Quick Game 4 Finals notes

KAT is the man

Every time plus/minus comes up, for twenty years, we have a conversation about its limitations. Alone, in small samples like this, it’s not a good measure of quality, nor is it predictive. Instead it’s one more view, like points or rebounds. It’s context. Specifically, it’s a perfect record of how a team did when a player was in the game.

You know we’re all so used to saying a player does a lot of stuff that helps a team win that goes unnoticed? That’s a good argument to poke holes box score statistics.

It’s not such a good argument here.

If you’re telling me that Mitchell Robinson does “little things” then I’m telling you that those little things have not caused the Knicks to outplay the Spurs. The Knicks have done abysmally with Robinson in the game.

Maybe, you’ll argue (not sure why I’m imagining you fighting me on this) that it’s because he happened to be on the floor for the Spurs’ big run in the first half of Game 4. And maybe there is some of that. But Robinson has been consistent: Game 1 minus-4, Game 2 minus-10, Game 3 minus-13, and Game 4 minus-14. Three of those games were wins! But Robinson keeps finding the losing minutes.

And ordinarily you’d say well, shoot, the Knicks are up against Victor Wembanyama who plays Mitch’s position. So true. But the problem with that argument is that the Knicks’ other center, Karl-Anthony Towns, has the best plus/minus in the series by a country mile. The Knicks are WAY better with KAT in the game.

I’m calling your attention to this raw plus/minus data to add a layer of analysis to a few points:

• Perhaps it’s his injured hand, or the matchup, but there really might be something wrong with Mitchell Robinson. There might be an argument to experiment a tad more with Ariel Hukporti, in the name of finding people not named KAT to wear Victor Wembanyama down a little.

• OG should be in the Finals MVP conversation, but that minus-19 is an obstacle.

• De’Aaron Fox made some obvious-on-TV mistakes, but he’s generally been damned good in the Finals.

• The story has been that Mikal Bridges has been terrible. He sat for three quarters of the fourth quarter. But the Knicks have been great as a team when he has been in.

• I’ve also heard a lot of commentary about how good Landry Shamet has been, but those numbers are dreadful.

• I’d like to understand what’s happening with Stephon Castle. He seems to do so many great things on defense, which very often translates to good plus/minus numbers over time. He has been in the negative in three out of four games, sharply so in Games 1 and 4. (One possible challenge for him: in my quick film study, he’s guarding essentially all of the most productive Knicks: Karl-Anthony Towns, Jose Alvarado, Mikal Bridges, and Jalen Brunson.)

• The Knicks really did sit KAT, fall way behind, and then bring him back and roar to a victory. He didn’t make a lot of highlight plays, but the numbers are overwhelming that the Knicks are a totally different team when he’s in the game.

• (Also, for all the sitting KAT to keep him from fouling out, he finished with four fouls and thus could have played more. Coaches are so conservative.)

• All of these things I see as starting points, little mysteries. What’s happening when KAT’s in the game? What about Stephon Castle? Sometimes it’s just noise, other times there’s some real dynamic deciding games.

• We talked about a lot of this on video.

---

Thank you for reading TrueHoop!