Knicks · DeJounte Murray vs MIA in playoffs - 23/7/7 with 2 steals per game and only 2 TO's in 38mpg on 45/38/100 shooting. (page 9)
DLeethal wrote:GustavBahler wrote:DLeethal wrote:TheMTL wrote:GustavBahler wrote:DDV is a legit starter, one of the best 3pt shooters in the league. Does all the things Grimes didnt do as a starter. Just has to shoot better at home, which is about nerves more than anything IMO. The more time he spends at MSG, the better his numbers should get.Murray would fix most of our problems with the second unit. Have a bad feeling that starting him would lead to one big clusterfunk. Murray off the bench would balance things nicely.
DDV is not a legit NBA starter on a championship caliber team. Even on the Knicks, he barely closes games and averages mpg similar to bench guys.
DDV was brought here to be our sixth man as insurance for IQ.
DDV quite literally was a starter on a championship team - the 2021 Bucks. That said, I think the starters need a little more firepower to be championship level. As good a fit as DDV and OG are, we don't have enough top-end star power with just Brunson and Randle. Adding another fringe all star guy is probably needed.
Good point about DDV's resume.
Im not so sure we need more scoring from the starters. Its usually the Brunson/Randle show to start the game. OG and DDV are there for the open 3s. JB and Randle attack the rim. After a few minutes, (hopefully IQ's replacement) would sub in, and give the lineup a boost. Who has the hotter hand that night would determine who finishes.
I'm guessing that starting Murray would have the same effect we watched with RJ in the starting lineup. Too many ball dominant players.
I think the question we need to ask ourselves is - can a Brunson/Randle led starting unit with a championship without more firepower? I personally don't think so. And to me, that means we do need to add more talent to the starters even if it means we sacrifice a little bit of the pretty ball movement we get with DDV in there.
The difference between now, and prior with RJ is that we have an elite 3&D wing in OG now. The offense has always been fine Brunson/RJ/Randle despite poor shooting. The defense was more of the problem. Brunson/Murray/Randle would bring with it a more dangerous offense / unit and the defense would be top tier.
Disagree. RJ was moved because there were 3 ball dominant players, not enough ball movement. Too much ISO ball. If it was a good fit offensively, RJ would still be a Knick.
We would likely see the same thing with Murray in the starting lineup. Randle is one of the best 1st quarter scorers in the league. OG and DDV play well off the ball, and also know when to chip in.
We arent getting run out of the gym to start the game. The problem is that we dont have the bench scoring, now that IQ is gone. The FO can eiher add another scorer for the starting lineup, or the bench where there is the real scoring deficit.
Big threes are good when one of the big three isnt dominating the ball. Like Ray Allen in Boston's big 3, or Chris Bosh, with Miami's big 3. They didnt need the ball to be effective. Allen was a catch and shoot player at this stage in his career. Bosh sacrificed his game to make the big 3 work.
Which player of a potential Brunson/Murray/Randle big 3 would defer to the other two? Otherwise its going to be a repeat of what led to RJ being traded.
Murray off the bench, gets us that 6th man of the year caliber player.
Now, lets say Murrray comes off the bench, and we go deep in the playoffs. but it still looks like we are missing a piece. My guess would be that Randle (because of his age) would be the next trade chip for a bigger star. A poor performance in the playoffs would probably seal the deal. We still have all those draft picks to add in a trade.
Before thats done, I'd like to see the FO add Murray for a bench role, or THJ, for some instant offense off the bench. See how far we go this season with this starting lineup. Give them the time to gel.
If we come up short, not as deep in the playoffs as we had hoped. Then this offseason I would hope to see the FO look at the starting lineup, and see what changes (if any) need to be made. Dont believe we need to complete our rebuild this season. We added OG and DDV to the starting lineup, so far so good. Hope the FO plays out this string.
.
DLeethal wrote:One guy I'm thinking about a little bit, which would add offense without sacrificing ball movement, is Klay Thompson. No doubt he could be got. He might be too washed but he would be clear 3rd option with starters and would not need to guard the best wing anymore on D.
This season or thru Free agency?
Warriors seem cooked but I can see one more run with Draymond back and things coming together. Still a lot of season left and they are chip core.
Im not thinking its a good bet, but I more envision either Klay is given a choice, come back on a reduced role and be cool with it and age gracefully, or find what makes you happy and when the time comes you'll get video tribute, Number retired, and love when you go to HOF. Basketball reference has him at 70% probability. Damn shame his prime was cut by two season due to the injuries. He was on the court for all 4 chips. 5 trip to finals? Im not HOF expert but he has 5 alls star nods, 1st team all rookie, Two All league awards, and all defensive. They were all in different years.
Not a bad idea. Two years is fair if he goes UFA? What say his ego?
GustavBahler wrote:martin wrote:Javascript is not enabled or there was problem with the URL: https://www.twitter.com/DJAceNBA/status/1747987400939192479?s=20
Click here to view the TweetShades of Jamal Crawford.
That's a good comparison
DLeethal wrote:One guy I'm thinking about a little bit, which would add offense without sacrificing ball movement, is Klay Thompson. No doubt he could be got. He might be too washed but he would be clear 3rd option with starters and would not need to guard the best wing anymore on D.
You mean for the vet min next year? 
GustavBahler wrote:DLeethal wrote:GustavBahler wrote:DLeethal wrote:TheMTL wrote:GustavBahler wrote:DDV is a legit starter, one of the best 3pt shooters in the league. Does all the things Grimes didnt do as a starter. Just has to shoot better at home, which is about nerves more than anything IMO. The more time he spends at MSG, the better his numbers should get.Murray would fix most of our problems with the second unit. Have a bad feeling that starting him would lead to one big clusterfunk. Murray off the bench would balance things nicely.
DDV is not a legit NBA starter on a championship caliber team. Even on the Knicks, he barely closes games and averages mpg similar to bench guys.
DDV was brought here to be our sixth man as insurance for IQ.
DDV quite literally was a starter on a championship team - the 2021 Bucks. That said, I think the starters need a little more firepower to be championship level. As good a fit as DDV and OG are, we don't have enough top-end star power with just Brunson and Randle. Adding another fringe all star guy is probably needed.
Good point about DDV's resume.
Im not so sure we need more scoring from the starters. Its usually the Brunson/Randle show to start the game. OG and DDV are there for the open 3s. JB and Randle attack the rim. After a few minutes, (hopefully IQ's replacement) would sub in, and give the lineup a boost. Who has the hotter hand that night would determine who finishes.
I'm guessing that starting Murray would have the same effect we watched with RJ in the starting lineup. Too many ball dominant players.
