Knicks · What is really wrong with RJ Barrett? Is there a deeper problem? (page 7)

joec32033 wrote:

EwingsGlass wrote:

joec32033 wrote:

EwingsGlass wrote:

Philc1 wrote:

EwingsGlass wrote:

Philc1 wrote:I remember Knicks fans being insanely negative about Ewing in the 90’s. If this messageboard existed back then Oh my God

https://www.basketball-reference.com/pla...

Career eFG of .505 from the 5 spot is only good when you look at the historic comparisons. Safe to say it was a different game back then. League eFG was .488. That midrange jumper was about a 32% shot. We don't really take those shots any more. Don't ask me about his finger roll percentage.

Oh my God again with the sabometrics nonsense. If eFG is as important as you RJ Haters keep swearing it is than Nic Claxton and Mason Plumlee are better than Steph Curry and Lebron. Jakob Poetl is now better than Kevin Durant

The ability to be efficient with volume is what makes superstars. And to continually adapt to the defenses as they try to stop efficient players. Or make them less efficient.

If you take the time to understand the information provided by these numbers and really look at the statements I am saying without blowing them out of proportion emotionally, you will see that my conclusions are far more limited than your exaggerations.

My conclusion is the Knicks should allocate more shots from RJ to IQ and QG. I’m comparing Knick wings. Your conclusion is that the numbers have no meaning because Jacob Poetl has a higher eFG than Steph Curry. Clearly you don’t understand the material.

But if the question is whether Ewings midrange jumper was a good shot, it may have been for the game of that era, but it would not be considered a good shot today.

It was a different game back then-I figured the stronger defense of old balanced out the lower percentage 3's of the modern day game-but I posted a while ago the eFG of top players current and past and RJ's number was not out of wack.

From the Fire Thibs thread. March 22.

2 different perspectives. I currently see Grimes as the weak link in the starting rotation (agree about Obi off the bench). Grimes and RJ offer 2 different skill sets, but I think the illusion of lost opportunity will always make Grimes look shinier (same principle as everyone loving the backup quarterback).

Grimes played great against c level competition in summer league (although he choked in the chamionship game), and played well in an exhibition where no one is playing defense. Me personally, I think Grimes is a very good player but I think the illusion of lost opportunity really gets people thinking he is better than he is. I have seen no signs against NBA competition that Grimes offensively can perform like RJ.

I know you like to use efg%, so I'll use that...

Barett (47.7) has a higher career efg% than

Sprewell (46.4)
Rip Hamilton (46.9)
Caron Butler (46.9)
Ron Harper (46.8)
Starks (47.6)
Horton Tucker (47.5)
Tracy McGrady (47)

And is in range of:
Houston (49.8)
Drexler (49.5)
Richmond (49.7)
Pierce (50)
Roy (49.2)
Anthony (48.5)
Wade (49.5)
Marion (50)
Butler (49.7)
Derozan (48.2)
Jason Richardson (50.2)
Wiggins (49)
Pippen (50.4)
Kukoc (49.2)
Majerle (50.5)
Glenn Robinson (48.5)
Mike Redd (50.3)
Larry Johnson (50.5)
Grant Hill (49.2)
Vince Carter (48.9)

Most stars seem to be at arouns the 49-51% mark (give or take), and guys that are fringe all stars seem to come in just below that (yes, I individually searched players-more than I listed- to get a sample size and I tried to keep to swing players. I probably looked at about 40 players-you'll just have to take my word for it)

Grimes is at 56.9 career.
AS a comparison, the only players that are up that high are a few superstars (Curry, Durant, Kawai, Klay) and specialized shooters or post players.
https://www.basketball-reference.com/leaders/efg_pct_career.html

~You can't run from who you are.~

I don’t think that analysis works though. I think you have to compare to the eFG of the current league, todays player keep an eFG about 40 points higher than the 90s teams. His efficiency is below average for todays game. This is because 1) he has a relatively average fg% from 2) He shoots below average from the ft line and 3 point line. We all see the potential and the #3 pick labeled him as a potential star. But he needs to work on that shot. You can’t argue that. It’s below average.

To be fair, I used this as a comparison when forced too. I hate this statistic. I think it is stupid. The guys with the highest ones are bigs who only shoot around the hoop (Deandre Jordan, Gobert, Mitch, Capella), so you need to figure out where to draw the line in the sand.

League average this year is 54.5.
https://www.statmuse.com/nba/ask?q=nba+l...

Average by position in 2023 is
PG 52.1
SG 53.3
SF 54
PF 55.5
C 60.5
https://www.statmuse.com/nba/ask?q=nba+l...

Again, you have to compare similar positions. And you have to recognize volume. But the concept is relatively simple, it’s roughly translatable to points per possession. Who scores the most points each time they touch the ball. It’s not intended to be looked at in a vacuum. It is not intended to ignore other valuable information. But if I am looking at players on this team and saying who on this team scores the most points when they touch the ball? It gives you that. We all know that most of Mitch Robinson’s points come from put backs. This results in an unusually high eFG. He’s not originating those points off the dribble. We do know that IQ, Grimes and Barrett are similarly situated. If I told you in 100 possessions, Grimes would score 120 points, Quickley 106 points and Barret 94 points, and that ignoring all other stats, the only thing I care about is out scoring the other teams, you would choose Grimes to take as many shots as possible.

Now, I think eFG works differently than that even. And this is where I think the best offensive coaches have it right. Guys like Kerr and Bud. If you dissect the court and your team and with a good data set can break down the court by individual eFG and rank those shots on your team, the team that is crafted to create the highest eFG shots will optimize its scoring potential.

Without double checking, off the top of my head.

1) Grimes corner 3
2) Robinson Paint
3) Randle Paint
4) Brunson 3-10
5) Toppin paint
6) IQ floater 3-10
7) Toppin top of key 3

Somewhere near the bottom will be Robinson from 3, Randle mid range jumper and every other shot from Barrett, specifically his 0-9 3s.

We all see the issue. RJ is an above average player when it comes to driving to the basket. He can consistently get to the rim, and he has improved his efficiency at the rim (although he still misses too many layups but he is better than he was two years ago). His issue is that he cannot hit a jumpshot to save his life, and other than corner 3s, he is far below NBA average as a jump shooter at pretty much every other mid-range and long distance spot on the floor. The solution is RJ needs to stop taking jump shots. You say that is not easy do, and I say, why not? There are plenty of players who don’t take jumpshots and are effective. RJ just needs to pass on taking threes and long twos (other than in the corners), realize that he is not the primary scorer, and pass the damn ball to Randle, Grimes, or Brunson if he cannot immediately get to the rim on his drives. I don’t know how many times we have watched RJ draw two defenders and then he forces up a shot, when he easily could have passed out to Grimes or Brunson for an open 3. If he makes this simple change, his overall efficiency will improve greatly. Problem fixed.

TheGame wrote:We all see the issue. RJ is an above average player when it comes to driving to the basket. He can consistently get to the rim, and he has improved his efficiency at the rim (although he still misses too many layups but he is better than he was two years ago). His issue is that he cannot hit a jumpshot to save his life, and other than corner 3s, he is far below NBA average as a jump shooter at pretty much every other mid-range and long distance spot on the floor. The solution is RJ needs to stop taking jump shots. You say that is not easy do, and I say, why not? There are plenty of players who don’t take jumpshots and are effective. RJ just needs to pass on taking threes and long twos (other than in the corners), realize that he is not the primary scorer, and pass the damn ball to Randle, Grimes, or Brunson if he cannot immediately get to the rim on his drives. I don’t know how many times we have watched RJ draw two defenders and then he forces up a shot, when he easily could have passed out to Grimes or Brunson for an open 3. If he makes this simple change, his overall efficiency will improve greatly. Problem fixed.

Exactly.

EwingsGlass wrote:

TheGame wrote:We all see the issue. RJ is an above average player when it comes to driving to the basket. He can consistently get to the rim, and he has improved his efficiency at the rim (although he still misses too many layups but he is better than he was two years ago). His issue is that he cannot hit a jumpshot to save his life, and other than corner 3s, he is far below NBA average as a jump shooter at pretty much every other mid-range and long distance spot on the floor. The solution is RJ needs to stop taking jump shots. You say that is not easy do, and I say, why not? There are plenty of players who don’t take jumpshots and are effective. RJ just needs to pass on taking threes and long twos (other than in the corners), realize that he is not the primary scorer, and pass the damn ball to Randle, Grimes, or Brunson if he cannot immediately get to the rim on his drives. I don’t know how many times we have watched RJ draw two defenders and then he forces up a shot, when he easily could have passed out to Grimes or Brunson for an open 3. If he makes this simple change, his overall efficiency will improve greatly. Problem fixed.

Exactly.

It's damned if you do, damned if you don't. If RJ doesn't shoot and make his Js, the opposing defense doesn't bend and more pressure gets created for Randle and KB in the paint. But the same thing happens anyway if RJ does shoot and continues to miss. Playoff basketball is different and RJ won't continue to see those driving lanes going forward if he doesn't present a perimeter threat. The only available solutions I can see for now is extended use of the three-guard lineup or more Hart. Maybe have RJ as the initiator, but I'm iffy on his decision making.

EwingsGlass wrote:

joec32033 wrote:

EwingsGlass wrote:

joec32033 wrote:

EwingsGlass wrote:

Philc1 wrote:

EwingsGlass wrote:

Philc1 wrote:I remember Knicks fans being insanely negative about Ewing in the 90’s. If this messageboard existed back then Oh my God

https://www.basketball-reference.com/pla...

Career eFG of .505 from the 5 spot is only good when you look at the historic comparisons. Safe to say it was a different game back then. League eFG was .488. That midrange jumper was about a 32% shot. We don't really take those shots any more. Don't ask me about his finger roll percentage.

Oh my God again with the sabometrics nonsense. If eFG is as important as you RJ Haters keep swearing it is than Nic Claxton and Mason Plumlee are better than Steph Curry and Lebron. Jakob Poetl is now better than Kevin Durant

The ability to be efficient with volume is what makes superstars. And to continually adapt to the defenses as they try to stop efficient players. Or make them less efficient.

