The Madison Square Garden lights shone brighter as the New York Knicks hosted their Atlantic Division rivals, the Philadelphia 76ers.
This matchup featured compelling narratives and statistical storylines that basketball enthusiasts eagerly anticipated. Pre-game expectations centered around the Embiid-Randle frontcourt battle and the backcourt chess match between Brunson and Harden.
What unfolded was a tactical masterclass from both sides, with momentum swings that kept fans on the edge of their seats. The Knicks ultimately secured a hard-fought 112-105 victory, but the raw numbers only tell part of the story.
This comprehensive breakdown dives into every statistical angle of this intense Eastern Conference showdown.
Game-Defining Statistical Narratives
Score Progression by Quarter
The game’s ebb and flow revealed itself through quarter-by-quarter scoring, highlighting momentum shifts throughout the contest:
| Quarter | Knicks | 76ers | Cumulative Score | Key Run |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1st | 28 | 30 | 76ers lead 30-28 | 76ers 8-0 run (4:25-2:15) |
| 2nd | 33 | 24 | Knicks lead 61-54 | Knicks 12-3 run (6:40-3:12) |
| 3rd | 21 | 29 | Tied 82-82 | 76ers 10-2 run (8:10-5:45) |
| 4th | 30 | 23 | Knicks win 112-105 | Knicks 9-0 run (2:45-0:55) |
The Knicks’ fourth-quarter defensive stand proved decisive. They held Philadelphia to just 23 points after entering the final period tied at 82. This defensive clampdown coincided with a 9-0 run in the game’s final minutes, effectively sealing their victory.
Critical Statistical Turning Points
Three key statistical moments changed the game’s trajectory:
- Knicks’ second-quarter offensive efficiency jumped to 61.5% from the field, creating a seven-point halftime cushion
- 76ers’ third-quarter defensive revival forced six turnovers, erasing the halftime deficit
- Knicks’ fourth-quarter rebounding dominance (15-8 advantage) limited Philadelphia’s second-chance opportunities
“The fourth quarter came down to who wanted the ball more. Our guys crashed the glass with incredible determination, and those extra possessions made all the difference.” – Knicks Head Coach Tom Thibodeau
Star Performer Analysis
Jalen Brunson’s Offensive Masterclass
Brunson delivered an extraordinary performance, consistently finding ways to impact the game offensively. His scoring breakdown reveals how he dismantled Philadelphia’s defense:
- Total points: 33 (season-high against Philadelphia)
- Field goals: 12-20 FG (60%)
- Three-pointers: 3-5 3PT (60%)
- Free throws: 6-7 FT (85.7%)
- Quarter-by-quarter scoring: 8-12-5-8
- Points by shot zone:
- Paint: 14 points (7-10 FG)
- Mid-range: 10 points (5-8 FG)
- Three-point: 9 points (3-5 3PT)
Brunson’s efficiency peaked during the Knicks’ crucial second-quarter run. He scored 12 points on 5-6 shooting, consistently exploiting Philadelphia’s pick-and-roll coverage. His ability to create separation against larger defenders highlighted his offensive craftsmanship.
Joel Embiid’s Interior Presence
Despite the loss, Embiid showcased why he remains an MVP-caliber talent. His statistical impact touched nearly every aspect of the game:
- Total points: 30
- Rebounds: 13 (5 offensive)
- Blocks: 3
- Field goals: 10-20 FG (50%)
- Free throws: 10-12 FT (83.3%)
- Plus/minus: +7 (highest on team)
Embiid dominated during Philadelphia’s third-quarter surge. He scored 12 points while drawing multiple fouls on Knicks’ frontcourt defenders. His presence forced double teams, creating open looks for teammates. The Knicks countered this by strategically sending help defenders late in possessions.