I think the question we need to ask ourselves is - can a Brunson/Randle led starting unit with a championship without more firepower? I personally don't think so. And to me, that means we do need to add more talent to the starters even if it means we sacrifice a little bit of the pretty ball movement we get with DDV in there.
The difference between now, and prior with RJ is that we have an elite 3&D wing in OG now. The offense has always been fine Brunson/RJ/Randle despite poor shooting. The defense was more of the problem. Brunson/Murray/Randle would bring with it a more dangerous offense / unit and the defense would be top tier.
Disagree. RJ was moved because there were 3 ball dominant players, not enough ball movement. Too much ISO ball. If it was a good fit offensively, RJ would still be a Knick.
We would likely see the same thing with Murray in the starting lineup. Randle is one of the best 1st quarter scorers in the league. OG and DDV play well off the ball, and also know when to chip in.
We arent getting run out of the gym to start the game. The problem is that we dont have the bench scoring, now that IQ is gone. The FO can eiher add another scorer for the starting lineup, or the bench where there is the real scoring deficit.
Big threes are good when one of the big three isnt dominating the ball. Like Ray Allen in Boston's big 3, or Chris Bosh, with Miami's big 3. They didnt need the ball to be effective. Allen was a catch and shoot player at this stage in his career. Bosh sacrificed his game to make the big 3 work.
Which player of a potential Brunson/Murray/Randle big 3 would defer to the other two? Otherwise its going to be a repeat of what led to RJ being traded.
Murray off the bench, gets us that 6th man of the year caliber player.
Now, lets say Murrray comes off the bench, and we go deep in the playoffs. but it still looks like we are missing a piece. My guess would be that Randle (because of his age) would be the next trade chip for a bigger star. A poor performance in the playoffs would probably seal the deal. We still have all those draft picks to add in a trade.
Before thats done, I'd like to see the FO add Murray for a bench role, or THJ, for some instant offense off the bench. See how far we go this season with this starting lineup. Give them the time to gel.
If we come up short, not as deep in the playoffs as we had hoped. Then this offseason I would hope to see the FO look at the starting lineup, and see what changes (if any) need to be made. Dont believe we need to complete our rebuild this season. We added OG and DDV to the starting lineup, so far so good. Hope the FO plays out this string.
.
The trade went down because the Knicks were looking like the worst defensive team in the league, giving up 120-140 on the regular and something needed to happen ASAP. They were also clearly enamored with OG for a long time.
But RJ was always a clumsy fit with Randle because he can't shoot 3s or mid range and was a really bad defender. Despite that and always having 2 offensive duds in the starting lineup with them, our offense was always really good with RJ, Brunson, Randle. Offense was never really a problem because the scoring talent was strong enough to outweigh the deficiencies.
DLeethal wrote:GustavBahler wrote:DLeethal wrote:GustavBahler wrote:DLeethal wrote:TheMTL wrote:GustavBahler wrote:DDV is a legit starter, one of the best 3pt shooters in the league. Does all the things Grimes didnt do as a starter. Just has to shoot better at home, which is about nerves more than anything IMO. The more time he spends at MSG, the better his numbers should get.Murray would fix most of our problems with the second unit. Have a bad feeling that starting him would lead to one big clusterfunk. Murray off the bench would balance things nicely.
DDV is not a legit NBA starter on a championship caliber team. Even on the Knicks, he barely closes games and averages mpg similar to bench guys.
DDV was brought here to be our sixth man as insurance for IQ.
DDV quite literally was a starter on a championship team - the 2021 Bucks. That said, I think the starters need a little more firepower to be championship level. As good a fit as DDV and OG are, we don't have enough top-end star power with just Brunson and Randle. Adding another fringe all star guy is probably needed.
Good point about DDV's resume.
Im not so sure we need more scoring from the starters. Its usually the Brunson/Randle show to start the game. OG and DDV are there for the open 3s. JB and Randle attack the rim. After a few minutes, (hopefully IQ's replacement) would sub in, and give the lineup a boost. Who has the hotter hand that night would determine who finishes.
I'm guessing that starting Murray would have the same effect we watched with RJ in the starting lineup. Too many ball dominant players.
I think the question we need to ask ourselves is - can a Brunson/Randle led starting unit with a championship without more firepower? I personally don't think so. And to me, that means we do need to add more talent to the starters even if it means we sacrifice a little bit of the pretty ball movement we get with DDV in there.
The difference between now, and prior with RJ is that we have an elite 3&D wing in OG now. The offense has always been fine Brunson/RJ/Randle despite poor shooting. The defense was more of the problem. Brunson/Murray/Randle would bring with it a more dangerous offense / unit and the defense would be top tier.
Disagree. RJ was moved because there were 3 ball dominant players, not enough ball movement. Too much ISO ball. If it was a good fit offensively, RJ would still be a Knick.
We would likely see the same thing with Murray in the starting lineup. Randle is one of the best 1st quarter scorers in the league. OG and DDV play well off the ball, and also know when to chip in.
We arent getting run out of the gym to start the game. The problem is that we dont have the bench scoring, now that IQ is gone. The FO can eiher add another scorer for the starting lineup, or the bench where there is the real scoring deficit.
Big threes are good when one of the big three isnt dominating the ball. Like Ray Allen in Boston's big 3, or Chris Bosh, with Miami's big 3. They didnt need the ball to be effective. Allen was a catch and shoot player at this stage in his career. Bosh sacrificed his game to make the big 3 work.
Which player of a potential Brunson/Murray/Randle big 3 would defer to the other two? Otherwise its going to be a repeat of what led to RJ being traded.
Murray off the bench, gets us that 6th man of the year caliber player.
Now, lets say Murrray comes off the bench, and we go deep in the playoffs. but it still looks like we are missing a piece. My guess would be that Randle (because of his age) would be the next trade chip for a bigger star. A poor performance in the playoffs would probably seal the deal. We still have all those draft picks to add in a trade.
Before thats done, I'd like to see the FO add Murray for a bench role, or THJ, for some instant offense off the bench. See how far we go this season with this starting lineup. Give them the time to gel.
If we come up short, not as deep in the playoffs as we had hoped. Then this offseason I would hope to see the FO look at the starting lineup, and see what changes (if any) need to be made. Dont believe we need to complete our rebuild this season. We added OG and DDV to the starting lineup, so far so good. Hope the FO plays out this string.
.The trade went down because the Knicks were looking like the worst defensive team in the league, giving up 120-140 on the regular and something needed to happen ASAP. They were also clearly enamored with OG for a long time.
But RJ was always a clumsy fit with Randle because he can't shoot 3s or mid range and was a really bad defender. Despite that and always having 2 offensive duds in the starting lineup with them, our offense was always really good with RJ, Brunson, Randle. Offense was never really a problem because the scoring talent was strong enough to outweigh the deficiencies.
yea people talked about how bad a fit the starting 5 was yet their net rating was always very good.
