New York Knicks

Eastern Conference

New York
Knicks

HC Mike Brown

61-31
W7

ROSTER — IMPACT RANKINGS

Karl-Anthony Towns
Center-Forward Yr 10 88G (88S)
+15.1
19.6 pts
11.6 reb
3.4 ast
30.7 min

This late-season stretch was defined by ruthless offensive efficiency and absolute dominance on the glass. During the 03/04 vs OKC matchup, Towns attempted just eight shots but still generated a massive +29.5 Impact score. He created immense non-scoring value by swallowing up 17 rebounds and hitting seven of those eight field goals, starving the opponent of second-chance opportunities. He later bullied his way to a staggering +32.4 Impact score on 03/22 vs WAS. That elite rating stemmed from pristine shot selection—hitting 9 of 13 from the floor—and securing another 16 boards to completely dictate the pace of the game. Conversely, his triple-double on 03/18 vs MEM yielded a surprisingly pedestrian +6.7 Impact score. Despite the flashy box score of 20 points, 11 rebounds, and 11 assists, hidden defensive costs and a lack of disruptive hustle plays kept his overall influence muted. When Towns commits to owning the paint rather than just floating on the perimeter, he is an absolute terror.

Jalen Brunson
Guard Yr 7 87G (87S)
+14.1
26.0 pts
3.2 reb
6.8 ast
35.0 min

This late-season stretch was defined by Jalen Brunson's stylistic flexibility, oscillating seamlessly between a relentless scoring machine and a pure, unselfish floor general. When his jumper completely abandoned him on 03/04 vs OKC, he still managed a +5.6 impact score despite a brutal 16-point, 5-for-18 shooting night. Rather than forcing bad shots, he leaned heavily into his playmaking, dishing out 15 assists and manipulating the Thunder defense to generate high-value looks for his teammates. Conversely, empty calories plagued him during the 03/08 vs LAL matchup. He poured in 24 points, but his -1.3 impact score exposed the hidden costs of a ball-dominant, 8-for-19 shooting effort that bogged down the offensive flow. Yet, when his shot selection was pristine, he was utterly unguardable. He carved up the defense on 04/10 vs TOR, posting a massive +25.2 impact score by dropping 29 points on a surgical 12-for-18 from the floor.

OG Anunoby
Forward-Guard Yr 8 78G (78S)
+9.6
17.2 pts
5.5 reb
2.1 ast
33.3 min

This late-season stretch was defined by explosive two-way peaks that drove winning basketball even when his jumper briefly vanished. He completely dismantled his matchup on 03/06 vs DEN, erupting for 34 points on 11-of-17 shooting to generate an absurd +46.2 Impact score. That massive grade stemmed directly from his lethal shot selection and relentless defensive disruption against a premium opponent. He tapped into that same ruthless efficiency during the 03/17 vs IND contest, bullying his way to 26 points and eight rebounds on 10-of-13 from the floor for a +30.3 Impact score. Yet even when his offensive rhythm completely abandoned him, Anunoby found ways to contribute. The math still favored him on 03/31 vs HOU. Despite managing a meager eight points on 3-of-9 shooting, he posted a +6.2 Impact score because he channeled his energy away from forcing bad looks and into grabbing six hard-nosed rebounds while playing suffocating hustle defense.

Mikal Bridges
Guard-Forward Yr 7 95G (95S)
+7.6
14.4 pts
3.7 reb
3.6 ast
32.6 min

Baffling offensive passivity and a severe shooting slump defined this brutal late-season stretch for Mikal Bridges. He initially looked sharp during Mar 01 vs SAS, posting a massive +19.3 impact score driven by suffocating perimeter defense and lethal scoring. However, his aggression quickly vanished. During Mar 09 vs LAC, he managed a meager 7 points, yet still scraped together a +3.9 impact score entirely because his elite defensive effort (+13.1) salvaged his quiet night. Conversely, when he did manage to find the basket, hidden costs often ruined his overall value. Despite scoring 15 points during Mar 04 vs OKC, Bridges posted a dismal -7.7 impact. He spent the evening forcing contested jumpers against set defenses, cratering his efficiency and stalling the offensive flow. For a player usually known for his reliability, this bizarre mix of hesitation and poor shot selection created a deeply frustrating run.

