Quotes from Knicks fans regarding Butler

[pjjrfan]

In the past Pop has been hard on rookies, but since Tony came in and then Manu, he has chilled as far as how he plays rookies, although that may be changing. Remember he gave Beno the back-up job as a rookie and stuck with him even after that game fiasco against Denver. But the final blow was Beno's meltdown in Detroit in the finals. Beno suffered the whole year because of that. I think Pop will give Butler every opportunity to succeed or fail. It's up to Butler to make a believer out of Pop. I hope he does.

[Notorious H.O.P.]

Here's an e-mail a good friend of mine who works in the Knicks FO sent me. He's in the PR dept., but he saw all 82 this past year and knows his basketball:

" As far as the center situation, you and the rest of Spurs fans will be pleasantly surprised with Jackie Butler. He's a legit low post player and does all his work downlow. If he can get into better shape, learn to rebound and block and coexist with TD downlow he's going to be a huge help to us. He's more talented than Nazr or Rasho ever were and considering the fact that he's going to be playing next to TD, he's going to have less pressure on him to be the "big guy." TD will erase mistakes. I'm extremely pleased with the Butler signing and it looks like the Knicks are not going to match. I read something interesting about how LB might have provied Pop with an extensive scouting report on Butler which is the reason why we signed him to an offer. I reiterate...Spurs fans will be pleasantly surprised."

I hadn't considered that maybe the reason Pop has a hard-on for JBut is because LB gave him the inside scoop. If that's the case, I'm so happy that Larry is screwing Isiah back. I blame those ing idiotic players and Isiah for all that and feel sorry for LB. I hope Butler is as good as my friend says he is.

Your Knicks FO guy is a Spurs fan? Is he whispering sweet nothings into Isiah's ear?

[conqueso]

Your contentions are simply wrong here.

Manu started less than half of the games in 2003-04, but not because Pop was unhappy with his play. Manu started without question through most of the first half of that season. He got hurt, which forced Hedo into the lineup. The previously-ineffective Turkoglu took off (relatively speaking) once he began starting games, and when Manu was ready to come back, Pop decided to bring Manu off the bench to keep Hedo in the lineup.

Not exactly accurate. Manu started the first 33 games of the season. He sprained his back against Philly, was out for five games, then started his first two back (both were Spurs losses). He got benched, started a stretch of three game later in the season when Hedo had a left quad contusion, but came off the bench every other game.

Hedo might have gotten into the lineup because Manu went down with injury, but he stayed in the lineup even after Manu came back. And btw, Hedo's stats (minutes and points) didn't change appreciably after he moved into the starting lineup.

You make it sound as though Pop benched Manu because of some sort of ineffectiveness. Manu's "benching" had nothing to do with Manu and everything to do with Hedo and maximizing Hedo's effectiveness.

Obviously I'm not saying that at all since I'm criticizing Pop for benching Manu. Listen. My point is that Manu was the bomb, putting up great numbers in good time, and Pop parked his ass on the bench unnecessarily. It had nothing to do with any ineffectiveness on Manu's part, but rather Pop's prejudice against youth. But the benching thing is really of no moment. My fundamental point is that Pop mismanaged Manu's talent because he didn't trust Manu enough. Look at his stats in '04 and '05: he took almost the exact same number of shots (789 and 780) in the exact same number of minutes per game (29.4 and 29.6), but he increased his scoring average by over 3 ppg. Part of that is that he was shooting a much higher percentage, and part of it was that he shot almost 150 more free throws in '05 (his FTAs swelled from 298 to 442, and his FTMs went from 239 to 355; over 74 games, that's an increase of 1.5 ppg in FTs). Now, we all know that part of Manu's success in '05 was due to the fact that Pop really took the reins off and let him drive headlong to the basketball much more often than he had before. Hence, the increase in shooting percentage, the increase in FTAs, and the increase in scoring. But I don't think Manu couldn't have done this before '05...I saw him do this a lot in the Olympics and '04 and a little in '03. I also saw Pop pull his ass out of the game when he did like that. I think Pop didn't trust Manu and Manu's style enough, and I think he hadn't developed the proper respect because he was prejudiced against Manu from the start for being a know-nothing inexperienced player. So he mismanaged Manu's minutes, let Hedo on to the court, and forced Manu to change up his style of play.

