knicks1248 wrote:

nixluva wrote:This article highlights what I've been saying about the Knicks futility being more a product of a lack of Buy In, Poor Execution and Poor Effort by key players on this team. There where so many games lost not because they didn't have enough talent and got blown out but just not maximizing what had by doing the right things!

Why the Knicks Struggle to Win the Close Ones

KATHY WILLENS / ASSOCIATED PRESS
JANUARY 23, 2017

By MIKE VORKUNOV

The trend started in mid-December, with an overtime loss in Phoenix, with Kristaps Porzingis scoring 34 points but fouling out and Carmelo Anthony connecting on only three of his 15 shots.

Still, close losses happen over the course of a long N.B.A. season. That the Knicks had just suffered one by 2 points on the road was hardly a big deal.

Indeed, that was their last close game until two weeks later, on Dec. 25 at Madison Square Garden. With the score tied in the final minute, the Boston Celtics executed a six-pass sequence that ended in a 3-pointer. The Knicks responded with a clumsy play in which Anthony ended up trapped along the sideline and had the ball knocked away.

Final score: Celtics 119, Knicks 114.

Three days later, in Atlanta, the Knicks had another close loss, although this one was a little crazier, with Anthony ejected in the second quarter for tussling with Thabo Sefolosha. Porzingis, a 79 percent free-throw shooter this season, needed to hit three consecutive free throws with the Knicks down 3 points and only seconds left in overtime. He couldn’t.

Final score: Hawks 102, Knicks 98.

Since then, the pattern has largely held. The Knicks have played six more games decided by 5 points or fewer and have managed to lose all but one of them. The disheartening set of events propelled a downward spiral in which they had lost 13 of 16 games entering Monday’s road game at Indiana.

In yet another close game, the Knicks managed to hold on for a 109-103 victory over the Pacers, but only after a fourth-quarter stretch over more than six minutes in which they scored just 2 points and allowed a double-digit lead to evaporate. A jumper by Anthony in the final minute restored the lead, providing a happier ending than the Knicks’ game against Phoenix on Saturday night at the Garden, when his last-second 3-point shot rolled around the rim and out. Final score of that one: Suns 107, Knicks 105.

“We’re doing the right things now; it’s just we’re not there yet,” Porzingis said after the Suns game. “We’re not that good. We’re not able to finish those games yet.”

In theory, the Knicks should be well equipped for tight end-of-game situations. With Anthony, Porzingis and Derrick Rose, they have three strong scorers who should be able to create shots when needed. But most of the time it has not worked out that way.

Not helping matters, either, is a Knicks defense that has been woeful all season, whether in the middle of games or at the end. Misfortune has also been a factor in all of these narrow defeats. The Knicks won a bunch of close games earlier this season, and the law of averages may be working against them these days.

But back to the defense. While the Knicks have one of the lowest-ranked defenses in the N.B.A., their defensive rating is in the middle of the pack for the final two minutes of games in which the margin is 4 points or fewer. Still, there have been notable breakdowns.

In another close loss to the Hawks, on Jan. 16 in New York, Atlanta’s Dennis Schroder hit an open 3-pointer with 22 seconds left. Afterward, Knicks Coach Jeff Hornacek admonished Rose for essentially leaving Schroder unguarded. Final score: Hawks 108, Knicks 107.

In the loss to the Suns, Rose was drawn too close to the ballhandler on a pick-and-roll play, leaving him too far from Devin Booker, the player he was supposed to be guarding. Booker ended up hitting the game-winning 3-pointer with 31.7 seconds left.

But there have also been mishaps on the offensive end in these games. The Knicks missed three close-range shots on one possession after Schroder’s 3-pointer in the Jan. 16 game. Anthony missed that 3-pointer Saturday. The Knicks’ last possession in a 113-110 loss to the Wizards on Thursday went haywire — although it was affected by the Washington assistant coach Sidney Lowe, who walked onto the court as the play progressed.

And in that overtime loss in Atlanta in December, Rose failed to pass to Porzingis near the end of overtime even though Porzingis was in a mismatch, guarded by a player more than a foot shorter.

Over all, the Knicks have been one of the least-efficient offensive teams in the final two minutes of close games. Entering Monday night, Anthony had taken 30 shots this season in the final two minutes of games in which the score was within 5 points and hit just nine. Rose had taken 23 of those shots and made nine, too. Porzingis had taken 14 shots and hit seven.

