PG Knicks - Great Second Half Led by Defense

[Perishable517]

Cole realizes feeding GA = big assist totals.. always knows where He is

"He"

Sent from my CPH2417 using RealGM mobile app

[Perishable517]

Cole Anthony had nine assists tonight. And at a +1 was the only positive bench player in -/+.

Somehow we’ve haven’t discussed this. Cole Anthony in Orlando was a black hole. On this team he’s meaningfully adjusted his game.

Plenty of reasons to dislike Doc, but he and his staff are getting more out of players than other coaches had. Anthony and KPJ are examples.

The point guard whisperer.

Sent from my CPH2417 using RealGM mobile app

[Ron Swanson]

The benefit of bringing Kuzma off the bench is not only that they're finally playing him more at his most optimized position (74% of his minutes at PF so far according to Bball-Reference), but you can even get away with playing him at the 3 when Giannis isn't out there. Like, KAT legitimately couldn't stop him from driving to the hoop last night. For all his mental midget tendencies, dude is still a quick/athletic 6'10 guy that can create dribble penetration on mismatches against guys his size or bigger.

[ShootingtheJ]

The benefit of bringing Kuzma off the bench is not only that they're finally playing him more at his most optimized position (74% of his minutes at PF so far according to Bball-Reference), but you can even get away with playing him at the 3 when Giannis isn't out there. Like, KAT legitimately couldn't stop him from driving to the hoop last night.

The Bucks were attacking KAT relentlessly last night.

[Perishable517]

Kuz is helping us win in ways I really didn't expect

When we traded for him, I was hoping his size and mobility would help on D. With the adjustments made this past off season and the growth of the guards, this is what I was hoping for.

Sent from my CPH2417 using RealGM mobile app

[Balls2TheWalls]

The benefit of bringing Kuzma off the bench is not only that they're finally playing him more at his most optimized position (74% of his minutes at PF so far according to Bball-Reference), but you can even get away with playing him at the 3 when Giannis isn't out there. Like, KAT legitimately couldn't stop him from driving to the hoop last night.

The dichotomy of KAT last year vs this game against the Bucks was incredible. He took Brook to school for free every time last year. He was getting to the rack and getting fouled. KAT looked like an infant last night. He looked frustrated offensively, he was flailing due to the frustration defensively. If Kuzma continues to buy in for this defend/dribble drive job, then he has value to us. He is a little spastic still, but off the bench you can take the imperfections.

[Perishable517]

Mild concerning trend the last two:

Cavs got 8 more FG attempts (and 7 more FT attempts)
Knicks got 13 more FG attempts (and 1 less FT)

I guess rebounding disparity explains some (perhaps most) of this. Any other thoughts?

I've been keeping close eye on this too - via rebounding numbers. Our opponents are averaging 11 ORPG, which is middle of the pack. Our diff is -2.3, which is bottom-third. Both of these are before last night's game, in which New York killed us, so these numbers will be getting worse. Sometimes this can be as simple as game-to-game variance and a team who missed a lot of shots with a particularly good ORBD, but sometimes it's a trend. Unfortunately, the Knicks are otherwise dead-last in the league in ORBD, which isn't a good sign for us.

For going on a decade now we've had a center who isn't plus on the boards - though lots of discussion, certainly, around if Brook effectively boxed out for his teammates. Turner continues the trend here. Giannis is obviously elite, but he needs help. Khris in his prime was elite in this regard as a wing. Bobby has also always played a big role for us here - but not yet this season. 2 last night in 16 minutes, for example.

I suspect if we can close this gap better we will then also close the FGA gap. It's not linear, but it sure would help.

Brook, throughout most of his career, made the teams he was on, much better rebounders, even though his numbers were not impressive.

Sent from my CPH2417 using RealGM mobile app

[emunney]

The benefit of bringing Kuzma off the bench is not only that they're finally playing him more at his most optimized position (74% of his minutes at PF so far according to Bball-Reference), but you can even get away with playing him at the 3 when Giannis isn't out there. Like, KAT legitimately couldn't stop him from driving to the hoop last night. For all his mental midget tendencies, dude is still a quick/athletic 6'10 guy that can create dribble penetration on mismatches against guys his size or bigger.

He was shockingly good defending KAT last night. PJ Tucker level good and probably without any PJ Tucker level film study. If you could reliably get that level of defensive focus and effort from him, I wouldn't even be thinking about trades.

