RealGM

stuporman wrote:

Chanel Bomber wrote:

stuporman wrote:
Screaming man would like to have a word with you...

Watch on YouTube

Even if I agree that Jokic is the better player on the better team but you make it sound like he's as bad of a defender as your binky Burks.

Brunson plays with effort on defense but he's still a negative defensively. It's not his fault per se, but the reality is that he's not a positive factor on defense. That's not insignificant when you assess a player's overall impact.

Well, I'd like to inform your binary bound brain that life isn't just two sides. Just because he's not a 'net positive', and that's your opinion not fact or reality, doesn't mean he's a 'net positive'. He can be a 'net neutral' on defense, where he has match ups that are positive or negative for him, or situations that are either positive or negative for him creating a neutral effect.

Some assume because of his limitations that he's always a 'net negative' and in some instances that is accurate but it isn't across the board or in every circumstance that he's a net negative. I guess you'd rather go with assumptive narratives to make broad assessments but as screaming man so clearly points out, those aren't always the case. He makes plays that Burks can only dream of on both ends of the court.

Thanks for taking this opportunity to insult my intelligence when there was a window for civilized dialogue. I hope it makes you feel better about yourself.

We can have an endless debate on what constitutes as "fact" but there are now metrics that do a credible job of capturing defensive performance based on sound methodology. And these players all fall somewhere on a spectrum.

Most of these metrics suggest Brunson's a below-0 contributor on defense, i.e. a negative on defense. Of course his defensive impact will fluctuate depending on matchups but even if we assumed (contrary to the most advanced statistical evidence that we have) that Jalen's impact on defense was overall neutral, he would still fall short of SGA (All-NBA defender), Tatum and Jokic (and obviously Embiid). And this introduces a significant deficit that he would need to make up for on the other end to match them in overall impact. He doesn't in the case of Jokic and SGA (and Embiid).

No need for the insults. Let’s keep the vibes immaculate

?s=61&t=oWAQ5JzX5AK-44v89eypvw

Do those defensive metrics benefit Brunson for charges taken? He’s second best in the league at that, after the Warriors guy Podziem……

Deeeez Knicks wrote:No need for the insults. Let’s keep the vibes immaculate

Read on Twitter

?s=61&t=oWAQ5JzX5AK-44v89eypvw

"He was like yo that's f*cked up" !!!

Mitch was wrong for that if he did do it, but it's still funny as hell

MrDollarBills wrote:

Deeeez Knicks wrote:No need for the insults. Let’s keep the vibes immaculate

Read on Twitter

?s=61&t=oWAQ5JzX5AK-44v89eypvw

"He was like yo that's f*cked up" !!!

Mitch was wrong for that if he did do it, but it's still funny as hell

No shot Mitch made that video.

its a bit complicated with deep fake AI stuff I think.

I doubt Mitch can make toast for himself

Chanel Bomber wrote:

stuporman wrote:

Chanel Bomber wrote:Brunson plays with effort on defense but he's still a negative defensively. It's not his fault per se, but the reality is that he's not a positive factor on defense. That's not insignificant when you assess a player's overall impact.

Well, I'd like to inform your binary bound brain that life isn't just two sides. Just because he's not a 'net positive', and that's your opinion not fact or reality, doesn't mean he's a 'net positive'. He can be a 'net neutral' on defense, where he has match ups that are positive or negative for him, or situations that are either positive or negative for him creating a neutral effect.

Some assume because of his limitations that he's always a 'net negative' and in some instances that is accurate but it isn't across the board or in every circumstance that he's a net negative. I guess you'd rather go with assumptive narratives to make broad assessments but as screaming man so clearly points out, those aren't always the case. He makes plays that Burks can only dream of on both ends of the court.

Thanks for taking this opportunity to insult my intelligence when there was a window for civilized dialogue. I hope it makes you feel better about yourself.

We can have an endless debate on what constitutes as "fact" but there are now metrics that do a credible job of capturing defensive performance based on sound methodology. And these players all fall somewhere on a spectrum.

Most of these metrics suggest Brunson's a below-0 contributor on defense, i.e. a negative on defense. Of course his defensive impact will fluctuate depending on matchups but even if we assumed (contrary to the most advanced statistical evidence that we have) that Jalen's impact on defense was overall neutral, he would still fall short of SGA (All-NBA defender), Tatum and Jokic (and obviously Embiid). And this introduces a significant deficit that he would need to make up for on the other end to match them in overall impact. He doesn't in the case of Jokic and SGA (and Embiid).

