Knicks · Herring: Why Knicks are 0-7 against Boston, Cleveland and OKC -- and how to fix it (page 1)

https://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/4412...

Good long read. As many of us are saying, a good deal of it is math!

I would also encourage people to watch this pod with one of the best shooting coaches out there- he hits a lot of points that are interest

This is a super important point about what the Knicks are really missing

Yes, Towns is one of the best jump shooters ever for his size, but he's attempting just 4.8 triples per game, his fewest since 2018-19. In that same vein, the Knicks as a team rank sixth in the NBA in 3-point accuracy, but just 28th in 3-point attempt rate.

The latter is a massive slide from last season, when they finished 11th in attempt rate. (This is undoubtedly where losing DiVincenzo, who launched a team-high 8.7 triples per night and finished with the NBA's third-most 3s last year behind Stephen Curry and Luka Doncic, stings New York most.)

If you watch the video I posted - thing that sticks out, apparently Hart/Brunson pick and roll has the best offensive rating of all pick and roll combos, but on low volume. But early in the year I felt we used this - a) it broke the traps on Brunson, b) it put the ball in Josh's hands so you couldn't just hide bigs or your worst defender on him and not worry. He was making passes or drives out of this and early in the year was hitting his 3s. Maybe we're saving it for the playoffs, but for whatever reason we've gone away from it.

VDesai wrote:This is a super important point about what the Knicks are really missing

Yes, Towns is one of the best jump shooters ever for his size, but he's attempting just 4.8 triples per game, his fewest since 2018-19. In that same vein, the Knicks as a team rank sixth in the NBA in 3-point accuracy, but just 28th in 3-point attempt rate.

The latter is a massive slide from last season, when they finished 11th in attempt rate. (This is undoubtedly where losing DiVincenzo, who launched a team-high 8.7 triples per night and finished with the NBA's third-most 3s last year behind Stephen Curry and Luka Doncic, stings New York most.)

Towns was shooting more 3s.

November! Look at his splits for 3pt attempts!

Oct...2.8
Nov...5.9
Dec...4.5
Jan...4.2 - finger hurt in Jan 13 game
Feb...5.2
Mar...4 in 1 game

And the Knicks were too!

OCT...31.3
NOV...37.1
DEC...36.4
JAN...32.5
FEB...29.4
MAR...38.5 (2 games)

Its uncanny how the trend has been for both the team and Towns.

I think some of Towns shooting less - some with the finger, some with trying to get other team mates involved.

But - how is the team just shooting less every game each subsequent month?

Some of this is the players getting lazy on offense, and deferring to the ISO Brunson.

I don't know how to verify this stat, but I've now heard twice from Knicks podcasts that Towns has only taken 10 pick and pop 3's all year. I think a lot of people were expecting the pick and pop with Brunson and it hasn't really materialized.

Towns seems to have tunnel vision on drives - and lately he gets called for more offensive fouls than getting the whistles he's dying for, its coming up dry too often.

So the question is how do you get him enough space/open 3's and I think putting someone like Josh or Mikal in the pick and roll with Brunson allows KAT to roam out more to the corners or elbows.

VDesai wrote:I don't know how to verify this stat, but I've now heard twice from Knicks podcasts that Towns has only taken 10 pick and pop 3's all year. I think a lot of people were expecting the pick and pop with Brunson and it hasn't really materialized.

Towns seems to have tunnel vision on drives - and lately he gets called for more offensive fouls than getting the whistles he's dying for, its coming up dry too often.

So the question is how do you get him enough space/open 3's and I think putting someone like Josh or Mikal in the pick and roll with Brunson allows KAT to roam out more to the corners or elbows.

Why is it I think Steve Kerr would have this problem solved? It seems like offense is such a struggle for our teams. Usually, it’s been the lack of talent. But this group has talent. Is it the coach? why is everything Brunson, Brunson, Brunson?

This is bullsh**! That's not how you fix it.

Man watching Pods at 1.35x speed is getting though way more Knicks content than is healthy for me to consume.

