Damn, this is a great piece of writing! I don’t know how many of your subscribers actually watched the 1970’s Knicks but they played the most beautiful form of basketball, maybe ever.
The ball rarely touched the floor on offense and the defense and rebounding was as tenacious and tough as you’ll ever see.
And all six hall of fame players sacrificed for the team and didn’t care about stats.
Phil Jackson (a member of the championship team and its most enthusiastic booster said it best:
The strength of a team is each individual member. The strength of each member is the team"
"A team always beats a group of individuals"
These Knicks have a ways to go to hit basketball nirvana but if they do, watch out!
I have always loved your optimism Jonathan! For me to get there, they need to pick up at least one more credible bench piece.
Also, tonight will be interesting as the Knicks face their polar opposite. Memphis has no player that averages more than 29 minutes a game and they go ten deep. Thus, they run and run, sending in waves of players hoping to wear down other teams. Let’s see if the Knicks five warriors can beat Memphis’ ten short-timers.
To paraphrase Red Auerbach, all I know how to do is teach five guys to play together to put a round ball through a round hoop. A simple yet beautiful game. Great newsletter. Great metaphor about the five point star. If the team becomes the star, who knows what can be accomplished. OG looked content and forceful on Saturday. Was it 3 days rest or did he turn a corner. The arrow is pointing up.
One of the reasons basketball is difficult is that you have to be both unselfish and aggressive. It's a tough balancing act, but beautiful when it comes together.
I love to talk about the last 2 championship teams & the unselfishness those teams had in winning those championships! I was a teenager for both of those & Senator Bradley was my favorite Knick. (Throughout my years living in my hometown, my nickname was "Dollar Bill", the name that was given to Bradley when he signed with the Knicks as a territorial first round draft pick & even today, at 70 years of age, whenever I run into those old friends, they call me "Dollar"!) The way those teams sacrificed individuality for the greater good of the team was something to behold! Jon speaks of the minute police not being something Red worried about & he was right, but if you look at the box score, some of it was because of necessity, as Cazzie Russell who was their 6th man off the bench had fractured his ankle in January & wouldn't return until April in the playoffs where he was ineffective. Mike Riordan was still "Give a foul Mike" as was evident by his 4 fouls in 14 minutes. And, Dave Stallworth had suffered a heart attack in 1967, missing the next 2 seasons & wouldn't return to playing until the 1969-70 season. So, that 1968-69 bench (Riordan, May, Hosket ,Bowman) makes the 2024-25 bench look like championship caliber! The 1969-70 bench had Cazzie, Stallworth, Riordan (who now wasn't just "Give a foul Mike") who made solid contributions to the Knicks first championship! Hopefully, this years' team continues it's unselfish play (That's when Cam Payne is on the bench! lol), Mitch actually returns & Leon swings a deal for a big wing for the bench!
What a nickname! And re: those great benches, part of the reason they played a lot is because they deserved to. Hopefully our current bench can get to that place.
That was one of my favorite wins of the season. Early in the 3rd, I messaged the stack that the Knicks just needed one solid 3-4 minute stretch of defense to win, and they ended up giving us nearly an entire half. It wasn’t perfect, but they showed resiliency and the ability to fight back, which is becoming more common.
I want to make a point that might not make sense, so feel free to push back on it: the Knicks are currently ranked 15th in defense, while the Kings are ranked 16th. Here's the thing: it’s clear (at least to me) that the ability of each team to ramp up defensively is far greater than that 1-spot difference. Why? Because the Knicks, despite some defensive flaws, still have ++ defenders, both in the SL and off the bench, while the Kings don’t to the same extent. And I know that the Kings are better defensively than what they showed on Saturday, but still. So, while the Knicks' D-Rating is probably accurate right now, I think it's safe to say that they are capable of a higher defensive floor/ceiling than your stereotypical "mid-pack" defense.
And without QUESTION your point is well-taken. We've seen them play top notch defense against good offenses! It's quite literally about the consistency, NOT ability.
Hey Jon. Listening to OG comment about not getting enough shots and having to be more aggressive seems like he’s critiquing himself more than complaining that Thibs is not giving him a larger role on offfense. What’s your take on that (or anyone else on here)?
Also Hart seems to have become that connector you’ve always said the Knicks could use. I feel like his game is a better version or equal to an in his prime Lonzo Ball (who if available I think would be an ideal bench fit). I think he’s always had it in him. If you go back to his Villanova days before Brunson I believe he was the starting PG. Maybe not by position but I remember him spending a lot of time with the ball in his hands.
Great Q Chris. I agree 100% that it's OG hyping himself up / getting himself going. If anything, it's a critique of teammates not getting him the ball in good spots.
