VDesai wrote:Yeah I don't get the gimmick talk. Shooting a bunch of 3's got called gimmicky too. Its more like what is your "edge?"

Yes this.

Is it a gimmick or exploiting a team's strength. Typically when you exploit a strength it is teethered to covering up a weakness and that's to be expected.

When you don't have good interior or post up guys, you shoot the ball more from the perimeter. That makes sense. Unless we want to call the whole GS offense a gimmick.

franco12 wrote:

DLeethal wrote:

franco12 wrote:

DLeethal wrote:When you dig into the numbers its hard to figure out why the Knicks are as good as they are to be honest. Very alarming defensive stats across the board, guarding the 3, guarding the paint etc. On offense we don't put up a lot of 3s, shoot a bunch of 2s, the wings in general are average or below average from 3 around Brunson/KAT. Bench is weak. Yet we are 40-22. It seems our record is overinflated due to Brunson's masterful clutch stats. If we lose even a 3rd of those 50/50 games down the stretch where he has us like nearly undefeated we'd be in a much different spot.

I know our offensive rating is great - but it was also great last year due to gimmicky stuff (like offensive rebounding) and not really comparable to the other top offensive teams who get there with efficient, 3 point heavy offense. It kind of feels like fools gold again this year. Brunson is really the only guy who can get going every night. Hate to say it but it seems we need another creator unless Mikal can actually fill that role. OG has been a good spot up wing but Mikal is basically deadweight out there too often and we need him to be great to unlock this team.

I agree- we seem to have a better record than we appear to be as a team. Maybe some of that is our record vs. over 500 vs. under 500 teams- and perhaps the East is loaded with chump teams that we’ve feasted on.

Mikal is definitely frustrating. Flashes of brilliance (block, his turn around fade aways in the paint, mid range game) and then- wtf, where did he go? He’s on the court, but not doing anything.

Some of this maybe all the new people trying to find their roles still?

I think Bridges & Hart might be better suited to a role off the bench, which kinda means one of them ought to get traded for a different piece that can play a different role on the team.

I thought the Villanova Chemistry would help, but I’m worried it may be holding us back because does Rose want to trade JB’s besties?

I actually don't think our record is a result of beating up on bad teams. We have a bunch of really good wins this year, more than I think we did last year. We've blown the doors off some really good teams.

I don't think our offense is anywhere close to Boston or CLE despite our ORTG being "historically" good. I think our defense is far worse than middle of the pack despite our DRTG being closer to middle of the pack.

We give up easy 3s and easy buckets and we work a lot harder for points on the other end. I think Brunson's crunch time brilliance is the factor that really padded our record this year. Also, our team has been exceptionally healthy.

We’re 28 & 6 against teams that are under 500.
We’re 12 & 16 against teams that are over 500.
Only the Cavs & OKC are better against under 500 teams.
Boston is 24 & 6.

The Pacers are 15 & 12 against teams over 500.
Houston is 21 & 18 against teams over 500.

We’ve had some good wins - but your counting bunch as 12.

We’ve had a bunch of wins against bad teams that we put up a 20 point lead, squandered and eked out a victory.

Is that meaningful to you? Or do a lot of teams do this as well? I don't know why some people go out of their way to **** on the very team they are getting behind. It must be a thing.

I mean, if you want to find bad things, you will find them. For pretty much all but 3 -5 teams in the league.

Another way to say all of the above is that the Knicks are a second tier team. Just like Lakers, Denver, Mem, Houston.

martin wrote:

DLeethal wrote:

martin wrote:

DLeethal wrote:When you dig into the numbers its hard to figure out why the Knicks are as good as they are to be honest. Very alarming defensive stats across the board, guarding the 3, guarding the paint etc. On offense we don't put up a lot of 3s, shoot a bunch of 2s, the wings in general are average or below average from 3 around Brunson/KAT. Bench is weak. Yet we are 40-22. It seems our record is overinflated due to Brunson's masterful clutch stats. If we lose even a 3rd of those 50/50 games down the stretch where he has us like nearly undefeated we'd be in a much different spot.