I didn't insult your intelligence and in fact was quite civilized in alerting you to how there isn't a binary of only two options. It must be your ego that seems to think anyone who doesn't agree with you is insulting which is typical of the binary bound brain, if not complimenting me they are insulting me. See how the mind will do that sort of thing?

Don't try to drag it into the MVP discussion, which I wasn't talking about, and I kind of agree with some of your take on that but I'm sure you want to move the goalposts to because you desperately want to fight about it. You are welcome to do that yet it won't be with me.

Metrics don't capture everything as the video of actual play shows us, if you want to simply rely on stats to support your opinion and ignore that actual video evidence that's your choice but it's only part of the story and don't assume it's the whole of the story and build a narrative around it. Neutral would encompass a range in between two ranges, not just is a pole itself represented only by '0'.

stuporman wrote:

Chanel Bomber wrote:

stuporman wrote:
Well, I'd like to inform your binary bound brain that life isn't just two sides. Just because he's not a 'net positive', and that's your opinion not fact or reality, doesn't mean he's a 'net positive'. He can be a 'net neutral' on defense, where he has match ups that are positive or negative for him, or situations that are either positive or negative for him creating a neutral effect.

Some assume because of his limitations that he's always a 'net negative' and in some instances that is accurate but it isn't across the board or in every circumstance that he's a net negative. I guess you'd rather go with assumptive narratives to make broad assessments but as screaming man so clearly points out, those aren't always the case. He makes plays that Burks can only dream of on both ends of the court.

Thanks for taking this opportunity to insult my intelligence when there was a window for civilized dialogue. I hope it makes you feel better about yourself.

We can have an endless debate on what constitutes as "fact" but there are now metrics that do a credible job of capturing defensive performance based on sound methodology. And these players all fall somewhere on a spectrum.

Most of these metrics suggest Brunson's a below-0 contributor on defense, i.e. a negative on defense. Of course his defensive impact will fluctuate depending on matchups but even if we assumed (contrary to the most advanced statistical evidence that we have) that Jalen's impact on defense was overall neutral, he would still fall short of SGA (All-NBA defender), Tatum and Jokic (and obviously Embiid). And this introduces a significant deficit that he would need to make up for on the other end to match them in overall impact. He doesn't in the case of Jokic and SGA (and Embiid).

I didn't insult your intelligence and in fact was quite civilized in alerting you to how there isn't a binary of only two options. It must be your ego that seems to think anyone who doesn't agree with you is insulting which is typical of the binary bound brain, if not complimenting me they are insulting me. See how the mind will do that sort of thing?

Don't try to drag it into the MVP discussion, which I wasn't talking about, and I kind of agree with some of your take on that but I'm sure you want to move the goalposts to because you desperately want to fight about it. You are welcome to do that yet it won't be with me.

Metrics don't capture everything as the video of actual play shows us, if you want to simply rely on stats to support your opinion and ignore that actual video evidence that's your choice but it's only part of the story and don't assume it's the whole of the story and build a narrative around it. Neutral would encompass a range in between two ranges, not just is a pole itself represented only by '0'.

I know full well this isn't a binary thing, and I never said anything that suggests it.

Most impact metrics depict Brunson as a negative on defense overall.

Me saying he's a negative on defense isn't the byproduct of binary thinking, it's my assessment of his defense, which is backed by the best defensive metrics available. You can say that being "mildly negative" qualifies as neutral, and that's an argument I can hear, but that's semantics, and it doesn't have much relevance regarding the point I was making which was the gap on defense between Brunson and most other guys in the MVP discussion (varies depending on the metric).

But keep digging that hole with your personal attack. Because it was one. Just own it and don't pretend otherwise. I always welcome disagreement and regularly engage in it. Replying to me by opening with "Well, I'd like to inform your binary bound brain that life isn't just two sides" is *condenscending* and antagonistic. Again, have the decency to own it.

Chanel Bomber wrote:

stuporman wrote:

Chanel Bomber wrote:Thanks for taking this opportunity to insult my intelligence when there was a window for civilized dialogue. I hope it makes you feel better about yourself.

We can have an endless debate on what constitutes as "fact" but there are now metrics that do a credible job of capturing defensive performance based on sound methodology. And these players all fall somewhere on a spectrum.