Josh Hart
Guard Yr 8 79G (65S)
+4.9
11.9 pts
7.6 reb
4.8 ast
30.7 min

Josh Hart spent this late-season stretch operating as the ultimate chaotic neutral, swinging wildly between offensive irrelevance and sudden scoring explosions while maintaining his usual rebounding obsession. Even when his jump shot completely abandoned him, he found ways to tilt the floor. During the 03/01 vs SAS matchup, Hart bricked his way to a 4-for-14 shooting night but still managed a +6.3 Impact score by crashing the glass for 10 rebounds and keeping the offense flowing with seven assists. Then, out of nowhere, he would morph into an elite sniper. Look at his 03/17 vs IND performance, where he dropped a staggering 33 points on near-perfect 12-of-13 shooting to generate a massive +38.9 Impact. Yet, that aggression could vanish just as quickly. When he refused to look at the rim during the 04/06 vs ATL game, taking only three shots to finish with two points, his passivity dragged the half-court offense into the mud and resulted in a brutal -15.1 Impact. You never quite knew if you were getting a reluctant shooter or a sudden flamethrower, but his relentless motor on the boards ensured he usually left a positive footprint.

Mitchell Robinson
Center-Forward Yr 7 72G (16S)
+4.3
5.6 pts
8.2 reb
0.8 ast
18.7 min

Mitchell Robinson spent this late-season stretch operating as a low-usage, high-efficiency wrecking ball in the paint. When thrust into the starting lineup on 03/13 vs IND, he completely devoured the glass. He pulled down 22 rebounds that night to generate a massive +26.2 Impact score. He earned another spot start on 04/03 vs CHI and responded with a flawless 7-for-7 shooting night, racking up 17 points and 11 rebounds for a staggering +27.7 Impact. Even when his offensive touches vanished, Robinson found ways to drastically alter games. During his 03/15 vs GSW appearance, he scored just 4 points but still posted a +10.0 Impact because of his relentless interior defense and ability to secure 10 rebounds in a mere 17 minutes. However, his limited offensive repertoire occasionally left him marginalized against quicker matchups. On 04/18 vs ATL, he managed only 4 rebounds and a single shot attempt in 14 minutes, resulting in a bleak -7.6 Impact as a complete lack of hustle plays dragged down his value.

Miles McBride
Guard Yr 4 54G (17S)
+0.8
10.9 pts
2.2 reb
2.2 ast
24.7 min

Miles McBride's mid-season stretch was defined by a drastic Jekyll-and-Hyde split between his spot starts and his reserve minutes. Thrust into the starting lineup on 01/18 vs PHX, he erupted as a primary perimeter weapon by pouring in 23 points. His blistering 5-for-12 shooting from deep and aggressive offensive initiation fueled a massive +20.4 Impact score. However, that rhythm completely vanished whenever he returned to the bench. He hit rock bottom during a disastrous outing on 03/31 vs HOU, managing just three points on a brutal 1-for-9 shooting performance. That horrific shot selection and offensive stagnation crippled his minutes, yielding a dreadful -19.0 Impact score. He occasionally salvaged these quiet scoring nights with sheer grit, like when he posted a +3.1 Impact score on 04/03 vs CHI despite scoring only six points. In that contest, McBride relied entirely on relentless defensive ball pressure and hustle to tilt the floor without needing the ball in his hands.

Landry Shamet
Guard Yr 7 64G (12S)
-1.5
8.5 pts
1.6 reb
1.3 ast
21.0 min

A brutal shooting slump and erratic shot selection defined Landry Shamet's mid-season stretch. During the 03/09 vs LAC matchup, his trigger-happy approach yielded a disastrous -15.0 Impact score as he bricked nine of his twelve three-point attempts, actively shooting his team out of possessions. Even when he managed to reach double figures, his inefficient chucking harmed the offense. Despite scoring 10 points on 03/15 vs GSW, his poor perimeter shot selection and wasted offensive sets resulted in a -6.8 Impact. He did briefly find ways to contribute without the long ball, posting a +3.2 Impact on 03/04 vs OKC by attacking inside the arc for a highly efficient 14 points. However, a brief promotion to the starting lineup in mid-March failed to fix his broken jumper. By the 04/18 vs ATL game, his confidence looked entirely shot, managing just 3 points on 1-of-6 shooting to record a dismal -12.4 Impact.