Also spot on re: Hart, which is why, at the end of the day, I'm going to be VERY hard pressed to think someone that they can realistically get is a better fit for the S5
Wow. So you do think OG wants more looks and is getting on his teammates for not looking for him more or getting the ball to him in the right position which I guess is different because with the latter he maybe able to score more. I hope it’s not about stats with him because not everyone can average 20 a game unless you’re the Pelicans and they stink! Brunson, Kat, and Bridges seem like the obvious guys to get the most touches. OG averages 16 a game. That’s very respectable with everything else he brings to the table.
Jon, I've been thinking about Begley's consistent reporting on the Knicks' interest in Jonas V. Do you think there's a world where they package Mitch plus filler and the Wizards pick for Jonas and Saddiq Bey?
Bey's injured but maybe he returns by the playoffs? If not, he's on a fantastic contract and could pencil in as a perfect backup 3-4 next season.
Any deal with the Wizards feels like one they'll only do if they get their pick back - and Jonas V is NOT worth the likely very good seconds it will convert to. Add in Bey, though, and you might have something...
I don’t understand the Knicks interest in Jonas V (if they are interested and Ian B is usually correct) as he is a lumbering center who,plays very little D.
Good Q to chew on Bobby. Is Jonas worth both of those 2nds (plus the opportunity cost of what Mitch can be)? Probably not. Would need to add Sims to make the math work.
While I think he is deserving of all star designation, I think he would go slightly nuts playing ten minutes of a game where no one played D and there were no rebounds to get because everyone hit the very open shots they got.
3 quick observations after the Kings game & the Jon/Jeremy podcast.
1 - The Hart-Bridges connection is fantastic at the moment, they really seem to be connecting on the court
2 - Looking way down the road to the playoffs (and I know I may be jinxing things) but the 3rd seed is the worst spot for this team. #2 is better for obvious reasons in that you get home court in the 2nd round, but I'd argue I'd rather the Knicks be the 4 seed which would mean most likely facing the Cavs in round 1. I know the Cavs look great but I like how we matchup with them way more than facing Boston and them having homecourt. To start with I still think there is a psychological scar issue with how the Knicks beat them up a few years ago, also - Brunson owns Donovan Mitchell.
3 - Going to the game tonight - second time this year (first was the horrible cup game vs. ATL). For the sake of my sanity I need the team to at least show up tonight and give some sort of effort.
I hope they show up as well! And fair point re: the second seed, BUT: the narrative of a tough loss to Boston will go down a lot smoother than getting beat by a Cavs team you used to own. Under the theory that they'll have to beat Boston anyway, I'd just as soon face that challenge in the 2nd round.
Jon: It is revisionist history and misleading to imply that Red Holzman was overplaying his starters just like St. Thomas based on the stat line for one single game 56 years ago. Actually, the 69-70 team relied significantly on the now ironically named “Minute Men” (Cazzie, Stallworth, Riordan, and Bowman), a very solid group, and the 72-73 team played Lucas, Meminger and Jackson a big chunk of games in relief of the starters. Nobody could fairly criticize Red for his roster utilization. In fact, he used to do Offense/Defense substitutions regularly between key possessions. You do Thibs a disservice by suggesting that he is equivalent to a Red Holzman. Red was a flexible thinker who listened to his players.
Thibs is no Red - no one is - but he also gets pigeonholed based on narratives that have taken on a life of their own. For example, you imply Thibs does not listen to his players. Is there are evidence for this, outside of a few disgruntled souls whose opinions aren't worth a darn? Maybe Thibs is better than you think.
Actually on the 73 team, Jerry Lucas was the starting center due to Reed’s injuries. Much like Hartenstein last year, JL gave the team an entirely different look. Much more fluid. If they had a three point line Lucas would have been the leagues second leading scorer. I verily believe that if the NBA had a three point line, Rick Barry would hold all the scoring records. The Cazzie Russell for Lucas is a much overlooked great Knick trade. As some brilliant juvenile delinquent carved into my geometry desk “JLIG”. Jerry Lucas is great. ( that was years before we obtained him).
I am with you on Lucas and also think Debusschere and Bradley would have been real good from three. But if they had the three back then I believe Maravich might have averaged over 50 and would have scored more than Rick Barry.
I think you are wrong on the one game Joseph. Frazier averaged 39.5 and 40.8 minutes in the championship seasons. Our high is Mikal at 38.5. Willis was 38.1 in the first championship season and injured for a good part of the second during which he still averaged 27.2. In the second Bradley and Debuschere were at 36.6 and 36.7. This year our second and third in minutes are Hart at 37.8 and OG at 36.7. And this is with Shamet, Deuce and Precious being unavailable for big parts of the season.