DJM is a more efficient version of RJ who shoots more 3's and shoots much better from pretty much everywhere on the court except at the rim.
DJM is RJ & IQ combined into one player for us.
nycericanguy wrote:Rookie wrote:martin wrote:Rookie wrote:martin wrote:Rookie wrote:nycericanguy wrote:whats the point of trading for DJM if we think he fits so poorly with our best players that he shouldn't start?You either think it can work or you don't. I think it can, and you can obviously stagger minutes and he can always be a de-facto 6th man. Doesn't matter if he officially starts.
Because it's worked to well in Atlanta right?
Are you mystified about teams that trade for players that had been on teams with a losing record?
Like, that's it. They won't work any better on a different team?
For whatever reason San Antonio decided to move on. Now for whatever reason, Atlanta is ready to move on.
San Antonio is a bidder for Dejounte. What does that tell you?
If you like stats, here's an article from the Ringer about Murrays declining below average defense and his worst true shooting percentage among high usage players rating. Barrett is 54 and Murray is 49
DJM's TS% is 56% this year, RJ is at 54%.
but TS% just favors guys that shoot more free throws. DJM just hits shots and thats important too, he shoots MUCH better than RJ from all over the court except at the rim. instead of relying on refs to bail you out in close games.
TS% doesnt mean a guy cant shoot... RJ could draw 10 fouls a game htat doesnt make him a good shot maker or shooter.
TS% is literally a formula to put a % on player efficiency. What the number says is that DJM is just as inefficient at scoring as RJ on high usage. DJM is 180lbs and has the speed and athleticism to get to the rim but he doesn't draw fouls or score efficiently when he gets there. This is because he avoids contact and is out of control. I've seen him turn the ball over more than I've seen him score. He's a decent player but I don't view him as the answer or the final piece. He has a lot of years on his contract and a 30M contract with that many years left could be hard to move. I see it as a move that we will regret down the line.
nycericanguy wrote:DLeethal wrote:GustavBahler wrote:DLeethal wrote:GustavBahler wrote:DLeethal wrote:TheMTL wrote:GustavBahler wrote:DDV is a legit starter, one of the best 3pt shooters in the league. Does all the things Grimes didnt do as a starter. Just has to shoot better at home, which is about nerves more than anything IMO. The more time he spends at MSG, the better his numbers should get.Murray would fix most of our problems with the second unit. Have a bad feeling that starting him would lead to one big clusterfunk. Murray off the bench would balance things nicely.
DDV is not a legit NBA starter on a championship caliber team. Even on the Knicks, he barely closes games and averages mpg similar to bench guys.
DDV was brought here to be our sixth man as insurance for IQ.
DDV quite literally was a starter on a championship team - the 2021 Bucks. That said, I think the starters need a little more firepower to be championship level. As good a fit as DDV and OG are, we don't have enough top-end star power with just Brunson and Randle. Adding another fringe all star guy is probably needed.
Good point about DDV's resume.
Im not so sure we need more scoring from the starters. Its usually the Brunson/Randle show to start the game. OG and DDV are there for the open 3s. JB and Randle attack the rim. After a few minutes, (hopefully IQ's replacement) would sub in, and give the lineup a boost. Who has the hotter hand that night would determine who finishes.
I'm guessing that starting Murray would have the same effect we watched with RJ in the starting lineup. Too many ball dominant players.
I think the question we need to ask ourselves is - can a Brunson/Randle led starting unit with a championship without more firepower? I personally don't think so. And to me, that means we do need to add more talent to the starters even if it means we sacrifice a little bit of the pretty ball movement we get with DDV in there.
The difference between now, and prior with RJ is that we have an elite 3&D wing in OG now. The offense has always been fine Brunson/RJ/Randle despite poor shooting. The defense was more of the problem. Brunson/Murray/Randle would bring with it a more dangerous offense / unit and the defense would be top tier.
Disagree. RJ was moved because there were 3 ball dominant players, not enough ball movement. Too much ISO ball. If it was a good fit offensively, RJ would still be a Knick.
We would likely see the same thing with Murray in the starting lineup. Randle is one of the best 1st quarter scorers in the league. OG and DDV play well off the ball, and also know when to chip in.
We arent getting run out of the gym to start the game. The problem is that we dont have the bench scoring, now that IQ is gone. The FO can eiher add another scorer for the starting lineup, or the bench where there is the real scoring deficit.
Big threes are good when one of the big three isnt dominating the ball. Like Ray Allen in Boston's big 3, or Chris Bosh, with Miami's big 3. They didnt need the ball to be effective. Allen was a catch and shoot player at this stage in his career. Bosh sacrificed his game to make the big 3 work.
Which player of a potential Brunson/Murray/Randle big 3 would defer to the other two? Otherwise its going to be a repeat of what led to RJ being traded.
Murray off the bench, gets us that 6th man of the year caliber player.
Now, lets say Murrray comes off the bench, and we go deep in the playoffs. but it still looks like we are missing a piece. My guess would be that Randle (because of his age) would be the next trade chip for a bigger star. A poor performance in the playoffs would probably seal the deal. We still have all those draft picks to add in a trade.
Before thats done, I'd like to see the FO add Murray for a bench role, or THJ, for some instant offense off the bench. See how far we go this season with this starting lineup. Give them the time to gel.
If we come up short, not as deep in the playoffs as we had hoped. Then this offseason I would hope to see the FO look at the starting lineup, and see what changes (if any) need to be made. Dont believe we need to complete our rebuild this season. We added OG and DDV to the starting lineup, so far so good. Hope the FO plays out this string.
.The trade went down because the Knicks were looking like the worst defensive team in the league, giving up 120-140 on the regular and something needed to happen ASAP. They were also clearly enamored with OG for a long time.
But RJ was always a clumsy fit with Randle because he can't shoot 3s or mid range and was a really bad defender. Despite that and always having 2 offensive duds in the starting lineup with them, our offense was always really good with RJ, Brunson, Randle. Offense was never really a problem because the scoring talent was strong enough to outweigh the deficiencies.
yea people talked about how bad a fit the starting 5 was yet their net rating was always very good.
DJM is a more efficient version of RJ who shoots more 3's and shoots much better from pretty much everywhere on the court except at the rim.
DJM is RJ & IQ combined into one player for us.
Too many games were lost early in the season due to the ball sticking with our big 3. Not looking for Mitch or Grimes. Yes, OG is a better defender, but he also doesnt need the ball like RJ did, moves better without the ball. Which means a freer flowing offense.
