Teams that won a title without Top 5 Player

[AbeVigodaLive]

So I think there are plenty of valid arguments to make to say that Ant could be a top 5 player next year, however, in the spirit of the thread I think we still need ask what can this team do to win a championship if we assume that he isn't that.

Small digression here, but the objective evidence is that Ant is not a top 5 player. Coming into the season, there were those who would have said he was, but there is simply no arguing that Wemby has knocked him down to at least the 6th best player -I would personally regard him lower than that. Outside of subjective rankings, he misses the mark in impact metrics (net rating, vorp, rapm, +/-, epm), he still hasn't made an all NBA 1st team and probably wouldn't have this year if he could have, and has never finished top 5 in MVP votes. The most favorable metric for Edwards is Darko's DPM, which is imo the best catch all metric and the most predictive; this stat tells a confusing story as well. In April at the end of the RS, Ant had an elite 4.9 DPM which iirc was good for 4th or 5th in the league- by post season's end he has dropped all the way to 3.6, a good number, but not exactly a something you see from a championship number 1. Funny enough, all three of Kat, Brunsen and OG finished with a 3.6 DPM --- pretty rare to see 3 guys from the same team finish that high. Anyway all of that to say, at best, Ant is measurably, just outside the top 5 of the league.

So how does this team maneuver a good but not elite roster to well.... An elite one?

Do the Knicks have an “elite roster”? They obviously have a championship roster. Ant’s not a top 5 player, but I’d say he’s an elite player. Any top 15 player in the NBA is elite and Ant is probably top 10. So we have an elite player, Edwards, who is top 10 and might move up to top 5. And we have some very good players in Jaden, Naz and Ayo assuming we retain him. We have a borderline all-star in Randle and a top three defensive player in Rudy. The question in my mind isn’t how we move to an “elite roster.” The question is how we create a “championship” roster around a pretty rare elite player named Anthony Edwards. I don’t know exactly how we do that but that’s the challenge for Tim Connelly. I think he has enough to work with if he’s shrewd and strategic. As we’ve discussed in other threads, the answer clearly isn’t trading valuable assets for an aging former star. Just consider how the Suns and Rockets faired when they traded for Durant. But I think there are some moves TC can make that would make the Wolves a significantly better team. I don’t know what those moves are, but I’m convinced those opportunities are there for TC to find and act on.

My lesson from watching the Knicks in the playoffs is that an "elite roster" is one in which most if not every starter is at least a competent 2-way player. Coming into the season, I questioned whether the Knicks met this criteria, because I thought KAT was punished defensively in the playoffs last season. But now I agree with you, Lip, that KAT is indeed a very good defensive player...he proved that against Wemby. They have one player (Brunson) who gets targeted on defense a lot, but he is so good offensively he makes up for his defensive shortcomings. But more importantly, he is accompanied in the starting lineup by 4 truly competent to excellent 2-way players. Contrast that with the Wolves, who went through the season with two starters far below average on defense (Ju and Ant) and one starter limited on offense (Rudy). The Wolves are not at the Knicks level now, but they can get there I think if the coaching staff can get Ant to reach his defensive potential.

Even though Brunson can be targeted defensively, he's still elite at ONE thing defensively... taking charges.

He took the most charges in the league this season. In fact, he took more than 3x as many charges as the entire Wolves roster.

[Lipoli390]

So I think there are plenty of valid arguments to make to say that Ant could be a top 5 player next year, however, in the spirit of the thread I think we still need ask what can this team do to win a championship if we assume that he isn't that.