Head-to-Head Statistical Comparison of Franchise Cornerstones
While Brunson and Embiid headline their respective teams, Julius Randle and James Harden represent equally important pillars. Their statistical comparison:
| Statistical Category | Julius Randle | James Harden |
|---|---|---|
| Points | 28 | 23 |
| Rebounds | 12 | 5 |
| Assists | 7 | 9 |
| Field goal % | 11-21 (52.4%) | 8-20 (40%) |
| Three-point % | 3-8 (37.5%) | 4-11 (36.4%) |
| Free throws | 3-6 (50%) | 3-4 (75%) |
| Turnovers | 3 | 5 |
| Plus/minus | +12 | -5 |
Randle’s efficiency and rebounding edge proved critical. His ability to stretch the floor while dominating the glass created matchup problems. Harden’s playmaking remained elite, but his five turnovers hampered Philadelphia’s offensive rhythm at crucial junctures.
Supporting Cast Impact Metrics
Knicks’ Role Player Contributions
While stars often dominate headlines, New York’s victory stemmed largely from crucial role player contributions:
Josh Hart: Defensive specialist Hart impacted the game far beyond traditional statistics:
- 8 points, 10 rebounds (4 offensive)
- 3 steals and 1 block
- 4 recovered loose balls
- Defended Harden for 26 possessions, holding him to 3-9 shooting
Mitchell Robinson: Robinson’s rim protection altered countless shots:
- 6 points, 9 rebounds
- 3 blocks and 2 steals
- 5 screen assists leading to 11 Knicks points
- Contested 14 shots within 6 feet of basket
Immanuel Quickley: Quickley provided essential bench scoring:
- 15 points in 22 minutes
- 3-5 from three-point range
- +8 plus/minus (highest among reserves)
- Led second unit that outscored Philadelphia’s bench 31-18
76ers’ Bench Production Analysis
Philadelphia’s bench struggled to match New York’s depth:
| Bench Player | Minutes | Points | +/- | Key Stat |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| De’Anthony Melton | 24 | 7 | -7 | 3 steals |
| Georges Niang | 18 | 6 | -6 | 2-5 3PT |
| Paul Reed | 11 | 3 | -11 | 5 rebounds |
| Shake Milton | 12 | 2 | -8 | 1-6 FG |
| Danuel House Jr. | 8 | 0 | -4 | 0-3 FG |
| Total | 73 | 18 | -36 | 8-27 FG (29.6%) |
This bench production gap (-13 points) became particularly significant when Philadelphia’s starters needed rest. The 76ers’ second unit shot just 29.6% from the field, creating offensive droughts that allowed the Knicks to build and maintain their lead.
Under-the-Radar Statistical Standouts
Several players delivered performances that transcended traditional box scores:
RJ Barrett (Knicks):
- Silent 14 points masked excellent defensive work
- Held Tobias Harris to 4-11 shooting when matched up
- 3 deflections leading to fast break opportunities
- 6 drives creating rotation breakdowns in 76ers defense
Tyrese Maxey (76ers):
- Efficient 15 points on 6-10 shooting
- Team-best 118.5 offensive rating
- 0 turnovers in 31 minutes
- 4 fourth-quarter points kept Philadelphia within striking distance
Shooting Breakdown
Shot Chart Analysis with Hot/Cold Zones
The shooting distribution highlighted clear strategic differences:
Knicks’ Shot Distribution:
- Paint: 46 attempts (56% success)
- Mid-range: 22 attempts (45% success)
- Three-point: 28 attempts (35.7% success)
- Hot zones: Left corner three (4-7), Right elbow (7-11)
- Cold zones: Right wing three (1-6), Left baseline (2-8)
76ers’ Shot Distribution:
- Paint: 40 attempts (52.5% success)
- Mid-range: 27 attempts (40.7% success)
- Three-point: 30 attempts (30% success)
- Hot zones: Center paint (8-12), Left elbow (5-9)
- Cold zones: Right corner three (1-7), Top of key (2-8)
The Knicks leveraged their corner three efficiency while the 76ers dominated the paint. Philadelphia’s poor shooting from beyond the arc (9-30, 30%) ultimately limited their scoring ceiling.