Murray would be playing SG, not SF. DDV is one of the best 3 point shooters in the league, a two way player. We arent losing games now because of the starting lineup. Our bench scoring has plummeted, but you both believe its about the starters. I dont get it.
Rookie wrote:nycericanguy wrote:Rookie wrote:martin wrote:Rookie wrote:martin wrote:Rookie wrote:nycericanguy wrote:whats the point of trading for DJM if we think he fits so poorly with our best players that he shouldn't start?You either think it can work or you don't. I think it can, and you can obviously stagger minutes and he can always be a de-facto 6th man. Doesn't matter if he officially starts.
Because it's worked to well in Atlanta right?
Are you mystified about teams that trade for players that had been on teams with a losing record?
Like, that's it. They won't work any better on a different team?
For whatever reason San Antonio decided to move on. Now for whatever reason, Atlanta is ready to move on.
San Antonio is a bidder for Dejounte. What does that tell you?
If you like stats, here's an article from the Ringer about Murrays declining below average defense and his worst true shooting percentage among high usage players rating. Barrett is 54 and Murray is 49
DJM's TS% is 56% this year, RJ is at 54%.
but TS% just favors guys that shoot more free throws. DJM just hits shots and thats important too, he shoots MUCH better than RJ from all over the court except at the rim. instead of relying on refs to bail you out in close games.
TS% doesnt mean a guy cant shoot... RJ could draw 10 fouls a game htat doesnt make him a good shot maker or shooter.
TS% is literally a formula to put a % on player efficiency. What the number says is that DJM is just as inefficient at scoring as RJ on high usage. DJM is 180lbs and has the speed and athleticism to get to the rim but he doesn't draw fouls or score efficiently when he gets there. This is because he avoids contact and is out of control. I've seen him turn the ball over more than I've seen him score. He's a decent player but I don't view him as the answer or the final piece. He has a lot of years on his contract and a 30M contract with that many years left could be hard to move. I see it as a move that we will regret down the line.
and like any formula it has to be taken in context.
look at their shooting splits and tell me DJM is just as inefficient as RJ
DJM
0-3ft 3-10ft 10-16ft 16-22ft 3pt
.553 .543 .445 .542 .383 - eFG .538%
RJ
.660 .420 .325 .412 .353 - eFG .516%
DJM is a much more efficient player from everywhere except at the rim.
So the only thing TS% is telling you here is that RJ shoots more FT's. Outside of at the rim RJ's shooting % is horrific from everywhere else on the court. And even despite the FT differential, DJM still has a higher TS% than RJ this season and for his career.
Now don't get me wrong drawing fouls and getting FT's is a good skill to have, but we need guys that can actually hit shots too. We've seen this team just flat out struggle to score field goals against really good defenses. And we already have Randle who is constantly fighting with refs looking for fouls. So a guy like DJM that just flat out hits shots and is not reliant on the whistle is a huge upgrade for us.
Look at the game against ORL last night, we've struggled to score against that team twice now. DJM just put up 26 including the game winner on 11-18 shooting. Now would you say that was "inefficient" just because he didn't shoot many free throws?
Take a look at the playoffs last year against MIA, where again we struggled to score. DJM against MIA averaged 23/7/7 during the playoffs.
GustavBahler wrote:nycericanguy wrote:DLeethal wrote:GustavBahler wrote:DLeethal wrote:GustavBahler wrote:DLeethal wrote:TheMTL wrote:GustavBahler wrote:DDV is a legit starter, one of the best 3pt shooters in the league. Does all the things Grimes didnt do as a starter. Just has to shoot better at home, which is about nerves more than anything IMO. The more time he spends at MSG, the better his numbers should get.Murray would fix most of our problems with the second unit. Have a bad feeling that starting him would lead to one big clusterfunk. Murray off the bench would balance things nicely.
DDV is not a legit NBA starter on a championship caliber team. Even on the Knicks, he barely closes games and averages mpg similar to bench guys.
DDV was brought here to be our sixth man as insurance for IQ.
DDV quite literally was a starter on a championship team - the 2021 Bucks. That said, I think the starters need a little more firepower to be championship level. As good a fit as DDV and OG are, we don't have enough top-end star power with just Brunson and Randle. Adding another fringe all star guy is probably needed.
Good point about DDV's resume.
Im not so sure we need more scoring from the starters. Its usually the Brunson/Randle show to start the game. OG and DDV are there for the open 3s. JB and Randle attack the rim. After a few minutes, (hopefully IQ's replacement) would sub in, and give the lineup a boost. Who has the hotter hand that night would determine who finishes.
I'm guessing that starting Murray would have the same effect we watched with RJ in the starting lineup. Too many ball dominant players.
I think the question we need to ask ourselves is - can a Brunson/Randle led starting unit with a championship without more firepower? I personally don't think so. And to me, that means we do need to add more talent to the starters even if it means we sacrifice a little bit of the pretty ball movement we get with DDV in there.
The difference between now, and prior with RJ is that we have an elite 3&D wing in OG now. The offense has always been fine Brunson/RJ/Randle despite poor shooting. The defense was more of the problem. Brunson/Murray/Randle would bring with it a more dangerous offense / unit and the defense would be top tier.
Disagree. RJ was moved because there were 3 ball dominant players, not enough ball movement. Too much ISO ball. If it was a good fit offensively, RJ would still be a Knick.
We would likely see the same thing with Murray in the starting lineup. Randle is one of the best 1st quarter scorers in the league. OG and DDV play well off the ball, and also know when to chip in.
We arent getting run out of the gym to start the game. The problem is that we dont have the bench scoring, now that IQ is gone. The FO can eiher add another scorer for the starting lineup, or the bench where there is the real scoring deficit.
Big threes are good when one of the big three isnt dominating the ball. Like Ray Allen in Boston's big 3, or Chris Bosh, with Miami's big 3. They didnt need the ball to be effective. Allen was a catch and shoot player at this stage in his career. Bosh sacrificed his game to make the big 3 work.
Which player of a potential Brunson/Murray/Randle big 3 would defer to the other two? Otherwise its going to be a repeat of what led to RJ being traded.
Murray off the bench, gets us that 6th man of the year caliber player.
Now, lets say Murrray comes off the bench, and we go deep in the playoffs. but it still looks like we are missing a piece. My guess would be that Randle (because of his age) would be the next trade chip for a bigger star. A poor performance in the playoffs would probably seal the deal. We still have all those draft picks to add in a trade.
Before thats done, I'd like to see the FO add Murray for a bench role, or THJ, for some instant offense off the bench. See how far we go this season with this starting lineup. Give them the time to gel.
If we come up short, not as deep in the playoffs as we had hoped. Then this offseason I would hope to see the FO look at the starting lineup, and see what changes (if any) need to be made. Dont believe we need to complete our rebuild this season. We added OG and DDV to the starting lineup, so far so good. Hope the FO plays out this string.
