Knicks Morning News (2024.04.17)

“Z-Man – You are right. The results did matter, what I should have said is that winning the game had no benefit.”

Again, this is very subjective and dubious. It is based on assumptions that Thibs and some posters here have voiced disagreement with, mainly that a) Indiana is a preferable opponent to either Miami or Philly, b) the potential benefit of an extra home game in the second round against MIL is outweighed by the potential loss in the first round, c) that the idea runs contrary to the MO of the team and the coach in being in position to make that decision in the first place.

I mean, I got crucified for saying that it was no big deal to re-insert OG into a game where he aggravated his surgically repaired elbow by the same crowd that is defending Thibs here. I definitely have no skin in this game, other than to say that there is merit on both sides.

“Also, I think there is a difference to not trying to win ant all costs and actively throwing a game.”
Not really, especially since you could have made that decision before the game even started. I mean, what was the worst that could have happened if we lost? Ending up in 4th? Hey, that would have possibly meant playing Orlando, who I would have preferred over Indiana any top 8 seed. Was it worth risking injury to your starters to avoid an outside chance of playing the Celts in the second round?

“But simply resting a couple of your best players when winning does not benefit you in any way is fine. In fact like you said it is very common.”

It is. It is also common not to do so, as Chicago and Billy Donovan demonstrated.

“Can you only not try when winning and losing has no effect or is it okay when winning simply has no benefit? I don’t see a moral difference.”

It is really not in this team’s or this coach’s DNA to not try winning. There are a number of games where the “no benefit” hypothesis could have been employed. You are totally justified in asking the question. But you should also accept that the team is in this position and not in the play-in or 6th seed specifically because of that attitude. All year we’ve listened to the minutes police whine about Thibs playing guys 40+ minutes to grind out wins. He grinded out win #50 by playing DDV 50+ minutes. He’s going to need to grind out wins no matter who we play in the playoffs. It’s a mindset that doesn’t take a breather, like, ever…unless the game is truly meaningless, like at the end of last year.

And if the goal was to avoid injury, whew! No one got injured! iHart and Mitch ran up against their minutes restrictions and didn’t play in OT. Everyone other than Randle is good to go in Game 1. So if that was your worry, then there’s no use belaboring the point.

But that isn’t it, is it? It’s 100% about the seeding and opponent. At least admit to that. You were likely rooting for that DeRozan shot to go in, no? And again, that’s fine, but if that’s the case, don’t muddle things up with concerns about injuries that didn’t happen.

“I got crucified for saying that it was no big deal to re-insert OG into a game where he aggravated his surgically repaired elbow”

Correction: to not immediately take him out.

“…and some potential votes for DDV”

He got screwed by the fine print of the games played requirement and is ineligible. It’s a disgrace.

I like that idea, Alan, but that wouldn’t help DDV. At the end of the day, just trust the voters, and admonish them to consider missed games as demerits. The 65 game rule is fatally flawed, the last thing you want to do is have a valuable player risk injury chasing the many millions of dollars associated with marginally qualifying for post-season awards. Honestly, I don’t like the idea of awards being tied to salary in the first place.

I don’t really have a strong preference about our first round opponent. I’m hoping that whoever it is, the reasons why they were 3-4 games below us in the standings are still a thing in the first round.

I am hoping that the main difference between this year’s team and last year’s a) is our b-ball IQ, meaning that the things that worked last year against us won’t work as well, and b) mostly everyone plays to a level that at least approximates their regular season performance.

As to starters, we’ve replaced Mitch, Julius, RJ and Grimes with iHart, OG, JHart, and DDV. That’s a more cohesive and mentally tougher lineup. Not a ton of high-stakes playoff experience, though. That worries me a bit.

Our bench is Deuce, Mitch, Bojan, and either Precious or Burks. It wouldn’t surprise me if the latter two combine for 0-10 minutes, so it will be pretty much an 8-man rotation with very heavy minutes for Brunson, DDV and Josh. Not ideal, but it is what it is.

Last year, we got negative performances from Julius, IQ, and Grimes. Obi played very limited minutes and his TS% was .533. RJ won us some games, but was erratic and killed us in game 6 vs. Miami. Mitch was a force vs. Cleveland but was completely neutralized in the Miami series.

I also think that the Miami series was decided by our terrible 3pt shooting in our losses.
Game 1, 7-34
Game 3: 8-40
Game 4: 9-28
Game 6: 10-35
That’s just not going to cut it. This first round series will come down to whether we make 3’s. In that sense, I probably prefer Philly with a compromised, say, 90% or below, Embiid (i.e. the version of Julius Randle that played us last year) to Miami. I think Spo will figure out how to defend the perimeter and will force us to beat them inside.

But that’s where the high IQ play comes in. iHart can pass and score, DDV and OG can cut, JHart can do assorted “winner” things. Not having to deal with Lowry and Vincent will open things up a bit for us. And our defense should be significantly better.

At the end of the day, we should be able to comfortably survive either series if we are legit contenders for the conference finals. If we aren’t, best to find that out now.

“I don’t think it’s a major advantage and other teams sometimes play guys big minutes.”

Every starter on the Bulls played 38+ minutes in the most meaningless game imaginable for them, including one that was nursing an injury and tweaked it during the game.

After a 2-month absence due to knee surgery, Joel Embiid played 29 and then 32 minutes in consecutive games. He then played 36 minutes vs. DET, and 32 minutes vs. ORL, limping off and then returning.

Did the Mets, like, eat their spinach or something?

It’s also possible that he had a cortisone shot or something like that. Or that he had a colonoscopy by someone named Dr. Rist. In any case, I hope it’s nothing serious because we definitely don’t want to resurrect Alec Burks or whatever his name is.