Three-Point Shooting Differentials
Three-point shooting created a significant scoring advantage for New York:
| Three-Point Metric | Knicks | 76ers | Differential |
|---|---|---|---|
| Attempts | 28 | 30 | -2 |
| Makes | 10 | 9 | +1 |
| Percentage | 35.7% | 30% | +5.7% |
| Points from 3PT | 30 | 27 | +3 |
| Corner 3PT | 6-11 (54.5%) | 2-10 (20%) | +34.5% |
| Above break 3PT | 4-17 (23.5%) | 7-20 (35%) | -11.5% |
The Knicks’ corner three efficiency (+34.5%) provided crucial spacing for their offense. This created driving lanes for Brunson and Randle while keeping Philadelphia’s defense honest. The 76ers struggled particularly from the corners, converting just 20% of these high-value attempts.
Contested vs. Uncontested Shot Success Rates
Defensive pressure significantly impacted shooting efficiency:
Knicks Shooting:
- Contested: 22-51 (43.1%)
- Uncontested: 19-45 (42.2%)
- Differential: +0.9%
76ers Shooting:
- Contested: 18-48 (37.5%)
- Uncontested: 19-49 (38.8%)
- Differential: -1.3%
The Knicks’ ability to maintain efficiency despite defensive pressure proved decisive. Their contested shot percentage (43.1%) actually exceeded their uncontested rate, highlighting their comfort executing under duress. Philadelphia struggled in contested situations, particularly from mid-range areas.
Battle in the Paint
Points in the Paint Comparison
The interior battle featured contrasting approaches:
| Paint Metric | Knicks | 76ers | Differential |
|---|---|---|---|
| Points | 52 | 42 | +10 |
| Field goals | 26-46 (56.5%) | 21-40 (52.5%) | +4% |
| Free throws generated | 12 | 18 | -6 |
| Post-up points | 14 | 22 | -8 |
| Drive points | 26 | 16 | +10 |
| Second-chance points | 18 | 12 | +6 |
The Knicks dominated paint scoring despite Embiid’s presence. Their aggressive drives and cutting actions created high-percentage looks. While Philadelphia generated more free throws from post plays, New York’s diverse interior attack proved more efficient overall.
Post-Up Efficiency Metrics
Post play effectiveness varied significantly between teams:
Knicks Post-Up Numbers:
- Total post possessions: 14
- Points per post-up: 1.0
- Field goal percentage: 6-12 (50%)
- Turnovers from post: 2
- Fouls drawn: 3
76ers Post-Up Numbers:
- Total post possessions: 22
- Points per post-up: 1.0
- Field goal percentage: 8-18 (44.4%)
- Turnovers from post: 1
- Fouls drawn: 8
Embiid accounted for 18 of Philadelphia’s 22 post possessions, drawing six fouls. While Randle led New York with nine post-ups, the Knicks distributed these opportunities more evenly. Both teams averaged exactly 1.0 points per post possession, neutralizing this aspect of the game.
Second-Chance Point Opportunities
Offensive rebounding created crucial additional scoring chances:
| Second-Chance Metric | Knicks | 76ers | Differential |
|---|---|---|---|
| Offensive rebounds | 12 | 8 | +4 |
| Second-chance points | 18 | 12 | +6 |
| Points per offensive rebound | 1.5 | 1.5 | 0 |
| Fourth quarter offensive rebounds | 6 | 2 | +4 |
| Fourth quarter second-chance points | 9 | 3 | +6 |
New York’s fourth-quarter dominance on the offensive glass proved decisive. Their six offensive rebounds led to nine crucial points during the game’s most important stretch. Robinson and Hart combined for seven offensive rebounds, repeatedly extending possessions when the Knicks needed them most.
