knicks lose....i blame mpharris who blames thibs

[MrDollarBills]

To intentionally foul or not to foul has been a debate since the dawn of time. Both have risk.

As I understand, there is no conclusive evidence that suggests that fouling when up 3 increases the odds of winning the game. If the data does support this, the difference is likely insignificant.

The decision really depends on personnel, and the Celtics have unsurprisingly been one of the best free-throw shooting teams in the entire NBA. And their 5-out lineup don't have a weak free throw shooter to target.

I think the response of piling on Thibs is a bit emotional in this instance. Sometimes, you just lose the game and that’s it. It’s just particularly frustrating because it’s the Celtics and we are looking to finally beat them but yesterday the basketball Gods favored them in crunch time.

One can certainly disagree with not fouling and that's fine, but to be up in arms about it is missing how games sometimes don't go your way. It's harder to accept that we have no control over those things.

Me when that Shams bomb hits "The NY Knicks are elevating coach Tom Thibodeau to front office position"

And announces Taylor Jenkins as the new HC

[bisme37]

What's this one? Is it on Amazon?

It's on MGM+ (formerly Epix), but I think you can watch on Prime as well.

Oh okay I will look it up. Amazon owns MGM so that sounds right

bis I'm trying to remember: weren't you chopping it up with us on the WNBA board last year during the season??

Yeah! I don't follow WNBA super duper closely but I'm a fan and get into the playoffs for sure.

[MrDollarBills]

I gotta catch up on Righteous Gemstones. McBride and Goggins are funny as hell

[3toheadmelo]

They were +24 from three, you don't win games when the other team hits 8 more threes than you and can defend. We're playing an old school brand of basketball vs a team playing future ball.

I’m sure having 5 players that can shoot 3s in their starting lineup must be nice. Meanwhile hart is passing up 3s and killing our spacing.

The Celtics are +117 from three vs us, they've made 84, and we've made 45. The Thunder and Cavs are also in the top 10 for threes attempted per game, the Cavs get threes with a non-shooting big on the floor, so do the Thunder when IHart is out there.


We're not even taking high volume threes when Hart is off the floor, so it's not that, it's that we just don't hunt the shot. Watching KP set screens for dudes at halfcourt, then seeing us clear out and iso, it's a difference in how we operate independent of there being a bad shooter. They were still getting threes up when Kornet/KP were out there because they value that shot above everything else.

Meh

[MrDollarBills]

It's on MGM+ (formerly Epix), but I think you can watch on Prime as well.

Oh okay I will look it up. Amazon owns MGM so that sounds right

bis I'm trying to remember: weren't you chopping it up with us on the WNBA board last year during the season??

Yeah! I don't follow WNBA super duper closely but I'm a fan and get into the playoffs for sure.

Ok I remembered correctly

Yo Please swing by when the season tips off next month!! Those first week match ups are gonna be crazy with Liberty vs Aces and Fever vs Sky on the 17th

[thebuzzardman]

Great game last night you guys.

I can't think of another play where a center blocked Tatum's stepback 3. JT generally killed Bridges and the Knicks as usual, but that was impressive from Mitch.

See ya in Round 2 perhaps.

*insert eat a bag of dicks picture here*

[NoDopeOnSundays]

I gotta catch up on Righteous Gemstones. McBride and Goggins are funny as hell

Baby Billy needs more screen time than they give him, just a hilarious character all around.

[NoDopeOnSundays]

I’m sure having 5 players that can shoot 3s in their starting lineup must be nice. Meanwhile hart is passing up 3s and killing our spacing.

The Celtics are +117 from three vs us, they've made 84, and we've made 45. The Thunder and Cavs are also in the top 10 for threes attempted per game, the Cavs get threes with a non-shooting big on the floor, so do the Thunder when IHart is out there.


We're not even taking high volume threes when Hart is off the floor, so it's not that, it's that we just don't hunt the shot. Watching KP set screens for dudes at halfcourt, then seeing us clear out and iso, it's a difference in how we operate independent of there being a bad shooter. They were still getting threes up when Kornet/KP were out there because they value that shot above everything else.

Meh

Hart should be replaced, but he's just an excuse, because the Spurs get up more threes when Sochan is on the court than we do. They're taking more threes than us even without Wemby, they were 5th with him, and from the date he went out they have been 11th. That's with Sochan, Castle and Fox, 3 not so great three point shooters. That's all ideology.

There's no excuse for us not taking more threes, none.

[prophet_of_rage]

I watched the replay of the end of regulation play and the play was definitely for either Brunson or KAT as the main options. They doubled Brunson so he was taken out the play but KAT was wide open for the lob after Brunson set the screen on Porzingis. Mikal was either too scared to throw the pass or just didn’t see him but that was a game winning lob that Mikal could have thrown. Instead he settled for the broken play option which was Josh Hart.

You need high IQ players to win big and we just don’t have many of them. Josh Hart and Mikal both play like airheads

Did anybody really think it was designed for Josh Hart to shoot?