Maybe Porzingis should get more shots at the end of close games. Then again, he is the one who shot an end-of-the-game air ball in the Knicks’ 98-97 loss in Philadelphia on Jan. 11.

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/01/23/sports/basketball/knicks-wins-and-losses.html?referer=https://r.search.yahoo.com/_ylt=AwrBT9sdc8BZ2ZgAVDtx.9w4;_ylu=X3oDMTBybGY3bmpvBGNvbG8DYmYxBHBvcwMyBHZ0aWQDBHNlYwNzcg--/RV=2/RE=1505813406/RO=10/RU=https%3a%2f%2fwww.nytimes.com%2f2017%2f01%2f23%2fsports%2fbasketball%2fknicks-wins-and-losses.html/RK=1/RS=tsv0YF6BFiwQsaYZ91oskvb0_Js-

Remember when i spoke about developing bad habits, well when you read this article, thats the first thing you walk away thinking. Those crushing loses leave you drained on every level, and the more it happens, the more you lose confidence in yourself and your teammates.

But it's on the coach as well to make the right subs, and at times JH doesn't do that. So it's a combination of things.

nixluva wrote:

knicks1248 wrote:

nixluva wrote:This article highlights what I've been saying about the Knicks futility being more a product of a lack of Buy In, Poor Execution and Poor Effort by key players on this team. There where so many games lost not because they didn't have enough talent and got blown out but just not maximizing what had by doing the right things!

Why the Knicks Struggle to Win the Close Ones

KATHY WILLENS / ASSOCIATED PRESS
JANUARY 23, 2017

By MIKE VORKUNOV

The trend started in mid-December, with an overtime loss in Phoenix, with Kristaps Porzingis scoring 34 points but fouling out and Carmelo Anthony connecting on only three of his 15 shots.

Still, close losses happen over the course of a long N.B.A. season. That the Knicks had just suffered one by 2 points on the road was hardly a big deal.

Indeed, that was their last close game until two weeks later, on Dec. 25 at Madison Square Garden. With the score tied in the final minute, the Boston Celtics executed a six-pass sequence that ended in a 3-pointer. The Knicks responded with a clumsy play in which Anthony ended up trapped along the sideline and had the ball knocked away.

Final score: Celtics 119, Knicks 114.

Three days later, in Atlanta, the Knicks had another close loss, although this one was a little crazier, with Anthony ejected in the second quarter for tussling with Thabo Sefolosha. Porzingis, a 79 percent free-throw shooter this season, needed to hit three consecutive free throws with the Knicks down 3 points and only seconds left in overtime. He couldn’t.

Final score: Hawks 102, Knicks 98.

Since then, the pattern has largely held. The Knicks have played six more games decided by 5 points or fewer and have managed to lose all but one of them. The disheartening set of events propelled a downward spiral in which they had lost 13 of 16 games entering Monday’s road game at Indiana.

In yet another close game, the Knicks managed to hold on for a 109-103 victory over the Pacers, but only after a fourth-quarter stretch over more than six minutes in which they scored just 2 points and allowed a double-digit lead to evaporate. A jumper by Anthony in the final minute restored the lead, providing a happier ending than the Knicks’ game against Phoenix on Saturday night at the Garden, when his last-second 3-point shot rolled around the rim and out. Final score of that one: Suns 107, Knicks 105.

“We’re doing the right things now; it’s just we’re not there yet,” Porzingis said after the Suns game. “We’re not that good. We’re not able to finish those games yet.”

In theory, the Knicks should be well equipped for tight end-of-game situations. With Anthony, Porzingis and Derrick Rose, they have three strong scorers who should be able to create shots when needed. But most of the time it has not worked out that way.

Not helping matters, either, is a Knicks defense that has been woeful all season, whether in the middle of games or at the end. Misfortune has also been a factor in all of these narrow defeats. The Knicks won a bunch of close games earlier this season, and the law of averages may be working against them these days.

But back to the defense. While the Knicks have one of the lowest-ranked defenses in the N.B.A., their defensive rating is in the middle of the pack for the final two minutes of games in which the margin is 4 points or fewer. Still, there have been notable breakdowns.

