The Pacers’ mastery of late-game playoff comebacks has one comparison: Zombies!

The Bounce Newsletter  | This is The Athletic’s daily NBA newsletter. Sign up here to receive The Bounce directly in your inbox.

Pacers Never Die

They are the fast-moving zombies from movies

I always thought zombie movies were kind of dumb and corny. They were fun and campy, but still dumb and corny. These slow, ambling undead attackers are supposed to scare me? You could get away from them with a light jog or even a powerwalk like old people doing laps around a mall. But then, zombie movies took it to a new level most of us had never even considered. They had fast, relentlessly sprinting zombies! They’d never stop pursuing at top speed!

That’s this Pacers team.

In the live blog on The Athletic website, Eric Nehm warned several times that the Pacers can’t be counted out, no matter what. Not until the game is over. He let out the warning when it was 118-102 with 7:24 left. And again when it was a five-point game with 34 seconds remaining. We got to that point because Aaron Nesmith hit five 3-pointers from the 4:45 mark to the 34-second mark. That fifth one being anointed with the classic Kevin Harlan, “He’s a flamethrower!”

That’s when things really got out of hand. The Knicks went from cruising to a Game 1 victory to trying to hold on for dear life. They turned it over, and Nesmith hit another 3-pointer to cut it to two. Karl-Anthony Towns was fouled and split two free throws. The Knicks fouled Nesmith to prevent him from shooting another 3-pointer and he knocked them both down. Then, OG Anunoby split two free throws to make it a two-point game with seven seconds left, and that’s when we got a remix of an iconic moment.

Haliburton pushed up the floor like one of those fast-moving zombies. He looked like he was attacking for the tie at the rim, and then decided to try to rip the hearts out of everybody in Madison Square Garden.

The pullback to the 3-point line. The high bounce off the rim. The drop through the net. At the time, everybody thought it was a game-winning 3-pointer that was stunning MSG like he stunned the Cleveland crowd in Game 2 of the previous round. So much so that Haliburton decided to recreate the infamous Reggie Miller “choke taunt” right in front of Reggie, thinking the game was over as the refs reviewed the shot.

It turned out to be a 2-pointer, as the replay showed, and they went to overtime, which was just as chaotic. They exchanged buckets for the final couple minutes, before Haliburton found Andrew Nembhard for a layup to take the lead and the Pacers got an Obi Toppin dunk to extend the lead to three. On the Knicks’ final possession, Jalen Brunson and Towns both missed tying 3-point attempts. And the choke taunt from Haliburton earlier got its delayed vindication with the 138-135 win.

After the game, Haliburton said he did the taunt because he thought it was a 3-pointer at the end of regulation and he wouldn’t have done it if he’d known it was a 2. Regardless, it’s a moment that will add to the history of these two teams battling in the postseason. Haliburton had 31 points, 11 assists and just two turnovers. Nesmith had 30 points, with 20 coming in a five-minute stretch.

That’s what it took to overcome a game-high 43 points from Brunson and 35 from KAT to steal Game 1.

The Last 24

Knicks were absolutely stunned last night

🗽 What just happened? Nobody believes what they saw last night. This is how Knicks fans reacted. 

🏀 Big-time collapse. James Edwards III takes you deeper inside what happened. How’d the Knicks lose Game 1?

🏀 Come back. Charles Barkley wants someone back in attendance for these games: Haliburton’s dad. 

🏀 Wide-open league. David Aldridge breaks down how the NBA is enjoying parity in the playoffs.

👀 He said what? Michael Malone backed an MVP candidate on television. And it wasn’t Nikola Jokić. 

🎧 He said what? Today’s “NBA Daily” examines how the Knicks can right their ship in Game 2.

MVP Wait Ends

Shai Gilgeous-Alexander finally earns nod

After an unprecedented run of 27 years of not waiting until the conference finals to deliver the MVP announcement, the NBA decided to switch things up for some reason. Was it to inexplicably avoid hurt feelings or drama during the battle of Shai Gilgeous-Alexander and Nikola Jokić during their incredible, seven-game, second-round series? That’s the theory many believe. Even though it would have added so much fun and good drama to the affair.

Whatever the reason, the NBA finally announced the MVP award yesterday, with the Thunder guard winning his first. Gilgeous-Alexander received 71 of the 100 first-place votes, as the other 29 went to Jokić. SGA ended up with 913 voting points to beat out Jokić’s 787 points, denying Big Honey his fourth MVP award. It’s the third MVP for a Thunderer since 2014 (Kevin Durant in 2014 and Russell Westbrook in 2017).