.The trade went down because the Knicks were looking like the worst defensive team in the league, giving up 120-140 on the regular and something needed to happen ASAP. They were also clearly enamored with OG for a long time.
But RJ was always a clumsy fit with Randle because he can't shoot 3s or mid range and was a really bad defender. Despite that and always having 2 offensive duds in the starting lineup with them, our offense was always really good with RJ, Brunson, Randle. Offense was never really a problem because the scoring talent was strong enough to outweigh the deficiencies.
yea people talked about how bad a fit the starting 5 was yet their net rating was always very good.
DJM is a more efficient version of RJ who shoots more 3's and shoots much better from pretty much everywhere on the court except at the rim.
DJM is RJ & IQ combined into one player for us.
Too many games were lost early in the season due to the ball sticking with our big 3. Not looking for Mitch or Grimes. Yes, OG is a better defender, but he also doesnt need the ball like RJ did, moves better without the ball. Which means a freer flowing offense.
Murray would be playing SG, not SF. DDV is one of the best 3 point shooters in the league, a two way player. We arent losing games now because of the starting lineup. Our bench scoring has plummeted, but you both believe its about the starters. I dont get it.
I agree that we aren't losing games because of the starters and our bench needs an upgrade.
BUT
Is this starting unit capable of winning a championship or does it need more firepower?
Do we need a legitimate scorer who can step in when Brunson is off the court?
My feeling is - the starting unit is really good and gets the job done most of the time but isn't good enough to go to the Finals and unlikely to beat any of the top 3 teams in a playoff series. I'm not sure getting Murray for Grimes gets us there either, but it gives us a shot. Adds scoring, adds Brunson insurance, adds a guy to stagger and carry the bench, and doesn't hurt our defense.
But do you trust IQ more to get you an actual bucket in the playoffs more than DJM? When whistles are hard to come by?
GustavBahler wrote:DLeethal wrote:GustavBahler wrote:DLeethal wrote:TheMTL wrote:GustavBahler wrote:DDV is a legit starter, one of the best 3pt shooters in the league. Does all the things Grimes didnt do as a starter. Just has to shoot better at home, which is about nerves more than anything IMO. The more time he spends at MSG, the better his numbers should get.Murray would fix most of our problems with the second unit. Have a bad feeling that starting him would lead to one big clusterfunk. Murray off the bench would balance things nicely.
DDV is not a legit NBA starter on a championship caliber team. Even on the Knicks, he barely closes games and averages mpg similar to bench guys.
DDV was brought here to be our sixth man as insurance for IQ.
DDV quite literally was a starter on a championship team - the 2021 Bucks. That said, I think the starters need a little more firepower to be championship level. As good a fit as DDV and OG are, we don't have enough top-end star power with just Brunson and Randle. Adding another fringe all star guy is probably needed.
Good point about DDV's resume.
Im not so sure we need more scoring from the starters. Its usually the Brunson/Randle show to start the game. OG and DDV are there for the open 3s. JB and Randle attack the rim. After a few minutes, (hopefully IQ's replacement) would sub in, and give the lineup a boost. Who has the hotter hand that night would determine who finishes.
I'm guessing that starting Murray would have the same effect we watched with RJ in the starting lineup. Too many ball dominant players.
I think the question we need to ask ourselves is - can a Brunson/Randle led starting unit with a championship without more firepower? I personally don't think so. And to me, that means we do need to add more talent to the starters even if it means we sacrifice a little bit of the pretty ball movement we get with DDV in there.
The difference between now, and prior with RJ is that we have an elite 3&D wing in OG now. The offense has always been fine Brunson/RJ/Randle despite poor shooting. The defense was more of the problem. Brunson/Murray/Randle would bring with it a more dangerous offense / unit and the defense would be top tier.
Disagree. RJ was moved because there were 3 ball dominant players, not enough ball movement. Too much ISO ball. If it was a good fit offensively, RJ would still be a Knick.
We would likely see the same thing with Murray in the starting lineup. Randle is one of the best 1st quarter scorers in the league. OG and DDV play well off the ball, and also know when to chip in.
We arent getting run out of the gym to start the game. The problem is that we dont have the bench scoring, now that IQ is gone. The FO can eiher add another scorer for the starting lineup, or the bench where there is the real scoring deficit.
Big threes are good when one of the big three isnt dominating the ball. Like Ray Allen in Boston's big 3, or Chris Bosh, with Miami's big 3. They didnt need the ball to be effective. Allen was a catch and shoot player at this stage in his career. Bosh sacrificed his game to make the big 3 work.
Which player of a potential Brunson/Murray/Randle big 3 would defer to the other two? Otherwise its going to be a repeat of what led to RJ being traded.
Murray off the bench, gets us that 6th man of the year caliber player.Now, lets say Murrray comes off the bench, and we go deep in the playoffs. but it still looks like we are missing a piece. My guess would be that Randle (because of his age) would be the next trade chip for a bigger star. A poor performance in the playoffs would probably seal the deal. We still have all those draft picks to add in a trade.
Before thats done, I'd like to see the FO add Murray for a bench role, or THJ, for some instant offense off the bench. See how far we go this season with this starting lineup. Give them the time to gel.
If we come up short, not as deep in the playoffs as we had hoped. Then this offseason I would hope to see the FO look at the starting lineup, and see what changes (if any) need to be made. Dont believe we need to complete our rebuild this season. We added OG and DDV to the starting lineup, so far so good. Hope the FO plays out this string.
.
We need to avoid the hero ball ideal all together IMO. IQ worked because he was homegrown mid draft pick looking to earn his spot and role on the team. Thibs was in position to be flexible with him and use him accordingly. The assets and salary they would be giving for Murray. He will get 30+mins a game if he starts or comes off the bench. With a good possibility he is disgruntled coming off the bench.
DDV, Hart, Mcbride, OG, iHart can all produce. We need another ball mover/shooter preferably at forward. Cappable of helping further increase the ball movement and upping the role players overall production due to the flow of the offense.
And frontcourt depth.
Right now our backup PF/C is Precious who averages 2.9pts per game. Adding a solid big to the rotation that can produce more than 2.9pts per game alone greatly increases the benches overall production.
The combination of these 2 things would allow for the proper fit/balance, everyone knowing there roles, in position of strength/success etc.
DLeethal wrote:GustavBahler wrote:nycericanguy wrote:DLeethal wrote:GustavBahler wrote:DLeethal wrote:GustavBahler wrote:DLeethal wrote:TheMTL wrote:GustavBahler wrote:DDV is a legit starter, one of the best 3pt shooters in the league. Does all the things Grimes didnt do as a starter. Just has to shoot better at home, which is about nerves more than anything IMO. The more time he spends at MSG, the better his numbers should get.Murray would fix most of our problems with the second unit. Have a bad feeling that starting him would lead to one big clusterfunk. Murray off the bench would balance things nicely.