If you take the time to understand the information provided by these numbers and really look at the statements I am saying without blowing them out of proportion emotionally, you will see that my conclusions are far more limited than your exaggerations.

My conclusion is the Knicks should allocate more shots from RJ to IQ and QG. I’m comparing Knick wings. Your conclusion is that the numbers have no meaning because Jacob Poetl has a higher eFG than Steph Curry. Clearly you don’t understand the material.

But if the question is whether Ewings midrange jumper was a good shot, it may have been for the game of that era, but it would not be considered a good shot today.

It was a different game back then-I figured the stronger defense of old balanced out the lower percentage 3's of the modern day game-but I posted a while ago the eFG of top players current and past and RJ's number was not out of wack.

From the Fire Thibs thread. March 22.

2 different perspectives. I currently see Grimes as the weak link in the starting rotation (agree about Obi off the bench). Grimes and RJ offer 2 different skill sets, but I think the illusion of lost opportunity will always make Grimes look shinier (same principle as everyone loving the backup quarterback).

Grimes played great against c level competition in summer league (although he choked in the chamionship game), and played well in an exhibition where no one is playing defense. Me personally, I think Grimes is a very good player but I think the illusion of lost opportunity really gets people thinking he is better than he is. I have seen no signs against NBA competition that Grimes offensively can perform like RJ.

I know you like to use efg%, so I'll use that...

Barett (47.7) has a higher career efg% than

Sprewell (46.4)
Rip Hamilton (46.9)
Caron Butler (46.9)
Ron Harper (46.8)
Starks (47.6)
Horton Tucker (47.5)
Tracy McGrady (47)

And is in range of:
Houston (49.8)
Drexler (49.5)
Richmond (49.7)
Pierce (50)
Roy (49.2)
Anthony (48.5)
Wade (49.5)
Marion (50)
Butler (49.7)
Derozan (48.2)
Jason Richardson (50.2)
Wiggins (49)
Pippen (50.4)
Kukoc (49.2)
Majerle (50.5)
Glenn Robinson (48.5)
Mike Redd (50.3)
Larry Johnson (50.5)
Grant Hill (49.2)
Vince Carter (48.9)

Most stars seem to be at arouns the 49-51% mark (give or take), and guys that are fringe all stars seem to come in just below that (yes, I individually searched players-more than I listed- to get a sample size and I tried to keep to swing players. I probably looked at about 40 players-you'll just have to take my word for it)

Grimes is at 56.9 career.
AS a comparison, the only players that are up that high are a few superstars (Curry, Durant, Kawai, Klay) and specialized shooters or post players.
https://www.basketball-reference.com/leaders/efg_pct_career.html

~You can't run from who you are.~

I don’t think that analysis works though. I think you have to compare to the eFG of the current league, todays player keep an eFG about 40 points higher than the 90s teams. His efficiency is below average for todays game. This is because 1) he has a relatively average fg% from 2) He shoots below average from the ft line and 3 point line. We all see the potential and the #3 pick labeled him as a potential star. But he needs to work on that shot. You can’t argue that. It’s below average.

To be fair, I used this as a comparison when forced too. I hate this statistic. I think it is stupid. The guys with the highest ones are bigs who only shoot around the hoop (Deandre Jordan, Gobert, Mitch, Capella), so you need to figure out where to draw the line in the sand.

League average this year is 54.5.
https://www.statmuse.com/nba/ask?q=nba+l...

Average by position in 2023 is
PG 52.1
SG 53.3
SF 54
PF 55.5
C 60.5
https://www.statmuse.com/nba/ask?q=nba+l...

Again, you have to compare similar positions. And you have to recognize volume. But the concept is relatively simple, it’s roughly translatable to points per possession. Who scores the most points each time they touch the ball. It’s not intended to be looked at in a vacuum. It is not intended to ignore other valuable information. But if I am looking at players on this team and saying who on this team scores the most points when they touch the ball? It gives you that. We all know that most of Mitch Robinson’s points come from put backs. This results in an unusually high eFG. He’s not originating those points off the dribble. We do know that IQ, Grimes and Barrett are similarly situated. If I told you in 100 possessions, Grimes would score 120 points, Quickley 106 points and Barret 94 points, and that ignoring all other stats, the only thing I care about is out scoring the other teams, you would choose Grimes to take as many shots as possible.

Now, I think eFG works differently than that even. And this is where I think the best offensive coaches have it right. Guys like Kerr and Bud. If you dissect the court and your team and with a good data set can break down the court by individual eFG and rank those shots on your team, the team that is crafted to create the highest eFG shots will optimize its scoring potential.

Without double checking, off the top of my head.

1) Grimes corner 3
2) Robinson Paint
3) Randle Paint
4) Brunson 3-10
5) Toppin paint
6) IQ floater 3-10
7) Toppin top of key 3

Somewhere near the bottom will be Robinson from 3, Randle mid range jumper and every other shot from Barrett, specifically his 0-9 3s.

I just looked and Toppin had a higher PPP than both Grimes and Barrett and Randle.

I know how it works, I am just a fan of advanced stats especially when weighted values are put in (ie PPP, FT's are multiplied by .44 in the equation PPP=PTS/(FGA+0.44*FTA+TO) and it doesnt take I to account several factors. If I told you Barrett has the 3rd best Pts+Reb+Ast per game-a raw numbers stat, the knock would be it favors higher scoring player and doesn't take efficiency into account.

I think advanced stats can be helpful when it comes to game planning, but judging fan talk, not so much.

joec32033 wrote:

fishmike wrote:

joec32033 wrote:

Jmpasq wrote:

joec32033 wrote:

Jmpasq wrote:

joec32033 wrote:

ccch wrote:So in a way he is being "accountable".
I suspect this occurs during the upcoming series with Cavs.

Hope your right. I don't see us going anywhere the way he's been playing!

So the third option on your team dictates where they are going?

He shouldn't be the 3rd option. 3rd option should be Quickley

So you're saying the 4th option dictates where they are going?

Oh no, I want to trade him. He is a bad fit.

How exactly is he a bad fit?

poor defender. Poor passer. TO prone. Doesnt space the floor. Team looks better with him off the floor.

Of course there's those 20 games a year he hits his shots and looks good and its "he's only 22"

Why should he be the 3rd (IQ is better) option? Or the 4th or 5th (Grimes/JHart are better) option?

How about explaining the reverse? Lets pretend there is no RJ bias (love or hate). Lets pretend you know nothing about the Knicks. Can you explain why RJ takes the 3rd most shots yet he's the lowest EF% scorer in the rotation? Why does this happen?

On the current roster RJ has the best resume to assume that 3rd spot. IQ started coming on a few months into the season, Grimes started playing well a few months after that. Let's not forget RJ's injury where his bone popped through his finger. maybe that had an effect (you know like Grimes' ankle may have led to his slow start)..

RJ was an average to above average defender his first few seasons. He took the tough assignments and still increased his scoring average every year until now (where, despite being a 3rd option still averaged a shade under 20). I can't defend his inefficiency from 3 or with his jumper, but he has leaps and bounds improved his finishing around the rim (perhaps at the expense of his long range shot).

No bias, more often than not he comes through in the clutch. No bias I don't think he makes many more (if any, honestly) mistakes or turnovers than Grimes. IQ takes care of the ball better no doubt. For all the great and amazing games IQ has played this season he is still averaging 15 3 and 4. Despite all the love Grimes gets he is still currently averaging 11 3 and 2.

All the talk about efficiency, mentality has to play into this too. Until recently (very recently in Grimes case) IQ and Grimes didn't have the alpha mentality RJ had. And even then he is doing it playing a role where he isn't competing with guys like Randle and Brunson every night. Let's see how it pans out when Grimes has to do it along side the main guns. IQ can do it, he's proved it.

You want to talk like these guys have a better track record than RJ fine. You're wrong but fine. Pure numbers wise, RJ's poor season is twice as good Grimes' numbers wise, and is on par with Quickley. You can throw up advanced stats. Don't care. I already established in the "Grimes Time" thread where straight traditional stats were used to support Grimes and no one screamed for advanced anything.

RJ's weakness is his inefficiency. Grimes weakness is he isn't ready to be an alpha (yet, if ever). Quickley's weakness is he is sometimes to trigger happy and in game erratic.

The one whose numbers have been consistent as a whole is RJ.

But again. I'm sure I'm wrong. Efg% and defensive WAR and win shares say....blah, blah, blah...

I stopped responding to you because it was clear that you don't really have a good grasp at advanced stats, nothing more nothing less.

Just because people don't respond do you does not make your argument solid.

martin wrote:

joec32033 wrote:

fishmike wrote:

joec32033 wrote:

Jmpasq wrote:

joec32033 wrote:

Jmpasq wrote:

joec32033 wrote:

ccch wrote:So in a way he is being "accountable".
I suspect this occurs during the upcoming series with Cavs.

Hope your right. I don't see us going anywhere the way he's been playing!

So the third option on your team dictates where they are going?

He shouldn't be the 3rd option. 3rd option should be Quickley

So you're saying the 4th option dictates where they are going?

Oh no, I want to trade him. He is a bad fit.

How exactly is he a bad fit?

poor defender. Poor passer. TO prone. Doesnt space the floor. Team looks better with him off the floor.

Of course there's those 20 games a year he hits his shots and looks good and its "he's only 22"

Why should he be the 3rd (IQ is better) option? Or the 4th or 5th (Grimes/JHart are better) option?

How about explaining the reverse? Lets pretend there is no RJ bias (love or hate). Lets pretend you know nothing about the Knicks. Can you explain why RJ takes the 3rd most shots yet he's the lowest EF% scorer in the rotation? Why does this happen?

On the current roster RJ has the best resume to assume that 3rd spot. IQ started coming on a few months into the season, Grimes started playing well a few months after that. Let's not forget RJ's injury where his bone popped through his finger. maybe that had an effect (you know like Grimes' ankle may have led to his slow start)..

RJ was an average to above average defender his first few seasons. He took the tough assignments and still increased his scoring average every year until now (where, despite being a 3rd option still averaged a shade under 20). I can't defend his inefficiency from 3 or with his jumper, but he has leaps and bounds improved his finishing around the rim (perhaps at the expense of his long range shot).

