Pacers 101, Knicks 89
I missed this one, and I'm damn glad I did. What the hell happened?
Update: Berman makes it pretty clear:
It was that bad. Sickening possession followed sickening possession -- seven straight midway through the fourth without a point. There was a shot-clock violation caused by a bad Hughes pass. Chris Duhon forced an ugly running banker. Lee set an illegal pick. Harrington bricked an open jump shot, then on the next possession lost the ball in the lane. Danilo Gallinari, who had a quiet 11 points, missed on a running hook shot with 2:00 left.
Lee, so hot with his mid-ranger jumper lately, clunked one off the side rim with 1:02 left, down six, to continue the disaster. T.J. Ford (16 points) came down and sank the clinching jumper, giving the Pacers a 97-89 lead with 49 seconds left.
0 recs |
13 comments
Comments
don't think i have it in me to watch the tape
say your piece about tonight’s game in the comments, and i’ll copy it to the main page if i see fit.
by Seth on Nov 5, 2009 12:07 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
Wise
I certainly agree with your abstention, but you have to see Toney Douglas Do Defense. He’s as ferocious an on-the-ball defender that I can remember. He’s relentless.
"Dishin' and swishin' in transition"
by Serious Garbage Time on Nov 5, 2009 1:43 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Thank New York for the Yankees
And thankfully I missed this one. I give up.
by Nolan B on Nov 5, 2009 12:50 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

http://scribingaccountant.blogspot.com/
http://twitter.com/wmarv
by THEWILLY on Nov 5, 2009 8:21 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
are the knicks going to turn in to the 04 05 Giants? that meaning they play at the potential of there opponents? --hey, i’ll take that for this year, lol. as long as nyk get 40 wins im good… btw, how realistic is that??
by semsemma on Nov 5, 2009 8:27 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
yeah, because there’s not enough ballhogging going on
by Nolan B on Nov 5, 2009 11:01 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
come on
That game needed someone on our team to take over. Nate has had the ability to do that.
There was energy missing from us down the stretch. Plus, Nate has dominated the Pacers last season…
by gbaked on Nov 5, 2009 11:02 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Nate could probably win games like this on his own, but do we really want more players ignoring Gallo out there? I don’t think Nate and Al can exist on the same team.
by Nolan B on Nov 5, 2009 5:13 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Nate
Actually has been passing a lot to Gallo before he got hurt.
"Dishin' and swishin' in transition"
by Serious Garbage Time on Nov 5, 2009 5:54 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
OK
The Knicks have troubles with interior defense. We all know that. And they have a bunch of players with some talents. They have no one that’s night in, night out dominant – except maybe Gallo might be able to get there.
To me it seems like the Knicks don’t ever look to feed the hot hand. If a guy like Gallo makes a couple of shots, you’d think that the next time down the court, Duhon or another teammate would be thinking about feeding him the ball in a place he can shoot it. But it’s like they just forget it – some random person shoots. I think any offense would look to get the highest percentage shot opportunity on any given time down the floor. You try to get the ball to your best shooter. Granted, Duhon does work with Lee on the pick and roll to get him the ball inside, and that’s usually a good bet. But if the other team starts taking that away, the ball moves around, but there doesn’t seem to be any rhyme or reason to it. If I was Duhon and saw Gallo burying threes in practice, and in the game you needed some points, I’d take it upon myself to get him the ball in a good position to shoot. Now it’s true that Gallo doesn’t seem to be moving without the ball much, but still. I remember how the pacers used to run all kinds of screens and try to get Reggie Miller the ball, because he was the best shooter on the team. But the Knicks play like they all have an equal chance to score on any possession. The truth is, they all have good nights and bad nights, and overall Gallo’s the best outside shooter. But they play like they’re all interchangable. I notice that a guy can be 4-5 from the floor in the first quarter and they don’t seem to make any effort to keep feeding that.
When they had Ewing, they would feed him in the post. If he missed his first three shots, did they stop feeding him? No way – the guy got at least 15 shots a night because everyone knew he could score in the post. I think they should be doing the same thing with Gallo. Get him 15 good, in rhythm shots a game, because he has a better chance than just about anyone on the team of hitting 10 of them.
I know this team will be defensively mediocre in the front court, but I think their defense has not been that terrible. I just think they need to be taking better shots. I think they should have been able to pull away in the 3rd quarter of this game. Then they could have weathered their slump in the 4th.
by fuhry on Nov 5, 2009 10:25 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
psychological issues for this team
I was at the garden for this fiasco {as is often the case} and I can tell you its not about talent {well not entirely} but about attitude.
this team thinks its better than it is and it thinks it’s offense is more potent than it is.
We seem to take teams at our level lightly and get up for the better teams. this leads to a lot of games we are “supposed to win” being losses and games we are expected to lose being hard fought battles. that leads to a bad record because we still dont have the talent to beat most of the good teams and if we lose the opportunities to beat the bad ones we have nothing.
ALso it leads to a lot of players standing at the 3point line waiting for the ball because they think thats the way we win games when in fact its the way we lose games
by NoLayupRule on Nov 5, 2009 10:43 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
BUT
i remember seeing a serious leejection
"The Celtics are playing like a bunch of chumps."
-Walt Cylde Frazier
by omnipotence on Nov 5, 2009 1:49 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

by 











