the Knicks game

[Kestutis.Kveraga@xxxxxxxxxxxxx (Kestutis Kveraga)]

Watched the tape of Monday's game last night (yes, I'm a masochist). Since I
missed most of the original broadcast, I taped a replay on MSG with the Knicks'
announcers, one whom was Walt "Clyde" Frazier, the other I'm not sure who. I
was astounded at the difference. They were knowledgeable about our players,
including minutiae like birthplace, colleges attended, team played for etc.,
but more importantly, up-to-date information on how the player has been doing
for us lately, what his strengths and weaknesses are, and so  forth. They
complimented our players a lot and tended to accentuate their positives. They
were very professional and had clearly done their homework about their team's
opponent. 
If that weren't enough, there was a complete lack of homerism. Every time a
Knicks player was called for a foul, they calmly explained why the player was
assessed the foul, and criticized their players - not viciously, but
matter-of-factly - if the foul was dumb or unnecessary. What a shocking
concept! I'm so used to Tommy going ballistic nearly every time a foul or a
turnover is called on a Celtics player, I've forgotten how it should be. The
only one on the Celts broadcast team who even approaches this level of
professionalism is Mike Gorman. Cooz is reasonable, but he doesn't do any
homework at all - nothing, nada, zilch. He barely knows who the players are on
our team, never mind the opponent. Tommy is a raving maniac who doesn't do his
homework either. He's degenerated into a major-league crank, whose main
"contributions" are screaming "HE GOT FOULED!!!!!" and "RUN.....RUN!!!!",
groaning when he's too tired of screaming, and doling out his "Tommy points". 
Oh yes, and "I.... love.... Waltuh!".  It's pitiful. Whenever I get the
opportunity, I'll be watching the other team's broadcast, especially if it's
the Knicks'. 

Anyway, about the game:

It was Banks's best game as a pro by far. He showed blinding speed, ability to
see the floor, effectively ran the few fast breaks they had, and knifed 
through the Knick defense with a couple of very nice drives to the hoop. 

Brown showed off his strengths again, which is rebounding in the post and fast
break. He got some very difficult rebounds over much bigger people and looked
quite good overall. 

Baker looked great. It occurred to me he's now doing exactly what we've wanted
Toine to do all these years - score efficiently in the low post, rebound, pass
the ball when he doesn't have a good shot, and defend. I can't believe I would
ever say this after what happened last year, but he should be on the All-Star
ballot. Frazier thought he was close to his All-Star form in his Milwaukee
years. Can the coaches pick him even though he's not on it?

Welsch, as I've said before - and now even Obie has admitted - is great for our
offensive flow, and did a great job on Houston and even Van Horn when he
switched to him. 

Speaking of KVH, he was raining down all those threes on us because Kedrick
just wouldn't go out and get him. He kept doubling the post, helping out on the
likes of Mutombo (?!) and Thomas. I don't know if it was his own idea, or
Obie's instructions. In any case, that cost us dearly. 

Ewill scored his points totally in the flow of the offense - his points came
almost unnoticeably. Unlike the BBB trio and Kedrick who usually rebound "in a
tube", he IS a roving rebounder, but unlike those guys, he lacks both the size
and the ups to dominate on the boards. 
 
Pierce, in fairness to him, passed up a lot of difficult shots, especially
early in the game. However, he still took quite a few bad shots, which is why,
as Clyde Frazier noted, he was shooting so poorly in this game. Still, he's not
the second coming of Walker, he's trying to overcome his instinct, which is to
put it up no matter what. 

Btw, having re-watched his last shot, the infamous three-pointer attempt, I
have to say that Obie DID draw up a pretty decent play to get Pierce open. He
had Mike James and Pierce stationed down low on the opposite side of the lane,
Battie and Baker at the FT line, and EWill inbounding. Then James cut across
the lane towards Ewill, as if to receive the ball, pulling his man with him and
brushing off Pierce's man while Pierce was cutting up the lane through a narrow
gap formed by staggered screens set by B & B. That got Pierce open, with his
man trailing way behind. It is at this point that the play could've taken a
different turn, IMO. Pierce could've turned and driven left towards the hoop.
Battie's man and his own man, who converged on him would've been left for dead
because they were charging all out in the opposite direction. He also would've
had the option of dumping it to Battie who was rolling to the basket. Instead,
he picked up his dribble and took a pretty open, yet still challenged, three.
Don't know if it was his decision or whether the play was designed this way. 

Kestas