The championship Knicks had much better benches. There is no one on today’s roster that compares to Cazzie Russell on the 69-70 team. Jerry Lucas was the sixth man(when Reed was healthy) in the second year. Riordan and Meminger were comparable to Deuce but Deuce plays more minutes per game than either of them. Phil Jackson I suppose comparable to Precious and Getting 17.4 minutes compared to Precious 18.7.
Jon used one game as an example of what were heavy minutes per game for both seasons.
How about every single player survey the NBA has done? That tells you something. Guys do not want to play for him. How about the fact that two of his former players, Garnett and Pierce have already explicitly and directly called him out? I am not here to bury Thibs, who has many wonderful attributes as a coach. I am just referencing his Achilles heel (stubbornness and inflexibility) that may prevent him from helping this team get to the Promised Land. When you see management mistakes being repeatedly being made in real time, I just think it is worthwhile (as Benjy does) to call them out rather than sweep them under the rug, or otherwise to mock your so-called “Minutes Police” for overreacting and make like it is much ado about nothing. By any objective measure, it is not nothing. Just ask Mssrs. Garnett and Pierce.
I could not care less about what Paul and Kevin said, purely because they were telling a story about practice, which if they knew anything about anything, they'd know the current Knicks practice less than any team in the league. As for the survey, this may come as a shock, but most NBA players are here primarily for the paychecks and have no desire to have their limits pushed beyond a certain point. Take it from Taj, who told me years ago when rumors of Thibs' hire first surfaced, "if you want to win, Thibs is your coach." Most players simply don't care about winning as much as we wish they did. Does he push it too far? Sometimes, yeah. But it'll be a cold day in hell before I stop subtly mocking the minutes police stuff, not after I had to watch an organization that cared about winning less than any of the other 29 teams for the better part of 20 years. Like a Fortune 500 CEO who consistently yields a positive ROI, Thibs has earned the right to have his methods accepted and embraced, yet all anyone does is question them. It's so comical to me that I don't even bother engaging with it most of the time, but yes, if I have a chance to get a little dig in here and there that will get under the skin of his most vociferous critics, I am far too small and petty of a man to pass up the chance.
Okay, now I get it. The guys in the NBA who don’t currently play for the Knicks are lazy bums who only want to collect paychecks and not work. And the Koleks and the Hukportis are gaining valuable experience not playing, and Garnett and Pierce, two HOF players don’t know what they are talking about. Thanks for clearing it up!
They know what they know, which is a lot about some things, and their larger point - that it's on the leaders of the team to go to Thibs and talk him off the ledge if things are getting out of control - is valid. My proffer - which no one seems to have an answer for - is that maybe the prominent players on the team are very much on board with how things are going because Leon Rose has gone out and gotten Thibs type of players. As for the rest of the league, obviously it isn't everyone, but most players, when confronted with the opportunity to sacrifice, won't want to. Lastly, I'd argue that Kolek and Huk are gaining IMMENSELY valuable experience shuttling up and down from Westchester, where the Knicks have developed quite a little development pipeline. Not saying they wouldn't get similar positive experience in the NBA, but the Knicks are in the business of winning games, and rookies - rarely - help that effort.
The larger point I'm trying to make here is that there is always a counter to the most popular Thibodeau narratives, but only if you're willing to listen and open your mind. My experience, doing hundreds of postgames each featuring dozens upon dozens of comments, is that by and large, people's opinions on this particular coach are pre-formed, which has always struck me as odd given the ungodly amount of success he's had here in comparison to everyone who came before him, many of which are in the Hall of Fame. At the end of the day, a coach's job (in any org, but especially this one with this owner) is to win. He's done fairly well at that. Why must we always be looking the gift horse in the mouth?
Fair enough when there's so much unhinged criticism. But what about the criticisms that actually make a lot of sense? The ones that are objectively true? The ones that Clyde and Breen, for example, call out pretty frequently?
It was fun watching the Knicks beat the Kings, but like you, like other fans, I can't help but consider how certain decisions, certain patterns, may not bode well down the line. Once again Thibs had a white-hot bench player in Shamet who he pulled after 6 minutes. The guy was snatching the Kings' souls way with lightning quick 3s. We've seen plenty of examples of opposing coaches leaving a hot back-up in the game to run up their career-high against us. If I'm the Kings I'm pretty happy to see him go and basically not come back for a couple of quarters.