Defensive Analytics
Defensive Rating Disparities
Team and individual defensive ratings highlighted key performance gaps:
Team Defensive Rating:
- Knicks: 105.0 points allowed per 100 possessions
- 76ers: 112.0 points allowed per 100 possessions
- Differential: Knicks +7.0
Best Individual Defensive Ratings (min. 20 minutes):
- Josh Hart (NYK): 96.4
- Mitchell Robinson (NYK): 100.8
- P.J. Tucker (PHI): 102.5
- Joel Embiid (PHI): 104.2
- Jalen Brunson (NYK): 107.8
Worst Individual Defensive Ratings (min. 20 minutes):
- Tobias Harris (PHI): 114.6
- James Harden (PHI): 113.8
- RJ Barrett (NYK): 110.2
- Tyrese Maxey (PHI): 109.4
- Julius Randle (NYK): 108.6
Hart’s exceptional defensive rating (96.4) underscored his impact. His assignment frequently switched between Harden and Maxey, disrupting Philadelphia’s perimeter playmaking. The 76ers struggled particularly when Embiid rested, with their defensive rating ballooning to 118.3 during these stretches.
Steal/Block Impact Moments
Defensive playmaking often created momentum-swinging possessions:
Most Impactful Defensive Plays:
- Hart’s steal leading to Brunson three (8:45 4th quarter)
- Robinson’s block on Embiid dunk attempt (5:23 4th quarter)
- Embiid’s help defense block on Barrett layup (3:10 3rd quarter)
- Melton’s passing lane steal (11:42 3rd quarter)
- Randle’s strip of Harris in post (1:15 4th quarter)
These plays transcended their statistical value. Robinson’s fourth-quarter rejection of Embiid preserved a two-point lead and energized the Garden crowd. Similarly, Randle’s late-game strip of Harris effectively sealed the victory, preventing a potential game-tying attempt.
Matchup-Specific Defensive Assignments and Outcomes
Defensive matchups revealed strategic priorities for both teams:
Primary Defensive Assignments (Possessions | Points Allowed | FG Allowed):
Knicks Defenders:
- Robinson vs. Embiid: 28 possessions | 14 points | 5-12 FG
- Hart vs. Harden: 26 possessions | 9 points | 3-9 FG
- Barrett vs. Harris: 24 possessions | 8 points | 4-11 FG
- Brunson vs. Maxey: 22 possessions | 11 points | 5-8 FG
- Randle vs. Tucker: 18 possessions | 2 points | 1-3 FG
76ers Defenders:
- Embiid vs. Robinson: 22 possessions | 4 points | 2-5 FG
- Tucker vs. Randle: 31 possessions | 16 points | 6-13 FG
- Harris vs. Barrett: 25 possessions | 8 points | 3-9 FG
- Harden vs. Brunson: 14 possessions | 12 points | 5-8 FG
- Maxey vs. Brunson: 18 possessions | 15 points | 6-10 FG
These matchup statistics highlight several key insights:
- Brunson exploited his matchups against both Maxey and Harden
- Hart effectively limited Harden’s efficiency when matched up
- Tucker struggled containing Randle despite physical defense
- The Knicks deliberately hunted Harden in defensive matchups
Playmaking and Ball Movement
Assist-to-Turnover Ratios
Playmaking efficiency varied significantly between teams:
| Playmaking Metric | Knicks | 76ers | Differential |
|---|---|---|---|
| Assists | 25 | 20 | +5 |
| Potential assists | 42 | 38 | +4 |
| Turnovers | 12 | 15 | -3 |
| Assist-to-turnover ratio | 2.08 | 1.33 | +0.75 |
| Points off turnovers | 20 | 13 | +7 |
| Assist percentage | 62.5% | 54.1% | +8.4% |
The Knicks’ superior ball security (+0.75 assist-to-turnover differential) created additional scoring opportunities. Their 20 points off turnovers highlighted their ability to capitalize on Philadelphia mistakes. The 76ers’ 15 turnovers included several costly fourth-quarter giveaways that disrupted their comeback attempt.