Sent from my SM-S9080 using RealGM mobile app

[dadanyk]

I watched the replay of the end of regulation play and the play was definitely for either Brunson or KAT as the main options. They doubled Brunson so he was taken out the play but KAT was wide open for the lob after Brunson set the screen on Porzingis. Mikal was either too scared to throw the pass or just didn’t see him but that was a game winning lob that Mikal could have thrown. Instead he settled for the broken play option which was Josh Hart.

You need high IQ players to win big and we just don’t have many of them. Josh Hart and Mikal both play like airheads

Did anybody really think it was designed for Josh Hart to shoot?

Sent from my SM-S9080 using RealGM mobile app

Why is Hart in at the end of the game on the offensive end when knicks need a bucket. Defense can play off him and he's looking to pass the ball.. You have better shooters on the bench.

[thebuzzardman]

It was Brunson’s fault for not being John Stockton

[Fury]

I gotta catch up on Righteous Gemstones. McBride and Goggins are funny as hell

Baby Billy needs more screen time than they give him, just a hilarious character all around.

When Mikal Bridges sends the Celtics home in Game 7

[prophet_of_rage]

Thibs actually switched OG back on him after Tatum was torching Mikal.

Thibs blows just like the majority of your posts defending that clown. In your perfect world, you would be roommates with Randle, Durant and Thibs snuggling by the fireplace sipping on hot chocolate together.

@mods personal insults and derailing thread by mentioning ex Knick.

You know how this works.

Sent from my SM-S9080 using RealGM mobile app

[Iron Mantis]

I watched the replay of the end of regulation play and the play was definitely for either Brunson or KAT as the main options. They doubled Brunson so he was taken out the play but KAT was wide open for the lob after Brunson set the screen on Porzingis. Mikal was either too scared to throw the pass or just didn’t see him but that was a game winning lob that Mikal could have thrown. Instead he settled for the broken play option which was Josh Hart.

You need high IQ players to win big and we just don’t have many of them. Josh Hart and Mikal both play like airheads

Did anybody really think it was designed for Josh Hart to shoot?

Sent from my SM-S9080 using RealGM mobile app

Why is Hart in at the end of the game on the offensive end when knicks need a bucket. Defense can play off him and he's looking to pass the ball.. You have better shooters on the bench.

For an offensive possession to close out the game, you go with all your best offensive weapons and shooters.

When you need a stop to close out the game, you bring in all your best defenders and rebounders.

This is elementary stuff.

[Knicksfan1992]

So your defense of potentially not fouling is.

A) Brunson can miss a FT? I will live with that result

B) You can sub in Mitch and your best rebounders (since we had a timeout you can get the rebound and simultaneously call TO so mitch wouldn't be fouled if he got the rebound)

C) Tatum was walking the ball up the court for 3-4 seconds...he wasn't a threat to shoot at half court so there is no fear of him shooting to draw a foul from that far out. There was no urgency to pick him up full court and then just wrap him up while he was dribbling.

All this is "odds" based you play the best odds, that is why most teams foul (only dinosaurs don't foul in that situation). Your alternative scenarios rarely and I mean rarely come back to hurt a team. The most likely one is your team also missing FT's but at that point its on your players to make FT's and if they don't I can't blame the coach for that.

To allow a clean look from there best player down 3 with under 10 seconds is criminal. Its simply bad coaching.

I get your foaming at the mouth but i'm not defending anything lol

There's rationale to not fouling. If you don't want to see it so be it. I don't really care lol

Lets say its an either or situation (which I don't believe but for the sake or argument).

How do you let Tatum get a clean look from 3? A top 5 player in the sport and you don't force the ball out of his hands. You think the opposition would let Brunson get that same look from 3 or would they have just forced the Knicks to go to Hart?

And they weren't a 5 out team at that moment...Kornet was on the court.

You're so steeped into your side that you're not making sense for this specific argument.

Ask OG why Tatum was allowed a clean look? He overplayed a drive for seemingly no reason and allowed Tatum to take a step back 3. Once Tatum took a step inside a 3 point line OG should have just let him go to the rim. That's almost an even more ideal scenario than fouling IMO. Tatum takes more time off the clock and we get to inbound against a non set defense. That's amateur stuff by an all-world defender IMO. You learn that in rec hoops lol.

To your point about Hart... You're forgetting that in this specific play the Celtics grabbed the ball and immediately inbounded after Hart made a falling layup (taking him out of the play). You're not going to be able to set up your defense to deny the ball to someone that quickly.

Now if you're saying the Knicks should have doubled Tatum (which I don't think you are) well then you're leaving yourself open to a possible clean look from someone else.

AGAIN I WANT TO POINT OUT I SAID I WOULD HAVE FOULED LOL. I think the positives outweigh the negatives. But it's not a foolproof decision.

One decision (letting it play out) takes losing the game in regulation basically out of the equation but opens up the chance for OT (which we saw last night).