But the more dispiriting thing came with maybe 4 mins left, the Knicks up around 20, and Precious a +11 in the 4Q alone: KAT goes to the scorer's table to get reinserted. Clyde was trying to hold himself back but couldn't. He said something about how this is why people are critical of the Knicks' minutes -- because important guys are inserted when the game is well out of reach.
And then he said something I thought was both illuminating and utterly unsurprising. He connected this tendency to a story Thibs had told him from decades back of watching a sizable lead dwindle after the bench had been emptied. And I think that's part of what doesn't sit well. It's always felt to me that he coaches like a frightened man. An anxious man. Unfortunately while anxiety is good for vigilance and disaster prevention it's not great for creativity, flexibility, or planning for the future.
I too am thrilled to be out of the decades-long desert -- and I give Thibs MAJOR props for his role in it. But I'm with those who don't believe he's the man to take us all the way. He's not evil, he's not awful, he's not stupid, he's not hated by his players (they in fact seem to really care for him). But like all of us he's limited. And I think what a lot of his critics are trying to say -- even if it's often hyperbolic, mean-spirited, or amnesiac -- is that his particular limitations don't bode well for a team with championship aspirations.
I think you make some fair points Charles. I'll just point out that most coaches who have ever won a title were looked at as fundamentally lacking in some key area before they finally crossed the finish line. Look no further than the guy about to win his 4th Super Bowl.
I think some of the criticisms are fair. I was at the game and cringed when I saw KAT drive down the lane on consecutive possessions, for fear he might get hurt. Once Sacramento went to its bench, we could have safely followed suit. But on the other hand, I also think fans tend to wrongly assume some leads are safe, when in today’s NBA, they are not. Case in point is this very game where Sacramento cut a 19-point lead to two within the last five minutes of the first half.
Look at the minutes per game that Pierce and Garnett averaged in multiple seasons throughout their careers. (It’s quite high). I wouldn’t put much stock in two ex-players farming for engagement. As for current players - who have never played for Thibs - declaring that they wouldn’t want to play for him because they ‘hear’ that he demands hard work and accountability - frankly, I wouldn’t want those players.
Wow, had never heard that Bill Bradley quote and appreciate you bringing it to my attention. Amazing what a little rest can do for this team, huh? Everybody needs to remember that there are no back-to-backs in the playoffs, so these games after a break are more representative of what we can expect. I'm a bit of a broken record on this, but I'm not at all concerned about this team. It's a long season and I think they're doing everything right in finding their identity, rhythm (on offense and defense) and developing a winning vibe. Totally agree with the newsletter focus on team. Thibs' mantra is reading the floor and delivering what the game is allowing you. I was psyched to see OG take the initiative as I felt he was becoming a little two predictable. He's far more talented than being just a spot up 3pt shooter or simply a guy that makes cuts and dunks. The trick with this group is feeling out who is hot on that particular night and feeding that/those guys. This sneakily handles the rest/minutes police issue, because all minutes are not created equally. We have 5 legit starters that can be stars on any given night. All 5 don't have to have their max effort every single night for us to succeed...only a consistent and connected effort.
Josh Hart is fantastic as a do-it-all / whatever the coach needs kind of guy. But, he's not a credible all-star candidate IMO. Can't knock the hustle, but physically he's the smallest guy other than Brunson, not very effective defending bigs, doesn't play PoA defense and doesn't shoot 3's very effectively either. He's ideally suited to be a super 6th man IMO. If he was a little taller it would be a different story.
Something keeps nagging me about this hart thing. Are we REALLY sure he wasn't talking Bridges? I know at that time Bridges was playing better, but the two of them did have a kind of contentious relationship back at Nova. OG doesn't seem like the ego type (neither does Mikal). but maybe their past rivalry came creeping back a little?
I don’t think Hart would have said anything about Bridges. If he was disgruntled with Bridges, he’d have smacked him behind he the head and tell him straight out, “ snap out of it”. It’s what brothers do.
Hart and Bridges are actually best friends. Their early tension was when Hart was a junior and Bridges a freshman and like with all freshman, Hart put him to the test physically. This article does a good job describing their relationship today.
That pass from Payne to OG worked but it's the type of pass that is often deflected and stolen. It's not a smart pass if you ask me and I feel we see it a bit too frequently.
Damn, this is a great piece of writing! I don’t know how many of your subscribers actually watched the 1970’s Knicks but they played the most beautiful form of basketball, maybe ever.
The ball rarely touched the floor on offense and the defense and rebounding was as tenacious and tough as you’ll ever see.
And all six hall of fame players sacrificed for the team and didn’t care about stats.
Phil Jackson (a member of the championship team and its most enthusiastic booster said it best:
The strength of a team is each individual member. The strength of each member is the team"
"A team always beats a group of individuals"
These Knicks have a ways to go to hit basketball nirvana but if they do, watch out!