Small digression here, but the objective evidence is that Ant is not a top 5 player. Coming into the season, there were those who would have said he was, but there is simply no arguing that Wemby has knocked him down to at least the 6th best player -I would personally regard him lower than that. Outside of subjective rankings, he misses the mark in impact metrics (net rating, vorp, rapm, +/-, epm), he still hasn't made an all NBA 1st team and probably wouldn't have this year if he could have, and has never finished top 5 in MVP votes. The most favorable metric for Edwards is Darko's DPM, which is imo the best catch all metric and the most predictive; this stat tells a confusing story as well. In April at the end of the RS, Ant had an elite 4.9 DPM which iirc was good for 4th or 5th in the league- by post season's end he has dropped all the way to 3.6, a good number, but not exactly a something you see from a championship number 1. Funny enough, all three of Kat, Brunsen and OG finished with a 3.6 DPM --- pretty rare to see 3 guys from the same team finish that high. Anyway all of that to say, at best, Ant is measurably, just outside the top 5 of the league.

So how does this team maneuver a good but not elite roster to well.... An elite one?

Do the Knicks have an “elite roster”? They obviously have a championship roster. Ant’s not a top 5 player, but I’d say he’s an elite player. Any top 15 player in the NBA is elite and Ant is probably top 10. So we have an elite player, Edwards, who is top 10 and might move up to top 5. And we have some very good players in Jaden, Naz and Ayo assuming we retain him. We have a borderline all-star in Randle and a top three defensive player in Rudy. The question in my mind isn’t how we move to an “elite roster.” The question is how we create a “championship” roster around a pretty rare elite player named Anthony Edwards. I don’t know exactly how we do that but that’s the challenge for Tim Connelly. I think he has enough to work with if he’s shrewd and strategic. As we’ve discussed in other threads, the answer clearly isn’t trading valuable assets for an aging former star. Just consider how the Suns and Rockets faired when they traded for Durant. But I think there are some moves TC can make that would make the Wolves a significantly better team. I don’t know what those moves are, but I’m convinced those opportunities are there for TC to find and act on.

My lesson from watching the Knicks in the playoffs is that an "elite roster" is one in which most if not every starter is at least a competent 2-way player. Coming into the season, I questioned whether the Knicks met this criteria, because I thought KAT was punished defensively in the playoffs last season. But now I agree with you, Lip, that KAT is indeed a very good defensive player...he proved that against Wemby. They have one player (Brunson) who gets targeted on defense a lot, but he is so good offensively he makes up for his defensive shortcomings. But more importantly, he is accompanied in the starting lineup by 4 truly competent to excellent 2-way players. Contrast that with the Wolves, who went through the season with two starters far below average on defense (Ju and Ant) and one starter limited on offense (Rudy). The Wolves are not at the Knicks level now, but they can get there I think if the coaching staff can get Ant to reach his defensive potential.

That’s a good analysis, FNG. I like your definition of an elite roster and I agree with you about our lack of enough two-way players on our rotation. The good news is that Ant CAN BE a good, even elite, defender to go along with his elite offense. More good news is that Ayo will hopefully be with us the entire season and he’s very solid on both sides of the ball. Jaden is of course a very good two-way player. If Ant steps up defensively, then three of our five starters (assuming Ayo stays and starts at PG) will be at least a competent two-way player with Ant elite offensively and Jaden elite defensively. So if we want to get an elite roster under your definition, we’ll have to replace either Randle or Rudy - possibly both. Now we’re back to where many (maybe most of us) have been for a while. We need to move Randle, and as Q has suggested, we should explore moving Rudy. Interestingly, each of these two players is elite or almost elite on one side of the ball but subpar on the other side. What makes sense to me is trading Randle to a team that wants an elite offensive starter in exchange a rotation player who is competent of both ends. I think we should probably keep Rudy as a defensive anchor unless we can get a couple 1st round picks or a very promising young two-way player in return.

[Coolbreeze44]

We need to try to move Randle and Rudy in an effort to bulk up our assets to acquire Giannis without giving up Jaden. I'm guessing that's what TC is trying to do right now.

[AussieWolf3]

So I think there are plenty of valid arguments to make to say that Ant could be a top 5 player next year, however, in the spirit of the thread I think we still need ask what can this team do to win a championship if we assume that he isn't that.

