Knicks-Pacers Game 4: Melo wasn't the problem or solution
Was Carmelo Anthony to blame for the Knicks' Game 4 loss?
We just got done talking about how Kevin Durant can't be held in disrespect for his woeful fourth-quarter performance. So are we to really turn around and hold Carmelo Anthony to that impossible standard for the Knicks' Game 4 loss to the Pacers?
Well, yes and no.
Anthony went 3 for 10 in the second half. There's no way to spin it, that's not good. But if you look at his shot attempts, he had three attempts in the paint, three attempts on mid-range jumpers (of which he hit two), and four attempts from the perimeter. That's the kind of distribution you want.
According to scouting service Synergy Sports, Anthony had just three possessions end out of an isolation in Game 4. He mostly ran pick and rolls (13) and caught the ball for spot-ups. That's what you want, right? Use Melo off-ball, use motion to get him free, have a great shooter in optimum situations?
| More on Knicks-Pacers |
| Related links |
| More NBA coverage |
|
So why isn't it working?
Well, first and foremost, the Pacers have an incredible defense. A simply incredible defense that closes off options, closes out on shooters, closes in on rebounds, and closes off hope. Their rotations are right, and they execute to near perfection.
Second, this is not who the Knicks are.
Tyson Chandler complained earlier in the week that the Knicks needed to move the ball more. Anthony said he would talk to him. So did the Knicks try more ball movement? Kind of. They used screens more. Anthony, J.R. Smith (who is so cold at this point he's a danger to the body warmth of all living beings), and Raymond Felton would come around the pick, see the Pacers hedging inside to close off their lane, and instead of passing to jump-start the rotations and get the Pacers moving, simply hoisted jumpers.
Are those bad shots?
No.
Are they good shots? No.
And therein lies the problem.
The Knicks have never worked to create good looks. Well, since December, at least. At some point after their crazy hot start, they started to believe that it was just their individual talents that were dominating. So they went more to it. Their April red-hot run was less about a change back to who they were, and more about knocking down shots at a crazy rate. You can knock down tough jumpers against pretty good defense in April.
Hitting them in May vs. the best defense in the NBA? An entirely more difficult prospect.
But this is all the result of the kind of team they wanted. The Knicks built a team that no matter how many gadgets they put around Melo, they still wanted him taking 20-plus shots a night and leading the way by being a star. It wasn't the marketing sham the Nets were, but it isn't a team focused on creating the optimum offense. It's a system designed to create "not so difficult that we lose." But against Indiana, they get none of the easy stuff. And the wear and tear on the kind-of-tough stuff is getting blitzed by defenders going over and through screens and making the right plays.
The Knicks didn't run one-on-one basketball in Game 3 or Game 4. They didn't run much of anything to create easy looks, either. When they did, they missed.
So if they're not hitting the tough shots, and they're not hitting the good looks, what do you do? The answer is that that is when Melo has to carry them. And in Games 3 and 4, he wasn't been able to. These are ugly games. He doesn't have to have 36 points on 13 shots. But eight points on 10 second-half shots won't cut it. He's got to be the weapon that distracts the Indiana defense, makes them react.
So, no, you can't put Game 4 on Melo, with J.R. Smith gone to Antarctica, with Tyson Chandler a shell, with Mike Woodson not going to his shooters.
But you can look at this team and say it got what it asked for. Only now the cheers have gone silent. One more chance to hit the tough shots and rewrite the narrative.
Game 5 is Thursday.