Most of these metrics suggest Brunson's a below-0 contributor on defense, i.e. a negative on defense. Of course his defensive impact will fluctuate depending on matchups but even if we assumed (contrary to the most advanced statistical evidence that we have) that Jalen's impact on defense was overall neutral, he would still fall short of SGA (All-NBA defender), Tatum and Jokic (and obviously Embiid). And this introduces a significant deficit that he would need to make up for on the other end to match them in overall impact. He doesn't in the case of Jokic and SGA (and Embiid).

I didn't insult your intelligence and in fact was quite civilized in alerting you to how there isn't a binary of only two options. It must be your ego that seems to think anyone who doesn't agree with you is insulting which is typical of the binary bound brain, if not complimenting me they are insulting me. See how the mind will do that sort of thing?

Don't try to drag it into the MVP discussion, which I wasn't talking about, and I kind of agree with some of your take on that but I'm sure you want to move the goalposts to because you desperately want to fight about it. You are welcome to do that yet it won't be with me.

Metrics don't capture everything as the video of actual play shows us, if you want to simply rely on stats to support your opinion and ignore that actual video evidence that's your choice but it's only part of the story and don't assume it's the whole of the story and build a narrative around it. Neutral would encompass a range in between two ranges, not just is a pole itself represented only by '0'.

I know full well this isn't a binary thing, and I never said anything that suggests it.

Most impact metrics depict Brunson as a negative on defense overall.

Me saying he's a negative on defense isn't the byproduct of binary thinking, it's my assessment of his defense, which is backed by the best defensive metrics available. You can say that being "mildly negative" qualifies as neutral, and that's an argument I can hear, but that's semantics, and it doesn't have much relevance regarding the point I was making which was the gap on defense between Brunson and most other guys in the MVP discussion (varies depending on the metric).

But keep digging that hole with your personal attack. Because it was one. Just own it and don't pretend otherwise. I always welcome disagreement and regularly engage in it. Replying to me by opening with "Well, I'd like to inform your binary bound brain that life isn't just two sides" is demeaning and antagonistic. Again, have the decency to own it.

I know you have your pet stats that you think highly of but I agree with the two time COY and defensive mastermind who gets paid more money in one year than you probably have made in your whole life to do the job of it. So when he speaks, it has more credibility than us forum nobodies thinking we know everything. I suspect you won't agree but that wouldn't be surprising.

First thing he says...


Oh and we all have a binary bound brain, it's how it works, it takes effort to see past that evolutionary trait of the mind to see the spectrum of possibility not just this binary, many don't. Again, if I point this out, the mind will take it as an attack because it's defending it's sense of 'self'.

Chanel Bomber wrote:

stuporman wrote:

Chanel Bomber wrote:Thanks for taking this opportunity to insult my intelligence when there was a window for civilized dialogue. I hope it makes you feel better about yourself.

We can have an endless debate on what constitutes as "fact" but there are now metrics that do a credible job of capturing defensive performance based on sound methodology. And these players all fall somewhere on a spectrum.

Most of these metrics suggest Brunson's a below-0 contributor on defense, i.e. a negative on defense. Of course his defensive impact will fluctuate depending on matchups but even if we assumed (contrary to the most advanced statistical evidence that we have) that Jalen's impact on defense was overall neutral, he would still fall short of SGA (All-NBA defender), Tatum and Jokic (and obviously Embiid). And this introduces a significant deficit that he would need to make up for on the other end to match them in overall impact. He doesn't in the case of Jokic and SGA (and Embiid).

I didn't insult your intelligence and in fact was quite civilized in alerting you to how there isn't a binary of only two options. It must be your ego that seems to think anyone who doesn't agree with you is insulting which is typical of the binary bound brain, if not complimenting me they are insulting me. See how the mind will do that sort of thing?

Don't try to drag it into the MVP discussion, which I wasn't talking about, and I kind of agree with some of your take on that but I'm sure you want to move the goalposts to because you desperately want to fight about it. You are welcome to do that yet it won't be with me.

Metrics don't capture everything as the video of actual play shows us, if you want to simply rely on stats to support your opinion and ignore that actual video evidence that's your choice but it's only part of the story and don't assume it's the whole of the story and build a narrative around it. Neutral would encompass a range in between two ranges, not just is a pole itself represented only by '0'.

I know full well this isn't a binary thing, and I never said anything that suggests it.

Most impact metrics depict Brunson as a negative on defense overall.