Small digression here, but the objective evidence is that Ant is not a top 5 player. Coming into the season, there were those who would have said he was, but there is simply no arguing that Wemby has knocked him down to at least the 6th best player -I would personally regard him lower than that. Outside of subjective rankings, he misses the mark in impact metrics (net rating, vorp, rapm, +/-, epm), he still hasn't made an all NBA 1st team and probably wouldn't have this year if he could have, and has never finished top 5 in MVP votes. The most favorable metric for Edwards is Darko's DPM, which is imo the best catch all metric and the most predictive; this stat tells a confusing story as well. In April at the end of the RS, Ant had an elite 4.9 DPM which iirc was good for 4th or 5th in the league- by post season's end he has dropped all the way to 3.6, a good number, but not exactly a something you see from a championship number 1. Funny enough, all three of Kat, Brunsen and OG finished with a 3.6 DPM --- pretty rare to see 3 guys from the same team finish that high. Anyway all of that to say, at best, Ant is measurably, just outside the top 5 of the league.

So how does this team maneuver a good but not elite roster to well.... An elite one?

Do the Knicks have an “elite roster”? They obviously have a championship roster. Ant’s not a top 5 player, but I’d say he’s an elite player. Any top 15 player in the NBA is elite and Ant is probably top 10. So we have an elite player, Edwards, who is top 10 and might move up to top 5. And we have some very good players in Jaden, Naz and Ayo assuming we retain him. We have a borderline all-star in Randle and a top three defensive player in Rudy. The question in my mind isn’t how we move to an “elite roster.” The question is how we create a “championship” roster around a pretty rare elite player named Anthony Edwards. I don’t know exactly how we do that but that’s the challenge for Tim Connelly. I think he has enough to work with if he’s shrewd and strategic. As we’ve discussed in other threads, the answer clearly isn’t trading valuable assets for an aging former star. Just consider how the Suns and Rockets faired when they traded for Durant. But I think there are some moves TC can make that would make the Wolves a significantly better team. I don’t know what those moves are, but I’m convinced those opportunities are there for TC to find and act on.

My lesson from watching the Knicks in the playoffs is that an "elite roster" is one in which most if not every starter is at least a competent 2-way player. Coming into the season, I questioned whether the Knicks met this criteria, because I thought KAT was punished defensively in the playoffs last season. But now I agree with you, Lip, that KAT is indeed a very good defensive player...he proved that against Wemby. They have one player (Brunson) who gets targeted on defense a lot, but he is so good offensively he makes up for his defensive shortcomings. But more importantly, he is accompanied in the starting lineup by 4 truly competent to excellent 2-way players. Contrast that with the Wolves, who went through the season with two starters far below average on defense (Ju and Ant) and one starter limited on offense (Rudy). The Wolves are not at the Knicks level now, but they can get there I think if the coaching staff can get Ant to reach his defensive potential.

I agree with your conclusion....I think. I've longed bemoaned the wolves imbalanced roster and to be honest it would be one of the main reason I would want to trade Rudy, although I'm not sure I actually do. However, it is absolutely the reason they need a reset.

That said, I need to pick at something you've said:

"an "elite roster" is one in which most if not every starter is at least a competent 2-way player"

And

"They have one player (Brunson) who gets targeted on defense a lot, but he is so good offensively he makes up for his defensive shortcomings."

I agree with your first point, but... Do you think Brunsen is a more competent defender than Ant? If you're willing to say the 2nd statement regarding Brunsen, does that not apply exactly to Ant? Ant is as good or better on both sides of the ball, that's inarguable.

The only reason I even care to pick this bone is because of how it relates to building the team. The Knicks just showed us that you can survive a Brunsen (or Ant) level defender. I desperately want to see Ant become the two monster he can be, but I'm not counting on it and to be honest it isn't absolutely necessary --- as you suggest it is. In all actuality, I would say the best way to get Ant to his best defensive impact while maintaining his offensive brilliance is to insulate him on that end as much as possible and allow him the freedom to be a playmaker on defense.