DDV is not a legit NBA starter on a championship caliber team. Even on the Knicks, he barely closes games and averages mpg similar to bench guys.
DDV was brought here to be our sixth man as insurance for IQ.
DDV quite literally was a starter on a championship team - the 2021 Bucks. That said, I think the starters need a little more firepower to be championship level. As good a fit as DDV and OG are, we don't have enough top-end star power with just Brunson and Randle. Adding another fringe all star guy is probably needed.
Good point about DDV's resume.
Im not so sure we need more scoring from the starters. Its usually the Brunson/Randle show to start the game. OG and DDV are there for the open 3s. JB and Randle attack the rim. After a few minutes, (hopefully IQ's replacement) would sub in, and give the lineup a boost. Who has the hotter hand that night would determine who finishes.
I'm guessing that starting Murray would have the same effect we watched with RJ in the starting lineup. Too many ball dominant players.
I think the question we need to ask ourselves is - can a Brunson/Randle led starting unit with a championship without more firepower? I personally don't think so. And to me, that means we do need to add more talent to the starters even if it means we sacrifice a little bit of the pretty ball movement we get with DDV in there.
The difference between now, and prior with RJ is that we have an elite 3&D wing in OG now. The offense has always been fine Brunson/RJ/Randle despite poor shooting. The defense was more of the problem. Brunson/Murray/Randle would bring with it a more dangerous offense / unit and the defense would be top tier.
Disagree. RJ was moved because there were 3 ball dominant players, not enough ball movement. Too much ISO ball. If it was a good fit offensively, RJ would still be a Knick.
We would likely see the same thing with Murray in the starting lineup. Randle is one of the best 1st quarter scorers in the league. OG and DDV play well off the ball, and also know when to chip in.
We arent getting run out of the gym to start the game. The problem is that we dont have the bench scoring, now that IQ is gone. The FO can eiher add another scorer for the starting lineup, or the bench where there is the real scoring deficit.
Big threes are good when one of the big three isnt dominating the ball. Like Ray Allen in Boston's big 3, or Chris Bosh, with Miami's big 3. They didnt need the ball to be effective. Allen was a catch and shoot player at this stage in his career. Bosh sacrificed his game to make the big 3 work.
Which player of a potential Brunson/Murray/Randle big 3 would defer to the other two? Otherwise its going to be a repeat of what led to RJ being traded.
Murray off the bench, gets us that 6th man of the year caliber player.
Now, lets say Murrray comes off the bench, and we go deep in the playoffs. but it still looks like we are missing a piece. My guess would be that Randle (because of his age) would be the next trade chip for a bigger star. A poor performance in the playoffs would probably seal the deal. We still have all those draft picks to add in a trade.
Before thats done, I'd like to see the FO add Murray for a bench role, or THJ, for some instant offense off the bench. See how far we go this season with this starting lineup. Give them the time to gel.
If we come up short, not as deep in the playoffs as we had hoped. Then this offseason I would hope to see the FO look at the starting lineup, and see what changes (if any) need to be made. Dont believe we need to complete our rebuild this season. We added OG and DDV to the starting lineup, so far so good. Hope the FO plays out this string.
.The trade went down because the Knicks were looking like the worst defensive team in the league, giving up 120-140 on the regular and something needed to happen ASAP. They were also clearly enamored with OG for a long time.
But RJ was always a clumsy fit with Randle because he can't shoot 3s or mid range and was a really bad defender. Despite that and always having 2 offensive duds in the starting lineup with them, our offense was always really good with RJ, Brunson, Randle. Offense was never really a problem because the scoring talent was strong enough to outweigh the deficiencies.
yea people talked about how bad a fit the starting 5 was yet their net rating was always very good.
DJM is a more efficient version of RJ who shoots more 3's and shoots much better from pretty much everywhere on the court except at the rim.
DJM is RJ & IQ combined into one player for us.
Too many games were lost early in the season due to the ball sticking with our big 3. Not looking for Mitch or Grimes. Yes, OG is a better defender, but he also doesnt need the ball like RJ did, moves better without the ball. Which means a freer flowing offense.
Murray would be playing SG, not SF. DDV is one of the best 3 point shooters in the league, a two way player. We arent losing games now because of the starting lineup. Our bench scoring has plummeted, but you both believe its about the starters. I dont get it.
I agree that we aren't losing games because of the starters and our bench needs an upgrade.
BUT
Is this starting unit capable of winning a championship or does it need more firepower?
Do we need a legitimate scorer who can step in when Brunson is off the court?
My feeling is - the starting unit is really good and gets the job done most of the time but isn't good enough to go to the Finals and unlikely to beat any of the top 3 teams in a playoff series. I'm not sure getting Murray for Grimes gets us there either, but it gives us a shot. Adds scoring, adds Brunson insurance, adds a guy to stagger and carry the bench, and doesn't hurt our defense.
I believe the best way to find out is to run with this starting lineup. Add a scorer off the bench because thats a bigger need right now. See how things go. Look at our record with OG in the starting lineup since the trade. We are winning with one of the lowest scoring benches in the league.
I'm of the mind that if we can go on a win streak with a bench that cant get enough buckets, imagine what we could do if we got back to having one of the highest scoring benches in the league.
Focusing on benching DDV who is helping us win games, who knows Brunson's game better than most. Who doesnt step on his toes, when it comes to touches. Feels like a move that doesnt have to be made until we see how DDV performs in the playoffs.
His playoff experience with GS will come in handy. If the playoffs tells us that we need a new SG, than so be it. But I hope the FO crosses that bridge when we get to it.
2) Dejounte Murray is an odd statistical character defensively because his dFG% and NetFG% don't actually indicate that he is a good defender. He takes the hardest assignments. But players guarded by him tend to shoot a higher FG% than their average. Dating back to his days with the Spurs. Why? I think its an aberration. He also has among the highest deflections per 36 minutes in the league for a guard. I think he gets charged with "guarded" shots because he closes distance on his man so that an otherwise open looks counts as a guarded shot. Hard to prove this with data. BUT, it doesn't make a lot of sense that a guard that is top 10 in the league on deflections would be that bad at defense. Matador D, leaving his feet, overreaching can all impact this. Needs the eye test to figure it out. But the articles posted on Dejounte are making me question what I know.