In another close loss to the Hawks, on Jan. 16 in New York, Atlanta’s Dennis Schroder hit an open 3-pointer with 22 seconds left. Afterward, Knicks Coach Jeff Hornacek admonished Rose for essentially leaving Schroder unguarded. Final score: Hawks 108, Knicks 107.

In the loss to the Suns, Rose was drawn too close to the ballhandler on a pick-and-roll play, leaving him too far from Devin Booker, the player he was supposed to be guarding. Booker ended up hitting the game-winning 3-pointer with 31.7 seconds left.

But there have also been mishaps on the offensive end in these games. The Knicks missed three close-range shots on one possession after Schroder’s 3-pointer in the Jan. 16 game. Anthony missed that 3-pointer Saturday. The Knicks’ last possession in a 113-110 loss to the Wizards on Thursday went haywire — although it was affected by the Washington assistant coach Sidney Lowe, who walked onto the court as the play progressed.

And in that overtime loss in Atlanta in December, Rose failed to pass to Porzingis near the end of overtime even though Porzingis was in a mismatch, guarded by a player more than a foot shorter.

Over all, the Knicks have been one of the least-efficient offensive teams in the final two minutes of close games. Entering Monday night, Anthony had taken 30 shots this season in the final two minutes of games in which the score was within 5 points and hit just nine. Rose had taken 23 of those shots and made nine, too. Porzingis had taken 14 shots and hit seven.

Maybe Porzingis should get more shots at the end of close games. Then again, he is the one who shot an end-of-the-game air ball in the Knicks’ 98-97 loss in Philadelphia on Jan. 11.

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/01/23/sports/basketball/knicks-wins-and-losses.html?referer=https://r.search.yahoo.com/_ylt=AwrBT9sdc8BZ2ZgAVDtx.9w4;_ylu=X3oDMTBybGY3bmpvBGNvbG8DYmYxBHBvcwMyBHZ0aWQDBHNlYwNzcg--/RV=2/RE=1505813406/RO=10/RU=https%3a%2f%2fwww.nytimes.com%2f2017%2f01%2f23%2fsports%2fbasketball%2fknicks-wins-and-losses.html/RK=1/RS=tsv0YF6BFiwQsaYZ91oskvb0_Js-

Remember when i spoke about developing bad habits, well when you read this article, thats the first thing you walk away thinking. Those crushing loses leave you drained on every level, and the more it happens, the more you lose confidence in yourself and your teammates.

But it's on the coach as well to make the right subs, and at times JH doesn't do that. So it's a combination of things.

I still have faith that we can see some better coaching from Jeff when he's not dealing with players who blow off the play and breakout the DIY kit.

the only reason there's a clip of him blowing off a play is because it's melo. They hardly ever want to point out when ever thing is running smooth

nixluva wrote:This article highlights what I've been saying about the Knicks futility being more a product of a lack of Buy In, Poor Execution and Poor Effort by key players on this team. There where so many games lost not because they didn't have enough talent and got blown out but just not maximizing what had by doing the right things!

The problem is Nix you're overlooking that this is standard operating procedure in sports.

What you seem to be arguing is that the Knicks were in a lot of games and blew them late, due to what you identify as poor effort, attitude and execution. The problem is there is a metric to measure this against - point differential.

The differential is however, directly aligned with their W-L. There is no evidence to suggest the Knicks lost close games any more often than other bad teams.

They weren't bad differently than anyone else.

Knickoftime wrote:

nixluva wrote:This article highlights what I've been saying about the Knicks futility being more a product of a lack of Buy In, Poor Execution and Poor Effort by key players on this team. There where so many games lost not because they didn't have enough talent and got blown out but just not maximizing what had by doing the right things!

The problem is Nix you're overlooking that this is standard operating procedure in sports.

What you seem to be arguing is that the Knicks were in a lot of games and blew them late, due to what you identify as poor effort, attitude and execution. The problem is there is a metric to measure this against - point differential.

The differential is however, directly aligned with their W-L. There is no evidence to suggest the Knicks lost close games any more often than other bad teams.

They weren't bad differently than anyone else.

I disagree. The Knicks weren't a bad 4th qtr defensive team. They were IN GAMES and it was clear that simple things that should've been done by most NBA teams were not being done. Not because the team was simply outclassed but the mental discipline to execute properly was not there with key players who often had control of the ball the most.

