They died young and left behind a beautiful corpse. They probably would have lost in that playoffs and then we wouldn’t have to hear these ridiculous takes about the burning competitive fire of Julius Randle and Tom Thibodeau, and how this team just doesn’t have the will to win that the January Knicks did.

It’s kind of like how we never had to hear Jimi Hendrix’ crummy 1980’s albums or hear John Lennon go through a New Wave phase, or watch John Cazale play a bit role in the shitty Dick Tracy movie. All we have is the “what if.”

As I have often pointed out, there were 4 moments where the Knicks could have shown that they were the better team: OT in game 1 (no excuses, they couldn’t hold on to a lead), Game 2 (they couldn’t stop Siakam in a game that IND might have been less motivated to win than us), Game 4 (they couldn’t even the series by doing to Indiana what Chcago did to us in 1993 after they lost the first two games at home) and in Game 6, where we simply got beat fair and square. Fir Indy, it’s harder to win game 2 on the road after winning game 1 and taking home court. Once they won game 4, they had less motivation to win game 5 than we did (see: Boston game 5 in the prior series.)

Winning teams make their own breaks. The Pacers made their own breaks, both against us, and against OKC in the finals until they got the ultimate bad break. And yes, some of that is coaching. Carlisle recognized our flaws and had the horses and the game plan to exploit them. But edges in personnel and depth were also important.

But Z-Man we’re actually on the same page in terms of I don’t think the Knicks quit last year at all although I disagree with how much better you think the Pacers were than the Knicks. To me Game 1 was a complete fluke and that comeback changed the entire complexity of the series. If Indiana truly was so much better than the Knicks after going up 2-0 they shouldn’t have allowed the series to get to 6 games.

In fairness I’m being a bit hypocritical cause I think the Knicks were clearly better than the Pistons last season but that series also went 6 games.

Paper is the more in style move now with the NBA but I still don’t know if this team can win if “the shots aren’t falling.” IE, I think we’re vulnerable to losing in the playoffs the way Boston did against us if we face a team like Detroit or Orlando.

I want to see us win an ugly game or two on the road like we did against Dallas but against better competition. That’s kind of what I mean by soft or quitting. I don’t think the players themselves are soft or will just quit if they’re behind. But I don’t know if stylistically we can win if we’re forced to now play our game.

Seriously, “quitting” is the absolute worst think you can say about a player or a team, and should be evoked only in extreme circumstances. There was no “quit” in the Knicks last year, or in the ’90s. They simply got outplayed when it mattered most by a team that was equally good, if not better. When teams “recover” from losing an early game in a playoff series in excruciating or humiliating fashion, it’s almost always because they clearly are the better team. Sure, “their betterness” could include qualities such as resiliency or mental toughness, but it’s mostly about the things that made them a great team in the first place.

Last year, Indiana was grossly underrated, and that was pretty clear during the NBA finals, when they gave heavily favored OKC all they could handle and might have won game 7 if Hali didn’t go down. OKC’s vaunted defense never solved them. OTOH, I am fairly confident that had we played OKC the series would have been a one-sided affair.

Also, it implies the caveat that it’s only been a handful of games, so who in their right mind would either fully anoint a 20yo kid or insist the trade was 100% negative for the Pels?

The only reason I commented on you post was when you said “He was a fun player And they overpaid for him.” We have no earthly idea whether they overpaid for him or not. I would certainly agree it looked very heavy at the time. But today it is a reasonably open question.

Speaking with metaphysical certitude is a common affliction here and I am certainly guilty at times.

G J. Brunson Prob
G M. McBride Ques
F OG Anunoby Out