Thank you DBN! In case it wasn't clear, I'm optimistic that they get there.
I have always loved your optimism Jonathan! For me to get there, they need to pick up at least one more credible bench piece.
Also, tonight will be interesting as the Knicks face their polar opposite. Memphis has no player that averages more than 29 minutes a game and they go ten deep. Thus, they run and run, sending in waves of players hoping to wear down other teams. Let’s see if the Knicks five warriors can beat Memphis’ ten short-timers.
To paraphrase Red Auerbach, all I know how to do is teach five guys to play together to put a round ball through a round hoop. A simple yet beautiful game. Great newsletter. Great metaphor about the five point star. If the team becomes the star, who knows what can be accomplished. OG looked content and forceful on Saturday. Was it 3 days rest or did he turn a corner. The arrow is pointing up.
Thank you Martin. And re: OG, maybe it was a little of both?
Optimism Mr. Melamed. I am shocked.
One of the reasons basketball is difficult is that you have to be both unselfish and aggressive. It's a tough balancing act, but beautiful when it comes together.
Perfectly said Tim. Couldn't agree more.
I love to talk about the last 2 championship teams & the unselfishness those teams had in winning those championships! I was a teenager for both of those & Senator Bradley was my favorite Knick. (Throughout my years living in my hometown, my nickname was "Dollar Bill", the name that was given to Bradley when he signed with the Knicks as a territorial first round draft pick & even today, at 70 years of age, whenever I run into those old friends, they call me "Dollar"!) The way those teams sacrificed individuality for the greater good of the team was something to behold! Jon speaks of the minute police not being something Red worried about & he was right, but if you look at the box score, some of it was because of necessity, as Cazzie Russell who was their 6th man off the bench had fractured his ankle in January & wouldn't return until April in the playoffs where he was ineffective. Mike Riordan was still "Give a foul Mike" as was evident by his 4 fouls in 14 minutes. And, Dave Stallworth had suffered a heart attack in 1967, missing the next 2 seasons & wouldn't return to playing until the 1969-70 season. So, that 1968-69 bench (Riordan, May, Hosket ,Bowman) makes the 2024-25 bench look like championship caliber! The 1969-70 bench had Cazzie, Stallworth, Riordan (who now wasn't just "Give a foul Mike") who made solid contributions to the Knicks first championship! Hopefully, this years' team continues it's unselfish play (That's when Cam Payne is on the bench! lol), Mitch actually returns & Leon swings a deal for a big wing for the bench!
What a nickname! And re: those great benches, part of the reason they played a lot is because they deserved to. Hopefully our current bench can get to that place.
That was one of my favorite wins of the season. Early in the 3rd, I messaged the stack that the Knicks just needed one solid 3-4 minute stretch of defense to win, and they ended up giving us nearly an entire half. It wasn’t perfect, but they showed resiliency and the ability to fight back, which is becoming more common.
I want to make a point that might not make sense, so feel free to push back on it: the Knicks are currently ranked 15th in defense, while the Kings are ranked 16th. Here's the thing: it’s clear (at least to me) that the ability of each team to ramp up defensively is far greater than that 1-spot difference. Why? Because the Knicks, despite some defensive flaws, still have ++ defenders, both in the SL and off the bench, while the Kings don’t to the same extent. And I know that the Kings are better defensively than what they showed on Saturday, but still. So, while the Knicks' D-Rating is probably accurate right now, I think it's safe to say that they are capable of a higher defensive floor/ceiling than your stereotypical "mid-pack" defense.
Dare we say one of the best wins of the season?
And without QUESTION your point is well-taken. We've seen them play top notch defense against good offenses! It's quite literally about the consistency, NOT ability.
Hey Jon. Listening to OG comment about not getting enough shots and having to be more aggressive seems like he’s critiquing himself more than complaining that Thibs is not giving him a larger role on offfense. What’s your take on that (or anyone else on here)?
Also Hart seems to have become that connector you’ve always said the Knicks could use. I feel like his game is a better version or equal to an in his prime Lonzo Ball (who if available I think would be an ideal bench fit). I think he’s always had it in him. If you go back to his Villanova days before Brunson I believe he was the starting PG. Maybe not by position but I remember him spending a lot of time with the ball in his hands.
Great Q Chris. I agree 100% that it's OG hyping himself up / getting himself going. If anything, it's a critique of teammates not getting him the ball in good spots.
Also spot on re: Hart, which is why, at the end of the day, I'm going to be VERY hard pressed to think someone that they can realistically get is a better fit for the S5
Wrote this on Xitter yesterday in response to OG comments:
“Not gonna get touches in an active movement based offense being passive. He’s figuring out how to engage just as much as anyone.”