IMO if you had an average player who simply did the right simple play it would've been enough to win more games. We didn't have PG'S that could make the right decision with regularity. Just as an example. Not saying we needed an All Star in those moments but rather just a player with a better IQ who could execute the right simple play when it was needed. This is just one example but there were of course other minor things that are not actually hard to improve.

In terms of differential, a bunch of small improvements can make a huge difference. A few more stops. A few more rebounds. A bit more ball and player movement instead of holding the ball or going solo. Those little things add up and can lead to 10 more wins than this team won last season.

nixluva wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

nixluva wrote:This article highlights what I've been saying about the Knicks futility being more a product of a lack of Buy In, Poor Execution and Poor Effort by key players on this team. There where so many games lost not because they didn't have enough talent and got blown out but just not maximizing what had by doing the right things!

The problem is Nix you're overlooking that this is standard operating procedure in sports.

What you seem to be arguing is that the Knicks were in a lot of games and blew them late, due to what you identify as poor effort, attitude and execution. The problem is there is a metric to measure this against - point differential.

The differential is however, directly aligned with their W-L. There is no evidence to suggest the Knicks lost close games any more often than other bad teams.

They weren't bad differently than anyone else.

I disagree. The Knicks weren't a bad 4th qtr defensive team. They were IN GAMES and it was clear that simple things that should've been done by most NBA teams were not being done. Not because the team was simply outclassed but the mental discipline to execute properly was not there with key players who often had control of the ball the most.

IMO if you had an average player who simply did the right simple play it would've been enough to win more games. We didn't have PG'S that could make the right decision with regularity. Just as an example. Not saying we needed an All Star in those moments but rather just a player with a better IQ who could execute the right simple play when it was needed. This is just one example but there were of course other minor things that are not actually hard to improve.

In terms of differential, a bunch of small improvements can make a huge difference. A few more stops. A few more rebounds. A bit more ball and player movement instead of holding the ball or going solo. Those little things add up and can lead to 10 more wins than this team won last season.

Sorry Nix, I don't think he quite see what I'm saying here. I'm really not giving you my interpretation of the Knicks season, I'm just giving you numbers.

The math has already been done. For every point you outscore or are outscored by an opponent, that equals 2.4 wins, plus or minus.

The Knicks -3.7 point differential would in an average year equal 32.12 wins, meaning the Knicks did not play (and lose) close games anymore then any other team did. They played exactly to the average.

Their point differential = the win total = their projections. That is a very compelling argument that the Knicks were exactly who they were supposed to be Independent of any narrative explanations.

They were not "in" games any more than any 31 win team are expected to be.

Or in other words, if a team wins 31 games, you'd see the same lack of execution/effort you saw on the Knicks. That's just how NBA games are won or lost.

nixluva wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

nixluva wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

nixluva wrote:This article highlights what I've been saying about the Knicks futility being more a product of a lack of Buy In, Poor Execution and Poor Effort by key players on this team. There where so many games lost not because they didn't have enough talent and got blown out but just not maximizing what had by doing the right things!

The problem is Nix you're overlooking that this is standard operating procedure in sports.

What you seem to be arguing is that the Knicks were in a lot of games and blew them late, due to what you identify as poor effort, attitude and execution. The problem is there is a metric to measure this against - point differential.

The differential is however, directly aligned with their W-L. There is no evidence to suggest the Knicks lost close games any more often than other bad teams.

They weren't bad differently than anyone else.

I disagree. The Knicks weren't a bad 4th qtr defensive team. They were IN GAMES and it was clear that simple things that should've been done by most NBA teams were not being done. Not because the team was simply outclassed but the mental discipline to execute properly was not there with key players who often had control of the ball the most.

IMO if you had an average player who simply did the right simple play it would've been enough to win more games. We didn't have PG'S that could make the right decision with regularity. Just as an example. Not saying we needed an All Star in those moments but rather just a player with a better IQ who could execute the right simple play when it was needed. This is just one example but there were of course other minor things that are not actually hard to improve.

In terms of differential, a bunch of small improvements can make a huge difference. A few more stops. A few more rebounds. A bit more ball and player movement instead of holding the ball or going solo. Those little things add up and can lead to 10 more wins than this team won last season.

Sorry Nix, I don't think he quite see what I'm saying here. I'm really not giving you my interpretation of the Knicks season, I'm just giving you numbers.

