NFT: Knicks vs Pacers Game 1 -- 730PM

sleep well.

not iHart.

The thought/comment was in response to us getting a new 3 and D 3.

Hart is such a winning player, with one main flaw; his inconsistent shooting.

I understand players often have limitations, but players also do improve. There are many examples, including Deuce, who improved his shooting in one offseason.

Hart improved his 3 pt shooting from the reg season to the playoffs and he attributed it to his working on it.

Why can't he continue to work on it this coming offseason and make the improvement more permanent? Like Deuce apparently has done.

I know Hart's been in the league a while and many will say "he is what he is", but has he ever shot 500 3s a day in the offseason like Deuce did last yr?

In comment 16508678 Dr. D said:

Quote:

not iHart. The thought/comment was in response to us getting a new 3 and D 3. Hart is such a winning player, with one main flaw; his inconsistent shooting. I understand players often have limitations, but players also do improve. There are many examples, including Deuce, who improved his shooting in one offseason. Hart improved his 3 pt shooting from the reg season to the playoffs and he attributed it to his working on it. Why can't he continue to work on it this coming offseason and make the improvement more permanent? Like Deuce apparently has done. I know Hart's been in the league a while and many will say "he is what he is", but has he ever shot 500 3s a day in the offseason like Deuce did last yr?

Supposedly, Hart also had an injury late in the season that affected his shooting. I just heard 3rd hand on the radio this morning that it was something in his wrist and in the last week, he flung a buzzer beater attempt at the end of a quarter and felt something click... as in click back into place. He was flexing it and felt no more pain. He told Brunson, I can shoot 3s now.

In comment 16508603 RomanWH said:

Quote:

See Mitchell Robinson's free throw shooting.

I can't believe how bad his FT shooting is and I can't imagine he's ever tried the Deuce training of shooting anywhere close to 500 FTs a day in an offseason.

His FTs look like that of someone who's barely ever played. The lack of arc, which is one of the main fundamentals, is a joke. How hard is it to use more arc? He looks like he NEVER practices w/ more arc.

When the rest of the team is shooting around at games, he's at the line shooting FT.

He just stinks at it. Lots of guys never get good at it.

In comment 16508715 Heisenberg said:

Quote:

When the rest of the team is shooting around at games, he's at the line shooting FT. He just stinks at it. Lots of guys never get good at it.

I don't doubt that he practices, but if he's practicing with the same awful mechanics (lack of arc) over and over, what good is it?

Has he ever tried more arc? Has he ever tried ANYTHING differently? (I don't expect anyone to know this)

I know some, especially big men, have been bad and never got better (with some, it seems like their hands are too big). But Mitch has one obvious problem with his mechanics and I never see him trying to change it. It's the same line drives every time, often hitting the front of the rim.

They should've put in his contract that he has to shoot X many FTs in the offseason with a minimum of X degrees of arc.

He's so bad that you can't even have him on the floor at the end of a tight game. And he doesn't make up for it in other ways, like someone like Shaq.

In comment 16508747 Dr. D said:

Quote:

In comment 16508715 Heisenberg said: Quote: When the rest of the team is shooting around at games, he's at the line shooting FT. He just stinks at it. Lots of guys never get good at it. I don't doubt that he practices, but if he's practicing with the same awful mechanics (lack of arc) over and over, what good is it? Has he ever tried more arc? Has he ever tried ANYTHING differently? (I don't expect anyone to know this) I know some, especially big men, have been bad and never got better (with some, it seems like their hands are too big). But Mitch has one obvious problem with his mechanics and I never see him trying to change it. It's the same line drives every time, often hitting the front of the rim. They should've put in his contract that he has to shoot X many FTs in the offseason with a minimum of X degrees of arc. He's so bad that you can't even have him on the floor at the end of a tight game. And he doesn't make up for it in other ways, like someone like Shaq.

ever see Wilt Chamberlain shoot FTs? Scary bad.