No bias, more often than not he comes through in the clutch. No bias I don't think he makes many more (if any, honestly) mistakes or turnovers than Grimes. IQ takes care of the ball better no doubt. For all the great and amazing games IQ has played this season he is still averaging 15 3 and 4. Despite all the love Grimes gets he is still currently averaging 11 3 and 2.

All the talk about efficiency, mentality has to play into this too. Until recently (very recently in Grimes case) IQ and Grimes didn't have the alpha mentality RJ had. And even then he is doing it playing a role where he isn't competing with guys like Randle and Brunson every night. Let's see how it pans out when Grimes has to do it along side the main guns. IQ can do it, he's proved it.

You want to talk like these guys have a better track record than RJ fine. You're wrong but fine. Pure numbers wise, RJ's poor season is twice as good Grimes' numbers wise, and is on par with Quickley. You can throw up advanced stats. Don't care. I already established in the "Grimes Time" thread where straight traditional stats were used to support Grimes and no one screamed for advanced anything.

RJ's weakness is his inefficiency. Grimes weakness is he isn't ready to be an alpha (yet, if ever). Quickley's weakness is he is sometimes to trigger happy and in game erratic.

The one whose numbers have been consistent as a whole is RJ.

But again. I'm sure I'm wrong. Efg% and defensive WAR and win shares say....blah, blah, blah...

I stopped responding to you because it was clear that you don't really have a good grasp at advanced stats, nothing more nothing less.

Just because people don't respond do you does not make your argument solid.

I have already said I am not smart enough to use advanced stats. But I can google and see the equations that they use and have enough experience watching basketball to see the faults of using advanced stats specifically to judge players.

If you didn't get my joke throwing "defensive WAR" which I know isn't an advanced stats (but it does sound like it could be a good one).

Martin, this is directed specifically at you, for the sake of being totally clear (this is my posting equivalent of looking you directly in the eye). I have been around your board for the better part of 20 years or so. We have had our backs and forths. I also know how the process of a message board works. If you think you are going to talk down to me like an idiot with that last line you can fuck right the fuck off.

I've been here before your precious advanced stats. We used to be able to talk basketball without the constant need for advanced stats. I am aware of the evolution of advanced stats and their rise of the place in the game, but I choose (I said choose) to not be too up on them because I view them as gimmicky and ultra malleable as anyone can come up with an advanced stat to say anything.

Maybe look in the mirror and ask yourself if you have gotten to the point where you can't talk basketball or get your point across without using advanced stats, maybe it's not me who is losing their understanding of something.

You do what you got to do, brother.

joec32033 wrote:

martin wrote:

joec32033 wrote:

fishmike wrote:

joec32033 wrote:

Jmpasq wrote:

joec32033 wrote:

Jmpasq wrote:

joec32033 wrote:

ccch wrote:So in a way he is being "accountable".
I suspect this occurs during the upcoming series with Cavs.

Hope your right. I don't see us going anywhere the way he's been playing!

So the third option on your team dictates where they are going?

He shouldn't be the 3rd option. 3rd option should be Quickley

So you're saying the 4th option dictates where they are going?

Oh no, I want to trade him. He is a bad fit.

How exactly is he a bad fit?

poor defender. Poor passer. TO prone. Doesnt space the floor. Team looks better with him off the floor.

Of course there's those 20 games a year he hits his shots and looks good and its "he's only 22"

Why should he be the 3rd (IQ is better) option? Or the 4th or 5th (Grimes/JHart are better) option?

How about explaining the reverse? Lets pretend there is no RJ bias (love or hate). Lets pretend you know nothing about the Knicks. Can you explain why RJ takes the 3rd most shots yet he's the lowest EF% scorer in the rotation? Why does this happen?

On the current roster RJ has the best resume to assume that 3rd spot. IQ started coming on a few months into the season, Grimes started playing well a few months after that. Let's not forget RJ's injury where his bone popped through his finger. maybe that had an effect (you know like Grimes' ankle may have led to his slow start)..

RJ was an average to above average defender his first few seasons. He took the tough assignments and still increased his scoring average every year until now (where, despite being a 3rd option still averaged a shade under 20). I can't defend his inefficiency from 3 or with his jumper, but he has leaps and bounds improved his finishing around the rim (perhaps at the expense of his long range shot).

No bias, more often than not he comes through in the clutch. No bias I don't think he makes many more (if any, honestly) mistakes or turnovers than Grimes. IQ takes care of the ball better no doubt. For all the great and amazing games IQ has played this season he is still averaging 15 3 and 4. Despite all the love Grimes gets he is still currently averaging 11 3 and 2.

All the talk about efficiency, mentality has to play into this too. Until recently (very recently in Grimes case) IQ and Grimes didn't have the alpha mentality RJ had. And even then he is doing it playing a role where he isn't competing with guys like Randle and Brunson every night. Let's see how it pans out when Grimes has to do it along side the main guns. IQ can do it, he's proved it.

You want to talk like these guys have a better track record than RJ fine. You're wrong but fine. Pure numbers wise, RJ's poor season is twice as good Grimes' numbers wise, and is on par with Quickley. You can throw up advanced stats. Don't care. I already established in the "Grimes Time" thread where straight traditional stats were used to support Grimes and no one screamed for advanced anything.

RJ's weakness is his inefficiency. Grimes weakness is he isn't ready to be an alpha (yet, if ever). Quickley's weakness is he is sometimes to trigger happy and in game erratic.

The one whose numbers have been consistent as a whole is RJ.

But again. I'm sure I'm wrong. Efg% and defensive WAR and win shares say....blah, blah, blah...

I stopped responding to you because it was clear that you don't really have a good grasp at advanced stats, nothing more nothing less.

Just because people don't respond do you does not make your argument solid.

I have already said I am not smart enough to use advanced stats. But I can google and see the equations that they use and have enough experience watching basketball to see the faults of using advanced stats specifically to judge players.

If you didn't get my joke throwing "defensive WAR" which I know isn't an advanced stats (but it does sound like it could be a good one).

Martin, this is directed specifically at you, for the sake of being totally clear (this is my posting equivalent of looking you directly in the eye). I have been around your board for the better part of 20 years or so. We have had our backs and forths. I also know how the process of a message board works. If you think you are going to talk down to me like an idiot with that last line you can fuck right the fuck off.

I've been here before your precious advanced stats. We used to be able to talk basketball without the constant need for advanced stats. I am aware of the evolution of advanced stats and their rise of the place in the game, but I choose (I said choose) to not be too up on them because I view them as gimmicky and ultra malleable as anyone can come up with an advanced stat to say anything.

Maybe look in the mirror and ask yourself if you have gotten to the point where you can't talk basketball or get your point across without using advanced stats, maybe it's not me who is losing their understanding of something.

You do what you got to do, brother.

your arguments for RJ are opinions like how clutch he is, or how alpha is. Those are your opinions which you utterly fail to back with any science. On the flip side all the metrics and stats show RJ is at the bottom of our rotation in like every measurable metric. Poor defense. Poor shooting. Poor +/- Poor everything.

You love RJ regardless of how shitty he plays. Its lovely. I hope for your satisfaction and the Knicks success he had a great playoff run

fishmike wrote:

joec32033 wrote:

martin wrote:

joec32033 wrote:

fishmike wrote:

joec32033 wrote:

Jmpasq wrote:

joec32033 wrote:

Jmpasq wrote:

joec32033 wrote:

ccch wrote:So in a way he is being "accountable".
I suspect this occurs during the upcoming series with Cavs.

Hope your right. I don't see us going anywhere the way he's been playing!

So the third option on your team dictates where they are going?

He shouldn't be the 3rd option. 3rd option should be Quickley

So you're saying the 4th option dictates where they are going?

Oh no, I want to trade him. He is a bad fit.

How exactly is he a bad fit?

poor defender. Poor passer. TO prone. Doesnt space the floor. Team looks better with him off the floor.

Of course there's those 20 games a year he hits his shots and looks good and its "he's only 22"

Why should he be the 3rd (IQ is better) option? Or the 4th or 5th (Grimes/JHart are better) option?

How about explaining the reverse? Lets pretend there is no RJ bias (love or hate). Lets pretend you know nothing about the Knicks. Can you explain why RJ takes the 3rd most shots yet he's the lowest EF% scorer in the rotation? Why does this happen?

On the current roster RJ has the best resume to assume that 3rd spot. IQ started coming on a few months into the season, Grimes started playing well a few months after that. Let's not forget RJ's injury where his bone popped through his finger. maybe that had an effect (you know like Grimes' ankle may have led to his slow start)..

RJ was an average to above average defender his first few seasons. He took the tough assignments and still increased his scoring average every year until now (where, despite being a 3rd option still averaged a shade under 20). I can't defend his inefficiency from 3 or with his jumper, but he has leaps and bounds improved his finishing around the rim (perhaps at the expense of his long range shot).

No bias, more often than not he comes through in the clutch. No bias I don't think he makes many more (if any, honestly) mistakes or turnovers than Grimes. IQ takes care of the ball better no doubt. For all the great and amazing games IQ has played this season he is still averaging 15 3 and 4. Despite all the love Grimes gets he is still currently averaging 11 3 and 2.

All the talk about efficiency, mentality has to play into this too. Until recently (very recently in Grimes case) IQ and Grimes didn't have the alpha mentality RJ had. And even then he is doing it playing a role where he isn't competing with guys like Randle and Brunson every night. Let's see how it pans out when Grimes has to do it along side the main guns. IQ can do it, he's proved it.

You want to talk like these guys have a better track record than RJ fine. You're wrong but fine. Pure numbers wise, RJ's poor season is twice as good Grimes' numbers wise, and is on par with Quickley. You can throw up advanced stats. Don't care. I already established in the "Grimes Time" thread where straight traditional stats were used to support Grimes and no one screamed for advanced anything.

RJ's weakness is his inefficiency. Grimes weakness is he isn't ready to be an alpha (yet, if ever). Quickley's weakness is he is sometimes to trigger happy and in game erratic.

The one whose numbers have been consistent as a whole is RJ.