The math has already been done. For every point you outscore or are outscored by an opponent, that equals 2.4 wins, plus or minus.

The Knicks -3.7 point differential would in an average year equal 32.12 wins, meaning the Knicks did not play (and lose) close games anymore then any other team did. They played exactly to the average.

Their point differential = the win total = their projections. That is a very compelling argument that the Knicks were exactly who they were supposed to be Independent of any narrative explanations.

They were not "in" games any more than any 31 win team are expected to be.

I would say that you're not understanding me either. I HATE looking at things solely based on that kind of MACRO level.

I appreciate that you hate it, but that doesn't mean that you should. I'm citing the compilation of the results of thousands of NBA seasons already played. I'm not citing a mathematical formula someone invented. I'm citing data gathered from NBA games already played. You can't and shouldn't dismiss that. Of course we can learn from what has already occurred, and the facts and trends we can identify by observing it.

The simple truth is that when you're in a game and you're coming down to the closing minutes up a few, down a few or tied it's a game you have a chance to win. Those are the kind of games that are the difference in being 41-41 or 31-51.

Correct. But what you're also arguing whether you realize it or not is that the 31-win Knicks were NOT uniquely in more of those types of games than your average 31-win team. And that is not the case. They lost games exactly like your average 31-win team lose games.

If you're watching the Sacramento Kings closely last year, you would have observed the exact same thing.

The Knicks BLEW those games and there's no other way to look at that.

Yes they did, that's how NBA teams lose games. Games are won or lost in the fourth-quarter. This is standard.

The Kings had a differential of 3.9, and won 32 games. The Timberwolves are really a team you can argue were close but couldn't get over the hump. They also won 31 games but had a differential of just 1.1 points.

History tells us the Knicks weren't 'in' games anymore than an average 31-win team is. That's just math. They were literally your average 31-win team.

You can't take Season Averages and apply that to losing 16 games by 5 or less points. In those kinds of games Effort and Execution over just a few possessions can make all the difference.

Yes you 100% can. The Knicks point differential was 100% predictive of their record. That is not a coincidence.

The Knicks are NOT going to be outclassed every night next season. They will have many opportunities to pull out wins by having the proper Effort Level and Execution in the final possessions of many games.

That will also describe most losing teams.

It would not surprise me to see DadMelo return happy to have the roster infused with his buddies Beas and Timmy. If that happens we could easily win 45 games in this conference, heck maybe more. Is that likely?
It would also not surprise me to see Melo traded before the first game, for the new parts to struggle, for KP to have one of his lulls, etc etc.. and we are on our way to another 30ish win season.

Its the Knicks. Until Perry/Mills show otherwise, as in you see it on the court in wins and defense and effort there are Dolan's Knicks and Vegas is spot on until proven otherwise.

nixluva wrote:

fishmike wrote:Nix.. use your eyes man. Last year's team failed the eye test plain and simple. This was not a case of being in every game and not being able to finish. The team's offensive and defensive ranks show everything. The were average offensively and abysmal defensively. They wrer a run of the mill 31 win team. There is plenty of upside to this year's roster but seeing is believing. This is sports so everything else is just noise.

It would not surprise me to see DadMelo return happy to have the roster infused with his buddies Beas and Timmy. If that happens we could easily win 45 games in this conference, heck maybe more. Is that likely?
It would also not surprise me to see Melo traded before the first game, for the new parts to struggle, for KP to have one of his lulls, etc etc.. and we are on our way to another 30ish win season.

Its the Knicks. Until Perry/Mills show otherwise, as in you see it on the court in wins and defense and effort there are Dolan's Knicks and Vegas is spot on until proven otherwise.

I never said they were in every game and I saw everything you saw last year. My point is that there were ENOUGH games against teams that were at their level where the difference in a win or loss was not because of a lack of talent compared to the other team but rather the Effort and Execution not being up to par. That's how you LOSE 16 games by 5 or less. That's the difference between going 41-41 and 31-51. It's not as impossible as you and others are making it seem. They were not always outclassed but rather they underperformed against similar competition.
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2723737-nba-schedule-2017-18-team-by-team-record-predictions-and-playoff-odds

Nix, the Kings lost 16 games by six points or less. Lost another two overtime games by a greater margin than six. The Lakers lost 14 games by six points or less, and another handful by seven.