The other (FOULING) lowers the other team's chance of tying the game but does opens up more opportunities for variance creeping into play (missed FT's, effing up a subsequent inbounds pass, turnover once ball is inbounded, etc.)

You not acknowledging the validity of the latter is not my issue and why your argument is inherently flawed.

[Ravenxvirall]

Numbers are out and it pretty much confirms the eye test.

OG held Tatum to 37% FG.

Mikal held Tatum to 83% FG

Holy **** lmao

3 for 8 vs 5 for 6

A lot less shock value when you see that

Not really it shows what we should already know as common sense. Og matches up well with Tatum. Put mikal on brown even more so because of his knee mikal can gamble a bit more in the lanes where he excels.its so damn simple we probably won’t do it lmao.

[god shammgod]

Honestly, a healthy Horford is more damaging to us than Brown, if he plays in that series we're cooked regardless of whether Brown is out or not. He misses a game, and it's close, he plays in the 3 others and it's blow out city, he has a +33 net rating against use which is highest on their team vs us.

He stops the KAT post ups with weakside help from KP, and on the other end they're still 5 out.

it didn't work yesterday but the knicks were able to really focus on tatum defensively because brown wasn't a threat. that wouldn't be the case if he was healthy. if kp, white, holiday beat you then so be it.

i would have liked to seen our double big lineup against theirs. if we could have bullied them on the boards.

Meh. Healthy KP is their number 2, not Brown. Despite how it's written/spoken in the media.

I mean the thought is to let Brown be traded in the off-season for apron reasons, not KP or White (who's probably the third most important player for the Celtics).

how often is he healthy ? and they basically played most of the playoffs without him on the way to a championship. i would be very surprised if they decided to trade brown. horford is close to retirement, kp is unreliable for health reasons and jrue is declining. any of them would be a more logical choice.

[Spree2Houston]

Would Mike Dantoni unlock this team ? Or we need to try another route lol

[mpharris36]

I get your foaming at the mouth but i'm not defending anything lol

There's rationale to not fouling. If you don't want to see it so be it. I don't really care lol

Lets say its an either or situation (which I don't believe but for the sake or argument).

How do you let Tatum get a clean look from 3? A top 5 player in the sport and you don't force the ball out of his hands. You think the opposition would let Brunson get that same look from 3 or would they have just forced the Knicks to go to Hart?

And they weren't a 5 out team at that moment...Kornet was on the court.

You're so steeped into your side that you're not making sense for this specific argument.

Ask OG why Tatum was allowed a clean look? He overplayed a drive for seemingly no reason and allowed Tatum to take a step back 3. Once Tatum took a step inside a 3 point line OG should have just let him go to the rim. That's almost an even more ideal scenario than fouling IMO. Tatum takes more time off the clock and we get to inbound against a non set defense. That's amateur stuff by an all-world defender IMO. You learn that in rec hoops lol.

To your point about Hart... You're forgetting that in this specific play the Celtics grabbed the ball and immediately inbounded after Hart made a falling layup (taking him out of the play). You're not going to be able to set up your defense to deny the ball to someone that quickly.

Now if you're saying the Knicks should have doubled Tatum (which I don't think you are) well then you're leaving yourself open to a possible clean look from someone else.

AGAIN I WANT TO POINT OUT I SAID I WOULD HAVE FOULED LOL. I think the positives outweigh the negatives. But it's not a foolproof decision.

One decision (letting it play out) takes losing the game in regulation basically out of the equation but opens up the chance for OT (which we saw last night).

The other (FOULING) lowers the other team's chance of tying the game but does opens up more opportunities for variance creeping into play (missed FT's, effing up a subsequent inbounds pass, turnover once ball is inbounded, etc.)

You not acknowledging the validity of the latter is not my issue and why your argument is inherently flawed.

Of course no decision is 100% success rate. If you had two doors and one said you would die 50% of the the time and the other said your would die 25% of the time. You still have a chance to die but no one would choose the the 50% door.

You simply want the ball in your best players hands and I will take the odds. If its a FT game I certainly trust Brunson in that situation. And if we can't conduct an inbounds pass then i don't know what to tell you.

I don't want Tatum deciding the game if I don't have to...being up 3 instead of 2 gave us that option to take the ball out of Tatums hands at the end of the game and we didn't take that opportunity.

Did OG play that possession well? No he didn't...never said he did. But you are saying you would foul...I said we should foul. Most people I have heard said we should foul. So what are we arguing here...Thibs doesn't really believe in fouling he didn't do it in the playoffs last year with Maxey and he didn't do it again.

Fouling takes the ball out of the best players hands (in this case tatum) and then forces them to have to try to get an unlikely scenario...whether that is a offensive reboud, a missed FT from the Knicks, or a inbounds turnover...all are way less likely than Tatum hitting a 3.

You play to win the game, not to not lose the game so even if the odds losing in regulation go up with an odd situation the odds of winning in regulation also go up. And you should always take those odds.

[knicksstuff]

First game against a contender we are at complete full health and went into overtime and we still cant take any positives out of it