But again. I'm sure I'm wrong. Efg% and defensive WAR and win shares say....blah, blah, blah...

I stopped responding to you because it was clear that you don't really have a good grasp at advanced stats, nothing more nothing less.

Just because people don't respond do you does not make your argument solid.

I have already said I am not smart enough to use advanced stats. But I can google and see the equations that they use and have enough experience watching basketball to see the faults of using advanced stats specifically to judge players.

If you didn't get my joke throwing "defensive WAR" which I know isn't an advanced stats (but it does sound like it could be a good one).

Martin, this is directed specifically at you, for the sake of being totally clear (this is my posting equivalent of looking you directly in the eye). I have been around your board for the better part of 20 years or so. We have had our backs and forths. I also know how the process of a message board works. If you think you are going to talk down to me like an idiot with that last line you can fuck right the fuck off.

I've been here before your precious advanced stats. We used to be able to talk basketball without the constant need for advanced stats. I am aware of the evolution of advanced stats and their rise of the place in the game, but I choose (I said choose) to not be too up on them because I view them as gimmicky and ultra malleable as anyone can come up with an advanced stat to say anything.

Maybe look in the mirror and ask yourself if you have gotten to the point where you can't talk basketball or get your point across without using advanced stats, maybe it's not me who is losing their understanding of something.

You do what you got to do, brother.

your arguments for RJ are opinions like how clutch he is, or how alpha is. Those are your opinions which you utterly fail to back with any science. On the flip side all the metrics and stats show RJ is at the bottom of our rotation in like every measurable metric. Poor defense. Poor shooting. Poor +/- Poor everything.

You love RJ regardless of how shitty he plays. Its lovely. I hope for your satisfaction and the Knicks success he had a great playoff run

Averaging 19.6 isn't an opinion.
Saying he has come up clutch isn't an opinion.
Saying he has talent isn't an opinion.
Saying he is young at 22 isn't an opinion.
Saying he has room to grow but has improved in some areas while falling back in others isn't an opinion.
His down season was better than some players guys are pining for here isn't an opinion.
He improved his finishing as the season went on

My "love" for RJ extends as long as it does. There isn't anything wrong with that. Hope your guy doesn't have a down season next year, where your "love" is a problem for other posters.

Would you like me to tell you what else isn't opinion?

He had a down season,
He looked slow
His head seemed out of it at times
I never said they needed to keep him, I've always said he should only be traded for a real upgrade (not a marginal one)
He is a click inefficient (don't need efg to tell me that), but making an extra 2 shots a game turns those 12 for 28-42%- to 14 for 28-50%.

My stance on RJ is don't get rid of him because his problems are fixable and if they are fixed, he is going to be a problem.

I guess sometimes people just see what they want to see.

joec32033 wrote:

martin wrote:

joec32033 wrote:

fishmike wrote:

joec32033 wrote:

Jmpasq wrote:

joec32033 wrote:

Jmpasq wrote:

joec32033 wrote:

ccch wrote:So in a way he is being "accountable".
I suspect this occurs during the upcoming series with Cavs.

Hope your right. I don't see us going anywhere the way he's been playing!

So the third option on your team dictates where they are going?

He shouldn't be the 3rd option. 3rd option should be Quickley

So you're saying the 4th option dictates where they are going?

Oh no, I want to trade him. He is a bad fit.

How exactly is he a bad fit?

poor defender. Poor passer. TO prone. Doesnt space the floor. Team looks better with him off the floor.

Of course there's those 20 games a year he hits his shots and looks good and its "he's only 22"

Why should he be the 3rd (IQ is better) option? Or the 4th or 5th (Grimes/JHart are better) option?

How about explaining the reverse? Lets pretend there is no RJ bias (love or hate). Lets pretend you know nothing about the Knicks. Can you explain why RJ takes the 3rd most shots yet he's the lowest EF% scorer in the rotation? Why does this happen?

On the current roster RJ has the best resume to assume that 3rd spot. IQ started coming on a few months into the season, Grimes started playing well a few months after that. Let's not forget RJ's injury where his bone popped through his finger. maybe that had an effect (you know like Grimes' ankle may have led to his slow start)..

RJ was an average to above average defender his first few seasons. He took the tough assignments and still increased his scoring average every year until now (where, despite being a 3rd option still averaged a shade under 20). I can't defend his inefficiency from 3 or with his jumper, but he has leaps and bounds improved his finishing around the rim (perhaps at the expense of his long range shot).

No bias, more often than not he comes through in the clutch. No bias I don't think he makes many more (if any, honestly) mistakes or turnovers than Grimes. IQ takes care of the ball better no doubt. For all the great and amazing games IQ has played this season he is still averaging 15 3 and 4. Despite all the love Grimes gets he is still currently averaging 11 3 and 2.

All the talk about efficiency, mentality has to play into this too. Until recently (very recently in Grimes case) IQ and Grimes didn't have the alpha mentality RJ had. And even then he is doing it playing a role where he isn't competing with guys like Randle and Brunson every night. Let's see how it pans out when Grimes has to do it along side the main guns. IQ can do it, he's proved it.

You want to talk like these guys have a better track record than RJ fine. You're wrong but fine. Pure numbers wise, RJ's poor season is twice as good Grimes' numbers wise, and is on par with Quickley. You can throw up advanced stats. Don't care. I already established in the "Grimes Time" thread where straight traditional stats were used to support Grimes and no one screamed for advanced anything.

RJ's weakness is his inefficiency. Grimes weakness is he isn't ready to be an alpha (yet, if ever). Quickley's weakness is he is sometimes to trigger happy and in game erratic.

The one whose numbers have been consistent as a whole is RJ.

But again. I'm sure I'm wrong. Efg% and defensive WAR and win shares say....blah, blah, blah...

I stopped responding to you because it was clear that you don't really have a good grasp at advanced stats, nothing more nothing less.

Just because people don't respond do you does not make your argument solid.

I have already said I am not smart enough to use advanced stats. But I can google and see the equations that they use and have enough experience watching basketball to see the faults of using advanced stats specifically to judge players.

If you didn't get my joke throwing "defensive WAR" which I know isn't an advanced stats (but it does sound like it could be a good one).

Martin, this is directed specifically at you, for the sake of being totally clear (this is my posting equivalent of looking you directly in the eye). I have been around your board for the better part of 20 years or so. We have had our backs and forths. I also know how the process of a message board works. If you think you are going to talk down to me like an idiot with that last line you can fuck right the fuck off.

I've been here before your precious advanced stats. We used to be able to talk basketball without the constant need for advanced stats. I am aware of the evolution of advanced stats and their rise of the place in the game, but I choose (I said choose) to not be too up on them because I view them as gimmicky and ultra malleable as anyone can come up with an advanced stat to say anything.

Maybe look in the mirror and ask yourself if you have gotten to the point where you can't talk basketball or get your point across without using advanced stats, maybe it's not me who is losing their understanding of something.

You do what you got to do, brother.

You've kind of made it plain: "You can throw up advanced stats. Don't care."

What other response are you looking for? I am literally just saying what you are reiterating back to me. You don't have a grasp of Advanced Stats, which you are in agreement with, and I stopped responding. Plus, in that thread, you are kind of conflating 3 different points - and I definitely introduced some of the overlap between different threads TBH and prob confused you and the back and forth - and I didn't think it was worthwhile to engage past that.

You have an eye test. All of us do. There is not much after that if that is what you are heavily relying on.

I don't know why you have to say "No bias", cause that's literally what it is, your bias masked as your eye test.

TheGame wrote:We all see the issue. RJ is an above average player when it comes to driving to the basket. He can consistently get to the rim, and he has improved his efficiency at the rim (although he still misses too many layups but he is better than he was two years ago). His issue is that he cannot hit a jumpshot to save his life, and other than corner 3s, he is far below NBA average as a jump shooter at pretty much every other mid-range and long distance spot on the floor. The solution is RJ needs to stop taking jump shots. You say that is not easy do, and I say, why not? There are plenty of players who don’t take jumpshots and are effective. RJ just needs to pass on taking threes and long twos (other than in the corners), realize that he is not the primary scorer, and pass the damn ball to Randle, Grimes, or Brunson if he cannot immediately get to the rim on his drives. I don’t know how many times we have watched RJ draw two defenders and then he forces up a shot, when he easily could have passed out to Grimes or Brunson for an open 3. If he makes this simple change, his overall efficiency will improve greatly. Problem fixed.

I think this is true in 1 on 1 basketball but the team offense is set around spacing and RJ's role has shifted to include more kick out three opportunities since Brunson bumped him in the pecking order. So it is the right shot to take and he has to improve it for certain - but it's also pretty clear it's not playing to his strengths as he has never been a knock down shooter. He seems to play more effectively when he the one driving and kicking out (which he still does but maybe not as much as in previous years).

martin wrote:

joec32033 wrote:

martin wrote:

joec32033 wrote:

fishmike wrote:

joec32033 wrote:

Jmpasq wrote:

joec32033 wrote:

Jmpasq wrote:

joec32033 wrote:

ccch wrote:So in a way he is being "accountable".
I suspect this occurs during the upcoming series with Cavs.

Hope your right. I don't see us going anywhere the way he's been playing!

So the third option on your team dictates where they are going?

He shouldn't be the 3rd option. 3rd option should be Quickley

So you're saying the 4th option dictates where they are going?

Oh no, I want to trade him. He is a bad fit.

How exactly is he a bad fit?

poor defender. Poor passer. TO prone. Doesnt space the floor. Team looks better with him off the floor.

Of course there's those 20 games a year he hits his shots and looks good and its "he's only 22"

Why should he be the 3rd (IQ is better) option? Or the 4th or 5th (Grimes/JHart are better) option?

How about explaining the reverse? Lets pretend there is no RJ bias (love or hate). Lets pretend you know nothing about the Knicks. Can you explain why RJ takes the 3rd most shots yet he's the lowest EF% scorer in the rotation? Why does this happen?

On the current roster RJ has the best resume to assume that 3rd spot. IQ started coming on a few months into the season, Grimes started playing well a few months after that. Let's not forget RJ's injury where his bone popped through his finger. maybe that had an effect (you know like Grimes' ankle may have led to his slow start)..