[soxperry]

Kuz is helping us win in ways I really didn't expect

When we traded for him, I was hoping his size and mobility would help on D. With the adjustments made this past off season and the growth of the guards, this is what I was hoping for.

Sent from my CPH2417 using RealGM mobile app

i actually defended the trade at the time in part for this reason. i'm okay with the one heat check shot, he was clearly feeling himself and he should have been given the effort he was giving on defense. i can't remember the play, but there is a line about 4th graders being significantly better painters than 3rd graders at some school, and the trick was that the 4th grade teacher knew when to take the painting away. That's going to be the key to Kuzma with Doc. Get him in, extract some positive minutes, get him out. If he proves that he can go prolonged periods without reverting to Washington Kuz, he gets more leash.

Last night's version of Kuzma doesn't need to be traded unless there's a good trade to be had. He provided value instead of taking it away. Props to Doc.

[old skool]

I think it is a fools errand to discuss who should start, or come off the bench, or what different lineups should be used.

The modern NBA is a mish mash of injuries, minutes restrictions, load management, and positionless basketball. Last season, only four Bucks played more than 67 games. The most used 5-man lineup was only on the court together for 310 minutes (8% of the regular season). 73% of the regular season, the group on the court played less than 100 minutes together.

[soxperry]

I think it is a fools errand to discuss who should start, or come off the bench, or what different lineups should be used.

The modern NBA is a mish mash of injuries, minutes restrictions, load management, and positionless basketball. Last season, only four Bucks played more than 67 games. The most used 5-man lineup was only on the court together for 310 minutes (8% of the regular season). 73% of the regular season, the group on the court played less than 100 minutes together.

Just assume we are talking about playoffs

[emunney]

I think it is a fools errand to discuss who should start, or come off the bench, or what different lineups should be used.

The modern NBA is a mish mash of injuries, minutes restrictions, load management, and positionless basketball. Last season, only four Bucks played more than 67 games. The most used 5-man lineup was only on the court together for 310 minutes (8% of the regular season). 73% of the regular season, the group on the court played less than 100 minutes together.

This result isn't strictly the result of exogenous factors; it's also a result of choices. The choices are what we're discussing. You can plan for ideal circumstances and for contingencies. I guess I'm wondering if there's anything that we talk about where this line of logic wouldn't prefer silence.

[Ron Swanson]

Either the regular season matters or it doesn't. We owned the Pacers last year in the RS (3-1 with a fluky Hali shot their only win), and it didn't matter one bit when they ran us off the court in the playoffs. I'll never understand the people that just completely disregard trends over the course of 6-months of competitive basketball though. I guess it's just a complete coincidence that the last two champions won 68 and 64 games from October through April...

[old skool]

About last night:

Sparse crowd. Tickets available in every section. Lots of open seats in lower level; even more open in the upper level. Even Knicks fans seemed scarce.

1 - It was a game of runs. NY scored 60 points in a group of 18 minutes (6 mins to start the game plus the 2nd quarter). They scored 51 points over the other 30 minutes played.

2 - Bucks coaches had a great rotation game plan. The unit closing the game was fresher than their counterparts. Part of the Knicks "great 2nd quarter" was them playing starters while more of the Bucks starters were resting.

3 - Green needs to learn how to get shots. Steph Curry would be considered a scrub if he only took 5 FGAs per game. Green's first half line was 0 shots, 0 points, 0 rebounds, 0 assists, 3 fouls. Shooters need to shoot.

4 - It was encouraging to see Rollins excell in a high profile game. He did nothing that we have not seen before. He was good shooting from deep (40% 3FGA% career) and mid-range. He drove to the basket. Steals and deflections. Solid defense.

5 - Kuzma's impact reminded me of P.J. Tucker - a defensive focus, occasionally prone to offensive overconfidence. Kuzma used his length, mobility and athleticism to harass and bewilder Towns. Kuzma, a career 33% 3-point shooter on 6 attempts per game, is only attempting 1.3 3FGAs this season. Total shot attempts per game is down 50% from his career average. Looks like good coaching and player buy-in.

6 - Antetokounmpo being quiet early and strong in the 2nd half is a strategy, not a result.

7 - The fast pace ball movement offense grinds to a halt when Giannis or Portis start pounding their dribble. But those one-on-one back downs might serve a purpose, forcing the opponent to retain some post defense capability instead of going all in on a ball movement defense.

