrote:Knicks fans are certainly fickle. There's IQ right up there in the NBA top 10 for defensive efficiency rating...
Proof that the adage "stat don't lie" is a myth.I totally agree with Nalod. Can we appreciate IQ without gassing him up to be better than he was? I'm excited about his potential too but you can't just focus on his big performances and ignore his ineffective ones.
Not gassing him up. You fall exactly into the point of my post. Which is that Knicks fans almost always take the glass half empty view. Have you also evaluated him against the inconsistencies and innefective performances of the other rookies? You want to discount stats so how are equally evaluating him?
Yup. I'm not sure Tate will even be in the league in a few years and Quiks was simply more effective than Bey.
Bey was the real deal and eventually I think he started for Detroit. Quickley came off the bench most of the time providing spark but many times he wasn't on the floor during crunch time..
WOODMANnYk wrote:Bey was the real deal and eventually I think he started for Detroit. Quickley came off the bench most of the time providing spark but many times he wasn't on the floor during crunch time..
Counter argument: It was the Detroit Pistons. They're leading scorer was Jerami Grant. Also, Bey only put up like one more point while playing seven additional minutes a game.
foosballnick wrote:Welpee wrote:foosballnick wrote:Knicks fans are certainly fickle. There's IQ right up there in the NBA top 10 for defensive efficiency rating...
Proof that the adage "stat don't lie" is a myth.I totally agree with Nalod. Can we appreciate IQ without gassing him up to be better than he was? I'm excited about his potential too but you can't just focus on his big performances and ignore his ineffective ones.
Not gassing him up. You fall exactly into the point of my post. Which is that Knicks fans almost always take the glass half empty view. Have you also evaluated him against the inconsistencies and innefective performances of the other rookies? You want to discount stats so how are equally evaluating him?
How am I taking the glass half empty view by trying to be objective? The issue being discussed (check the title) was IQ being "snubbed." IQ was equally deserving or not deserving of getting on the first team as the other two who got in ahead of him. I said you could make a case for all three. Just because I'm not exaggerating the case for IQ doesn't mean I'm viewing things glass half empty. My issue is people can find advance stats to support just about anything. I've watched every Knick game this season and IQ's advance defense stats don't support what I witnessed with my own eyes.
Having said that, I also said I'm excited about IQ's future. I guess that part was overlooked.
IQ benefited from a team whose defense is its signature, If they played footloose and fancy free his offense would have been enhanced. That is not a hate or love. It just is.
Look at the point totals from the voting. He was on cusp either way. It did not go his way. It don’t take away a thing from his season.
BigDaddyG wrote:
Yeah, no way a former teammate could ever be kinda biased a little bit. But like I said, a case could be made for all three.