RJ was an average to above average defender his first few seasons. He took the tough assignments and still increased his scoring average every year until now (where, despite being a 3rd option still averaged a shade under 20). I can't defend his inefficiency from 3 or with his jumper, but he has leaps and bounds improved his finishing around the rim (perhaps at the expense of his long range shot).

No bias, more often than not he comes through in the clutch. No bias I don't think he makes many more (if any, honestly) mistakes or turnovers than Grimes. IQ takes care of the ball better no doubt. For all the great and amazing games IQ has played this season he is still averaging 15 3 and 4. Despite all the love Grimes gets he is still currently averaging 11 3 and 2.

All the talk about efficiency, mentality has to play into this too. Until recently (very recently in Grimes case) IQ and Grimes didn't have the alpha mentality RJ had. And even then he is doing it playing a role where he isn't competing with guys like Randle and Brunson every night. Let's see how it pans out when Grimes has to do it along side the main guns. IQ can do it, he's proved it.

You want to talk like these guys have a better track record than RJ fine. You're wrong but fine. Pure numbers wise, RJ's poor season is twice as good Grimes' numbers wise, and is on par with Quickley. You can throw up advanced stats. Don't care. I already established in the "Grimes Time" thread where straight traditional stats were used to support Grimes and no one screamed for advanced anything.

RJ's weakness is his inefficiency. Grimes weakness is he isn't ready to be an alpha (yet, if ever). Quickley's weakness is he is sometimes to trigger happy and in game erratic.

The one whose numbers have been consistent as a whole is RJ.

But again. I'm sure I'm wrong. Efg% and defensive WAR and win shares say....blah, blah, blah...

I stopped responding to you because it was clear that you don't really have a good grasp at advanced stats, nothing more nothing less.

Just because people don't respond do you does not make your argument solid.

I have already said I am not smart enough to use advanced stats. But I can google and see the equations that they use and have enough experience watching basketball to see the faults of using advanced stats specifically to judge players.

If you didn't get my joke throwing "defensive WAR" which I know isn't an advanced stats (but it does sound like it could be a good one).

Martin, this is directed specifically at you, for the sake of being totally clear (this is my posting equivalent of looking you directly in the eye). I have been around your board for the better part of 20 years or so. We have had our backs and forths. I also know how the process of a message board works. If you think you are going to talk down to me like an idiot with that last line you can fuck right the fuck off.

I've been here before your precious advanced stats. We used to be able to talk basketball without the constant need for advanced stats. I am aware of the evolution of advanced stats and their rise of the place in the game, but I choose (I said choose) to not be too up on them because I view them as gimmicky and ultra malleable as anyone can come up with an advanced stat to say anything.

Maybe look in the mirror and ask yourself if you have gotten to the point where you can't talk basketball or get your point across without using advanced stats, maybe it's not me who is losing their understanding of something.

You do what you got to do, brother.

You've kind of made it plain: "You can throw up advanced stats. Don't care."

What other response are you looking for? I am literally just saying what you are reiterating back to me. You don't have a grasp of Advanced Stats, which you are in agreement with, and I stopped responding. Plus, in that thread, you are kind of conflating 3 different points and I didn't think it was worthwhile to engage past that.

You have an eye test. All of us do. There is not much after that if that is what you are heavily relying on.

I don't know why you have to say "No bias", cause that's literally what it is, your bias masked as your eye test.

I said "no bias" because Fish brought up not being biased in the origional post I quoted. And I said no bias....meaning no bias, it is my honest opinion.

fishmike wrote
poor defender. Poor passer. TO prone. Doesnt space the floor. Team looks better with him off the floor.

Of course there's those 20 games a year he hits his shots and looks good and its "he's only 22"

Why should he be the 3rd (IQ is better) option? Or the 4th or 5th (Grimes/JHart are better) option?

How about explaining the reverse? Lets pretend there is no RJ bias (love or hate). Lets pretend you know nothing about the Knicks. Can you explain why RJ takes the 3rd most shots yet he's the lowest EF% scorer in the rotation? Why does this happen?

Just because I have seen enough advanced stats-some that contradict each other-to feel that advanced stats are a good tool for comparison but not to say players are the same-it was in the RJ-Kobe thread. I have said before, they should never be the end all be all.

joec32033 wrote:

martin wrote:

joec32033 wrote:

martin wrote:

joec32033 wrote:

fishmike wrote:

joec32033 wrote:

Jmpasq wrote:

joec32033 wrote:

Jmpasq wrote:

joec32033 wrote:

ccch wrote:So in a way he is being "accountable".
I suspect this occurs during the upcoming series with Cavs.

Hope your right. I don't see us going anywhere the way he's been playing!

So the third option on your team dictates where they are going?

He shouldn't be the 3rd option. 3rd option should be Quickley

So you're saying the 4th option dictates where they are going?

Oh no, I want to trade him. He is a bad fit.

How exactly is he a bad fit?

poor defender. Poor passer. TO prone. Doesnt space the floor. Team looks better with him off the floor.

Of course there's those 20 games a year he hits his shots and looks good and its "he's only 22"

Why should he be the 3rd (IQ is better) option? Or the 4th or 5th (Grimes/JHart are better) option?

How about explaining the reverse? Lets pretend there is no RJ bias (love or hate). Lets pretend you know nothing about the Knicks. Can you explain why RJ takes the 3rd most shots yet he's the lowest EF% scorer in the rotation? Why does this happen?

On the current roster RJ has the best resume to assume that 3rd spot. IQ started coming on a few months into the season, Grimes started playing well a few months after that. Let's not forget RJ's injury where his bone popped through his finger. maybe that had an effect (you know like Grimes' ankle may have led to his slow start)..

RJ was an average to above average defender his first few seasons. He took the tough assignments and still increased his scoring average every year until now (where, despite being a 3rd option still averaged a shade under 20). I can't defend his inefficiency from 3 or with his jumper, but he has leaps and bounds improved his finishing around the rim (perhaps at the expense of his long range shot).

No bias, more often than not he comes through in the clutch. No bias I don't think he makes many more (if any, honestly) mistakes or turnovers than Grimes. IQ takes care of the ball better no doubt. For all the great and amazing games IQ has played this season he is still averaging 15 3 and 4. Despite all the love Grimes gets he is still currently averaging 11 3 and 2.

All the talk about efficiency, mentality has to play into this too. Until recently (very recently in Grimes case) IQ and Grimes didn't have the alpha mentality RJ had. And even then he is doing it playing a role where he isn't competing with guys like Randle and Brunson every night. Let's see how it pans out when Grimes has to do it along side the main guns. IQ can do it, he's proved it.

You want to talk like these guys have a better track record than RJ fine. You're wrong but fine. Pure numbers wise, RJ's poor season is twice as good Grimes' numbers wise, and is on par with Quickley. You can throw up advanced stats. Don't care. I already established in the "Grimes Time" thread where straight traditional stats were used to support Grimes and no one screamed for advanced anything.

RJ's weakness is his inefficiency. Grimes weakness is he isn't ready to be an alpha (yet, if ever). Quickley's weakness is he is sometimes to trigger happy and in game erratic.

The one whose numbers have been consistent as a whole is RJ.

But again. I'm sure I'm wrong. Efg% and defensive WAR and win shares say....blah, blah, blah...

I stopped responding to you because it was clear that you don't really have a good grasp at advanced stats, nothing more nothing less.

Just because people don't respond do you does not make your argument solid.

I have already said I am not smart enough to use advanced stats. But I can google and see the equations that they use and have enough experience watching basketball to see the faults of using advanced stats specifically to judge players.

If you didn't get my joke throwing "defensive WAR" which I know isn't an advanced stats (but it does sound like it could be a good one).

Martin, this is directed specifically at you, for the sake of being totally clear (this is my posting equivalent of looking you directly in the eye). I have been around your board for the better part of 20 years or so. We have had our backs and forths. I also know how the process of a message board works. If you think you are going to talk down to me like an idiot with that last line you can fuck right the fuck off.

I've been here before your precious advanced stats. We used to be able to talk basketball without the constant need for advanced stats. I am aware of the evolution of advanced stats and their rise of the place in the game, but I choose (I said choose) to not be too up on them because I view them as gimmicky and ultra malleable as anyone can come up with an advanced stat to say anything.

Maybe look in the mirror and ask yourself if you have gotten to the point where you can't talk basketball or get your point across without using advanced stats, maybe it's not me who is losing their understanding of something.

You do what you got to do, brother.

You've kind of made it plain: "You can throw up advanced stats. Don't care."

What other response are you looking for? I am literally just saying what you are reiterating back to me. You don't have a grasp of Advanced Stats, which you are in agreement with, and I stopped responding. Plus, in that thread, you are kind of conflating 3 different points and I didn't think it was worthwhile to engage past that.

You have an eye test. All of us do. There is not much after that if that is what you are heavily relying on.

I don't know why you have to say "No bias", cause that's literally what it is, your bias masked as your eye test.

I said "no bias" because Fish brought up not being biased in the origional post I quoted. And I said no bias....meaning no bias, it is my honest opinion.

fishmike wrote
poor defender. Poor passer. TO prone. Doesnt space the floor. Team looks better with him off the floor.

Of course there's those 20 games a year he hits his shots and looks good and its "he's only 22"

Why should he be the 3rd (IQ is better) option? Or the 4th or 5th (Grimes/JHart are better) option?

How about explaining the reverse? Lets pretend there is no RJ bias (love or hate). Lets pretend you know nothing about the Knicks. Can you explain why RJ takes the 3rd most shots yet he's the lowest EF% scorer in the rotation? Why does this happen?

Just because I have seen enough advanced stats-some that contradict each other-to feel that advanced stats are a good tool for comparison but not to say players are the same-it was in the RJ-Kobe thread. I have said before, they should never be the end all be all.

They aren't but they are a good starting point. But it's difficult if you also say, "You can throw up advanced stats. Don't care.". I get that maybe some of the stats are hard to interpret - I don't get RAPTOR or WAR but know enough that something like PER sucks. But you kinda went to an extreme?