[BUCKnation]

Regarding the orebs, we seem to be really bad at getting long rebounds off 3's and I feel like our hands have been really bad at actually bringing rebounds in.

[old skool]

I think it is a fools errand to discuss who should start, or come off the bench, or what different lineups should be used.

The modern NBA is a mish mash of injuries, minutes restrictions, load management, and positionless basketball. Last season, only four Bucks played more than 67 games. The most used 5-man lineup was only on the court together for 310 minutes (8% of the regular season). 73% of the regular season, the group on the court played less than 100 minutes together.

This result isn't strictly the result of exogenous factors; it's also a result of choices. The choices are what we're discussing. You can plan for ideal circumstances and for contingencies. I guess I'm wondering if there's anything that we talk about where this line of logic wouldn't prefer silence.

I enjoy the theoretical discussions. I just think it is valid to understand that what is being discussed is most likely a lineup or lineups that would be on the court a small fraction of the time and would have a proportionate impact on the season. That is, incredibly small. Efforts to identify a rotation that impacts the season are not productive because there is no single significant rotation, but rather a large number of rotations impacted by both the ideal and random factors. Identifying the ideal grain of sand does not impact the beach because that ideal grain of sand is less significant than the broader population. Yet discussions on NBA rotations everywhere imply that it is the combination of talents carefully sequenced together to produce an ideal mix, when it is the availability and deployment of individual talents that end up being cobbled together by coaches reacting on the fly to myriad factors that produce the result. A given rotation or two typically has little impact on the result because it typically is not used very much. That is why I feel such a discussion is a "fools errand", even though people can find it of interest.

[raferfenix]

Kuzma, a career 33% 3-point shooter on 6 attempts per game, is only attempting 1.3 3FGAs this season. Total shot attempts per game is down 50% from his career average. Looks like good coaching and player buy-in.

Exceedingly early of course but encouraging for sure.

[emunney]

I think it is a fools errand to discuss who should start, or come off the bench, or what different lineups should be used.

The modern NBA is a mish mash of injuries, minutes restrictions, load management, and positionless basketball. Last season, only four Bucks played more than 67 games. The most used 5-man lineup was only on the court together for 310 minutes (8% of the regular season). 73% of the regular season, the group on the court played less than 100 minutes together.

This result isn't strictly the result of exogenous factors; it's also a result of choices. The choices are what we're discussing. You can plan for ideal circumstances and for contingencies. I guess I'm wondering if there's anything that we talk about where this line of logic wouldn't prefer silence.

I enjoy the theoretical discussions. I just think it is valid to understand that what is being discussed is most likely a lineup or lineups that would be on the court a small fraction of the time and would have a proportionate impact on the season. That is, incredibly small. Efforts to identify a rotation that impacts the season are not productive because there is no single significant rotation, but rather a large number of rotations impacted by both the ideal and random factors. Identifying the ideal grain of sand does not impact the beach because that ideal grain of sand is less significant than the broader population. Yet discussions on NBA rotations everywhere imply that it is the combination of talents carefully sequenced together to produce an ideal mix, when it is the availability and deployment of individual talents that end up being cobbled together by coaches reacting on the fly to myriad factors that produce the result. A given rotation or two typically has little impact on the result because it typically is not used very much. That is why I feel such a discussion is a "fools errand", even though people can find it of interest.

Well, not all minutes are created equal. The question isn't so much who we'd want on the floor for a majority of regular season minutes as it is who we want on the floor in high leverage moments. In the game we were eliminated, the same 5 man lineup played 33 minutes together, including 10 in the 4th and all of OT.

If you were coaching the team, who would you want on the floor in those kinds of situations? We will have those situations and there will be a go-to lineup.

[tedbrogen]

The benefit of bringing Kuzma off the bench is not only that they're finally playing him more at his most optimized position (74% of his minutes at PF so far according to Bball-Reference), but you can even get away with playing him at the 3 when Giannis isn't out there. Like, KAT legitimately couldn't stop him from driving to the hoop last night.

The Bucks were attacking KAT relentlessly last night.

Every team should. He’s not good staying in front of anyone quicker than him and commits lots of dumb fouls. It also affects his offensive game. He’s the definition of empty stats.

[tedbrogen]

No one has called out the best moment in last night’s game when whoever 55 is in the Knicks was calling for the ball trying to post up Giannis on the elbow. I believe he was asking Brunson to give up the ball so he could try to back down Giannis.