Some big men, even great ones aren’t in the NBA for their shooting touch and historically many have been bad FT shooters. I don’t think some could become good with any amount of practice

he probably won't. He's gotten a lot better in other aspects of the game but he won't ever be even average at FT. That's the reality. He'll keep working on it but he is what he is. Great rebounder and great defender.

It does limit his usefulness at the end of games. But I give the guy a ton of credit for playing through obvious pain from that dickhead Embiid's cheap bullshit. He's out there hobbled and giving the team all he's got. I cringe when he goes to the line but I still love the guy.

but not all. Embiid shot 88% this yr.

Guys like Wilt and Shaq had multiple issues with their mechanics. All I'm saying is it seems Mitch has one main issue (lack of arc) that it seems shouldn't be that impossible to change. I'm not saying he would ever be a great FT shooter, but 41% is ridiculous.

I just looked at his stats and what's crazy is Mitch has gotten progressively worse at FTs every yr he's been in the league. His rookie yr he shot 60%, then 57% his 2nd yr, then .491, .486, .484 and .409 this yr.

Anyway, I'll drop it. I did find an interesting video linked below about Wilt. In it, Tommy Heinsohn said that he thought Wilt was "too strong" and that he witnessed Wilt take FTs from half court and made 20 out of 25.

The curious case of Wilt Chamberlain's FTs - ( New Window )

A few years back and watching Chamberlain shoot free throws it was clear that a big problem was his hands were huge. Him shooting a basketball was like us trying to shoot a tennis ball

the calls at the end of the game is that it's deflecting from what a completely embarrasing performance Haliburton put out there last night. People nationally should be blasting him all day. I figured thats what would happen and that he would come out Wednesday looking to prove everyone wrong.

for the media to show their true anti-New York colors. National media has always hated the Knicks and looks for any excuse to minimize their success.

It was about a middle-aged man who held the record for most consecutive free throws made, well over two thousand. He made it a career, traveling around the country to appear at events where he'd challenge audience members to beat him. He said something interesting in the article: he never worried about guys who were obvious basketball players, like tall kids in letter jackets. The reason why was that he believed the mechanics of a free throw should be completely different than a jump shot. He had an odd-looking one handed free throw style, and he said anyone could shoot over 80% that way, but most players don't want to look goofy on the court.

Anyway, it was interesting.

In comment 16508880 Greg from LI said:

Quote:

It was about a middle-aged man who held the record for most consecutive free throws made, well over two thousand. He made it a career, traveling around the country to appear at events where he'd challenge audience members to beat him. He said something interesting in the article: he never worried about guys who were obvious basketball players, like tall kids in letter jackets. The reason why was that he believed the mechanics of a free throw should be completely different than a jump shot. He had an odd-looking one handed free throw style, and he said anyone could shoot over 80% that way, but most players don't want to look goofy on the court. Anyway, it was interesting.

Don Nelson used a 1 handed FT form back in the '70s

In comment 16508880 Greg from LI said:

Quote:

It was about a middle-aged man who held the record for most consecutive free throws made, well over two thousand. He made it a career, traveling around the country to appear at events where he'd challenge audience members to beat him. He said something interesting in the article: he never worried about guys who were obvious basketball players, like tall kids in letter jackets. The reason why was that he believed the mechanics of a free throw should be completely different than a jump shot. He had an odd-looking one handed free throw style, and he said anyone could shoot over 80% that way, but most players don't want to look goofy on the court.

That man's name? Anthony Mason.

In comment 16508615 Anakim said:

Quote:

In comment 16508602 DanMetroMan said: Quote: looking to the off-season while the Knicks are still alive but more size and another scorer off the bench... both would be ideal. Size might be as "simple" as using one of the firsts on a big man (the one area this draft is viewed as pretty strong). We have a few needs: the aforementioned stretch-5; a backup ball-handling, pass-first PG, preferably one with size; a sharpshooter if we move on from Bojan; a rim-protector if we move on from Mitchell... But we can discuss that in a month or two.