[Monster]

Do the Knicks have an “elite roster”? They obviously have a championship roster. Ant’s not a top 5 player, but I’d say he’s an elite player. Any top 15 player in the NBA is elite and Ant is probably top 10. So we have an elite player, Edwards, who is top 10 and might move up to top 5. And we have some very good players in Jaden, Naz and Ayo assuming we retain him. We have a borderline all-star in Randle and a top three defensive player in Rudy. The question in my mind isn’t how we move to an “elite roster.” The question is how we create a “championship” roster around a pretty rare elite player named Anthony Edwards. I don’t know exactly how we do that but that’s the challenge for Tim Connelly. I think he has enough to work with if he’s shrewd and strategic. As we’ve discussed in other threads, the answer clearly isn’t trading valuable assets for an aging former star. Just consider how the Suns and Rockets faired when they traded for Durant. But I think there are some moves TC can make that would make the Wolves a significantly better team. I don’t know what those moves are, but I’m convinced those opportunities are there for TC to find and act on.

My lesson from watching the Knicks in the playoffs is that an "elite roster" is one in which most if not every starter is at least a competent 2-way player. Coming into the season, I questioned whether the Knicks met this criteria, because I thought KAT was punished defensively in the playoffs last season. But now I agree with you, Lip, that KAT is indeed a very good defensive player...he proved that against Wemby. They have one player (Brunson) who gets targeted on defense a lot, but he is so good offensively he makes up for his defensive shortcomings. But more importantly, he is accompanied in the starting lineup by 4 truly competent to excellent 2-way players. Contrast that with the Wolves, who went through the season with two starters far below average on defense (Ju and Ant) and one starter limited on offense (Rudy). The Wolves are not at the Knicks level now, but they can get there I think if the coaching staff can get Ant to reach his defensive potential.

I agree with your conclusion....I think. I've longed bemoaned the wolves imbalanced roster and to be honest it would be one of the main reason I would want to trade Rudy, although I'm not sure I actually do. However, it is absolutely the reason they need a reset.

That said, I need to pick at something you've said:

"an "elite roster" is one in which most if not every starter is at least a competent 2-way player"

And

"They have one player (Brunson) who gets targeted on defense a lot, but he is so good offensively he makes up for his defensive shortcomings."

I agree with your first point, but... Do you think Brunsen is a more competent defender than Ant? If you're willing to say the 2nd statement regarding Brunsen, does that not apply exactly to Ant? Ant is as good or better on both sides of the ball, that's inarguable.

The only reason I even care to pick this bone is because of how it relates to building the team. The Knicks just showed us that you can survive a Brunsen (or Ant) level defender. I desperately want to see Ant become the two monster he can be, but I'm not counting on it and to be honest it isn't absolutely necessary --- as you suggest it is. In all actuality, I would say the best way to get Ant to his best defensive impact while maintaining his offensive brilliance is to insulate him on that end as much as possible and allow him the freedom to be a playmaker on defense.

I believe despite his quirks and faults Gobert can offer value on the offensive end. I think one of the issues that was a little unexpected is that Naz was supposed to the guy you play at C to be able to play differently when you sit Gobert. That hasn't really worked and that's partly due to Naz and partly due to Randle. Randle at times on the defensive end would be locked in being a part of the Wolves defense despite some limitations. Other times he simply wasn't and because of his lack of overall length that caused problems. To me if the Wolves add a player that better compliments Naz and Rudy then the Wolves can truly play differently in minutes where Rudy isn't a great fit on the floor. I still think Rudy is really valuable and more of a solution than a problem.