Your point is understood, what you're overlooking is you assume 16 is an unusual number. 16 sounds like a lot to you, but it's not, that is just how the NBA game is played.

Your whole premise is based on the idea the Knicks played and more close games that could've gone either way in the last four minutes than is typical for 31 when team. That they unusually lost a large number of close games.

That is just not accurate, however.

Knickoftime wrote:

nixluva wrote:

fishmike wrote:Nix.. use your eyes man. Last year's team failed the eye test plain and simple. This was not a case of being in every game and not being able to finish. The team's offensive and defensive ranks show everything. The were average offensively and abysmal defensively. They wrer a run of the mill 31 win team. There is plenty of upside to this year's roster but seeing is believing. This is sports so everything else is just noise.

It would not surprise me to see DadMelo return happy to have the roster infused with his buddies Beas and Timmy. If that happens we could easily win 45 games in this conference, heck maybe more. Is that likely?
It would also not surprise me to see Melo traded before the first game, for the new parts to struggle, for KP to have one of his lulls, etc etc.. and we are on our way to another 30ish win season.

Its the Knicks. Until Perry/Mills show otherwise, as in you see it on the court in wins and defense and effort there are Dolan's Knicks and Vegas is spot on until proven otherwise.

I never said they were in every game and I saw everything you saw last year. My point is that there were ENOUGH games against teams that were at their level where the difference in a win or loss was not because of a lack of talent compared to the other team but rather the Effort and Execution not being up to par. That's how you LOSE 16 games by 5 or less. That's the difference between going 41-41 and 31-51. It's not as impossible as you and others are making it seem. They were not always outclassed but rather they underperformed against similar competition.
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2723737-nba-schedule-2017-18-team-by-team-record-predictions-and-playoff-odds

Nix, the Kings lost 16 games by six points or less. Lost another two overtime games by a greater margin than six. The Lakers lost 14 games by six points or less, and another handful by seven.

Your point is understood, what you're overlooking is you assume 16 is an unusual number. 16 sounds like a lot to you, but it's not, that is just how the NBA game is played.

Your whole premise is based on the idea the Knicks played and more close games that could've gone either way in the last four minutes than is typical for 31 when team. That they unusually lost a large number of close games.

That is just not accurate, however.

I'm not saying that it's unusual. I'm saying those were the missed opportunities this team failed to take advantage of. The point is that the Knicks had legit chances to win those games and failed more due to POOR EFFORT AND EXECUTION rather than being outclassed.

The case I'm making is simple. In order to maximize your chances you have to handle the things you can control like EFFORT and EXECUTION. This isn't a case where a team is being asked to beat all the Elite teams but rather to dig deep in order to win more of the games against teams in your range. It's within the players control to give Max Effort or Execute Properly rather than Dog It and Break Plays cuz you're Selfish and Lazy.

This is where I expect to see a major difference this season. I don't expect to see as much dysfunction, poor effort or execution. Less mentally Lazy players will have a big impact on this year's team.

Kemet wrote:

nixluva wrote:

fishmike wrote:Nix.. use your eyes man. Last year's team failed the eye test plain and simple. This was not a case of being in every game and not being able to finish. The team's offensive and defensive ranks show everything. The were average offensively and abysmal defensively. They wrer a run of the mill 31 win team. There is plenty of upside to this year's roster but seeing is believing. This is sports so everything else is just noise.

It would not surprise me to see DadMelo return happy to have the roster infused with his buddies Beas and Timmy. If that happens we could easily win 45 games in this conference, heck maybe more. Is that likely?
It would also not surprise me to see Melo traded before the first game, for the new parts to struggle, for KP to have one of his lulls, etc etc.. and we are on our way to another 30ish win season.

Its the Knicks. Until Perry/Mills show otherwise, as in you see it on the court in wins and defense and effort there are Dolan's Knicks and Vegas is spot on until proven otherwise.

I never said they were in every game and I saw everything you saw last year. My point is that there were ENOUGH games against teams that were at their level where the difference in a win or loss was not because of a lack of talent compared to the other team but rather the Effort and Execution not being up to par. That's how you LOSE 16 games by 5 or less. That's the difference between going 41-41 and 31-51. It's not as impossible as you and others are making it seem. They were not always outclassed but rather they underperformed against similar competition.