I still can't help but think that a healthy Randle is exactly what this team needs. A guy who can stretch the defense, create his own shot, can handle the ball and is an above average passer for his position. I mean maybe I'm wrong but I feel like that's the exact type of player that would elevate this starting lineup even more and we have him.

He just needs to be healthy and bought into what we're doing as a team. Randle's not a bad guy and he sees what everyone else is seeing - this is Brunson's team and if he can handle being a "Robin" and can keep his emotions in check, this starting 5 next year will be even better

In comment 16508853 Stu11 said:

Quote:

the calls at the end of the game is that it's deflecting from what a completely embarrasing performance Haliburton put out there last night. People nationally should be blasting him all day. I figured thats what would happen and that he would come out Wednesday looking to prove everyone wrong.

Happened to come across an article from late December about Haliburton having to leave a Pacers' practice because of back pain. I wasn't aware his back issue pre-dated the January 8 hamstring injury. Since it did, it could have been a precipitant.

He's been seen using a brace to sit on the bench. He was listed as questionable during the Bucks' series with back spasms. He was questionable for Game 1 last night.

Back issues aren't as predictable as other injuries. One day you may wake up in spasm and the next day not. I don't believe anyone is in a position to pass informed judgment on Haliburton, either to criticize him or to know what version might show up for the next game of this series.

In comment 16508915 shyster said:

Quote:

Back issues aren't as predictable as other injuries. One day you may wake up in spasm and the next day not. I don't believe anyone is in a position to pass informed judgment on Haliburton, either to criticize him or to know what version might show up for the next game of this series.

I've had back issues for years (long story); have had 5 back ops. It can not only cause back pain, but pain elsewhere including the legs.

Good chance he's not going to be right the rest of this season, but as you said he could have some nights better than others.

In comment 16508912 DaShotel13 said:

Quote:

I still can't help but think that a healthy Randle is exactly what this team needs. A guy who can stretch the defense, create his own shot, can handle the ball and is an above average passer for his position.

Biggest thing being "create his own shot". Brunson is pretty much the only guy who can do that consistently now.

In comment 16508936 Greg from LI said:

Quote:

In comment 16508912 DaShotel13 said: Quote: I still can't help but think that a healthy Randle is exactly what this team needs. A guy who can stretch the defense, create his own shot, can handle the ball and is an above average passer for his position. Biggest thing being "create his own shot". Brunson is pretty much the only guy who can do that consistently now.

I feel like OG can, but is hesitant to do so.

Last year and the year before, I thought Randle ground this offense to a halt in the post season. He seemed to have changed his game a bit to fit the team this year. It would have been interesting to see this team with him this time of year. Then again, if he was healthy, they may not have traded for OG.

But, in real time, it certainly looked like the right call. Since that isn't reviewable, I have a hard time even saying it was egregious. It was just the wrong call in a tough spot.

As for the offensive foul on the screen, I thought it was legit call. One, he was moving, two, he thrust his lower body out, even if subtly, after the initial contact. It wasn't excessive force, but it was an illegal screen.

I thought the officiating was just bad all around and not in either teams favor overall.

In comment 16508947 Matt M. said:

Quote:

In comment 16508936 Greg from LI said: Quote: In comment 16508912 DaShotel13 said: Quote: I still can't help but think that a healthy Randle is exactly what this team needs. A guy who can stretch the defense, create his own shot, can handle the ball and is an above average passer for his position. Biggest thing being "create his own shot". Brunson is pretty much the only guy who can do that consistently now. I feel like OG can, but is hesitant to do so. Last year and the year before, I thought Randle ground this offense to a halt in the post season. He seemed to have changed his game a bit to fit the team this year. It would have been interesting to see this team with him this time of year. Then again, if he was healthy, they may not have traded for OG.

Yeah but they traded for OG before Randle was hurt

I guess, maybe it’s short nostalgia, but I’m very optimistic that Randle can integrate and integrate well into this starting lineup and be complimentary.

But that’s for next year, this year let’s keep it going!!