I'm not saying we need to get a guard just for Rudy but a better guard to take advantage of what he offers around the basket would be valuable...and that would probably be worthwhile when Beringer plays also. I'd like to see a worthwhile PF added to the roster that plays bigger than Randle and Naz which isn't a wildly high bar but I think people get what I'm saying.

[FNG]

Do the Knicks have an “elite roster”? They obviously have a championship roster. Ant’s not a top 5 player, but I’d say he’s an elite player. Any top 15 player in the NBA is elite and Ant is probably top 10. So we have an elite player, Edwards, who is top 10 and might move up to top 5. And we have some very good players in Jaden, Naz and Ayo assuming we retain him. We have a borderline all-star in Randle and a top three defensive player in Rudy. The question in my mind isn’t how we move to an “elite roster.” The question is how we create a “championship” roster around a pretty rare elite player named Anthony Edwards. I don’t know exactly how we do that but that’s the challenge for Tim Connelly. I think he has enough to work with if he’s shrewd and strategic. As we’ve discussed in other threads, the answer clearly isn’t trading valuable assets for an aging former star. Just consider how the Suns and Rockets faired when they traded for Durant. But I think there are some moves TC can make that would make the Wolves a significantly better team. I don’t know what those moves are, but I’m convinced those opportunities are there for TC to find and act on.

My lesson from watching the Knicks in the playoffs is that an "elite roster" is one in which most if not every starter is at least a competent 2-way player. Coming into the season, I questioned whether the Knicks met this criteria, because I thought KAT was punished defensively in the playoffs last season. But now I agree with you, Lip, that KAT is indeed a very good defensive player...he proved that against Wemby. They have one player (Brunson) who gets targeted on defense a lot, but he is so good offensively he makes up for his defensive shortcomings. But more importantly, he is accompanied in the starting lineup by 4 truly competent to excellent 2-way players. Contrast that with the Wolves, who went through the season with two starters far below average on defense (Ju and Ant) and one starter limited on offense (Rudy). The Wolves are not at the Knicks level now, but they can get there I think if the coaching staff can get Ant to reach his defensive potential.

I agree with your conclusion....I think. I've longed bemoaned the wolves imbalanced roster and to be honest it would be one of the main reason I would want to trade Rudy, although I'm not sure I actually do. However, it is absolutely the reason they need a reset.

That said, I need to pick at something you've said:

"an "elite roster" is one in which most if not every starter is at least a competent 2-way player"

And

"They have one player (Brunson) who gets targeted on defense a lot, but he is so good offensively he makes up for his defensive shortcomings."

I agree with your first point, but... Do you think Brunsen is a more competent defender than Ant? If you're willing to say the 2nd statement regarding Brunsen, does that not apply exactly to Ant? Ant is as good or better on both sides of the ball, that's inarguable.

The only reason I even care to pick this bone is because of how it relates to building the team. The Knicks just showed us that you can survive a Brunsen (or Ant) level defender. I desperately want to see Ant become the two monster he can be, but I'm not counting on it and to be honest it isn't absolutely necessary --- as you suggest it is. In all actuality, I would say the best way to get Ant to his best defensive impact while maintaining his offensive brilliance is to insulate him on that end as much as possible and allow him the freedom to be a playmaker on defense.

Your question about Ant's and Brunson's relative defensive abilities is a fair one, Aussie, and their strengths and weaknesses are actually quite different. Ant has the physical attributes and athleticism to be a very good on-ball defender (and Brunson doesn't), but his on-ball effort is just not consistent. But I give the nod to Brunson for two reasons: as Abe has pointed out, he is tough and elite at drawing charges (similar to our guy Shannon). And second, he is a very smart off ball defender (similar to Conley in my opinion), and that makes up for his relatively weaker on-ball defense. There's no question in my mind though that Ant's defensive ceiling is much higher than Brunson's.

