Zach Randolph putback dunk vs Heat

MSGKnickz33

The Gold Mac
<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/ybM4U8ylv8g"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/ybM4U8ylv8g" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>
 
Last edited:

MSGKnickz33

The Gold Mac
Videos workin now......That was his 2nd dunk of the season against the Celtics but still he only has 2 dunks. I give him credit for bein the rebounder that he is when he cant get off the ground. Hes a very skilled player but he needs to learn how to be a team player and less selfish.
 

abcd

KnicksonLIN.com
The 6'9 Zach Randolph threw it down against the Heat for the first time this season, and he followed it up with another dunk against the Celtics.Now Z-Bo has 1 dunk on the road, and one dunk at home.lol
 

Kiyaman

Legend
Interesting read:

The Poison of 20 and 10
January 24th, 2008 by Brian Cronin | Comments | permalink | trackback |

Nothing I am about to say here is all that new, but I keep seeing comments that seem to belie this point, so I figured it would be worthwhile to bring it up.

The focal point of this piece is why the Knicks are better off dumping Zach Randolph as soon as possible, even if it means trading him for players who are not nearly as talented as him (and why I would even consider it if the offer was Kenyon Martin, who is signed long-term to an awful contract, and has had surgery on BOTH of his legs).

The problem comes from the poisonous aspect of averaging twenty points and ten rebounds.

In his second year in the league, at the tender age of 21, Zach Randolph averaged 8.4 points per game and 4.5 rebounds.

In his third year, the 22-year-old Randolph averaged 20.1 points per game and 10.5 rebounds.

For this impressive improvement, Randolph was awarded the 2004 NBA Most Improved Player Award.

However, did Randolph really improve much?

Note that, in 2002-03 (his second season), Randolph played 17 minutes a game. The next year? 38 minutes a game.

His per-36-minute averages in 2002-03?
18 and 9.5

His per-36-minute averages in 2003-04?
19.1 and 10

Sure looks like Randolph didn’t really improve much, right? He was just given more minutes. It is certainly significant that he was able to keep up his same level of production even with the improved playing time, but as has been shown in the past, that is usually how these things go.

So, without really changing as a player, Zach Randolph got himself a nice award.

Oh wait…he also got something else. Before the beginning of the next NBA season, Zach Randolph got himself a 6-year, $84 million dollar contract extension.

And that is why 20/10 is so poisonous.

In Zach Randolph’s mind, he is making insanely large sums of money for two things - the fact that he can produce impressive counting stats.

Zach Randolph’s financial future RESTS (in his mind) upon his ability to put up 20 points and 10 rebounds.

How can you possibly convince him that it is better for the team if he DOESN’T try to score 20 points each time out?

Zach Randolph is a massively talented player. Make no mistake about it. He is a great low post presence, and the man can rebound better than 90% (maybe more) of the NBA.

But this is not a man who will ever be taught to do anything than to try to score 20 points and net 10 rebounds, because that stock of being the “20/10″ guy got him this contract, and he is not going to change his game now, or any time soon.

So since the Knicks are being actively hurt by Zach Randolph (whose True Shooting Percentage is 207th in the NBA among qualified players, while his usage rate is FIFTEENTH!! Think about that!!!), and since he has been poisoned by “20/10,” the Knicks are best off just divesting themselves of the guy, even if it means taking back near-scrubs like Dan Gadzuric and Bobby Simmons.

*********************

Apropos of nothing, the same day Zach Randolph signed his extension, Eddie Robinson had his last two years of his contract with the Bulls bought out for $10.5 million. I just remember Robinson as a sorta useful player for the Hornets his first couple of years, I totally forgot he was given a FIVE-year deal by the Bulls! That almost makes Jared Jeffries look like a good signing!
Interesting read:

The Poison of 20 and 10
January 24th, 2008 by Brian Cronin | Comments | permalink | trackback |

Nothing I am about to say here is all that new, but I keep seeing comments that seem to belie this point, so I figured it would be worthwhile to bring it up.

The focal point of this piece is why the Knicks are better off dumping Zach Randolph as soon as possible, even if it means trading him for players who are not nearly as talented as him (and why I would even consider it if the offer was Kenyon Martin, who is signed long-term to an awful contract, and has had surgery on BOTH of his legs).

The problem comes from the poisonous aspect of averaging twenty points and ten rebounds.

In his second year in the league, at the tender age of 21, Zach Randolph averaged 8.4 points per game and 4.5 rebounds.

In his third year, the 22-year-old Randolph averaged 20.1 points per game and 10.5 rebounds.

For this impressive improvement, Randolph was awarded the 2004 NBA Most Improved Player Award.

However, did Randolph really improve much?

Note that, in 2002-03 (his second season), Randolph played 17 minutes a game. The next year? 38 minutes a game.

His per-36-minute averages in 2002-03?
18 and 9.5

His per-36-minute averages in 2003-04?
19.1 and 10

Sure looks like Randolph didn’t really improve much, right? He was just given more minutes. It is certainly significant that he was able to keep up his same level of production even with the improved playing time, but as has been shown in the past, that is usually how these things go.

So, without really changing as a player, Zach Randolph got himself a nice award.

Oh wait…he also got something else. Before the beginning of the next NBA season, Zach Randolph got himself a 6-year, $84 million dollar contract extension.

And that is why 20/10 is so poisonous.

In Zach Randolph’s mind, he is making insanely large sums of money for two things - the fact that he can produce impressive counting stats.

Zach Randolph’s financial future RESTS (in his mind) upon his ability to put up 20 points and 10 rebounds.

How can you possibly convince him that it is better for the team if he DOESN’T try to score 20 points each time out?

Zach Randolph is a massively talented player. Make no mistake about it. He is a great low post presence, and the man can rebound better than 90% (maybe more) of the NBA.

But this is not a man who will ever be taught to do anything than to try to score 20 points and net 10 rebounds, because that stock of being the “20/10″ guy got him this contract, and he is not going to change his game now, or any time soon.

So since the Knicks are being actively hurt by Zach Randolph (whose True Shooting Percentage is 207th in the NBA among qualified players, while his usage rate is FIFTEENTH!! Think about that!!!), and since he has been poisoned by “20/10,” the Knicks are best off just divesting themselves of the guy, even if it means taking back near-scrubs like Dan Gadzuric and Bobby Simmons.

*********************

Apropos of nothing, the same day Zach Randolph signed his extension, Eddie Robinson had his last two years of his contract with the Bulls bought out for $10.5 million. I just remember Robinson as a sorta useful player for the Hornets his first couple of years, I totally forgot he was given a FIVE-year deal by the Bulls! That almost makes Jared Jeffries look like a good signing!
 

abcd

KnicksonLIN.com
I disagree with you.Zach Randolph has hurt the Knicks, because he's not a team player and he lacks defense.But he's played well for the Knicks, and I think he can be made into a better team oriented player.If Jamal Crawford, who attempted over twice as many 3's as freethrows for most of his career could become a better team player, so can Randolph.He just needs to pass out of double teams more often, which I've seen him do a few times this season.Plus, if we trade Zach Randolph and keep Curry, our team will be just as bad as it is now, cause we''ll still lack defense and rebounding and effort from the center position.I'd get rid of Curry, before I got rid of Randolph.Randolph is a more proven player than Curry, and he has more playoff experience.And he went to college, so he isn't as much of a work in progress as Curry.Also, Randolph's fg% is no where near Curry's cause he shoots midrange jumpers, and he even shoots 3's on rare occasions.Anybody that shoots midrange jumpers will have a lower FG%.
 
Last edited:
Top