Half-Court vs. Transition Offensive Efficiency
Pace and execution varied by game context:
Knicks Efficiency by Situation:
- Half-court: 92 possessions, 92 points (1.00 PPP)
- Transition: 18 possessions, 20 points (1.11 PPP)
- After timeouts: 12 possessions, 14 points (1.17 PPP)
76ers Efficiency by Situation:
- Half-court: 89 possessions, 85 points (0.96 PPP)
- Transition: 20 possessions, 20 points (1.00 PPP)
- After timeouts: 15 possessions, 17 points (1.13 PPP)
New York’s transition efficiency (1.11 points per possession) provided a key advantage. They consistently pushed pace following Philadelphia misses, creating early offense before the 76ers’ defense could set. The Knicks also executed more effectively after timeouts, highlighting their coaching staff’s strategic adjustments.
Ball Movement Heat Maps
Pass distribution highlighted contrasting offensive approaches:
Knicks Passing Network (Top 5 Connections):
- Brunson → Randle: 18 passes, 5 assists
- Randle → Barrett: 14 passes, 3 assists
- Hart → Brunson: 12 passes, 2 assists
- Barrett → Brunson: 11 passes, 2 assists
- Quickley → Robinson: 9 passes, 3 assists
76ers Passing Network (Top 5 Connections):
- Harden → Embiid: 21 passes, 6 assists
- Maxey → Harden: 16 passes, 2 assists
- Embiid → Harden: 13 passes, 1 assist
- Harden → Harris: 12 passes, 3 assists
- Maxey → Embiid: 10 passes, 1 assist
Philadelphia’s offense centered heavily around the Harden-Embiid axis. This duo connected for 34 total passes, creating predictable patterns that the Knicks began anticipating late in the game. New York displayed more balanced distribution, with multiple effective passing combinations keeping Philadelphia’s defense off-balance.
Rebounding Dominance
Offensive Rebounding Percentage Breakdown
Rebounding efficiency provided the Knicks a significant edge:
| Rebounding Percentage | Knicks | 76ers | Differential |
|---|---|---|---|
| Offensive rebounding % | 28.6% | 20.0% | +8.6% |
| Defensive rebounding % | 80.0% | 71.4% | +8.6% |
| Total rebounding % | 54.5% | 45.5% | +9.0% |
| 4th quarter rebounding % | 65.2% | 34.8% | +30.4% |
The Knicks’ fourth-quarter rebounding dominance proved decisive. Their 65.2% rebounding rate during the final period severely limited Philadelphia’s possessions. Most importantly, New York secured 6 offensive rebounds in the fourth quarter compared to just 2 for the 76ers, creating crucial extra scoring opportunities.
Rebounding Battle by Position
Position-by-position rebounding highlighted key matchup advantages:
| Position | Knicks | 76ers | Differential |
|---|---|---|---|
| Guards | 13 | 9 | +4 |
| Forwards | 23 | 18 | +5 |
| Centers | 9 | 13 | -4 |
| Bench | 16 | 10 | +6 |
While Embiid won the center matchup against Robinson (+4 rebounds), the Knicks’ advantage came from their superior rebounding at other positions. Hart’s 10 rebounds from the wing provided a significant boost, while the bench rebounding differential (+6) highlighted New York’s superior depth contribution.
Key Moments Where Rebounding Altered Momentum
Several crucial rebounds changed the game’s trajectory:
- Hart’s offensive rebound (9:22 4th quarter) led to Quickley’s three-pointer, extending lead to 87-82
- Robinson’s offensive board over Embiid (6:15 4th quarter) resulted in Brunson layup, breaking 91-91 tie
- Randle’s defensive rebound and outlet (3:45 4th quarter) created fast break dunk, pushing lead to 101-96
- Barrett’s contested defensive rebound (1:20 4th quarter) prevented crucial 76ers second chance
- Hart’s offensive rebound (0:45 4th quarter) allowed Knicks to burn clock before Brunson’s dagger jumper
These moments demonstrate how rebounding impacted far more than possession counts. Hart’s fourth-quarter offensive rebound with 45 seconds remaining effectively sealed the victory, preventing any Philadelphia comeback opportunity.