In comment 16508951 Matt M. said:

Quote:

But, in real time, it certainly looked like the right call. Since that isn't reviewable, I have a hard time even saying it was egregious. It was just the wrong call in a tough spot. As for the offensive foul on the screen, I thought it was legit call. One, he was moving, two, he thrust his lower body out, even if subtly, after the initial contact. It wasn't excessive force, but it was an illegal screen. I thought the officiating was just bad all around and not in either teams favor overall.

You’re missing the moving screen by DDV before the kick ball. Seems like there’s been more animosity why that wasn’t called and the one at the end was. Both were moving screens but I wouldn’t have called either.

The kick ball call is very bad look. You can’t call what you don’t see. It wasn’t even close.

In comment 16508967 JT039 said:

Quote:

In comment 16508951 Matt M. said: Quote: But, in real time, it certainly looked like the right call. Since that isn't reviewable, I have a hard time even saying it was egregious. It was just the wrong call in a tough spot. As for the offensive foul on the screen, I thought it was legit call. One, he was moving, two, he thrust his lower body out, even if subtly, after the initial contact. It wasn't excessive force, but it was an illegal screen. I thought the officiating was just bad all around and not in either teams favor overall. You’re missing the moving screen by DDV before the kick ball. Seems like there’s been more animosity why that wasn’t called and the one at the end was. Both were moving screens but I wouldn’t have called either. The kick ball call is very bad look. You can’t call what you don’t see. It wasn’t even close.

JT I dunno what you were watching but the kicked ball that wasn't, very much looked like a kicked ball in real time. My first reaction to the play was "oh good it was kicked". There's no denying in hindsight that it wasn't, and the fact that the play is not reviewable is weird, but it is the rule.

Nembhard flopped more egregiously than DDV two minutes earlier to draw a foul on an illegal screen (against DDV, coincidentally) when the Knicks were up four with the ball and a chance to put the game away. They had already erased a nine-point fourth quarter deficit and were on the verge of delivering the knockout punch. The refs reward Nembhard for the flop and the Pacers go down and score. If the refs swallow the whistle on that one, the kicked ball and DDV flop are inconsequential. That's baseball, Suzyn.

In comment 16508967 JT039 said:

Quote:

In comment 16508951 Matt M. said: Quote: But, in real time, it certainly looked like the right call. Since that isn't reviewable, I have a hard time even saying it was egregious. It was just the wrong call in a tough spot. As for the offensive foul on the screen, I thought it was legit call. One, he was moving, two, he thrust his lower body out, even if subtly, after the initial contact. It wasn't excessive force, but it was an illegal screen. I thought the officiating was just bad all around and not in either teams favor overall. You’re missing the moving screen by DDV before the kick ball. Seems like there’s been more animosity why that wasn’t called and the one at the end was. Both were moving screens but I wouldn’t have called either. The kick ball call is very bad look. You can’t call what you don’t see. It wasn’t even close.

Well if we're going back to review other bad calls, shouldn't we also note the offensive foul call on a Dante pick on Nembhart that they did call, which was egregiously wrong? Nembhart flopped way harded than Dante did and yet no one mentions it.

In comment 16508986 bceagle05 said:

Quote:

Nembhard flopped more egregiously than DDV two minutes earlier to draw a foul on an illegal screen (against DDV, coincidentally) when the Knicks were up four with the ball and a chance to put the game away. They had already erased a nine-point fourth quarter deficit and were on the verge of delivering the knockout punch. The refs reward Nembhard for the flop and the Pacers go down and score. If the refs swallow the whistle on that one, the kicked ball and DDV flop are inconsequential. That's baseball, Suzyn.

x2. It was way worse and Dante's screen was actualy legal whereas Turner's, by the letter of the rule, was not.