These guys have been on the increasing the 3pt frequency train for a very long time. More thoughts about what is ailing the Knicks offense here.

Early in the year we had way more open cutters and open corners. Wasn't OG getting like 5 free dunks per game?

VDesai wrote:If you watch the video I posted - thing that sticks out, apparently Hart/Brunson pick and roll has the best offensive rating of all pick and roll combos, but on low volume. But early in the year I felt we used this - a) it broke the traps on Brunson, b) it put the ball in Josh's hands so you couldn't just hide bigs or your worst defender on him and not worry. He was making passes or drives out of this and early in the year was hitting his 3s. Maybe we're saving it for the playoffs, but for whatever reason we've gone away from it.

I dont think we have gone away from it at all, other teams know this, have this stat and work to prevent it.

Its not as simple as "why don't we run this more?" or for Franco "it must be the coach"

Watch teams defend us. If it's going well it's usually because they are getting the ball out of Brunson's hands and attacking the 2nd ball handler. The Josh/Brunson P&R is not something team are going to let us run. It's an adjustment in the making. I love that our guys dive into this stuff and will make adjustments but nothing knee jerk.

Also Towns shot fewer 3s cause his thumb was messed up. Would like to see us take more

fishmike wrote:

VDesai wrote:If you watch the video I posted - thing that sticks out, apparently Hart/Brunson pick and roll has the best offensive rating of all pick and roll combos, but on low volume. But early in the year I felt we used this - a) it broke the traps on Brunson, b) it put the ball in Josh's hands so you couldn't just hide bigs or your worst defender on him and not worry. He was making passes or drives out of this and early in the year was hitting his 3s. Maybe we're saving it for the playoffs, but for whatever reason we've gone away from it.

I dont think we have gone away from it at all, other teams know this, have this stat and work to prevent it.

Its not as simple as "why don't we run this more?" or for Franco "it must be the coach"

Watch teams defend us. If it's going well it's usually because they are getting the ball out of Brunson's hands and attacking the 2nd ball handler. The Josh/Brunson P&R is not something team are going to let us run. It's an adjustment in the making. I love that our guys dive into this stuff and will make adjustments but nothing knee jerk.

Also Towns shot fewer 3s cause his thumb was messed up. Would like to see us take more

see my note above- he hurt his finger in January. Look at his trend? So, if its so easy for opponents to chase us off the 3pt line, why aren't we doing the same to opponents?

Oct in 4 games- we were outshot by 10.5 threes.
Nov- 1.3
Dec- we outshot our opponents by 1.2 - we were 12 & 2- so there is that
Jan- we were outshot by .3.
Feb - we were again slaughtered by 6.9 more opponent attempts.
March - so far, we are up 2.4 per game in 2.

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.

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?

Biggest issue is that those teams strengths are some of our biggest weaknesses. We don't match up well with either team. Let's see how/if we do better in the playoffs plus we get both Boston and Cleveland in early April.

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"

1. Suede sneakers.
2. Red white and blue basketball
3. Flopping
4. offensive rebounding
5. massive quantity of 3pt shots.
6. 24 second clock
7. zone defense
8. triangle offense
9. the fat big man
10.Isiah Thomas

Some gimmicky stuff stuck. Others did not.

Knicks do not have rim protection outside of Mitch. Not even weak side PF rim protection in the likes of JJJ.

OG and Mikal are very good wing defenders and disruptions - perimeter guys - they are not rim protectors although they can obviously rotate and fill in.

On offense, they do not have ball handlers outside of Brunson. They got guys who can do it, like Hart, but not in a meaningful way against good enough defenses.

IMHO, those are the 2 biggest weaknesses of the team. Knicks are clearly not done with roster construction because of those 2 things.

For all the Haters, by losing to the Lakers we can now extend this narrative to say we are 0-9 against top 4 teams!

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.

For what its worth - we got the 3 pt volume up last night and missed at an insane rate. 10/43 (23.3%) is awful. Somewhat unlucky.

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.

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?