Attempts to turn this into tension in the team (online) are foolish. He’s being self-aware, not team-critical.
Wow. So you do think OG wants more looks and is getting on his teammates for not looking for him more or getting the ball to him in the right position which I guess is different because with the latter he maybe able to score more. I hope it’s not about stats with him because not everyone can average 20 a game unless you’re the Pelicans and they stink! Brunson, Kat, and Bridges seem like the obvious guys to get the most touches. OG averages 16 a game. That’s very respectable with everything else he brings to the table.
Jon, I've been thinking about Begley's consistent reporting on the Knicks' interest in Jonas V. Do you think there's a world where they package Mitch plus filler and the Wizards pick for Jonas and Saddiq Bey?
Bey's injured but maybe he returns by the playoffs? If not, he's on a fantastic contract and could pencil in as a perfect backup 3-4 next season.
Any deal with the Wizards feels like one they'll only do if they get their pick back - and Jonas V is NOT worth the likely very good seconds it will convert to. Add in Bey, though, and you might have something...
I don’t understand the Knicks interest in Jonas V (if they are interested and Ian B is usually correct) as he is a lumbering center who,plays very little D.
Good Q to chew on Bobby. Is Jonas worth both of those 2nds (plus the opportunity cost of what Mitch can be)? Probably not. Would need to add Sims to make the math work.
While I think he is deserving of all star designation, I think he would go slightly nuts playing ten minutes of a game where no one played D and there were no rebounds to get because everyone hit the very open shots they got.
Exactly!
3 quick observations after the Kings game & the Jon/Jeremy podcast.
1 - The Hart-Bridges connection is fantastic at the moment, they really seem to be connecting on the court
2 - Looking way down the road to the playoffs (and I know I may be jinxing things) but the 3rd seed is the worst spot for this team. #2 is better for obvious reasons in that you get home court in the 2nd round, but I'd argue I'd rather the Knicks be the 4 seed which would mean most likely facing the Cavs in round 1. I know the Cavs look great but I like how we matchup with them way more than facing Boston and them having homecourt. To start with I still think there is a psychological scar issue with how the Knicks beat them up a few years ago, also - Brunson owns Donovan Mitchell.
3 - Going to the game tonight - second time this year (first was the horrible cup game vs. ATL). For the sake of my sanity I need the team to at least show up tonight and give some sort of effort.
I hope they show up as well! And fair point re: the second seed, BUT: the narrative of a tough loss to Boston will go down a lot smoother than getting beat by a Cavs team you used to own. Under the theory that they'll have to beat Boston anyway, I'd just as soon face that challenge in the 2nd round.
Jon: It is revisionist history and misleading to imply that Red Holzman was overplaying his starters just like St. Thomas based on the stat line for one single game 56 years ago. Actually, the 69-70 team relied significantly on the now ironically named “Minute Men” (Cazzie, Stallworth, Riordan, and Bowman), a very solid group, and the 72-73 team played Lucas, Meminger and Jackson a big chunk of games in relief of the starters. Nobody could fairly criticize Red for his roster utilization. In fact, he used to do Offense/Defense substitutions regularly between key possessions. You do Thibs a disservice by suggesting that he is equivalent to a Red Holzman. Red was a flexible thinker who listened to his players.
Thibs is no Red - no one is - but he also gets pigeonholed based on narratives that have taken on a life of their own. For example, you imply Thibs does not listen to his players. Is there are evidence for this, outside of a few disgruntled souls whose opinions aren't worth a darn? Maybe Thibs is better than you think.
Actually on the 73 team, Jerry Lucas was the starting center due to Reed’s injuries. Much like Hartenstein last year, JL gave the team an entirely different look. Much more fluid. If they had a three point line Lucas would have been the leagues second leading scorer. I verily believe that if the NBA had a three point line, Rick Barry would hold all the scoring records. The Cazzie Russell for Lucas is a much overlooked great Knick trade. As some brilliant juvenile delinquent carved into my geometry desk “JLIG”. Jerry Lucas is great. ( that was years before we obtained him).
I am with you on Lucas and also think Debusschere and Bradley would have been real good from three. But if they had the three back then I believe Maravich might have averaged over 50 and would have scored more than Rick Barry.
I think you are wrong on the one game Joseph. Frazier averaged 39.5 and 40.8 minutes in the championship seasons. Our high is Mikal at 38.5. Willis was 38.1 in the first championship season and injured for a good part of the second during which he still averaged 27.2. In the second Bradley and Debuschere were at 36.6 and 36.7. This year our second and third in minutes are Hart at 37.8 and OG at 36.7. And this is with Shamet, Deuce and Precious being unavailable for big parts of the season.
