Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Tim Smith's avatar

Mike Riordan- along with Cazzie Russell and Dave Stallworth- were known as the Minute Men on the first championship team. Before that Riordan was 'Give One Mike '. In the 60s an intentional foul was 1 free throw so some teams would foul at the end of a quarter to try and score 2 against the 1 free throw. Red Holzman would sub Riordan in with the instructions to 'give one Mike ' rather than have a starter risk foul trouble. Riordan's exuberance in 'giving one' made him a crowd favorite.

Expand full comment
Hanke's avatar

I think this concern about how Randle specifically would fit as a 1st, 2nd and 3rd option is really overthinking things. Knicks had 3 guys last year with 20 PPG and that was with RJ being really inefficient. Now, if you are keeping all 3, there is an issue in finding shots. But, Randle's not the biggest problem there (a few good playoff games for RJ notwithstanding).

Randle's still going to get the majority of his shots in the first half/first quarter and probably be the No. 1 option there. Then, as defenses double him, shots will open up for Brunson and whoever the "Superstar" is.

As for the clutch time in the 4th quarter, Randle shouldn't be the focus. But that's more a comment on this position than Randle specifically. Compare Randle's TS% in the clutch this past season to other prominent PFs. Randle - 51.9% KAT. He's better than 50.9% Frank Wagner (who I really like) 50.3% Tatum - 49.4% Giannis- 48% Horford - 48% Mikal Bridges - 47.9% AD- 47.1% Siakam - 45.1%.

Put some better shooters around him and his numbers probably go up in efficiency. Add a creator/shooter/superstar around him and he becomes more of a threat.

In summary, this assumption that Randle has to take a step back, adjust to a new role, etc., is not necessarily true. If the FO keeps Randle, they will figure it out.

Expand full comment
11 more comments...

No posts