[Q-is-here]

My lesson from watching the Knicks in the playoffs is that an "elite roster" is one in which most if not every starter is at least a competent 2-way player. Coming into the season, I questioned whether the Knicks met this criteria, because I thought KAT was punished defensively in the playoffs last season. But now I agree with you, Lip, that KAT is indeed a very good defensive player...he proved that against Wemby. They have one player (Brunson) who gets targeted on defense a lot, but he is so good offensively he makes up for his defensive shortcomings. But more importantly, he is accompanied in the starting lineup by 4 truly competent to excellent 2-way players. Contrast that with the Wolves, who went through the season with two starters far below average on defense (Ju and Ant) and one starter limited on offense (Rudy). The Wolves are not at the Knicks level now, but they can get there I think if the coaching staff can get Ant to reach his defensive potential.

I agree with your conclusion....I think. I've longed bemoaned the wolves imbalanced roster and to be honest it would be one of the main reason I would want to trade Rudy, although I'm not sure I actually do. However, it is absolutely the reason they need a reset.

That said, I need to pick at something you've said:

"an "elite roster" is one in which most if not every starter is at least a competent 2-way player"

And

"They have one player (Brunson) who gets targeted on defense a lot, but he is so good offensively he makes up for his defensive shortcomings."

I agree with your first point, but... Do you think Brunsen is a more competent defender than Ant? If you're willing to say the 2nd statement regarding Brunsen, does that not apply exactly to Ant? Ant is as good or better on both sides of the ball, that's inarguable.

The only reason I even care to pick this bone is because of how it relates to building the team. The Knicks just showed us that you can survive a Brunsen (or Ant) level defender. I desperately want to see Ant become the two monster he can be, but I'm not counting on it and to be honest it isn't absolutely necessary --- as you suggest it is. In all actuality, I would say the best way to get Ant to his best defensive impact while maintaining his offensive brilliance is to insulate him on that end as much as possible and allow him the freedom to be a playmaker on defense.

Your question about Ant's and Brunson's relative defensive abilities is a fair one, Aussie, and their strengths and weaknesses are actually quite different. Ant has the physical attributes and athleticism to be a very good on-ball defender (and Brunson doesn't), but his on-ball effort is just not consistent. But I give the nod to Brunson for two reasons: as Abe has pointed out, he is tough and elite at drawing charges (similar to our guy Shannon). And second, he is a very smart off ball defender (similar to Conley in my opinion), and that makes up for his relatively weaker on-ball defense. There's no question in my mind though that Ant's defensive ceiling is much higher than Brunson's.

They had the same defensive rating in the regular season (114 pts per 100 possessions) and one of the most respected advanced stats called Estimated Plus-Minus had Brunson in the 12th percentile of defenders and Ant in the 38th percentile. Bottom line is that at least based on the metrics available, Brunson is NOT the better defender. I mean, Ant has literally won us games with his defense (remember the last second block on Shai?).

Now I do think it's unquestionable that Ant underachieved on that end more than Brunson. But that's different than actual impact. Ant simply has to be better on that end next season given his abilities.

[AussieWolf3]

My lesson from watching the Knicks in the playoffs is that an "elite roster" is one in which most if not every starter is at least a competent 2-way player. Coming into the season, I questioned whether the Knicks met this criteria, because I thought KAT was punished defensively in the playoffs last season. But now I agree with you, Lip, that KAT is indeed a very good defensive player...he proved that against Wemby. They have one player (Brunson) who gets targeted on defense a lot, but he is so good offensively he makes up for his defensive shortcomings. But more importantly, he is accompanied in the starting lineup by 4 truly competent to excellent 2-way players. Contrast that with the Wolves, who went through the season with two starters far below average on defense (Ju and Ant) and one starter limited on offense (Rudy). The Wolves are not at the Knicks level now, but they can get there I think if the coaching staff can get Ant to reach his defensive potential.

I agree with your conclusion....I think. I've longed bemoaned the wolves imbalanced roster and to be honest it would be one of the main reason I would want to trade Rudy, although I'm not sure I actually do. However, it is absolutely the reason they need a reset.