3) I see Murray as the best use of Fournier's contract with Markannen off the table, and probably the 6th man if we are making a championship run, but more likely to be the centerpiece of the offseason trade to acquire our third start that "fits" better.
newyorknewyork wrote:GustavBahler wrote:DLeethal wrote:GustavBahler wrote:DLeethal wrote:TheMTL wrote:GustavBahler wrote:DDV is a legit starter, one of the best 3pt shooters in the league. Does all the things Grimes didnt do as a starter. Just has to shoot better at home, which is about nerves more than anything IMO. The more time he spends at MSG, the better his numbers should get.Murray would fix most of our problems with the second unit. Have a bad feeling that starting him would lead to one big clusterfunk. Murray off the bench would balance things nicely.
DDV is not a legit NBA starter on a championship caliber team. Even on the Knicks, he barely closes games and averages mpg similar to bench guys.
DDV was brought here to be our sixth man as insurance for IQ.
DDV quite literally was a starter on a championship team - the 2021 Bucks. That said, I think the starters need a little more firepower to be championship level. As good a fit as DDV and OG are, we don't have enough top-end star power with just Brunson and Randle. Adding another fringe all star guy is probably needed.
Good point about DDV's resume.
Im not so sure we need more scoring from the starters. Its usually the Brunson/Randle show to start the game. OG and DDV are there for the open 3s. JB and Randle attack the rim. After a few minutes, (hopefully IQ's replacement) would sub in, and give the lineup a boost. Who has the hotter hand that night would determine who finishes.
I'm guessing that starting Murray would have the same effect we watched with RJ in the starting lineup. Too many ball dominant players.
I think the question we need to ask ourselves is - can a Brunson/Randle led starting unit with a championship without more firepower? I personally don't think so. And to me, that means we do need to add more talent to the starters even if it means we sacrifice a little bit of the pretty ball movement we get with DDV in there.
The difference between now, and prior with RJ is that we have an elite 3&D wing in OG now. The offense has always been fine Brunson/RJ/Randle despite poor shooting. The defense was more of the problem. Brunson/Murray/Randle would bring with it a more dangerous offense / unit and the defense would be top tier.
Disagree. RJ was moved because there were 3 ball dominant players, not enough ball movement. Too much ISO ball. If it was a good fit offensively, RJ would still be a Knick.
We would likely see the same thing with Murray in the starting lineup. Randle is one of the best 1st quarter scorers in the league. OG and DDV play well off the ball, and also know when to chip in.
We arent getting run out of the gym to start the game. The problem is that we dont have the bench scoring, now that IQ is gone. The FO can eiher add another scorer for the starting lineup, or the bench where there is the real scoring deficit.
Big threes are good when one of the big three isnt dominating the ball. Like Ray Allen in Boston's big 3, or Chris Bosh, with Miami's big 3. They didnt need the ball to be effective. Allen was a catch and shoot player at this stage in his career. Bosh sacrificed his game to make the big 3 work.
Which player of a potential Brunson/Murray/Randle big 3 would defer to the other two? Otherwise its going to be a repeat of what led to RJ being traded.
Murray off the bench, gets us that 6th man of the year caliber player.Now, lets say Murrray comes off the bench, and we go deep in the playoffs. but it still looks like we are missing a piece. My guess would be that Randle (because of his age) would be the next trade chip for a bigger star. A poor performance in the playoffs would probably seal the deal. We still have all those draft picks to add in a trade.
Before thats done, I'd like to see the FO add Murray for a bench role, or THJ, for some instant offense off the bench. See how far we go this season with this starting lineup. Give them the time to gel.
If we come up short, not as deep in the playoffs as we had hoped. Then this offseason I would hope to see the FO look at the starting lineup, and see what changes (if any) need to be made. Dont believe we need to complete our rebuild this season. We added OG and DDV to the starting lineup, so far so good. Hope the FO plays out this string.
.We need to avoid the hero ball ideal all together IMO. IQ worked because he was homegrown mid draft pick looking to earn his spot and role on the team. Thibs was in position to be flexible with him and use him accordingly. The assets and salary they would be giving for Murray. He will get 30+mins a game if he starts or comes off the bench. With a good possibility he is disgruntled coming off the bench.
DDV, Hart, Mcbride, OG, iHart can all produce. We need another ball mover/shooter preferably at forward. Cappable of helping further increase the ball movement and upping the role players overall production due to the flow of the offense.
And frontcourt depth.
Right now our backup PF/C is Precious who averages 2.9pts per game. Adding a solid big to the rotation that can produce more than 2.9pts per game alone greatly increases the benches overall production.
The combination of these 2 things would allow for the proper fit/balance, everyone knowing there roles, in position of strength/success etc.
I wouldnt equate instant offense off the bench with "hero ball" You need at least one starter who can score under pressure, with the shot clock running out. And you need one off the bench as well.
IQ played that role for us. Deuce has stepped up his game, but I dont believe he's going to be able to consistently make the tough shots, drives. IQ was also very efficient. not hero ball stuff.
EwingsGlass wrote:1) Comparing Murray to RJ is a little bit of a fool's errand. It is 100% clear that Murray is not a good fit for the starting lineup next to Brunson and Randle. There is nothing that indicates he would be better here than Atlanta and trading Trae Young for Jalen Brunson is questionable.2) Dejounte Murray is an odd statistical character defensively because his dFG% and NetFG% don't actually indicate that he is a good defender. He takes the hardest assignments. But players guarded by him tend to shoot a higher FG% than their average. Dating back to his days with the Spurs. Why? I think its an aberration. He also has among the highest deflections per 36 minutes in the league for a guard. I think he gets charged with "guarded" shots because he closes distance on his man so that an otherwise open looks counts as a guarded shot. Hard to prove this with data. BUT, it doesn't make a lot of sense that a guard that is top 10 in the league on deflections would be that bad at defense. Matador D, leaving his feet, overreaching can all impact this. Needs the eye test to figure it out. But the articles posted on Dejounte are making me question what I know.
3) I see Murray as the best use of Fournier's contract with Markannen off the table, and probably the 6th man if we are making a championship run, but more likely to be the centerpiece of the offseason trade to acquire our third start that "fits" better.
If you gamble a lot on deflections/gamble to get into passing lanes you can give up open shots and easy buckets. We don't watch Dejounte every day, but thats an easy way for a guy with a great steals number to not have great overall defensive metrics. Doesn't mean that its bad - for example DDV's gambling has led to easy baskets, but I think overall his instinct/ability to get steals/disrupt passing lanes has been a boost to us and created some important runs that have won us games.
My biggest concern about Dejounte is he's slight/thin and I don't know how that holds up against bigger wings/non-PGs if you want to slot him next to a guy like McBride or Brunson, who probably need to be matched up against PGs (Brunson has to be based on size, McBride is someone you want to be pressuring the ballhandler).