Curiously counter-intuitive to your argument, Pop repeated that during the 2005 playoffs [benching Manu cause he knew he could take it], starting Brent Barry in games 2-5 of the Denver series and Games 1-4 of the Seattle series. Pop made that move not because Manu was ineffective, but because the Spurs needed a spark off the bench and Manu was mature enough to understand that it would help the team for him to provide that spark.

For one thing, that point can't be "counterintuitive" to an argument; an argument can be counterintuitive in itself, but it can't be the object of counterintuition, if you see what I mean. Secondly, I was not speaking to the point of Manu getting moved to the bench in the '05 playoffs. Neither the argument I explicated above nor the argument I was making in previous posts has anything to do with Manu underperforming. I don't make that claim. I think Manu being benched in the '05 playoffs but still putting up 30 point games in 30 minutes is a completely different animal from him being benched in favor of Hedo Turkoglu (definitely much tier than Barry) and told not to play his game a certain way.

Pop is hard on young players, but Manu gained Pop's trust very quickly.

Not until '05.

If Butler comes in here and works hard to pick up the system and do the right things, Pop will find him minutes and let him earn some trust.

Back to my original point, I think the only reason Butler is going to get burn is because Pop has literally no other center. If we still had Rasho or Nazr, Butler would probably play as much as Oberto. And I think that's because Pop is

Anyway, if you think my contentions are just simply so wrong, explain Beno...I know everyone around here likes to joke about how he's a turnover machine, but Beno (a point guard) had fewer TOs per minute his rookie year than Stephen Jackson (a shooting guard) had in 02-03. But it doesn't make sense for a guy who had 2 DNP/CDs as a rookie to have 29 DNP/CDs as a sop re, especially when the guy stealing your minutes in Nick Van ing Exel, the worst piece of crap point guard ever to play for the Spurs. Explain that in any way other than "Pop is too tough on young uns"

[ducks]

butler>>>>nazr

[conqueso]

Your Knicks FO guy is a Spurs fan? Is he whispering sweet nothings into Isiah's ear?

He was born and raised in San Antonio. Apparently, he is Malik's only friend in the FO, especially after the fighting-over-gambling-debts-naked-in-the-shower incident. And yes, he says he has tried to get Isiah to trade for Rasho and Barry, but said that even Isiah isn't that stupid.

[rr2418]

WTF!!!!!!!!!!

Isiah you ***hole, now i bet he spends the MLE on some horrible long term contract.

Thanks for letting a 20 year old promising center go for 7 million over 3 years IDIOT.

Can't wait for the Isiah lovers to defend this crap.

**** YOU ISIAH! YOUR'E AN IMBECIL!



This was such a no-brainer, this could be Isiahs worst move since James. UNFREAKINGREAL!!!

7 Million for 3 years for Butler.

I feel sick, welcome to the Jerome James era boys.

(Vomits)

Isiah is making it so hard to be a Knicks fan, what a freaking moron. Maybe if SA offered him 9 MIllion a year he would have matched?

WTF.



1. he wasnt in summer league because he wasnt under contract and refused to go.

2. Yeah he is more valuable then Nate.

3. He played ahead of James and even Curry at times last year, he's 20 for gods sake.

4. he cost 2.3 million a year!! and a short contract.

This is assinine, inexcusable and void of any reasoning or logic. Sounds like a typical isiah move to me.


I bet anything you were praising Butler until your lord and master Isiah dumped him. Butler is 20!!!! and already producing those numbers. You want to argue JJ is better? Come on make yourself look dumber?

JJ- 48 Million
Butler- 7 Million

This was plain re ed. You dont let a promising big go for 2.3 a year. Maybe Isiah cant write checks that low?

Isiah is an imbecil, stop defending his pathetic ***.



Sounds like they're pretty pissed

Hmmm! Sounds great! Sounds too great! You woudn't happen to have the site you got those quotes from? It just sounds you made those comments up!