In comment 16508978 Chris684 said:

Quote:

In comment 16508967 JT039 said: Quote: In comment 16508951 Matt M. said: Quote: But, in real time, it certainly looked like the right call. Since that isn't reviewable, I have a hard time even saying it was egregious. It was just the wrong call in a tough spot. As for the offensive foul on the screen, I thought it was legit call. One, he was moving, two, he thrust his lower body out, even if subtly, after the initial contact. It wasn't excessive force, but it was an illegal screen. I thought the officiating was just bad all around and not in either teams favor overall. You’re missing the moving screen by DDV before the kick ball. Seems like there’s been more animosity why that wasn’t called and the one at the end was. Both were moving screens but I wouldn’t have called either. The kick ball call is very bad look. You can’t call what you don’t see. It wasn’t even close. JT I dunno what you were watching but the kicked ball that wasn't, very much looked like a kicked ball in real time. My first reaction to the play was "oh good it was kicked". There's no denying in hindsight that it wasn't, and the fact that the play is not reviewable is weird, but it is the rule.

The last thing the NBA needs is refs calling what they think they see. He had no angle and was clearly blocked. But like some have said “dem da breaks”.

But that may have been a bigger missed call because the pacers probably would have gotten a fast break with under 50 seconds.

I just hope the NBA doesn’t force it to be even next game like they did by not ejecting Embiid in game 2 - which he should have. Every knicks game has been amazing to watch.

On a side note - if Jamal Murray doesn’t get suspended - that would be the biggest crock of shit I’ve seen in a long time.

makeup calls for Pacers late next game. That's the way sports works (even if officials deny there's such a thing as a makeup call). Knicks have to just play through it.

This team has shown a ton of mental toughness, so even if they lose the next one and go to Indiana 1-1, they still have a great chance.

In comment 16508999 LW_Giants said:

Quote:

makeup calls for Pacers late next game. That's the way sports works (even if officials deny there's such a thing as a makeup call). Knicks have to just play through it. This team has shown a ton of mental toughness, so even if they lose the next one and go to Indiana 1-1, they still have a great chance.

I agree. Like I said last night - in order to win it all you need two things.

1. Win games when you’re not at your best
2. A few breaks

Every team has experienced this in winning their championships.

just like almost everything. When Reggie Miller shoved Greg Anthony to the ground in the middle of 8 pts in 9 seconds, I was mad the foul didn't get called as were a lot of knicks fans and we complained about it to each other at the bar.

If that happened today, we'd be arguing screenshots and video clips on the internet ad infinitum. Everyone is an armchair referee on the internet just like we're all armchair scientists and lawyers too.

The reality is that every team is dealing with the same collection of flawed referees. Sometimes it goes your team's way and sometimes it doesn't. That's all there really is to it, so we should all just get mad, get over it and move on.

In comment 16508880 Greg from LI said:

Quote:

It was about a middle-aged man who held the record for most consecutive free throws made, well over two thousand. He made it a career, traveling around the country to appear at events where he'd challenge audience members to beat him. He said something interesting in the article: he never worried about guys who were obvious basketball players, like tall kids in letter jackets. The reason why was that he believed the mechanics of a free throw should be completely different than a jump shot. He had an odd-looking one handed free throw style, and he said anyone could shoot over 80% that way, but most players don't want to look goofy on the court. Anyway, it was interesting.

I remember seeing an interview once with Rick Barry where he claimed he could teach any player to be a good FT shooter but players were too embarrassed to learn his underhand shot which he claimed is a much easier and natural motion for a person to use

2 that benefited the Knicks and 2 that benefited the Pacers. All that hoopla for nothing

Report says they missed another screen on Turner a couple of seconds after the one that was called

In comment 16509043 Strahan91 said:

Quote:

2 that benefited the Knicks and 2 that benefited the Pacers. All that hoopla for nothing

I am confused on the wording on turners screen. It’s listed as INC, but says he was moving. What am I missing?

In comment 16509043 Strahan91 said:

Quote:

2 that benefited the Knicks and 2 that benefited the Pacers. All that hoopla for nothing

The last 2.5 minutes were officiated almost comically even:
1 flop by Indy (which wouldn’t have been called without the flop)
1 flop by NYK (which could have been called without the flop)

1 lost Indy possession from a non-existent kick
1 lost NYK possession from a missed kick

1 successful challenge per team overturning bad calls.