For me, it's difficult to the point of almost useless to compare players from different eras while using baseline stats to compare them. Different rules (like hand checking) and completely different games (the 3 point spacing is a good example of that over the last 5+ years) enough so that spacing in this current form creates something totally different for a player like RJ than for Kobe or Jordan before him when going to the rim - in the 90's you just couldn't get to rim without a ton of hand-checking on top of the lack of spacing created by the deluge of 3point spacing in today's more modern game. In the 90's, when the paint was more packed, there is just no way RJ makes it there unabated in the way he does today.

At an extreme, we KNOW we can't compare eFG% of Mitch and Steph, right? It's just stupid. For me, comparing RJ FG% to Kobe may not be as egregious but they are enough apples and oranges that it's not worth the effort when you are doing an across the board comparison.

jskinny35 wrote:

TheGame wrote:We all see the issue. RJ is an above average player when it comes to driving to the basket. He can consistently get to the rim, and he has improved his efficiency at the rim (although he still misses too many layups but he is better than he was two years ago). His issue is that he cannot hit a jumpshot to save his life, and other than corner 3s, he is far below NBA average as a jump shooter at pretty much every other mid-range and long distance spot on the floor. The solution is RJ needs to stop taking jump shots. You say that is not easy do, and I say, why not? There are plenty of players who don’t take jumpshots and are effective. RJ just needs to pass on taking threes and long twos (other than in the corners), realize that he is not the primary scorer, and pass the damn ball to Randle, Grimes, or Brunson if he cannot immediately get to the rim on his drives. I don’t know how many times we have watched RJ draw two defenders and then he forces up a shot, when he easily could have passed out to Grimes or Brunson for an open 3. If he makes this simple change, his overall efficiency will improve greatly. Problem fixed.

I think this is true in 1 on 1 basketball but the team offense is set around spacing and RJ's role has shifted to include more kick out three opportunities since Brunson bumped him in the pecking order. So it is the right shot to take and he has to improve it for certain - but it's also pretty clear it's not playing to his strengths as he has never been a knock down shooter. He seems to play more effectively when he the one driving and kicking out (which he still does but maybe not as much as in previous years).

In situations where there are only 3-6 seconds in the clock, then yes, he has to shoot the shot the defense is giving. But if there are 7 or more seconds on the clock, if it is not an open corner 3, RJ should drive for a layup or drive and pass EVERY time. He should not take more than three 3 pt shots a game.

TheGame wrote:

jskinny35 wrote:

TheGame wrote:We all see the issue. RJ is an above average player when it comes to driving to the basket. He can consistently get to the rim, and he has improved his efficiency at the rim (although he still misses too many layups but he is better than he was two years ago). His issue is that he cannot hit a jumpshot to save his life, and other than corner 3s, he is far below NBA average as a jump shooter at pretty much every other mid-range and long distance spot on the floor. The solution is RJ needs to stop taking jump shots. You say that is not easy do, and I say, why not? There are plenty of players who don’t take jumpshots and are effective. RJ just needs to pass on taking threes and long twos (other than in the corners), realize that he is not the primary scorer, and pass the damn ball to Randle, Grimes, or Brunson if he cannot immediately get to the rim on his drives. I don’t know how many times we have watched RJ draw two defenders and then he forces up a shot, when he easily could have passed out to Grimes or Brunson for an open 3. If he makes this simple change, his overall efficiency will improve greatly. Problem fixed.

I think this is true in 1 on 1 basketball but the team offense is set around spacing and RJ's role has shifted to include more kick out three opportunities since Brunson bumped him in the pecking order. So it is the right shot to take and he has to improve it for certain - but it's also pretty clear it's not playing to his strengths as he has never been a knock down shooter. He seems to play more effectively when he the one driving and kicking out (which he still does but maybe not as much as in previous years).

In situations where there are only 3-6 seconds in the clock, then yes, he has to shoot the shot the defense is giving. But if there are 7 or more seconds on the clock, if it is not an open corner 3, RJ should drive for a layup or drive and pass EVERY time. He should not take more than three 3 pt shots a game.

Maybe he doesn't call switch with Grimes to be in the better position to get the dump pass when Brunson and Randle have to pass out of traffic. Maybe let Grimes get that pass.

martin wrote:

joec32033 wrote:

martin wrote:

joec32033 wrote:

martin wrote:

joec32033 wrote:

fishmike wrote:

joec32033 wrote:

Jmpasq wrote:

joec32033 wrote:

Jmpasq wrote:

joec32033 wrote:

ccch wrote:So in a way he is being "accountable".
I suspect this occurs during the upcoming series with Cavs.

Hope your right. I don't see us going anywhere the way he's been playing!

So the third option on your team dictates where they are going?

He shouldn't be the 3rd option. 3rd option should be Quickley

So you're saying the 4th option dictates where they are going?

Oh no, I want to trade him. He is a bad fit.

How exactly is he a bad fit?

poor defender. Poor passer. TO prone. Doesnt space the floor. Team looks better with him off the floor.

Of course there's those 20 games a year he hits his shots and looks good and its "he's only 22"

Why should he be the 3rd (IQ is better) option? Or the 4th or 5th (Grimes/JHart are better) option?

How about explaining the reverse? Lets pretend there is no RJ bias (love or hate). Lets pretend you know nothing about the Knicks. Can you explain why RJ takes the 3rd most shots yet he's the lowest EF% scorer in the rotation? Why does this happen?

On the current roster RJ has the best resume to assume that 3rd spot. IQ started coming on a few months into the season, Grimes started playing well a few months after that. Let's not forget RJ's injury where his bone popped through his finger. maybe that had an effect (you know like Grimes' ankle may have led to his slow start)..

RJ was an average to above average defender his first few seasons. He took the tough assignments and still increased his scoring average every year until now (where, despite being a 3rd option still averaged a shade under 20). I can't defend his inefficiency from 3 or with his jumper, but he has leaps and bounds improved his finishing around the rim (perhaps at the expense of his long range shot).

No bias, more often than not he comes through in the clutch. No bias I don't think he makes many more (if any, honestly) mistakes or turnovers than Grimes. IQ takes care of the ball better no doubt. For all the great and amazing games IQ has played this season he is still averaging 15 3 and 4. Despite all the love Grimes gets he is still currently averaging 11 3 and 2.

All the talk about efficiency, mentality has to play into this too. Until recently (very recently in Grimes case) IQ and Grimes didn't have the alpha mentality RJ had. And even then he is doing it playing a role where he isn't competing with guys like Randle and Brunson every night. Let's see how it pans out when Grimes has to do it along side the main guns. IQ can do it, he's proved it.

You want to talk like these guys have a better track record than RJ fine. You're wrong but fine. Pure numbers wise, RJ's poor season is twice as good Grimes' numbers wise, and is on par with Quickley. You can throw up advanced stats. Don't care. I already established in the "Grimes Time" thread where straight traditional stats were used to support Grimes and no one screamed for advanced anything.

RJ's weakness is his inefficiency. Grimes weakness is he isn't ready to be an alpha (yet, if ever). Quickley's weakness is he is sometimes to trigger happy and in game erratic.

The one whose numbers have been consistent as a whole is RJ.

But again. I'm sure I'm wrong. Efg% and defensive WAR and win shares say....blah, blah, blah...

I stopped responding to you because it was clear that you don't really have a good grasp at advanced stats, nothing more nothing less.

Just because people don't respond do you does not make your argument solid.

I have already said I am not smart enough to use advanced stats. But I can google and see the equations that they use and have enough experience watching basketball to see the faults of using advanced stats specifically to judge players.

If you didn't get my joke throwing "defensive WAR" which I know isn't an advanced stats (but it does sound like it could be a good one).

Martin, this is directed specifically at you, for the sake of being totally clear (this is my posting equivalent of looking you directly in the eye). I have been around your board for the better part of 20 years or so. We have had our backs and forths. I also know how the process of a message board works. If you think you are going to talk down to me like an idiot with that last line you can fuck right the fuck off.

I've been here before your precious advanced stats. We used to be able to talk basketball without the constant need for advanced stats. I am aware of the evolution of advanced stats and their rise of the place in the game, but I choose (I said choose) to not be too up on them because I view them as gimmicky and ultra malleable as anyone can come up with an advanced stat to say anything.

Maybe look in the mirror and ask yourself if you have gotten to the point where you can't talk basketball or get your point across without using advanced stats, maybe it's not me who is losing their understanding of something.

You do what you got to do, brother.

You've kind of made it plain: "You can throw up advanced stats. Don't care."

What other response are you looking for? I am literally just saying what you are reiterating back to me. You don't have a grasp of Advanced Stats, which you are in agreement with, and I stopped responding. Plus, in that thread, you are kind of conflating 3 different points and I didn't think it was worthwhile to engage past that.

You have an eye test. All of us do. There is not much after that if that is what you are heavily relying on.

I don't know why you have to say "No bias", cause that's literally what it is, your bias masked as your eye test.

I said "no bias" because Fish brought up not being biased in the origional post I quoted. And I said no bias....meaning no bias, it is my honest opinion.

fishmike wrote
poor defender. Poor passer. TO prone. Doesnt space the floor. Team looks better with him off the floor.

Of course there's those 20 games a year he hits his shots and looks good and its "he's only 22"

Why should he be the 3rd (IQ is better) option? Or the 4th or 5th (Grimes/JHart are better) option?

How about explaining the reverse? Lets pretend there is no RJ bias (love or hate). Lets pretend you know nothing about the Knicks. Can you explain why RJ takes the 3rd most shots yet he's the lowest EF% scorer in the rotation? Why does this happen?

Just because I have seen enough advanced stats-some that contradict each other-to feel that advanced stats are a good tool for comparison but not to say players are the same-it was in the RJ-Kobe thread. I have said before, they should never be the end all be all.

They aren't but they are a good starting point. But it's difficult if you also say, "You can throw up advanced stats. Don't care.". I get that maybe some of the stats are hard to interpret - I don't get RAPTOR or WAR but know enough that something like PER sucks. But you kinda went to an extreme?