The championship Knicks had much better benches. There is no one on today’s roster that compares to Cazzie Russell on the 69-70 team. Jerry Lucas was the sixth man(when Reed was healthy) in the second year. Riordan and Meminger were comparable to Deuce but Deuce plays more minutes per game than either of them. Phil Jackson I suppose comparable to Precious and Getting 17.4 minutes compared to Precious 18.7.
Jon used one game as an example of what were heavy minutes per game for both seasons.
How about every single player survey the NBA has done? That tells you something. Guys do not want to play for him. How about the fact that two of his former players, Garnett and Pierce have already explicitly and directly called him out? I am not here to bury Thibs, who has many wonderful attributes as a coach. I am just referencing his Achilles heel (stubbornness and inflexibility) that may prevent him from helping this team get to the Promised Land. When you see management mistakes being repeatedly being made in real time, I just think it is worthwhile (as Benjy does) to call them out rather than sweep them under the rug, or otherwise to mock your so-called “Minutes Police” for overreacting and make like it is much ado about nothing. By any objective measure, it is not nothing. Just ask Mssrs. Garnett and Pierce.
I could not care less about what Paul and Kevin said, purely because they were telling a story about practice, which if they knew anything about anything, they'd know the current Knicks practice less than any team in the league. As for the survey, this may come as a shock, but most NBA players are here primarily for the paychecks and have no desire to have their limits pushed beyond a certain point. Take it from Taj, who told me years ago when rumors of Thibs' hire first surfaced, "if you want to win, Thibs is your coach." Most players simply don't care about winning as much as we wish they did. Does he push it too far? Sometimes, yeah. But it'll be a cold day in hell before I stop subtly mocking the minutes police stuff, not after I had to watch an organization that cared about winning less than any of the other 29 teams for the better part of 20 years. Like a Fortune 500 CEO who consistently yields a positive ROI, Thibs has earned the right to have his methods accepted and embraced, yet all anyone does is question them. It's so comical to me that I don't even bother engaging with it most of the time, but yes, if I have a chance to get a little dig in here and there that will get under the skin of his most vociferous critics, I am far too small and petty of a man to pass up the chance.
Okay, now I get it. The guys in the NBA who don’t currently play for the Knicks are lazy bums who only want to collect paychecks and not work. And the Koleks and the Hukportis are gaining valuable experience not playing, and Garnett and Pierce, two HOF players don’t know what they are talking about. Thanks for clearing it up!
They know what they know, which is a lot about some things, and their larger point - that it's on the leaders of the team to go to Thibs and talk him off the ledge if things are getting out of control - is valid. My proffer - which no one seems to have an answer for - is that maybe the prominent players on the team are very much on board with how things are going because Leon Rose has gone out and gotten Thibs type of players. As for the rest of the league, obviously it isn't everyone, but most players, when confronted with the opportunity to sacrifice, won't want to. Lastly, I'd argue that Kolek and Huk are gaining IMMENSELY valuable experience shuttling up and down from Westchester, where the Knicks have developed quite a little development pipeline. Not saying they wouldn't get similar positive experience in the NBA, but the Knicks are in the business of winning games, and rookies - rarely - help that effort.
The larger point I'm trying to make here is that there is always a counter to the most popular Thibodeau narratives, but only if you're willing to listen and open your mind. My experience, doing hundreds of postgames each featuring dozens upon dozens of comments, is that by and large, people's opinions on this particular coach are pre-formed, which has always struck me as odd given the ungodly amount of success he's had here in comparison to everyone who came before him, many of which are in the Hall of Fame. At the end of the day, a coach's job (in any org, but especially this one with this owner) is to win. He's done fairly well at that. Why must we always be looking the gift horse in the mouth?
Fair enough when there's so much unhinged criticism. But what about the criticisms that actually make a lot of sense? The ones that are objectively true? The ones that Clyde and Breen, for example, call out pretty frequently?
It was fun watching the Knicks beat the Kings, but like you, like other fans, I can't help but consider how certain decisions, certain patterns, may not bode well down the line. Once again Thibs had a white-hot bench player in Shamet who he pulled after 6 minutes. The guy was snatching the Kings' souls way with lightning quick 3s. We've seen plenty of examples of opposing coaches leaving a hot back-up in the game to run up their career-high against us. If I'm the Kings I'm pretty happy to see him go and basically not come back for a couple of quarters.
