Sometimes, the most important moves are the ones you don’t make.
Exactly one month ago today, entering Game 4 of their first-round series against Atlanta, it seemed like the New York Knicks were set to reshuffle their starting lineup in order to keep their season alive.
The first unit — Jalen Brunson, Mikal Bridges, Josh Hart, OG Anunoby and Karl-Anthony Towns — had been together for most of the last two years but hadn’t particularly clicked as a quintet. They sported just a plus-3.7 net rating in 2025-26 and plus-3.2 the year before — solid enough, yet nowhere near the championship caliber that the Knicks hoped for with this roster.
With Bridges struggling mightily (21 total points in the first three games, including a zero-point, four-turnover disaster in Game 3), and the Knicks trailing Atlanta 2-1, a change to the starting group seemed imminent.
Instead, Knicks coach Mike Brown kept the lineup the same, relied on the “play better” adjustment … and caught lightning in a bottle.
In 10 games since the non-move, New York is 10-0, and it’s a dominating 10-0, with wins by 29, 30, 39 and 59, respectively, and nine of the 10 coming by double digits (albeit one of them in overtime). New York’s plus-225 net margin in that span is the best 10-game run in NBA history, playoffs or regular season. The Knicks’ run from Game 3 of the Hawks series to Game 2 of the Cleveland Cavaliers series — which includes a game they lost — ranks fourth on the same list. (The Knicks will need to win by 18 in Game 4 to also have the best 11-game streak in NBA history.)
Following his non-removal, Bridges didn’t erupt immediately. But in the last eight wins, he’s been a two-way monster, averaging 17.9 points on hair-on-fire shooting splits (45.8 percent from 3, 74.5 percent on 2s), while throttling opposing wings like Nickeil Alexander-Walker, Tyrese Maxey and James Harden.
In the 10 games since the non-decision, the lineup combos with Bridges and the Knicks’ two stars, Brunson and Towns, have a staggering plus-28.6 net rating. New York kept cooking even with a key player, Anunoby, missing two games in the second round; the Knicks won those games, both on the road, by a combined 44 points.
From nowhere, in other words, the Knicks are a juggernaut.
This outburst was rather unexpected, to say the least. The idea of the Knicks winning the East wasn’t a wild one — they won 53 games with a plus-6.3 margin in the regular season, clearing the bar for contender status. But they were the third seed in the conference and fell to Indiana in the conference finals with the same starting five a year earlier; that quintet finished the postseason with a minus-6.2 net rating.
It’s tempting to say we could have seen this coming, a bit, because the Knicks went 28-11 after Jan. 20, but even picking this optimal, arbitrary endpoint doesn’t make a particularly compelling case. So many teams were tanking that lots of teams rolled up great records in their final 40 games or so, even in the East: Boston went 30-10, Cleveland and Charlotte went 29-11, and Detroit went 28-12; the Knicks’ scoring margin in those games didn’t stand out from their East rivals, either.
So … what’s going on here? How come the Knicks are suddenly invincible? And what does it mean for a potential NBA Finals matchup against the Spurs or Thunder — teams which, on paper, would seem to be heavy favorites against New York
The first place to look in any kind of hot streak is shooting variance, and the Knicks certainly have had the wind at their backs here. You’ve probably already seen the stats that show the Cavs have a better shot quality than New York over the first three games of the conference finals, and you don’t need to get too deep in the analytic weeds to tell a compelling story: The Cavs have shot just 29.6 percent from 3. They’ve had mostly clean looks from mostly good shooters, too; James Harden, Max Strus, Sam Merrill and Jaylon Tyson all shot over 40 percent from 3 this season but have made only 17 of 66 (25.6 percent) in the first three games.
New York’s free-throw “defense” has also been a factor, with the Cavs at just 66.7 percent from the line. While some of that is due to volume from mediocre foul shooters like Evan Mobley and Jarrett Allen, the Cavs also have 10 misses from Harden, Merrill and Donovan Mitchell, each of whom shot over 84 percent on the season.
That’s notable because, scoreboard-wise, the entire difference in the Knicks-Cavs series thus far is in shooting efficiency; the teams are basically even in the possession game and foul-drawing.
But fear not, Knicks fans: No, we cannot ascribe the entirety of the most dominating 10-game stretch in NBA history to shooting luck. Of course a stretch like this will involve some favorable bounces, but it was not determinative, especially in the two previous series.
The Knicks shot out of their minds in Game 4 in Philadelphia (a silly 25 of 44 from 3) but also genuinely dominated the 76ers inside the arc, outshooting them on 2s 61.2 percent to 54.5 percent and also owning the boards. New York also destroyed the Hawks in the paint in Games 5 and 6, although the Jedi shot defense did play a factor in Game 4.
That’s the past, but what about the future? What does it all portend for the next round? One quick place to look for comparisons is the other nine teams that won 10 straight games in a postseason.
A few of these make for poor comps with this Knicks team: The 2024 Boston Celtics, 2017 Golden State Warriors and 1999 San Antonio Spurs had all-time great regular seasons with dominant scoring margins; while the 2017 Cavs and 2001 Los Angeles Lakers were defending champs who visibly took their foot off the gas the following regular season.
The other four are a little bit closer to the Knicks’ situation for comparison purposes:
The 2016 Cavaliers won 57 games and eventually the title, but they mostly rolled through an overmatched East, winning 10 straight playoff games before taking a two-game vacation in Toronto in the conference finals.
The 2003 New Jersey Nets won 49 games but had the scoring margin of a much better team. They lost twice to an eight-seeded Milwaukee team before trucking through the East with 10 straight wins to make the finals.