Clutch Performance Metrics
Fourth Quarter/Overtime Statistical Spotlight
Performance in clutch moments revealed mental toughness disparities:
Fourth Quarter Statistics:
| Player | Points | FG | 3PT | FT | +/- |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Brunson (NYK) | 8 | 3-5 | 1-1 | 1-2 | +7 |
| Randle (NYK) | 8 | 3-4 | 1-1 | 1-2 | +7 |
| Hart (NYK) | 4 | 2-3 | 0-0 | 0-0 | +7 |
| Embiid (PHI) | 9 | 3-6 | 0-1 | 3-3 | -7 |
| Harden (PHI) | 6 | 2-6 | 1-3 | 1-2 | -7 |
| Maxey (PHI) | 4 | 2-3 | 0-1 | 0-0 | -7 |
Despite Embiid’s solid fourth-quarter production, the Knicks’ balanced attack proved more effective. Brunson and Randle combined for 16 points on 6-9 shooting, while Harden struggled with 2-6 efficiency. The Knicks outscored Philadelphia 30-23 in the final period, turning a tied game into a seven-point victory.
Clutch Time Efficiency Ratings
Performance in the final five minutes with score differential under five points:
Clutch Time Offensive Rating:
- Knicks: 125.0 points per 100 possessions
- 76ers: 90.9 points per 100 possessions
- Differential: Knicks +34.1
Clutch Time Individual Performance:
| Player | Points | FG | Usage % | ORtg | |——–|——–|—-|—-|—-|—-| | Brunson (NYK) | 6 | 2-3 | 32.4% | 133.3 | | Randle (NYK) | 4 | 2-2 | 25.6% | 150.0 | | Embiid (PHI) | 5 | 1-3 | 38.2% | 91.7 | | Harden (PHI) | 2 | 1-4 | 31.5% | 66.7 |
The Knicks’ superior clutch execution proved decisive. Their 125.0 offensive rating dwarfed Philadelphia’s 90.9 mark, highlighting their poise under pressure. Randle’s perfect 2-2 clutch shooting provided critical baskets, while Harden’s 1-4 performance limited Philadelphia’s ability to keep pace.
Pressure Situation Shot Selection Analysis
Shot selection quality varied significantly in high-pressure moments:
Knicks Clutch Shot Quality:
- Average shot distance: 11.2 feet
- Contested shot rate: 62.5%
- “Wide open” shot rate: 25.0%
- Expected effective FG%: 51.4%
- Actual effective FG%: 62.5%
- Differential: +11.1%
76ers Clutch Shot Quality:
- Average shot distance: 18.7 feet
- Contested shot rate: 75.0%
- “Wide open” shot rate: 12.5%
- Expected effective FG%: 46.8%
- Actual effective FG%: 38.9%
- Differential: -7.9%
New York generated higher quality clutch shots, operating closer to the basket with a lower contested rate. Philadelphia settled for longer, more contested attempts. The Knicks overperformed their expected efficiency (+11.1%), while the 76ers underperformed (-7.9%), highlighting the execution disparity in crucial moments.
Coaching Strategy Through Numbers
Lineup Effectiveness Comparisons
Rotational decisions significantly impacted team performance:
Most Effective Knicks Lineups (min. 5 minutes):
- Brunson-Barrett-Hart-Randle-Robinson: 18 minutes, +8, 116.2 ORtg, 102.3 DRtg
- Brunson-Quickley-Hart-Randle-Robinson: 8 minutes, +5, 120.5 ORtg, 106.8 DRtg
- Brunson-Barrett-Quickley-Randle-Hartenstein: 5 minutes, +4, 121.4 ORtg, 110.7 DRtg
Most Effective 76ers Lineups (min. 5 minutes):
- Harden-Maxey-Harris-Tucker-Embiid: 22 minutes, +2, 114.6 ORtg, 112.5 DRtg
- Harden-Melton-Harris-Tucker-Embiid: 6 minutes, +3, 108.3 ORtg, 100.0 DRtg
- Maxey-Melton-Harris-Niang-Reed: 5 minutes, -8, 90.0 ORtg, 120.0 DRtg
The Knicks found success with multiple lineup combinations, while Philadelphia relied heavily on their starting unit. Most telling was the performance of the 76ers’ bench-heavy lineup (Maxey-Melton-Harris-Niang-Reed), which was outscored by 8 points in just 5 minutes. This depth disadvantage forced Philadelphia to lean heavily on their starters, contributing to late-game fatigue.