Me saying he's a negative on defense isn't the byproduct of binary thinking, it's my assessment of his defense, which is backed by the best defensive metrics available. You can say that being "mildly negative" qualifies as neutral, and that's an argument I can hear, but that's semantics, and it doesn't have much relevance regarding the point I was making which was the gap on defense between Brunson and most other guys in the MVP discussion (varies depending on the metric).

But keep digging that hole with your personal attack. Because it was one. Just own it and don't pretend otherwise. I always welcome disagreement and regularly engage in it. Replying to me by opening with "Well, I'd like to inform your binary bound brain that life isn't just two sides" is demeaning and antagonistic. Again, have the decency to own it.

You MUST BOW TO THE GREATNESS OF THE ALMIGHTY BRUNSON!!!

Look I think Brunson has cemented himself as one of the 5 or 6 best overall offensive players in the game. He might go down as one of our favorite Knicks in all time Knicks history. But he is not anywhere an elite defender. It is what it is. I think the main point is Brunson for all the things he does on an elite level he is not the complete 2 way player like an SGA is or other elite 2 way players out there. I absolutely love Brunson but that is a fair take.

Chanel Bomber wrote:

Guano wrote:

thebuzzardman wrote:Chanel holding another Knick in low regard. Terrible but expected

Chanel Bomber wrote:This board really is full of bad people.

This is some of my best work, let me cook bro

It's exceptionally foul work - please carry on

Kudos to Perkins, he knows what's up


Kendrick Perkins calls out Charles Barkley and Shaquille O’Neal:

“It’s obvious that they don’t watch basketball. I’m serious, they can’t watch basketball consistently. The only time they actually probably watch the Knicks is when they’re covering the Knicks on their game nights.”

There's a difference between basketball analysts and TV personalities...just because someone played basketball professionally doesn't mean they are more than just TV personalities on a broadcast and personalities don't have to watch games, they just have to be entertaining-ish.

We settled that Brunson is the People's MVP months ago.

Capn'O wrote:We settled that Brunson is the People's MVP months ago.

Does anyone really want Giannis or Tatum to take the last shot of the game to win it instead of Brunson?

Maybe Jokic or Shai, but I don't think there is anyone else in the league I'd put over Brunson for pure clutchness

So, according to some opinions, Brunson isn't that great, neither is Thibs, yet somehow they eked out 50 wins and took 2nd in the east.

Must have been the doings of Jericho Sims.

thebuzzardman wrote:So, according to some opinions, Brunson isn't that great, neither is Thibs, yet somehow they eked out 50 wins and took 2nd in the east.

Must have been the doings of Jericho Sims.

Each of those 50 games was a fluke. The other teams were taking or suffered from extreme painful flatulence. Or it was just circumstances. Each and every one of the 50 times.

thebuzzardman wrote:So, according to some opinions, Brunson isn't that great, neither is Thibs, yet somehow they eked out 50 wins and took 2nd in the east.

Must have been the doings of Jericho Sims.

Each of those 50 games was a fluke. The other teams were taking or suffered from extreme painful flatulence. Or it was just circumstances. Each and every one of the 50 times.

Chanel Bomber wrote:

stuporman wrote:

Chanel Bomber wrote:But the MVP award isn't about who had the most adverse circumstances.

SGA and Jokic had better team records in the tougher Conference (meaning if you calibrate the schedules the gap in team wins likely increases), and they scored higher in impact metrics. There's no serious case for Brunson winning MVP when you consider these factors. The rest is mostly narrative-driven. That voters are giving him top 5 love is great already.

The Knicks also finished the season top 10 in defense and we know that Brunson wasn't much of a factor on that side of the ball. So while he did carry the offense in Randle's absence, his defense actually hurt the team (though not to the extent that his offense helped it), whereas someone like SGA was additive on both ends (and I would argue same for Jokic, who also happens to be the best offensive player in the league). It's all captured in the numbers and they show a clear gap.

Screaming man would like to have a word with you...

Watch on YouTube

Even if I agree that Jokic is the better player on the better team but you make it sound like he's as bad of a defender as your binky Burks.

Brunson plays with effort on defense but he's still a negative defensively. It's not his fault per se, but the reality is that he's not a positive factor on defense. That's not insignificant when you assess a player's overall impact.

Brunson, was 2nd in the league in taking charges and if you don't appreciate the impact and value that brings to the defense then that's on you.

Taking charges changes momentum and is an excellent example of elite help defense. There is nothing about Jalen Brunson's game that is insignificant.