Here’s how this season’s voting broke down:

The MVP debate was heated the last half of the season, but super interesting if you could manage to get into an honest conversation about it. Sometimes, with Defensive Player of the Year debates, you can get into whether or not you should value versatility over a guy who just shuts off the rim completely. And what that does for the impact of a defense. With this MVP debate, it felt like you could get into how you value different things about two fantastic candidates.

With Jokić, the numbers are easy to follow and traditionally absurd. They’re also absurd in a modern way when you slice it into the advanced metrics. His size and looming stature make him a bully, and his skill level and deft touch make him a surgeon. It’s so clear that he’s the best player in the world. With SGA, he also had a historic season in a different way. His stats didn’t look like anything we’ve ever seen. He also was the best player on a team that was historically dominant.

It sounds like a copout, but it’s truly one of those MVP races where neither of the top two candidates were a wrong choice. I am quite confused how James Harden got a fifth-place vote, though.

The Basketball 100

The story of the greatest players in NBA history. In 100 riveting profiles, top basketball writers justify their selections and uncover the history of the NBA in the process.

The story of the greatest players in NBA history.

Buy

Pack Mentality

Wolves to fight resilience with reslience

It’s worth reminding everybody that Game 1 between the Timberwolves and Thunder was a 10-point game with five minutes left. Then, the Thunder just dismantled everything with a wave of defensive prowess and offensive execution to make it look like a laugher. But this was within reach for a Wolves team that has pretty much played the Thunder evenly all season. However, the regular season does not necessarily mean anything when we get to the big spotlight.

So, how do the Wolves show their resilience they’ve had all year against arguably the most resilient team in the NBA? That’s their task in trying to bounce back in Game 2 and snatch home-court advantage away from the best team and best defense in the NBA. These are the three areas in which they have to show a vast improvement tonight:

1. Keep trusting 3-point looks. 

It’s easy to look at the Wolves’ 3-point shooting and think this was a horrific performance. I mean … it was. They shot 15-of-51 from downtown. That’s 29.4 percent for anybody who doesn’t want to bust out the calculator. I don’t think their 3-point attack was nearly that bad, though. Especially not in the first half of the game.

Naz Reid, Donte DiVincenzo, Nickeil Alexander-Walker and Mike Conley are typically 3-point shooters who are quite reliable. Reid is the weakest shooter of the bunch this season, and he knocked down 37.9 percent of his 3-pointers. In Game 1, they combined for 6-of-33 from downtown. That’s 18.1 percent from four extremely reliable and good shooters. The Wolves, as a whole, generated excellent looks during the game. They just didn’t fall. Personally, I wouldn’t change a whole lot for how they generated those looks, depending on the defensive adjustments the Thunder make for Game 2.

Of their 51 attempts, 30 were wide-open 3-pointers. The Wolves made eight of them. That’s 26.7 percent on a shot the Wolves hit 40 percent of the time in the regular season.

2. Make turnovers work for you. 

Obviously, the Wolves can’t turn the ball over 19 times. And they can’t give up 31 points off their 19 turnovers. That just doesn’t work, even though the Thunder are so good at forcing turnovers. Thirteen of those 19 turnovers were live-ball turnovers. That’s really tough to stop from turning into scoring opportunities for the opponent. But it’s the other side of that equation the Wolves needed to take advantage of when their opponents made mistakes.

The Wolves forced 15 turnovers and scored 10 points off of them. However, Minnesota scored zero fast-break points in the game. Zero! They had six shots in fast-break opportunities and missed all six – not a single point. That’s not putting any kind of pressure on a retreating, scrambling transition defense. You can’t survive a playoff game without finding ways to get those quick, momentum-swinging points.

3. Get into the paint. 

Part of the reason the Wolves were outscored 54-20 in the paint was they attempted so many 3-pointers. Again, they had a lot of quality looks. I think you’ll live with those shot attempts and trust your shooters. But they need to get the ball into the paint to force tough decisions by the Thunder’s defense more. They need more paint points than 20. They need to hold onto the ball when they get it inside. They need to put pressure on the rim to force the defense to collapse.

Anthony Edwards not turning his ankle would help that. He has to be aggressive, but so does everybody on this team. Rudy Gobert has to be a reliable force at the rim. Jaden McDaniels has to score in the paint. It takes everybody applying that pressure.

Game 2 is at 8:30 p.m. ET on ESPN. (Stream on Fubo for free

Streaming links in this article are provided by partners of The Athletic. Restrictions may apply. The Athletic maintains full editorial independence. Partners have no control over or input into the reporting or editing process and do not review stories before publication.

(Top photo: Brad Penner /  USA Today Network via Imagn Images)

This post was originally published on this site