For me, it's difficult to the point of almost useless to compare players from different eras while using baseline stats to compare them. Different rules (like hand checking) and completely different games (the 3 point spacing is a good example of that over the last 5+ years) enough so that spacing in this current form creates something totally different for a player like RJ than for Kobe or Jordan before him when going to the rim - in the 90's you just couldn't get to rim without a ton of hand-checking on top of the lack of spacing created by the deluge of 3point spacing in today's more modern game. In the 90's, when the paint was more packed, there is just no way RJ makes it there unabated in the way he does today.

At an extreme, we KNOW we can't compare eFG% of Mitch and Steph, right? It's just stupid. For me, comparing RJ FG% to Kobe may not be as egregious but they are enough apples and oranges that it's not worth the effort when you are doing an across the board comparison.

I agree with almost everything you said.

The reason I came so hard on not caring about the advanced stats is, at least in almost every argument I've made about RJ, is " but advanced stat x says..."

I said it before advanced stats are better for game planning then they are for player x is better than player y. But that is all that is being used now. I remember when I posted my cross era comparison, RJ had a efg of 47. Grimes had one of like 55. Jskinny said it a couple posts up. About RJ not adjusting well. Looking at the stats RJ attempted .5 less 3 pt attempts this year compared to last. And he made .3 less per game. That resulted in the drop from 34% to 31%. Putting aside that I feel that is eminently fixable, I can draw, imo, better conclusions from that than any advanced stat.

When I made that post I figured the tougher defense on the easier shots offset the wild dependence of the lower percentage shot of the modern game. No, it's not perfect, but that was my reasoning.

Advanced stats can be a good starting point as you said (depending on where you want to start, mind you) but no matter what there othe so many other factors that I think each individual advanced stat kind of has a limited spectrum of usefulness

joec32033 wrote:I agree with almost everything you said.

The reason I came so hard on not caring about the advanced stats is, at least in almost every argument I've made about RJ, is " but advanced stat x says..."

I said it before advanced stats are better for game planning then they are for player x is better than player y. But that is all that is being used now. I remember when I posted my cross era comparison, RJ had a efg of 47. Grimes had one of like 55. Jskinny said it a couple posts up. About RJ not adjusting well. Looking at the stats RJ attempted .5 less 3 pt attempts this year compared to last. And he made .3 less per game. That resulted in the drop from 34% to 31%. Putting aside that I feel that is eminently fixable, I can draw, imo, better conclusions from that than any advanced stat.

When I made that post I figured the tougher defense on the easier shots offset the wild dependence of the lower percentage shot of the modern game. No, it's not perfect, but that was my reasoning.

Advanced stats can be a good starting point as you said (depending on where you want to start, mind you) but no matter what there othe so many other factors that I think each individual advanced stat kind of has a limited spectrum of usefulness

I don't get the planning part. For me, advanced stats give us a better or deeper understanding of what the player is doing and then a better way to compare those two players, not player X is better than player Y. It's a nuance but it's the comparison part that is usually more important.

So, instead of just FG%, we know that eFG% is better when considering shooters in the modern game. It's not the whole story but it gets us to a better understanding of the story, and then you can compare.

I don't really understand your JSkinny scenario and how you are using stats in that instance; it doesn't make sense to me.

joec32033 wrote:

fishmike wrote:

joec32033 wrote:

martin wrote:

joec32033 wrote:

fishmike wrote:

joec32033 wrote:

Jmpasq wrote:

joec32033 wrote:

Jmpasq wrote:

joec32033 wrote:

ccch wrote:So in a way he is being "accountable".
I suspect this occurs during the upcoming series with Cavs.

Hope your right. I don't see us going anywhere the way he's been playing!

So the third option on your team dictates where they are going?

He shouldn't be the 3rd option. 3rd option should be Quickley

So you're saying the 4th option dictates where they are going?

Oh no, I want to trade him. He is a bad fit.

How exactly is he a bad fit?

poor defender. Poor passer. TO prone. Doesnt space the floor. Team looks better with him off the floor.

Of course there's those 20 games a year he hits his shots and looks good and its "he's only 22"

Why should he be the 3rd (IQ is better) option? Or the 4th or 5th (Grimes/JHart are better) option?

How about explaining the reverse? Lets pretend there is no RJ bias (love or hate). Lets pretend you know nothing about the Knicks. Can you explain why RJ takes the 3rd most shots yet he's the lowest EF% scorer in the rotation? Why does this happen?

On the current roster RJ has the best resume to assume that 3rd spot. IQ started coming on a few months into the season, Grimes started playing well a few months after that. Let's not forget RJ's injury where his bone popped through his finger. maybe that had an effect (you know like Grimes' ankle may have led to his slow start)..

RJ was an average to above average defender his first few seasons. He took the tough assignments and still increased his scoring average every year until now (where, despite being a 3rd option still averaged a shade under 20). I can't defend his inefficiency from 3 or with his jumper, but he has leaps and bounds improved his finishing around the rim (perhaps at the expense of his long range shot).

No bias, more often than not he comes through in the clutch. No bias I don't think he makes many more (if any, honestly) mistakes or turnovers than Grimes. IQ takes care of the ball better no doubt. For all the great and amazing games IQ has played this season he is still averaging 15 3 and 4. Despite all the love Grimes gets he is still currently averaging 11 3 and 2.

All the talk about efficiency, mentality has to play into this too. Until recently (very recently in Grimes case) IQ and Grimes didn't have the alpha mentality RJ had. And even then he is doing it playing a role where he isn't competing with guys like Randle and Brunson every night. Let's see how it pans out when Grimes has to do it along side the main guns. IQ can do it, he's proved it.

You want to talk like these guys have a better track record than RJ fine. You're wrong but fine. Pure numbers wise, RJ's poor season is twice as good Grimes' numbers wise, and is on par with Quickley. You can throw up advanced stats. Don't care. I already established in the "Grimes Time" thread where straight traditional stats were used to support Grimes and no one screamed for advanced anything.

RJ's weakness is his inefficiency. Grimes weakness is he isn't ready to be an alpha (yet, if ever). Quickley's weakness is he is sometimes to trigger happy and in game erratic.

The one whose numbers have been consistent as a whole is RJ.

But again. I'm sure I'm wrong. Efg% and defensive WAR and win shares say....blah, blah, blah...

I stopped responding to you because it was clear that you don't really have a good grasp at advanced stats, nothing more nothing less.

Just because people don't respond do you does not make your argument solid.

I have already said I am not smart enough to use advanced stats. But I can google and see the equations that they use and have enough experience watching basketball to see the faults of using advanced stats specifically to judge players.

If you didn't get my joke throwing "defensive WAR" which I know isn't an advanced stats (but it does sound like it could be a good one).

Martin, this is directed specifically at you, for the sake of being totally clear (this is my posting equivalent of looking you directly in the eye). I have been around your board for the better part of 20 years or so. We have had our backs and forths. I also know how the process of a message board works. If you think you are going to talk down to me like an idiot with that last line you can fuck right the fuck off.

I've been here before your precious advanced stats. We used to be able to talk basketball without the constant need for advanced stats. I am aware of the evolution of advanced stats and their rise of the place in the game, but I choose (I said choose) to not be too up on them because I view them as gimmicky and ultra malleable as anyone can come up with an advanced stat to say anything.

Maybe look in the mirror and ask yourself if you have gotten to the point where you can't talk basketball or get your point across without using advanced stats, maybe it's not me who is losing their understanding of something.

You do what you got to do, brother.

your arguments for RJ are opinions like how clutch he is, or how alpha is. Those are your opinions which you utterly fail to back with any science. On the flip side all the metrics and stats show RJ is at the bottom of our rotation in like every measurable metric. Poor defense. Poor shooting. Poor +/- Poor everything.

You love RJ regardless of how shitty he plays. Its lovely. I hope for your satisfaction and the Knicks success he had a great playoff run

Averaging 19.6 isn't an opinion.
Saying he has come up clutch isn't an opinion.
Saying he has talent isn't an opinion.
Saying he is young at 22 isn't an opinion.
Saying he has room to grow but has improved in some areas while falling back in others isn't an opinion.
His down season was better than some players guys are pining for here isn't an opinion.
He improved his finishing as the season went on

My "love" for RJ extends as long as it does. There isn't anything wrong with that. Hope your guy doesn't have a down season next year, where your "love" is a problem for other posters.

Would you like me to tell you what else isn't opinion?

He had a down season,
He looked slow
His head seemed out of it at times
I never said they needed to keep him, I've always said he should only be traded for a real upgrade (not a marginal one)
He is a click inefficient (don't need efg to tell me that), but making an extra 2 shots a game turns those 12 for 28-42%- to 14 for 28-50%.

My stance on RJ is don't get rid of him because his problems are fixable and if they are fixed, he is going to be a problem.

I guess sometimes people just see what they want to see.

I love that you think poor defense, poor shooting, sketchy handle and the same results after 4 years are fixable simply because of his age. Everyone is still waiting for the RJ who played so well in the 2nd half of his sophomore season to show up again. Instead what we have is a guy who's seeing his minutes dwindle to IQ and Josh Hart which is fine.

I would love to be wrong on him. He's hit like 3 big shots in 4 years and you think he's clutch. 100% your opinion. 19ppg is what he's averaging. Thinking that's a positive is your opinion. Right now we are winning in spite of him. I'm obviously more a Knick fan than an RJ fan. At this point RJ needs to prove he's foundational piece and he's losing that battle.

https://www.nba.com/stats/players/clutch...
RJ is shooting 35% in the clutch and 17% from 3... its just my opinion but that's not good

joec32033 wrote:

martin wrote:

joec32033 wrote:

martin wrote:

joec32033 wrote:

martin wrote:

joec32033 wrote:

fishmike wrote:

joec32033 wrote:

Jmpasq wrote:

joec32033 wrote:

Jmpasq wrote:

joec32033 wrote:

ccch wrote:So in a way he is being "accountable".
I suspect this occurs during the upcoming series with Cavs.

Hope your right. I don't see us going anywhere the way he's been playing!

So the third option on your team dictates where they are going?

He shouldn't be the 3rd option. 3rd option should be Quickley

So you're saying the 4th option dictates where they are going?

Oh no, I want to trade him. He is a bad fit.

How exactly is he a bad fit?

poor defender. Poor passer. TO prone. Doesnt space the floor. Team looks better with him off the floor.