Jose Alvarado
Guard Yr 4 40G (3S)
-3.7
5.9 pts
1.7 reb
3.0 ast
14.4 min

This stretch of the season was defined by erratic offensive irrelevance punctuated by brief flashes of starting-lineup brilliance. As a reserve, Alvarado routinely cratered his team's momentum with empty minutes and brutal shot selection. He completely bottomed out on 03/09 vs LAC, posting a dismal -15.3 impact score after missing all four of his attempts and failing to score in just eight minutes of floor time. Yet, when thrust into the starting five, he suddenly transformed into a dynamic floor general. On 03/17 vs IND, Alvarado erupted for 16 points and 10 assists, generating a stellar +8.3 impact score by pairing hot perimeter shooting with elite distribution. However, his return to the bench brought back his worst habits. During the 03/29 vs OKC matchup, he managed eight points but logged a brutal -13.4 impact score because his inefficient 3-for-10 shooting completely derailed the second unit's offensive flow. He remains a chaotic pendulum, swinging violently between a spark-plug playmaker and a total offensive black hole.

Jeremy Sochan
Forward Yr 3 21G
-4.0
3.0 pts
1.9 reb
0.7 ast
6.4 min

This grueling stretch of the season was defined by garbage-time irrelevance before a late, desperate gasp for rotation minutes. Early on, Sochan was practically invisible on the floor. He sleepwalked through an 11-minute stint on 02/22 vs CHI, where his total lack of offensive aggression and defensive apathy resulted in a disastrous -9.3 Impact score. He barely broke a sweat on 03/01 vs SAS, logging just two minutes of empty cardio while dragging his team down to a -5.0 Impact score. It took until April for his coach to finally trust him with real run again. Given 17 minutes on 04/03 vs CHI, he managed only seven points but still posted a stellar +5.6 Impact score. That high mark despite a quiet scoring night was driven entirely by his relentless hustle, as he ripped down eight rebounds and finally anchored the defense instead of floating aimlessly on the perimeter.

Jordan Clarkson
Guard Yr 11 85G (1S)
-4.2
8.2 pts
1.8 reb
1.2 ast
16.8 min

This late-season stretch was defined by a jarring role reduction and a severe offensive slump. The veteran guard routinely bled value when stepping on the hardwood, bottoming out on 04/06 vs ATL with a staggering -18.4 Impact score in just 9 minutes. That abysmal rating stemmed from entirely empty possessions. He offered zero playmaking and generated no defensive pressure to offset his lackluster three points. The lone offensive explosion came on 03/11 vs UTA. He briefly turned back the clock with a blistering 27-point eruption, earning a massive +19.2 Impact score because his red-hot 10-of-15 shooting completely warped the opposing defense. He also found subtler ways to contribute, like on 03/24 vs NOP where he logged a +3.1 Impact despite scoring only 10 points. He salvaged his value that night by acting as a willing facilitator, dishing out 5 assists and keeping the ball moving rather than forcing bad shots.

Ariel Hukporti
Center Yr 1 61G (5S)
-6.1
2.2 pts
3.1 reb
0.5 ast
9.3 min

Ariel Hukporti spent the bulk of this late-season stretch buried in deep-rotation purgatory, struggling to generate any positive momentum during erratic minutes off the bench. His outing on 03/04 vs OKC epitomized his offensive woes, yielding a dismal -14.5 Impact score as he failed to attempt a single shot or record an assist in nine completely empty minutes. Even when his raw box score looked respectable, underlying issues often dragged down his overall effectiveness. On 03/18 vs MEM, Hukporti tallied 7 points, 6 rebounds, and 3 assists in just 12 minutes, yet still posted a -2.7 Impact score due to poor defensive positioning and a total lack of disruptive hustle plays. Thankfully, a sudden role change salvaged his finale. Stepping into the starting lineup on 04/12 vs CHA, he logged a massive 30 minutes and earned a +3.4 Impact score. Though he scored just 8 points, he created crucial winning value by crashing the glass for 9 rebounds and aggressively anchoring the interior defense.

Pacôme Dadiet
Forward Yr 1 36G
-6.7
1.9 pts
0.9 reb
0.4 ast
4.9 min

Pacôme Dadiet’s late-season stretch was defined by erratic bench minutes and a frustrating shooting slump. He initially looked like a lethal sparkplug on 03/06 vs DEN. In just nine minutes, he drilled all three of his attempts from deep to post a +6.5 Impact score. That hot hand vanished immediately. On 03/22 vs WAS, rushed shot selection and zero counting stats resulted in a dismal -13.2 Impact score across four completely hollow minutes. He finally earned an extended look on 04/12 vs CHA, logging 27 minutes. Despite clanking four of his five perimeter attempts in that contest, his active rebounding and overall energy managed to yield a +2.0 Impact score.