[FromWayDowntown]

This isn't really relevant to Jackie Butler, but I can't let this go without a retort. Sorry to the Butler-philes for taking up room in this thread.

Not exactly accurate. Manu started the first 33 games of the season. He sprained his back against Philly, was out for five games, then started his first two back (both were Spurs losses). He got benched, started a stretch of three game later in the season when Hedo had a left quad contusion, but came off the bench every other game.

Hedo might have gotten into the lineup because Manu went down with injury, but he stayed in the lineup even after Manu came back. And btw, Hedo's stats (minutes and points) didn't change appreciably after he moved into the starting lineup.

Actually, Hedo's minutes went up from about 20.6 mpg to about 30.6 mpg after that change. Hedo's scoring went up appreciably with more minutes, from 7.0 in non-starts to 11.1 in games he started. Hedo's percentages got much better, too, when he started games. In his non-starts, Hedo shot .369 from the field and .373 from three; in his starts, Hedo shot .426 from the field and .430 from three. I'll grant you that the increase in minutes might account for the jump in scoring, but the jump in shooting percentages is fairly dramatic.

By contrast, for what it's worth, Manu averaged 13.3 ppg in his 38 starts and 12.3 in his 39 subs ute appearances. Coming off the bench, however, Manu actually raised his shooting percentages. He shot .404 from the field in starts that year and .341 from three in starts; he shot .434 from the field in non-starts and .383 from three in non-starts. Manu lost about 7 mpg after the switch -- from 32.8 before to 25.9 after. Those numbers are impacted slightly by the fact that Manu was the lone ranger for a while when Parker and Duncan were hurt early in that season and by the fact that Manu lost minutes due to his injuries and shortened minutes in the games immediately after he returned.

In any event, from a numerical standpoint, the switch would seem to have been a win-win for that team. Hedo's production on a percentage basis improves significantly, Manu's production on a percentage basis improves significantly, Hedo's production on a gross numbers basis improves, and Manu's production on a gross numbers basis dips only slightly.

Obviously I'm not saying that at all since I'm criticizing Pop for benching Manu. Listen. My point is that Manu was the bomb, putting up great numbers in good time, and Pop parked his ass on the bench unnecessarily. It had nothing to do with any ineffectiveness on Manu's part, but rather Pop's prejudice against youth.

Nonsense! If Pop had a prejudice against youth that affected Manu, then the proof of that prejudice wouldn't come in making Manu his 6th man, but in severely limiting Manu's minutes. After all, if Pop thought that Manu's youth hurt the team, it wouldn't make sense to have him on the floor, right? Starting or not starting is wholly arbitrary. Minutes speak -- guys who perform get minutes. As you've said, Many got the same number of minutes in 2004 and 2005.

More significantly -- and particularly problematic to your argument, I think -- is the fact that Manu was finishing games more than Turkoglu was in the latter parts of the 2003-04 season.

To say nothing of the fact that Manu was on the floor to end the 4th quarter of the Spurs 2003 closeouts in Phoenix, in Dallas, and at home in the NBA Finals (I didn't look at Game 6 of the Laker series, since the late 4th of that game was garbage time). It's odder still that a coach who has a prejudice against young players (like Pop, apparently) would, for example, trust such an untrustworthy player with closing minutes of every contested Finals game as a rookie; and still odder that he would design plays for such rookies to take game-winning shots on the road in a Finals game.

If Pop has the blatant prejudice against youth that you claim he does, it's really odd that he shows it in the relatively insignificant first minutes of play and not in the usually-significant crunch time minutes of his team's most important games!!