Javascript is not enabled or there was problem with the URL: https://www.twitter.com/nba_university/status/1748020098231660592?s=61&t=X2NvaBkjFz8kZPoGlCbCzA
Click here to view the Tweet
Javascript is not enabled or there was problem with the URL: https://www.twitter.com/thestrickland/status/1748023348351664402?s=61&t=X2NvaBkjFz8kZPoGlCbCzA
Click here to view the Tweet
martin wrote:Javascript is not enabled or there was problem with the URL: https://www.twitter.com/nba_university/status/1748020098231660592?s=61&t=X2NvaBkjFz8kZPoGlCbCzA
Click here to view the Tweet
39% on pull up 3's... we have NO ONE on this roster outside of Brunson that can do that.
People comparing him to RJ's shooting inefficiencies are way off base. RJ doesn't even attempt pull up 3's.
GustavBahler wrote:newyorknewyork wrote:GustavBahler wrote:DLeethal wrote:GustavBahler wrote:DLeethal wrote:TheMTL wrote:GustavBahler wrote:DDV is a legit starter, one of the best 3pt shooters in the league. Does all the things Grimes didnt do as a starter. Just has to shoot better at home, which is about nerves more than anything IMO. The more time he spends at MSG, the better his numbers should get.Murray would fix most of our problems with the second unit. Have a bad feeling that starting him would lead to one big clusterfunk. Murray off the bench would balance things nicely.
DDV is not a legit NBA starter on a championship caliber team. Even on the Knicks, he barely closes games and averages mpg similar to bench guys.
DDV was brought here to be our sixth man as insurance for IQ.
DDV quite literally was a starter on a championship team - the 2021 Bucks. That said, I think the starters need a little more firepower to be championship level. As good a fit as DDV and OG are, we don't have enough top-end star power with just Brunson and Randle. Adding another fringe all star guy is probably needed.
Good point about DDV's resume.
Im not so sure we need more scoring from the starters. Its usually the Brunson/Randle show to start the game. OG and DDV are there for the open 3s. JB and Randle attack the rim. After a few minutes, (hopefully IQ's replacement) would sub in, and give the lineup a boost. Who has the hotter hand that night would determine who finishes.
I'm guessing that starting Murray would have the same effect we watched with RJ in the starting lineup. Too many ball dominant players.
I think the question we need to ask ourselves is - can a Brunson/Randle led starting unit with a championship without more firepower? I personally don't think so. And to me, that means we do need to add more talent to the starters even if it means we sacrifice a little bit of the pretty ball movement we get with DDV in there.
The difference between now, and prior with RJ is that we have an elite 3&D wing in OG now. The offense has always been fine Brunson/RJ/Randle despite poor shooting. The defense was more of the problem. Brunson/Murray/Randle would bring with it a more dangerous offense / unit and the defense would be top tier.
Disagree. RJ was moved because there were 3 ball dominant players, not enough ball movement. Too much ISO ball. If it was a good fit offensively, RJ would still be a Knick.
We would likely see the same thing with Murray in the starting lineup. Randle is one of the best 1st quarter scorers in the league. OG and DDV play well off the ball, and also know when to chip in.
We arent getting run out of the gym to start the game. The problem is that we dont have the bench scoring, now that IQ is gone. The FO can eiher add another scorer for the starting lineup, or the bench where there is the real scoring deficit.
Big threes are good when one of the big three isnt dominating the ball. Like Ray Allen in Boston's big 3, or Chris Bosh, with Miami's big 3. They didnt need the ball to be effective. Allen was a catch and shoot player at this stage in his career. Bosh sacrificed his game to make the big 3 work.
Which player of a potential Brunson/Murray/Randle big 3 would defer to the other two? Otherwise its going to be a repeat of what led to RJ being traded.
Murray off the bench, gets us that 6th man of the year caliber player.Now, lets say Murrray comes off the bench, and we go deep in the playoffs. but it still looks like we are missing a piece. My guess would be that Randle (because of his age) would be the next trade chip for a bigger star. A poor performance in the playoffs would probably seal the deal. We still have all those draft picks to add in a trade.
Before thats done, I'd like to see the FO add Murray for a bench role, or THJ, for some instant offense off the bench. See how far we go this season with this starting lineup. Give them the time to gel.
If we come up short, not as deep in the playoffs as we had hoped. Then this offseason I would hope to see the FO look at the starting lineup, and see what changes (if any) need to be made. Dont believe we need to complete our rebuild this season. We added OG and DDV to the starting lineup, so far so good. Hope the FO plays out this string.
.We need to avoid the hero ball ideal all together IMO. IQ worked because he was homegrown mid draft pick looking to earn his spot and role on the team. Thibs was in position to be flexible with him and use him accordingly. The assets and salary they would be giving for Murray. He will get 30+mins a game if he starts or comes off the bench. With a good possibility he is disgruntled coming off the bench.
DDV, Hart, Mcbride, OG, iHart can all produce. We need another ball mover/shooter preferably at forward. Cappable of helping further increase the ball movement and upping the role players overall production due to the flow of the offense.
And frontcourt depth.
Right now our backup PF/C is Precious who averages 2.9pts per game. Adding a solid big to the rotation that can produce more than 2.9pts per game alone greatly increases the benches overall production.
The combination of these 2 things would allow for the proper fit/balance, everyone knowing there roles, in position of strength/success etc.
I wouldnt equate instant offense off the bench with "hero ball" You need at least one starter who can score under pressure, with the shot clock running out. And you need one off the bench as well.
IQ played that role for us. Deuce has stepped up his game, but I dont believe he's going to be able to consistently make the tough shots, drives. IQ was also very efficient. not hero ball stuff.
I can agree instant offense will always be good piece to have.
Thing is we traded all we did for OG to be our #3 option. He is shooting 50/40/88% yet only getting 10.8 shots in 36 mins per game. 15pts at those %s already shows us that the ball isn't flowing at the level that it needs to if we are truly to be a contender. Hartenstein as a starter is getting 5 shot attempts within his 34mins(Is putting up 3 assist off a 9.5% usage though).
If we are to really get to championship contender level. The team should be flowing at a level where OG is getting 17-19ppg, iHart at 10ppg, Hart back to 10+ ppg. With actual production coming from a bench 3/4 and 4/5 that we currently don't have. Maybe one of them can net buckets that need to be had. Mcbride is still a wild card due to the small sample size. They should be hitting these numbers due to the elite ball movement from the squad overall.
Prime example. We blew out the 76ers with Randle shooting terrible due to elite ball movement netting 27 team assist and 7 players shooting in double figures. Defeated the Timberwolves with 5 players in double figures, 23 team assist and the both Harts combining for 15pts 20rebs 4ast.