I know our offensive rating is great - but it was also great last year due to gimmicky stuff (like offensive rebounding) and not really comparable to the other top offensive teams who get there with efficient, 3 point heavy offense. It kind of feels like fools gold again this year. Brunson is really the only guy who can get going every night. Hate to say it but it seems we need another creator unless Mikal can actually fill that role. OG has been a good spot up wing but Mikal is basically deadweight out there too often and we need him to be great to unlock this team.

I don't understand the idea of "gimmicky" stuff. It's part of basketball but you labeled it differently and then call it bad so that's that? Teams lean into their strengths and exploit it all the time. Is SGA foul baiting a gimmick or is it a big part of what makes them good? Are the things Daniel Dyson doing gimmicky to the Atlanta defense or is the team leaning on his skillset to help their defense? Are isolation scorers and shooters gimmicky? Is Steph Curry and GS winning because he is a gimmicky and insane shooter? Having Mitch clean up the glass is a strength the team is exploiting, it's not a gimmick, it's just that other teams are not as good as him and can't take advantage of it.

For me, Knicks have enough offensive talent to destroy the bottom 20 team or so teams. They are not cohesive or talented enough to make those same things work against the top 3 and perhaps the top 5-10 on any given night, give or take.

Their defense is not good and good teams that can run KAT/Brunson in PnR's to death can beat the Knicks. Teams that can rotate enough on Brunson and leave Hart open will prosper, other teams can't execute or figure that out, won't win unless they shoot insanely. When the Knick can be taken advantage of, their offense it not good enough to cover up those deficiencies against the top 10 in a net rating type way consistently.

Teams that have players and team dynamic that can exploit their opponents and do it consistently, can take advantage of the Knicks. Lots of teams don't have 4+ guys who can shoot the 3 like the Celtics. The Lakers exploit the decision making of LeBron and Doncic (or is that just generational offensive gimmickry?).

Po-TAY-to, Po-TOT-to

Gimmicky stuff is sort of like stat padding in a sense. Stats can be manipulated. I don't think we were doing it on purpose at all. But we were ranked 3rd in offense last year because we took care of the ball and got a bunch of offensive rebounds. But we were like last in 3PA. That's an unusual way to beef up your ORTG. And you see when you play a team like Boston was a true offensive juggernaut looks like.

Good offensive rebounding teams will get more chances at shots. It's part of the game. They did it with iHart, Mitch and Randle.

When you have good offensive rebounding teams and take advantage of it, you get extra shots, you make the other team not leak out, etc.

These things add up. You call it a gimmick or something unusual, most will call it exploiting a strength. It's a basketball play.

Or are some basketball plays just not real to you?

They are real, but not the best indicator of your offensive potency. Do we agree that stats can be skewed? For example someone who can only dunk the ball can be the most efficient scorer in the NBA, but couldn't even get a legit FGA off against a defender. Same goes for guys who are 3&D darlings but don't know how to get a bucket when you actually need one. Then when you are put in certain positions in tight games you get exploited. That is the story of the Knicks offensive juggernautum. You put them up against a legit offensive juggernaut and they would get run off the floor because they can't keep up, scoring-wise. The other team will be bombing 3s and the Knicks can't get up 3s like that. It's not the same kind of offense.

Knicks were not the 3rd best offensive team in the league last year, and are closer this year but still probably aren't, and it shows when they play the top teams and fall down double digits within 5 minutes.

DLeethal wrote:

martin wrote:

DLeethal wrote:

martin wrote:

DLeethal wrote:When you dig into the numbers its hard to figure out why the Knicks are as good as they are to be honest. Very alarming defensive stats across the board, guarding the 3, guarding the paint etc. On offense we don't put up a lot of 3s, shoot a bunch of 2s, the wings in general are average or below average from 3 around Brunson/KAT. Bench is weak. Yet we are 40-22. It seems our record is overinflated due to Brunson's masterful clutch stats. If we lose even a 3rd of those 50/50 games down the stretch where he has us like nearly undefeated we'd be in a much different spot.

I know our offensive rating is great - but it was also great last year due to gimmicky stuff (like offensive rebounding) and not really comparable to the other top offensive teams who get there with efficient, 3 point heavy offense. It kind of feels like fools gold again this year. Brunson is really the only guy who can get going every night. Hate to say it but it seems we need another creator unless Mikal can actually fill that role. OG has been a good spot up wing but Mikal is basically deadweight out there too often and we need him to be great to unlock this team.