But the benching thing is really of no moment. My fundamental point is that Pop mismanaged Manu's talent because he didn't trust Manu enough. Look at his stats in '04 and '05: he took almost the exact same number of shots (789 and 780) in the exact same number of minutes per game (29.4 and 29.6), but he increased his scoring average by over 3 ppg. Part of that is that he was shooting a much higher percentage, and part of it was that he shot almost 150 more free throws in '05 (his FTAs swelled from 298 to 442, and his FTMs went from 239 to 355; over 74 games, that's an increase of 1.5 ppg in FTs). Now, we all know that part of Manu's success in '05 was due to the fact that Pop really took the reins off and let him drive headlong to the basketball much more often than he had before. Hence, the increase in shooting percentage, the increase in FTAs, and the increase in scoring. But I don't think Manu couldn't have done this before '05...I saw him do this a lot in the Olympics and '04 and a little in '03. I also saw Pop pull his ass out of the game when he did like that. I think Pop didn't trust Manu and Manu's style enough, and I think he hadn't developed the proper respect because he was prejudiced against Manu from the start for being a know-nothing inexperienced player. So he mismanaged Manu's minutes, let Hedo on to the court, and forced Manu to change up his style of play.

See, I disagree with you there, too. I don't have any doubt that Pop became about as comfortable as he'll ever be with Manu during 2004-05. But Manu also gained a confidence from the Olympics, from making the all-star team, and from being a veteran player and understanding the league. I don't think you can take those factors out of the equation and I don't think that you can say that Manu's improvement in 2004-05 from a statistical standpoint was entirely a matter of Pop pulling off the shackles. It was about officials respecting Manu's moves and giving him more of the benefit of the doubt on close plays. Did Manu attack more in 2004-05 because Pop finally said it was okay? or was it because Manu gained additional confidence by his sublime play in the Olympics and by having been around the block a couple of times in the NBA? I don't know that you can discount either as a factor.

For one thing, that point can't be "counterintuitive" to an argument; an argument can be counterintuitive in itself, but it can't be the object of counterintuition, if you see what I mean. Secondly, I was not speaking to the point of Manu getting moved to the bench in the '05 playoffs. Neither the argument I explicated above nor the argument I was making in previous posts has anything to do with Manu underperforming. I don't make that claims. I think Manu being benched in the '05 playoffs but still putting up 30 point games in 30 minutes is a completely different animal from him being benched in favor of Hedo Turkoglu (definitely much tier than Barry) and told not to play his game a certain way.

If I'm to take your argument as correct -- that Manu was benched in 2004 not because Pop thought it best for the team but because Pop harbored some prejudice against young players -- then the facts that exist are counterintuitive to that argument. If you wish to correct my usage, so be it. That's hardly the point.

I think the point is that the 2005 playoffs demonstrate Pop's consistency in making decisions to use Manu as a subs ute because there is an advantage to the team to do so, and not because Pop has some vendetta against young players.

Anyway, if you think my contentions are just simply so wrong, explain Beno...I know everyone around here likes to joke about how he's a turnover machine, but Beno (a point guard) had fewer TOs per minute his rookie year than Stephen Jackson (a shooting guard) had in 02-03. But it doesn't make sense for a guy who had 2 DNP/CDs as a rookie to have 29 DNP/CDs as a sop re, especially when the guy stealing your minutes in Nick Van ing Exel, the worst piece of crap point guard ever to play for the Spurs. Explain that in any way other than "Pop is too tough on young uns"

Beno is easy to explain, I think. Pop gave Beno a mile of rope during the 2005 playoffs and Beno managed to hang himself with it. Beno played well enough during that regular season, but in key moments in the 2005 playoffs, Beno crapped the bed by his inability to deal with ball pressure, among other things. You may have noticed that this program is entirely about what happens between mid-April and late-June and guys who can't get it done during that period tend to not get much run, even during the regular season. Pop had a chance to acquire a veteran point who he thought would be better able to handle playoff pressure better than Beno had, and he ran with it. I don't think that move was made based on some generalized dislike for young players; it was made because Beno had given Pop reason to believe that he could not be trusted when it mattered most. It's easy now to say that was a bad choice; it wasn't quite so clear when the decision was made in October or November of 2005.

Nevertheless, riddle me this: if Pop is so unwilling to trust young players, why on Earth did he ever hand the reins of his team over to a 19-year-old Tony Parker when he had Methuselah himself in Terry Porter sitting on the bench and available to assauge Pop's categorical lack of trust in young players?