In comment 16509065 JT039 said:
[quote] In comment 16509043 Strahan91 said:


Quote:


2 that benefited the Knicks and 2 that benefited the Pacers. All that hoopla for nothing



I am confused on the wording on turners screen. It’s listed as INC, but says he was moving. What am I missing?[/quote
]

I believe you're confusing the illegal screen called on Turner at 12.7 with the one that wasn't called at 10.7.

The latter is actually pretty funny. The game is pretty much lost for the Pacers at that point and Turner just blatantly wipes out DDV. To get his money's worth, I suppose.

Precious time!

Ian Begley
@IanBegley
Knicks are ruling Mitchell Robinson as out for Wednesday's Game 2 due to left ankle injury management. Robinson hurt the ankle in the PHI series and had significant surgery on it earlier in season. Knicks will presumably turn to Precious Achuiwa in Robinson's absence.

.

Rest up Big Mitch.

Precious will step up.

He deserves a lot of credit for fighting his ass off the way he has though - that injury should've been a season-ender.

Turner later had an offensive foul that was labeled as an incorrect no call (see 10.7)
Report - ( New Window )

to show he’s the right 5 vs. Indy - it would be great if Thibs could get away with sitting Mitch the remainder of the series.

In comment 16509065 JT039 said:

Quote:

In comment 16509043 Strahan91 said: Quote: 2 that benefited the Knicks and 2 that benefited the Pacers. All that hoopla for nothing I am confused on the wording on turners screen. It’s listed as INC, but says he was moving. What am I missing?

INC means “incorrect no call” in other words refs swallowed their whistle and were wrong to do so. There is a key explaining the codes at the bottom.

In comment 16509140 Mike in NY said:

Quote:

In comment 16509065 JT039 said: Quote: In comment 16509043 Strahan91 said: Quote: 2 that benefited the Knicks and 2 that benefited the Pacers. All that hoopla for nothing I am confused on the wording on turners screen. It’s listed as INC, but says he was moving. What am I missing? INC means “incorrect no call” in other words refs swallowed their whistle and were wrong to do so. There is a key explaining the codes at the bottom.

Thanks. But like someone said earlier I got the wrong screen mixed up. The one you showed was clearly a moving screen and should have been called.

In comment 16509138 bluefin said:

Quote:

to show he’s the right 5 vs. Indy - it would be great if Thibs could get away with sitting Mitch the remainder of the series.

I think this is the perfect series for Precious. He's quicker and more agile than Mitch. I also wonder if this means a Burks/Shake appearance as 7 men rotation won't work in this series

In comment 16508964 DaShotel13 said:

Quote:

In comment 16508947 Matt M. said: Quote: In comment 16508936 Greg from LI said: Quote: In comment 16508912 DaShotel13 said: Quote: I still can't help but think that a healthy Randle is exactly what this team needs. A guy who can stretch the defense, create his own shot, can handle the ball and is an above average passer for his position. Biggest thing being "create his own shot". Brunson is pretty much the only guy who can do that consistently now. I feel like OG can, but is hesitant to do so. Last year and the year before, I thought Randle ground this offense to a halt in the post season. He seemed to have changed his game a bit to fit the team this year. It would have been interesting to see this team with him this time of year. Then again, if he was healthy, they may not have traded for OG. Yeah but they traded for OG before Randle was hurt I guess, maybe it’s short nostalgia, but I’m very optimistic that Randle can integrate and integrate well into this starting lineup and be complimentary. But that’s for next year, this year let’s keep it going!!

I realized I was wrong about the OG trade. Like DUH. They were on fire that brief period after the trade when Randle was still healthy.

Check out the moving screen call that was made against DDV in the 3Q, with score tied 64-64.

Now THAT's a soft call. And it's the same ref who later made the call against Turner.

twitter - ( New Window )