I don't understand the idea of "gimmicky" stuff. It's part of basketball but you labeled it differently and then call it bad so that's that? Teams lean into their strengths and exploit it all the time. Is SGA foul baiting a gimmick or is it a big part of what makes them good? Are the things Daniel Dyson doing gimmicky to the Atlanta defense or is the team leaning on his skillset to help their defense? Are isolation scorers and shooters gimmicky? Is Steph Curry and GS winning because he is a gimmicky and insane shooter? Having Mitch clean up the glass is a strength the team is exploiting, it's not a gimmick, it's just that other teams are not as good as him and can't take advantage of it.

For me, Knicks have enough offensive talent to destroy the bottom 20 team or so teams. They are not cohesive or talented enough to make those same things work against the top 3 and perhaps the top 5-10 on any given night, give or take.

Their defense is not good and good teams that can run KAT/Brunson in PnR's to death can beat the Knicks. Teams that can rotate enough on Brunson and leave Hart open will prosper, other teams can't execute or figure that out, won't win unless they shoot insanely. When the Knick can be taken advantage of, their offense it not good enough to cover up those deficiencies against the top 10 in a net rating type way consistently.

Teams that have players and team dynamic that can exploit their opponents and do it consistently, can take advantage of the Knicks. Lots of teams don't have 4+ guys who can shoot the 3 like the Celtics. The Lakers exploit the decision making of LeBron and Doncic (or is that just generational offensive gimmickry?).

Po-TAY-to, Po-TOT-to

Gimmicky stuff is sort of like stat padding in a sense. Stats can be manipulated. I don't think we were doing it on purpose at all. But we were ranked 3rd in offense last year because we took care of the ball and got a bunch of offensive rebounds. But we were like last in 3PA. That's an unusual way to beef up your ORTG. And you see when you play a team like Boston was a true offensive juggernaut looks like.

Good offensive rebounding teams will get more chances at shots. It's part of the game. They did it with iHart, Mitch and Randle.

When you have good offensive rebounding teams and take advantage of it, you get extra shots, you make the other team not leak out, etc.

These things add up. You call it a gimmick or something unusual, most will call it exploiting a strength. It's a basketball play.

Or are some basketball plays just not real to you?

They are real, but not the best indicator of your offensive potency. Do we agree that stats can be skewed? For example someone who can only dunk the ball can be the most efficient scorer in the NBA, but couldn't even get a legit FGA off against a defender. Same goes for guys who are 3&D darlings but don't know how to get a bucket when you actually need one. Then when you are put in certain positions in tight games you get exploited. That is the story of the Knicks offensive juggernautum. You put them up against a legit offensive juggernaut and they would get run off the floor because they can't keep up, scoring-wise. The other team will be bombing 3s and the Knicks can't get up 3s like that. It's not the same kind of offense.

Knicks were not the 3rd best offensive team in the league last year, and are closer this year but still probably aren't, and it shows when they play the top teams and fall down double digits within 5 minutes.

I think that's fair.

We know that Hart is not the best shooter in the league even though his eFG% at rim is insane as an example (that may not be perfect), like that type scenario only different.

But it shouldn't be discounted either, cause you can also destroy a team like the Cavs in the first round, and that is real impact. It wasn't a gimmick to the Cavs, it was their season ender.

It may not make you a team that can go all the way, and I think that is fair too. And thus DDV/Randle for KAT is my guess and answer for that trade and part of the why of the trade. Teams need at least 2 offensive engines that can get their own and carry teams from their positions, it's almost a must for championship level teams.

Right now good opponents will smother Brunson with doubles and Knicks don't have enough good answers to get KAT the ball in prime positions.

DLeethal wrote:Also, for the record I think Thibs has done a great job over the years milking the offense despite not having a ton of offensive talent on the roster. What he did to design the offense around the ORB / ball control / efficient 3 point shooting on lower volume was actually very savvy. But it wasn't "real" in terms of being a great offensive team who could compete with other top offenses.

I would add that it doesn't have to be a zero sum game. OKC is real and it's mainly cause of SGA and their defense.