This year I expect the team to improve in many areas and I don't expect the same lack of Effort and Poor Execution that plagued the team last year. I only argue about this because IMO there are things any average team can do to improve their chances of winning games against like opponents and we didn't see the team do those things last year. There were some BAD attitudes on the team last year that infected the roster. I don't see this roster having the same exact issues again. The key will be in the Effort and Execution this season. Being able to take better advantage of the games against competition close to their level.

As just an example here are the Bleacher Report Predictions:

Eastern Conference
1. Boston Celtics      (57-25), 100 percent playoff probability, 9/1 title odds
2. Cleveland Cavaliers (51-31), 100 percent playoff probability, 4/1 title odds
3. Washington Wizards  (50-32), 100 percent playoff probability, 66/1 title odds
4. Milwaukee Bucks     (49-33), 100 percent playoff probability, 66/1 title odds
5. Toronto Raptors     (47-35), 100 percent playoff probability, 75/1 title odds
6. Miami Heat          (44-38), 90 percent playoff probability, 150/1 title odds
7. Charlotte Hornets   (43-39), 65 percent playoff probability, 500/1 title odds
8. Philadelphia 76ers  (41-41), 50 percent playoff probability, 66/1 title odds
9. Detroit Pistons     (37-45), 45 percent playoff probability, 500/1 title odds
10. Orlando Magic      (34-48), 35 percent playoff probability, 1,000/1 title odds
11. Brooklyn Nets      (30-52), 5 percent playoff probability, 1,000/1 title odds
12. Indiana Pacers     (30-52), 5 percent playoff probability, 500/1 title odds
13. New York Knicks    (26-56), 5 percent playoff probability, 500/1 title odds
14. Atlanta Hawks      (24-58), 0 percent playoff probability, 500/1 title odds
15. Chicago Bulls      (20-62), 0 percent playoff probability, 500/1 title odds
Western Conference
1. Golden State Warriors (69-13), 100 percent playoff probability, 5/8 title odds
2. Houston Rockets       (62-20), 100 percent playoff probability, 10/1 title odds
3. San Antonio Spurs     (54-28), 95 percent playoff probability, 16/1 title odds
4. Oklahoma City Thunder (51-31), 95 percent playoff probability, 20/1 title odds
5. Minnesota Timberwolves(48-34), 75 percent playoff probability, 20/1 title odds
6. Utah Jazz             (45-37), 65 percent playoff probability, 200/1 title odds
7. Denver Nuggets        (44-38), 55 percent playoff probability, 150/1 title odds
8. Los Angeles Clippers  (43-39), 50 percent playoff probability, 100/1 title odds
9. Memphis Grizzlies     (41-41), 50 percent playoff probability, 300/1 title odds
10. New Orleans Pelicans (40-42), 45 percent playoff probability, 150/1 title odds
11. Portland Trail Blazers (37-45), 35 percent playoff probability, 200/1 title odds
12. Dallas Mavericks     (32-50), 17 percent playoff probability, 300/1 title odds
13. Sacramento Kings     (31-51), 15 percent playoff probability, 1,000/1 title odds
14. Los Angeles Lakers   (29-53), 3 percent playoff probability, 100/1 title odds
15. Phoenix Suns         (21-61), 0 percent playoff probability, 500/1 title odds

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2723737-nba-schedule-2017-18-team-by-team-record-predictions-and-playoff-odds

Last season there were 9 same-page teams in the East and 8 same-page teams in the West that could give the Knicks a 5 pt lead and the ball with 2 minutes left in the game and still beat the Knicks by 3 or more points.
Just because Knicks opponents did not blow out the Knicks like they used to do by playing their bench players a lot does not mean the sloppy playing Knicks are a winning team.

My point is we had some Mentally Lazy players last year playing major minutes. I fully expect this year's team to be much better in terms of giving Max Effort and actually Executing Properly. I think this year's Knicks team will be much improved over last year's team from a MENTAL disposition.

I expect much more clarity from Jeff as a coach. I expect much better effort and execution from this roster. I expect the younger players are going to improve and I think we have more hungry players as well as fewer mentally weak players than we had last year. IMO it matters a great deal to have gotten rid of mentally weak guys like DRose and Jennings.