Dillon Jones
Forward Yr 1 7G
-6.7
1.3 pts
1.0 reb
0.6 ast
5.6 min
Tyler Kolek
Guard Yr 1 69G (1S)
-7.5
4.4 pts
1.5 reb
2.6 ast
11.3 min

This twenty-game stretch was defined by deep-bench irrelevance punctuated by bizarre, erratic flashes of playmaking. Kolek spent most nights stapled to the pine, struggling to find any rhythm during his sporadic garbage-time deployment. On 02/03 vs WAS, he was handed 21 minutes but posted an abysmal -15.9 impact score, as his six assists were completely negated by a disastrous 1-for-7 shooting performance that stalled the offense. He occasionally morphed into a hyper-efficient distributor, notably dishing out eight assists in a mere nine minutes on 03/06 vs DEN. However, his extreme passivity as a scorer in that contest still resulted in a -3.0 impact. His lone genuinely positive outing arrived on 03/22 vs WAS. In just five chaotic minutes, Kolek erupted for 11 points on perfect 4-for-4 shooting, earning a +2.0 impact simply by abandoning his usual hesitation and letting it fly. Ultimately, his inability to consistently threaten the basket kept him buried on the bench.

Kevin McCullar Jr.
Guard Yr 1 20G
-7.6
2.5 pts
1.4 reb
1.0 ast
7.7 min

Kevin McCullar Jr. spent nearly this entire stretch buried in garbage time before a sudden, late-season offensive awakening redefined his value. For weeks, the wing was an absolute ghost on the hardwood. During a brief appearance on 02/08 vs BOS, he hoisted two empty shots and grabbed zero rebounds, resulting in a brutal -10.4 impact score driven by rushed shot selection and a total lack of peripheral production. His fleeting stints only grew worse, bottoming out on 03/11 vs UTA with an abysmal -13.6 impact score after failing to record a single counting stat in two minutes of invisible basketball. The narrative flipped completely at the end of this stretch. Given a massive bump in playing time on 04/12 vs CHA, McCullar poured in 14 points on crisp 6-of-11 shooting over 25 minutes. His +8.8 impact score in that contest wasn't a fluke; it was the direct result of finally finding an offensive rhythm and knocking down a pair of three-pointers when handed real rotational minutes.

Mohamed Diawara
Forward Yr 0 75G (7S)
-8.1
3.4 pts
1.4 reb
0.8 ast
9.0 min

Mohamed Diawara’s late-season stretch was defined by a brutal inability to translate playing time into winning basketball. Given a rare starting nod on 04/12 vs CHA, he logged a grueling 34 minutes but generated a dismal -12.9 Impact score. That disastrous rating stemmed directly from atrocious efficiency, as he clanked all five of his three-point attempts and choked the team's spacing. He did find a brief, chaotic spark earlier off the bench on 03/01 vs SAS, launching an absurd 13 threes in just 15 minutes to tally 14 points and a +4.1 Impact. The shot selection was wild. However, his aggressive perimeter gravity and a sudden burst of defensive energy actively fueled winning sequences. Yet, even when his jumper fell perfectly on 03/22 vs WAS, his 12 points on 4-of-6 shooting couldn't mask a -2.1 Impact. Zero assists and a complete lack of resistance on the other end of the floor dragged down his otherwise efficient night.

Tosan Evbuomwan
Forward Yr 2 5G
-8.5
0.0 pts
0.4 reb
0.0 ast
1.5 min
Trey Jemison III
Center Yr 2 13G
-8.8
1.0 pts
1.4 reb
0.4 ast
6.3 min
Guerschon Yabusele
Forward Yr 3 41G
-9.1
2.7 pts
2.1 reb
0.4 ast
8.9 min

Guerschon Yabusele’s mid-season stretch was defined by maddening inconsistency and a wildly fluctuating role that saw him bounce between the starting five and the bench. During the 02/22 vs NYK matchup, he scored a modest 11 points but dominated the glass with 13 rebounds, driving a massive +12.1 Impact score through sheer physical rebounding and stout defensive effort. He reached his absolute peak shortly after on 03/03 vs OKC, pouring in 18 points on 7-of-14 shooting while grabbing 12 boards to generate a stellar +17.4 Impact. Yet, that momentum vanished almost immediately. Look at his 03/05 vs PHX performance, where he managed 16 points but posted a disappointing -1.1 Impact. His raw scoring totals in that Phoenix game masked the hidden costs of his erratic shot selection, as he needed 15 field goal attempts to get those 16 points while offering little resistance on the defensive end. When Yabusele commits to doing the dirty work in the paint, he is a genuine difference-maker. When he falls in love with inefficient jumpers, he becomes an active detriment to the lineup.