The 2012 Spurs are the only team to win 10 straight playoff games and not make the finals; what makes it more amazing is that the Spurs’ streak was actually at 20, including the last 10 games of the regular season, before the Thunder very suddenly and stunningly beat them four straight times in the conference finals,
The 1989 Lakers won 11 straight games in what was then a dilapidated Western Conference, and the only reason it wasn’t 12 was that the first round was best-of-five back then. Alas, they ran into the Bad Boy Pistons in the finals, Magic Johnson pulled his hamstring in Game 2, and it was a wrap. As with the Spurs above, the Lakers’ streak pivoted jarringly into a season-ending four-game losing streak.
One thing you’ll note is that none of these teams above were facing a Murderers’ Row of opponents; a lot of these teams, like the Knicks, benefitted from tissue-soft conferences, upsets removing the top threats, or both. Of the other nine teams to win 10 straight, only four did not win the title.
Not included in that list, however, is the team that I think best compares to these Knicks: The 2011 Dallas Mavericks. Dallas won 10 of 11 in its best stretch, not 10 straight, but the similarities are pretty compelling.
Like the Knicks, those Mavs were a No. 3 seed, and were a veteran team with roster continuity but one that had never won it all. Like the Knicks, they lost two games in the first round. And like the Knicks, they didn’t have to face their conference’s top seed in the playoffs.
That Dallas team swept the defending champion Lakers in four in the second round, including a devastating 122-86 rout in the last game — sound familiar?
The other piece is that those Mavs won because their offense went absolutely bonkers in the playoffs after ranking eighth in the regular season. Dallas shot 39.4 percent from 3 with a 112.9 offensive rating that was more than three points better than the next-best team, and six points better than the Miami Heat team they upset in the NBA Finals.
Similarly, the Knicks’ 124.1 offensive rating is the league’s best and nearly a dozen points better than the league average in the postseason, after their attack ranked third in the regular season. New York leads all playoff teams in both 2-point shooting (59.3 percent) and 3-point shooting (39.6 percent), the former by a whopping 20 points over second-place Oklahoma City.
Finally, like those Dallas teams, the Knicks might have one more lineup trick up their sleeve if they get to the NBA Finals. Much like Dallas flipped the 2011 finals by starting J.J. Barea in Game 4 and leaning even further into an electric offense, the Knicks might consider doing the same … not by pulling Bridges, but by playing Landry Shamet with the starters instead of Josh Hart. (It does not matter if he technically starts, so much as he’s on the floor a lot more than he has been.)
New York, of course, made its shocking 22-point comeback in Game 1 against Cleveland with Shamet on the floor, and Shamet rolled in the game-tying 3-pointer that sent the game to overtime. But this trend is more than a one-game blip. In the playoffs, the Knicks have been dominant with virtually any lineup, but have been 7.6 points per 100 better with Hart off the court than on it, versus a 0.2-point differential with Shamet. Lineups with Shamet and one of Towns or Brunson have a jaw-dropping plus-35 net rating in the postseason.
That’s an easy trend to dismiss in the small sample of the playoffs … except that it was true in the regular season too. The Knicks were 2.5 points per 100 better with Hart off the court, and 2.3 points better with Shamet on it; lineups with Shamet and Towns together (plus-10.7) were better still, and pairing any of the non-Hart starters with Shamet produced a better result than the net rating of the starting five.
Regardless of what choice Brown makes, with one more win against Cleveland, all that will be left for the Knicks is to beat the West champion in the NBA Finals. Easy-breezy, right?
Here’s the part where I tell you how much higher the bar is about to get. Because, while the Knicks were playing their best basketball of the century to move within one game of a trip to the finals, the Spurs and Thunder were just kind of going about their business and putting up similar stats to New York in the first two playoff rounds, before their titanic collision in the Western Conference finals.
Oklahoma City, not New York, had the league’s top playoff offense, up until the Spurs shut the Thunder down in Game 4 on Sunday. Meanwhile, the Spurs were pushing the Knicks for the title of top playoff defense and haven’t needed outlier opponent shooting stats to get there; San Antonio’s foes are shooting a comically bad 46.3 percent on 2s in the postseason thanks to the presence of a certain very tall Frenchman.
Overall, Oklahoma City and San Antonio are the only other playoff teams with a double-digit positive net rating, and that’s even after they’ve spent the last four games smashing each other’s heads in. The Thunder had a plus-16.9 net rating against the Lakers and plus-18.1 against the Suns; the Spurs were plus-12.9 against Portland and plus-15.9 against Minnesota, even with Victor Wembanyama missing time in both series.
Because of that, it’s fair to say that the Knicks should be an underdog in the NBA Finals against either team. The Knicks wouldn’t have home-court advantage and are guaranteed to be facing one of the two best regular-season teams, not to mention one of the two best players. This is far, far better opposition than New York has seen so far in the playoffs.
But it’s equally fair to say that the Knicks have a real shot at winning their first title in 53 years. Once Boston lost, I was worried the finals would be a beatdown and the real championship would be the West playoffs; I no longer think that.
New York has shown it can beat San Antonio in particular, blowing out the Spurs in an early March game in MSG and beating the Spurs for the NBA Cup in December; the Knicks’ track record against the Thunder is less encouraging, but Oklahoma City gives up tons of 3s and the Knicks are making (checks notes) all of them lately.
More than all of that, the history of other similar teams tells you that we have to take this stretch of play from New York relatively seriously. It’s extremely unlikely that an exalted stretch of playoff basketball lasting this long is just random noise, and the 2011 Mavs vibes are hard to ignore. Saying they have a “puncher’s chance” is almost offensive at this point; the Knicks can play their regular game and win.
No matter how it turns out, however, one thing is certain: This was clearly the best non-decision of Mike Brown’s career.