The combination of Jeff being free to go 💯 on his own style of ball plus having more players who will actually LISTEN and give the proper Effort and look to EXECUTE properly, will have a positive impact! Those small things have an outsized impact IMO.

Knickoftime wrote:

nixluva wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

nixluva wrote:

fishmike wrote:Nix.. use your eyes man. Last year's team failed the eye test plain and simple. This was not a case of being in every game and not being able to finish. The team's offensive and defensive ranks show everything. The were average offensively and abysmal defensively. They wrer a run of the mill 31 win team. There is plenty of upside to this year's roster but seeing is believing. This is sports so everything else is just noise.

It would not surprise me to see DadMelo return happy to have the roster infused with his buddies Beas and Timmy. If that happens we could easily win 45 games in this conference, heck maybe more. Is that likely?
It would also not surprise me to see Melo traded before the first game, for the new parts to struggle, for KP to have one of his lulls, etc etc.. and we are on our way to another 30ish win season.

Its the Knicks. Until Perry/Mills show otherwise, as in you see it on the court in wins and defense and effort there are Dolan's Knicks and Vegas is spot on until proven otherwise.

I never said they were in every game and I saw everything you saw last year. My point is that there were ENOUGH games against teams that were at their level where the difference in a win or loss was not because of a lack of talent compared to the other team but rather the Effort and Execution not being up to par. That's how you LOSE 16 games by 5 or less. That's the difference between going 41-41 and 31-51. It's not as impossible as you and others are making it seem. They were not always outclassed but rather they underperformed against similar competition.
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2723737-nba-schedule-2017-18-team-by-team-record-predictions-and-playoff-odds

Nix, the Kings lost 16 games by six points or less. Lost another two overtime games by a greater margin than six. The Lakers lost 14 games by six points or less, and another handful by seven.

Your point is understood, what you're overlooking is you assume 16 is an unusual number. 16 sounds like a lot to you, but it's not, that is just how the NBA game is played.

Your whole premise is based on the idea the Knicks played and more close games that could've gone either way in the last four minutes than is typical for 31 when team. That they unusually lost a large number of close games.

That is just not accurate, however.

I'm not saying that it's unusual. I'm saying those were the missed opportunities this team failed to take advantage of. The point is that the Knicks had legit chances to win those games and failed more due to POOR EFFORT AND EXECUTION rather than being outclassed.

You are saying it's unusual. Read your last sentence again. You're implying that the average 31-win/3.7 differential NBA team gets "outclassed," but the way the Knicks lost implies are not outclassed. Again the problem is Knicks weren't any more or less outclassed the Kings were. You're giving them credit for you something you've assumed is atypical, which it's not, rather than perfectly typical, which it is.

You're declaring the Knicks lost in a specific that shows promise. What you're not acknowledging is the Knicks lost in a way that's perfectly average and expected for a 31-win team.

The Knicks should not have been a 31-51 team. They did not give Max Effort or fully follow the coaching and execute the plays properly. What i've been saying is exactly what I mean and nothing more. Watching the Knicks last year they lost about 16 games that were winnable and often the reasons they lost came down to Poor Effort and Execution. Things that they could actually control. They couldn't change their talent level, but they COULD control how much Effort they put into games and how well they executed down the stretch of many winnable games. This is the case for ALL NBA teams but i'm only concerned with the Knicks. We had some LAZY and STUBBORN players and their attitude infected the rest of the roster.

I expect to see better focus this season. I don't expect the same nonsense in Camp that was caused by DRose's Trial. I expect Jeff to be much more focused and clear on what he wants the team to run and to be able to fully install his Offense and Defense from day one as opposed to last year.

I expect to see much greater Effort and Execution on both ends from this year's team. It will help Jeff's coaching to have more players on the roster that are willing to play hard and follow the plan rather than Dog It and give Half Assed attempts at running the plays properly. I'm mostly talking about the Mental Disposition of the players on this team this year being much improved. I believe that will have a very positive impact on how they perform as a team.

The Pros are pretty much expressing that the Knicks are unchanged and i'm saying that from an INTANGIBLES aspect that there is a LOT of difference between last year and this year's roster. The Pros are predicting another 30 win team and I expect them to exceed this prediction. They had enough talent to have won more last year but the Mental Disposition was ALL WRONG. I think this team will have a much better Mental Disposition this year.