Timeout Impact on Scoring Runs
Strategic timeout usage influenced momentum shifts:
Knicks Timeout Effectiveness:
- Points scored after timeouts: 14 (1.17 points per possession)
- Opponent runs stopped by timeouts: 3
- Longest run after timeout: 7-0 run (3:45-2:22 2nd quarter)
76ers Timeout Effectiveness:
- Points scored after timeouts: 17 (1.13 points per possession)
- Opponent runs stopped by timeouts: 4
- Longest run after timeout: 8-0 run (7:15-5:40 3rd quarter)
Both coaches utilized timeouts effectively to design successful plays. Philadelphia’s most impactful timeout came at 7:15 in the third quarter, sparking an 8-0 run that erased New York’s lead. The Knicks countered with well-timed timeouts of their own, including a crucial fourth-quarter stoppage that halted Philadelphia’s final push.
Adjustments Reflected in Quarter-by-Quarter Statistics
Tactical adjustments manifested in statistical shifts:
First Half to Second Half Adjustments (Knicks):
- Increased three-point rate: 26.1% → 32.5%
- Decreased mid-range frequency: 21.7% → 15.0%
- Improved defensive rebounding: 75.0% → 85.0%
- Decreased turnover rate: 14.5% → 9.8%
First Half to Second Half Adjustments (76ers):
- Increased pick-and-roll frequency: 18.2% → 26.7%
- Decreased post-up frequency: 24.4% → 19.1%
- Improved free throw rate: 20.0% → 31.1%
- Increased double teams on Randle: 3 → 9
The Knicks’ second-half adjustments focused on shot distribution and ball security. They reduced mid-range attempts in favor of three-pointers while dramatically improving their rebounding and turnover numbers. Philadelphia countered by increasing pick-and-roll frequency and doubling Randle more aggressively, but these adjustments proved insufficient.
Pace and Possession Analysis
Tempo Control Metrics
Game pace reflected strategic priorities:
| Pace Metric | Knicks | 76ers | League Average |
|---|---|---|---|
| Overall pace (possessions per 48 min) | 96.5 | 96.5 | 99.2 |
| First half pace | 98.2 | 98.2 | 99.2 |
| Second half pace | 94.8 | 94.8 | 99.2 |
| Fast break points | 14 | 11 | 12.8 |
| Seconds per possession | 15.2 | 15.8 | 14.9 |
Both teams played at a similar pace, slightly below league average. The game slowed significantly in the second half as defensive intensity increased. The Knicks maintained a slight edge in transition scoring despite the deliberate pace, converting their fast break opportunities more efficiently.
Time of Possession Effectiveness
Ball control patterns revealed offensive approaches:
| Possession Metric | Knicks | 76ers |
|---|---|---|
| Total time of possession | 22:14 | 23:06 |
| Points per minute of possession | 5.0 | 4.5 |
| Average touch time (seconds) | 2.8 | 3.2 |
| Average dribbles per touch | 2.1 | 2.5 |
| Average passes per possession | 3.6 | 3.2 |
The Knicks demonstrated greater offensive efficiency despite slightly less possession time. Their higher points per minute (5.0 vs. 4.5) reflected quicker decision-making and ball movement. Philadelphia’s longer average touch time and higher dribbles per