That said, I need to pick at something you've said:

"an "elite roster" is one in which most if not every starter is at least a competent 2-way player"

And

"They have one player (Brunson) who gets targeted on defense a lot, but he is so good offensively he makes up for his defensive shortcomings."

I agree with your first point, but... Do you think Brunsen is a more competent defender than Ant? If you're willing to say the 2nd statement regarding Brunsen, does that not apply exactly to Ant? Ant is as good or better on both sides of the ball, that's inarguable.

The only reason I even care to pick this bone is because of how it relates to building the team. The Knicks just showed us that you can survive a Brunsen (or Ant) level defender. I desperately want to see Ant become the two monster he can be, but I'm not counting on it and to be honest it isn't absolutely necessary --- as you suggest it is. In all actuality, I would say the best way to get Ant to his best defensive impact while maintaining his offensive brilliance is to insulate him on that end as much as possible and allow him the freedom to be a playmaker on defense.

Your question about Ant's and Brunson's relative defensive abilities is a fair one, Aussie, and their strengths and weaknesses are actually quite different. Ant has the physical attributes and athleticism to be a very good on-ball defender (and Brunson doesn't), but his on-ball effort is just not consistent. But I give the nod to Brunson for two reasons: as Abe has pointed out, he is tough and elite at drawing charges (similar to our guy Shannon). And second, he is a very smart off ball defender (similar to Conley in my opinion), and that makes up for his relatively weaker on-ball defense. There's no question in my mind though that Ant's defensive ceiling is much higher than Brunson's.

I'm sorry but this is parody.

EPM- Brunsen: -1.6; Ant: -0.5
DDPM- Brunsen: -1.5; Ant: -0.13
D on/off- Brunsen: -7.3; Ant- 5.5
Net points per100- Brunsen: -1; Ant: +0.3

And then of course there is observable reality.... There is no world where Brunsen could body up Jaren Jackson Jr and shut his water off, none.

Ant's defensive numbers are honestly depressing and obviously well below what he's capable of, but even at his worst he's a better defender, in a very obvious and objective way.

[FNG]

I agree with your conclusion....I think. I've longed bemoaned the wolves imbalanced roster and to be honest it would be one of the main reason I would want to trade Rudy, although I'm not sure I actually do. However, it is absolutely the reason they need a reset.

That said, I need to pick at something you've said:

"an "elite roster" is one in which most if not every starter is at least a competent 2-way player"

And

"They have one player (Brunson) who gets targeted on defense a lot, but he is so good offensively he makes up for his defensive shortcomings."

I agree with your first point, but... Do you think Brunsen is a more competent defender than Ant? If you're willing to say the 2nd statement regarding Brunsen, does that not apply exactly to Ant? Ant is as good or better on both sides of the ball, that's inarguable.

The only reason I even care to pick this bone is because of how it relates to building the team. The Knicks just showed us that you can survive a Brunsen (or Ant) level defender. I desperately want to see Ant become the two monster he can be, but I'm not counting on it and to be honest it isn't absolutely necessary --- as you suggest it is. In all actuality, I would say the best way to get Ant to his best defensive impact while maintaining his offensive brilliance is to insulate him on that end as much as possible and allow him the freedom to be a playmaker on defense.

Your question about Ant's and Brunson's relative defensive abilities is a fair one, Aussie, and their strengths and weaknesses are actually quite different. Ant has the physical attributes and athleticism to be a very good on-ball defender (and Brunson doesn't), but his on-ball effort is just not consistent. But I give the nod to Brunson for two reasons: as Abe has pointed out, he is tough and elite at drawing charges (similar to our guy Shannon). And second, he is a very smart off ball defender (similar to Conley in my opinion), and that makes up for his relatively weaker on-ball defense. There's no question in my mind though that Ant's defensive ceiling is much higher than Brunson's.