But the more dispiriting thing came with maybe 4 mins left, the Knicks up around 20, and Precious a +11 in the 4Q alone: KAT goes to the scorer's table to get reinserted. Clyde was trying to hold himself back but couldn't. He said something about how this is why people are critical of the Knicks' minutes -- because important guys are inserted when the game is well out of reach.
And then he said something I thought was both illuminating and utterly unsurprising. He connected this tendency to a story Thibs had told him from decades back of watching a sizable lead dwindle after the bench had been emptied. And I think that's part of what doesn't sit well. It's always felt to me that he coaches like a frightened man. An anxious man. Unfortunately while anxiety is good for vigilance and disaster prevention it's not great for creativity, flexibility, or planning for the future.
I too am thrilled to be out of the decades-long desert -- and I give Thibs MAJOR props for his role in it. But I'm with those who don't believe he's the man to take us all the way. He's not evil, he's not awful, he's not stupid, he's not hated by his players (they in fact seem to really care for him). But like all of us he's limited. And I think what a lot of his critics are trying to say -- even if it's often hyperbolic, mean-spirited, or amnesiac -- is that his particular limitations don't bode well for a team with championship aspirations.
As always I dearly hope I'm wrong. Dearly.
I think you make some fair points Charles. I'll just point out that most coaches who have ever won a title were looked at as fundamentally lacking in some key area before they finally crossed the finish line. Look no further than the guy about to win his 4th Super Bowl.
Very well said.
I think some of the criticisms are fair. I was at the game and cringed when I saw KAT drive down the lane on consecutive possessions, for fear he might get hurt. Once Sacramento went to its bench, we could have safely followed suit. But on the other hand, I also think fans tend to wrongly assume some leads are safe, when in today’s NBA, they are not. Case in point is this very game where Sacramento cut a 19-point lead to two within the last five minutes of the first half.
Look at the minutes per game that Pierce and Garnett averaged in multiple seasons throughout their careers. (It’s quite high). I wouldn’t put much stock in two ex-players farming for engagement. As for current players - who have never played for Thibs - declaring that they wouldn’t want to play for him because they ‘hear’ that he demands hard work and accountability - frankly, I wouldn’t want those players.
While I like Hart, there's no reason for him to be at the ASG. He doesn't have that kind of game.
fair, if you go by what ASG's typically reward and look for
Wow, had never heard that Bill Bradley quote and appreciate you bringing it to my attention. Amazing what a little rest can do for this team, huh? Everybody needs to remember that there are no back-to-backs in the playoffs, so these games after a break are more representative of what we can expect. I'm a bit of a broken record on this, but I'm not at all concerned about this team. It's a long season and I think they're doing everything right in finding their identity, rhythm (on offense and defense) and developing a winning vibe. Totally agree with the newsletter focus on team. Thibs' mantra is reading the floor and delivering what the game is allowing you. I was psyched to see OG take the initiative as I felt he was becoming a little two predictable. He's far more talented than being just a spot up 3pt shooter or simply a guy that makes cuts and dunks. The trick with this group is feeling out who is hot on that particular night and feeding that/those guys. This sneakily handles the rest/minutes police issue, because all minutes are not created equally. We have 5 legit starters that can be stars on any given night. All 5 don't have to have their max effort every single night for us to succeed...only a consistent and connected effort.
Great win.
Josh Hart is fantastic as a do-it-all / whatever the coach needs kind of guy. But, he's not a credible all-star candidate IMO. Can't knock the hustle, but physically he's the smallest guy other than Brunson, not very effective defending bigs, doesn't play PoA defense and doesn't shoot 3's very effectively either. He's ideally suited to be a super 6th man IMO. If he was a little taller it would be a different story.
he could absolutely win 6MOY if he ever had the chance
Something keeps nagging me about this hart thing. Are we REALLY sure he wasn't talking Bridges? I know at that time Bridges was playing better, but the two of them did have a kind of contentious relationship back at Nova. OG doesn't seem like the ego type (neither does Mikal). but maybe their past rivalry came creeping back a little?
I don’t think Hart would have said anything about Bridges. If he was disgruntled with Bridges, he’d have smacked him behind he the head and tell him straight out, “ snap out of it”. It’s what brothers do.
I can say with confidence he was not talking about Bridges.
Hart and Bridges are actually best friends. Their early tension was when Hart was a junior and Bridges a freshman and like with all freshman, Hart put him to the test physically. This article does a good job describing their relationship today.
https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/6026943/2025/01/01/ny-knicks-mikal-bridges-josh-hart-villanova/?source=user_shared_article
That pass from Payne to OG worked but it's the type of pass that is often deflected and stolen. It's not a smart pass if you ask me and I feel we see it a bit too frequently.
fair point!