Of course there's those 20 games a year he hits his shots and looks good and its "he's only 22"

Why should he be the 3rd (IQ is better) option? Or the 4th or 5th (Grimes/JHart are better) option?

How about explaining the reverse? Lets pretend there is no RJ bias (love or hate). Lets pretend you know nothing about the Knicks. Can you explain why RJ takes the 3rd most shots yet he's the lowest EF% scorer in the rotation? Why does this happen?

On the current roster RJ has the best resume to assume that 3rd spot. IQ started coming on a few months into the season, Grimes started playing well a few months after that. Let's not forget RJ's injury where his bone popped through his finger. maybe that had an effect (you know like Grimes' ankle may have led to his slow start)..

RJ was an average to above average defender his first few seasons. He took the tough assignments and still increased his scoring average every year until now (where, despite being a 3rd option still averaged a shade under 20). I can't defend his inefficiency from 3 or with his jumper, but he has leaps and bounds improved his finishing around the rim (perhaps at the expense of his long range shot).

No bias, more often than not he comes through in the clutch. No bias I don't think he makes many more (if any, honestly) mistakes or turnovers than Grimes. IQ takes care of the ball better no doubt. For all the great and amazing games IQ has played this season he is still averaging 15 3 and 4. Despite all the love Grimes gets he is still currently averaging 11 3 and 2.

All the talk about efficiency, mentality has to play into this too. Until recently (very recently in Grimes case) IQ and Grimes didn't have the alpha mentality RJ had. And even then he is doing it playing a role where he isn't competing with guys like Randle and Brunson every night. Let's see how it pans out when Grimes has to do it along side the main guns. IQ can do it, he's proved it.

You want to talk like these guys have a better track record than RJ fine. You're wrong but fine. Pure numbers wise, RJ's poor season is twice as good Grimes' numbers wise, and is on par with Quickley. You can throw up advanced stats. Don't care. I already established in the "Grimes Time" thread where straight traditional stats were used to support Grimes and no one screamed for advanced anything.

RJ's weakness is his inefficiency. Grimes weakness is he isn't ready to be an alpha (yet, if ever). Quickley's weakness is he is sometimes to trigger happy and in game erratic.

The one whose numbers have been consistent as a whole is RJ.

But again. I'm sure I'm wrong. Efg% and defensive WAR and win shares say....blah, blah, blah...

I stopped responding to you because it was clear that you don't really have a good grasp at advanced stats, nothing more nothing less.

Just because people don't respond do you does not make your argument solid.

I have already said I am not smart enough to use advanced stats. But I can google and see the equations that they use and have enough experience watching basketball to see the faults of using advanced stats specifically to judge players.

If you didn't get my joke throwing "defensive WAR" which I know isn't an advanced stats (but it does sound like it could be a good one).

Martin, this is directed specifically at you, for the sake of being totally clear (this is my posting equivalent of looking you directly in the eye). I have been around your board for the better part of 20 years or so. We have had our backs and forths. I also know how the process of a message board works. If you think you are going to talk down to me like an idiot with that last line you can fuck right the fuck off.

I've been here before your precious advanced stats. We used to be able to talk basketball without the constant need for advanced stats. I am aware of the evolution of advanced stats and their rise of the place in the game, but I choose (I said choose) to not be too up on them because I view them as gimmicky and ultra malleable as anyone can come up with an advanced stat to say anything.

Maybe look in the mirror and ask yourself if you have gotten to the point where you can't talk basketball or get your point across without using advanced stats, maybe it's not me who is losing their understanding of something.

You do what you got to do, brother.

You've kind of made it plain: "You can throw up advanced stats. Don't care."

What other response are you looking for? I am literally just saying what you are reiterating back to me. You don't have a grasp of Advanced Stats, which you are in agreement with, and I stopped responding. Plus, in that thread, you are kind of conflating 3 different points and I didn't think it was worthwhile to engage past that.

You have an eye test. All of us do. There is not much after that if that is what you are heavily relying on.

I don't know why you have to say "No bias", cause that's literally what it is, your bias masked as your eye test.

I said "no bias" because Fish brought up not being biased in the origional post I quoted. And I said no bias....meaning no bias, it is my honest opinion.

fishmike wrote
poor defender. Poor passer. TO prone. Doesnt space the floor. Team looks better with him off the floor.

Of course there's those 20 games a year he hits his shots and looks good and its "he's only 22"

Why should he be the 3rd (IQ is better) option? Or the 4th or 5th (Grimes/JHart are better) option?

How about explaining the reverse? Lets pretend there is no RJ bias (love or hate). Lets pretend you know nothing about the Knicks. Can you explain why RJ takes the 3rd most shots yet he's the lowest EF% scorer in the rotation? Why does this happen?

Just because I have seen enough advanced stats-some that contradict each other-to feel that advanced stats are a good tool for comparison but not to say players are the same-it was in the RJ-Kobe thread. I have said before, they should never be the end all be all.

They aren't but they are a good starting point. But it's difficult if you also say, "You can throw up advanced stats. Don't care.". I get that maybe some of the stats are hard to interpret - I don't get RAPTOR or WAR but know enough that something like PER sucks. But you kinda went to an extreme?

For me, it's difficult to the point of almost useless to compare players from different eras while using baseline stats to compare them. Different rules (like hand checking) and completely different games (the 3 point spacing is a good example of that over the last 5+ years) enough so that spacing in this current form creates something totally different for a player like RJ than for Kobe or Jordan before him when going to the rim - in the 90's you just couldn't get to rim without a ton of hand-checking on top of the lack of spacing created by the deluge of 3point spacing in today's more modern game. In the 90's, when the paint was more packed, there is just no way RJ makes it there unabated in the way he does today.

At an extreme, we KNOW we can't compare eFG% of Mitch and Steph, right? It's just stupid. For me, comparing RJ FG% to Kobe may not be as egregious but they are enough apples and oranges that it's not worth the effort when you are doing an across the board comparison.

I agree with almost everything you said.

The reason I came so hard on not caring about the advanced stats is, at least in almost every argument I've made about RJ, is " but advanced stat x says..."

I said it before advanced stats are better for game planning then they are for player x is better than player y. But that is all that is being used now. I remember when I posted my cross era comparison, RJ had a efg of 47. Grimes had one of like 55. Jskinny said it a couple posts up. About RJ not adjusting well. Looking at the stats RJ attempted .5 less 3 pt attempts this year compared to last. And he made .3 less per game. That resulted in the drop from 34% to 31%. Putting aside that I feel that is eminently fixable, I can draw, imo, better conclusions from that than any advanced stat.

When I made that post I figured the tougher defense on the easier shots offset the wild dependence of the lower percentage shot of the modern game. No, it's not perfect, but that was my reasoning.

Advanced stats can be a good starting point as you said (depending on where you want to start, mind you) but no matter what there othe so many other factors that I think each individual advanced stat kind of has a limited spectrum of usefulness

Classic "Moneyball" vs "Trouble With the Curve" argument. "Moneyball" focuses on the role of data and statistics in modern baseball, while "Trouble with the Curve" explores the importance of experience and human judgment in evaluating talent. There is validity to your point, but now that we are focused on advanced metrics, I don't think you can take one without the other. I don't think there is a substitute for boots on the ground, but advanced metrics help avoid emotional biases by quantifying results and giving them ascertainable meaning.

Stats are tricky because they are painful when used incorrectly. "Bob is a great person. He's only killed one human being. That's 1 out of 7 billion. That's a really low percentage of all people." "Bob is horrible. He killed over 10,000 living beings last summer." Not a big deal if Bob works for a mosquito exterminator, but pretty horrifying if he is committing genocide. How we frame the stats can create odd outcomes if we don't give them meaning through proper comparison and identification. Advanced stats give the other volume stats more meaning because they otherwise don't have context.

We can say "Bob is a great salesman. He broke the all-time used car sales record for the Company" which objectively sounds fantastic until we learn "Bob's net profit margin on those sales was negative. He sold cars at a loss because he realized he didn't have to charge for upgrades in sales system". Bob isn't objectively a good salesperson if he isn't profitable on those sales. Adding a net profit component to a volume sales record gives real meaning.

RJ is a volume scorer. But he isn't getting those points efficiently. Adding eFG to the analysis of his scoring totals is like adding Net Profit to analysis of Bob's sales performance. RJ sells a lot of cars, but he's not profitable. Grimes sells less cars, but man, he is profitable when he does. Its possible Grimes is getting wide open shots while RJ is consistently double and triple teamed. Need boots on the ground to see the differences there. But objectively and unemotionally, Barrett's efficiency is below average.

What I'm having trouble understanding is how all the armchair Knicks fan GMs/Coaches reconcile the Barrett ineptitude against Thibs playing him (still) almost 30 minutes per game. After all, why wouldn't Thibs also have to be inept to give a player such a significant role when he is his 8th offensive option (as one poster ranked RJ) and also a shitty ass defender who's been also labeled as "poor at everything"?

Regarding RJ, he can be extremely frustrating to watch at times. For me it really comes down to his inability to hit hit the open 3 in rhythm and/or some of his bad looking turnovers. My thoughts on his 3 point shooting is that the issue is between his ears as he was able to shoot at a .400 clip 2 years ago. Turnovers are a concern but have been helped a bit by him getting more calls from the refs when he attacks the rim. He has a propensity to get hacked and on the past not get the benefit of calls.

A few comments on advanced stats....

Basketball is a frenetic system with a significant amount of co-dependencies which impact individual success or failure. Examples .... a teammates pass made timed appropriately, in rhythm and on target will increase chance of shot execution of the recieving player. A proper box out by a teammate may lead to a defensive rebound by different player. A properly executed pick increases another players drive or open look. A missed defensive rotation might mean a teammate gets scored on. An opponent defender misses an assignment. An opponent makes a shot even when defended well.

That all being said, beyond FT% I'm not sure I'm smart enough to cherry pick which advanced stats are a function of pure individual performance and which are a function of how well oiled 5 players are in a system against continually variable sets of 5 other players who may or may not be as effective. I'm not seen any discussion here that addresses these continual statistical variations on individual player performance metrics.