I'm sorry but this is parody.

EPM- Brunsen: -1.6; Ant: -0.5
DDPM- Brunsen: -1.5; Ant: -0.13
D on/off- Brunsen: -7.3; Ant- 5.5
Net points per100- Brunsen: -1; Ant: +0.3

And then of course there is observable reality.... There is no world where Brunsen could body up Jaren Jackson Jr and shut his water off, none.

Ant's defensive numbers are honestly depressing and obviously well below what he's capable of, but even at his worst he's a better defender, in a very obvious and objective way.

Yeah, that makes sense. WildWolf is our man on the ground in NY, and he would have to tell us if Brunson gets pilloried as much for his poor defense by the local media as much as Ant does...maybe he does. In any event despite playing different positions, I see many similarities in the two of them in terms of their impact on their teams. Both rank out of the top 10 in the Association in most analytical stats despite each being the clear face of their franchises and terrific offensive players, and it's mostly because of their defensive struggles. Opponents score 5.7 points more per 100 when Ant is on the floor compared to off, and 5.3 points more for Brunson...both the worst marks on their respective teams. But on the flip side the Wolves score 5.8 more points per 100 when Ant is on the floor and 6.6 more for Brunson...both either the best or close to the best on their respective teams. Mirror images of each other! And both have the ability to carry a team at crunch time like Brunson did in game 5 and Ant did several times in the first half of the season. But again, I think most would agree that Ant has more upside in his defense...we just need to see it more frequently.

[AussieWolf3]

Your question about Ant's and Brunson's relative defensive abilities is a fair one, Aussie, and their strengths and weaknesses are actually quite different. Ant has the physical attributes and athleticism to be a very good on-ball defender (and Brunson doesn't), but his on-ball effort is just not consistent. But I give the nod to Brunson for two reasons: as Abe has pointed out, he is tough and elite at drawing charges (similar to our guy Shannon). And second, he is a very smart off ball defender (similar to Conley in my opinion), and that makes up for his relatively weaker on-ball defense. There's no question in my mind though that Ant's defensive ceiling is much higher than Brunson's.

I'm sorry but this is parody.

EPM- Brunsen: -1.6; Ant: -0.5
DDPM- Brunsen: -1.5; Ant: -0.13
D on/off- Brunsen: -7.3; Ant- 5.5
Net points per100- Brunsen: -1; Ant: +0.3

And then of course there is observable reality.... There is no world where Brunsen could body up Jaren Jackson Jr and shut his water off, none.

Ant's defensive numbers are honestly depressing and obviously well below what he's capable of, but even at his worst he's a better defender, in a very obvious and objective way.

Yeah, that makes sense. WildWolf is our man on the ground in NY, and he would have to tell us if Brunson gets pilloried as much for his poor defense by the local media as much as Ant does...maybe he does. In any event despite playing different positions, I see many similarities in the two of them in terms of their impact on their teams. Both rank out of the top 10 in the Association in most analytical stats despite each being the clear face of their franchises and terrific offensive players, and it's mostly because of their defensive struggles. Opponents score 5.7 points more per 100 when Ant is on the floor compared to off, and 5.3 points more for Brunson...both the worst marks on their respective teams. But on the flip side the Wolves score 5.8 more points per 100 when Ant is on the floor and 6.6 more for Brunson...both either the best or close to the best on their respective teams. Mirror images of each other! And both have the ability to carry a team at crunch time like Brunson did in game 5 and Ant did several times in the first half of the season. But again, I think most would agree that Ant has more upside in his defense...we just need to see it more frequently.

Fair enough haha

One thing I will say about Brunsen, is that he was a surprisingly effective defender at times during the playoffs and was clearly locked in. He had a +6.1 DRTG and an astounding +16.3 net

I hope we can see the same from Ant, cause when he does it's incredible, even if it's just for a finals run