W
@ PHI PHI
144 NYK PHI 114
PHI @ PHI
144 114
Sun, May 10
Playoffs Analysis
+30
W
@ PHI PHI
108 NYK PHI 94
PHI @ PHI
108 94
Fri, May 8
Playoffs Analysis
+14
W
vs PHI PHI
102 PHI NYK 108
PHI vs PHI
108 102
Wed, May 6
Playoffs Analysis
+6
W
vs PHI PHI
98 PHI NYK 137
PHI vs PHI
137 98
Mon, May 4
Playoffs Analysis
+39
W
@ ATL ATL
140 NYK ATL 89
ATL @ ATL
140 89
Thu, Apr 30
Playoffs Analysis
+51
W
vs ATL ATL
97 ATL NYK 126
ATL vs ATL
126 97
Tue, Apr 28
Playoffs Analysis
+29
W
@ ATL ATL
114 NYK ATL 98
ATL @ ATL
114 98
Sat, Apr 25
Playoffs Analysis
+16
L
@ ATL ATL
108 NYK ATL 109
ATL @ ATL
108 109
Thu, Apr 23
Playoffs Analysis
-1
L
vs ATL ATL
107 ATL NYK 106
ATL vs ATL
106 107
Mon, Apr 20
Playoffs Analysis
-1
W
vs ATL ATL
102 ATL NYK 113
ATL vs ATL
113 102
Sat, Apr 18
Playoffs Analysis
+11
L
vs CHA CHA
110 CHA NYK 96
CHA vs CHA
96 110
Sun, Apr 12
Analysis
-14
W
vs TOR TOR
95 TOR NYK 112
TOR vs TOR
112 95
Fri, Apr 10
Analysis
+17
W
vs BOS BOS
106 BOS NYK 112
BOS vs BOS
112 106
Thu, Apr 9
Analysis
+6
W
@ ATL ATL
108 NYK ATL 105
ATL @ ATL
108 105
Mon, Apr 6
Analysis
+3
W
vs CHI CHI
96 CHI NYK 136
CHI vs CHI
136 96
Fri, Apr 3
Analysis
+40
L
@ HOU HOU
94 NYK HOU 111
HOU @ HOU
94 111
Tue, Mar 31
Analysis
-17
L
@ OKC OKC
100 NYK OKC 111
OKC @ OKC
100 111
Sun, Mar 29
Analysis
-11
L
@ CHA CHA
103 NYK CHA 114
CHA @ CHA
103 114
Thu, Mar 26
Analysis
-11
W
vs NOP NOP
116 NOP NYK 121
NOP vs NOP
121 116
Tue, Mar 24
Analysis
+5
W
vs WAS WAS
113 WAS NYK 145
WAS vs WAS
145 113
Sun, Mar 22
Analysis
+32
W
@ BKN BKN
93 NYK BKN 92
BKN @ BKN
93 92
Fri, Mar 20
Analysis
+1
W
@ MEM MEM
130 NYK MEM 119
MEM @ MEM
130 119
Wed, Mar 18
Analysis
+11
W
vs IND IND
110 IND NYK 136
IND vs IND
136 110
Tue, Mar 17
Analysis
+26
W
vs GSW GSW
107 GSW NYK 110
GSW vs GSW
110 107
Sun, Mar 15
Analysis
+3
W
@ IND IND
101 NYK IND 92
IND @ IND
101 92
Fri, Mar 13
Analysis
+9
W
@ UTA UTA
134 NYK UTA 117
UTA @ UTA
134 117
Wed, Mar 11
Analysis
+17
L
@ LAC LAC
118 NYK LAC 126
LAC @ LAC
118 126
Mon, Mar 9
Analysis
-8
L
@ LAL LAL
97 NYK LAL 110
LAL @ LAL
97 110
Sun, Mar 8
Analysis
-13
W
@ DEN DEN
142 NYK DEN 103
DEN @ DEN
142 103
Fri, Mar 6
Analysis
+39
L
vs OKC OKC
103 OKC NYK 100
OKC vs OKC
100 103
Wed, Mar 4
Analysis
-3
W
@ TOR TOR
111 NYK TOR 95
TOR @ TOR
111 95
Tue, Mar 3
Analysis
+16
W
vs SAS SAS
89 SAS NYK 114
SAS vs SAS
114 89
Sun, Mar 1
Analysis
+25
W
@ MIL MIL
127 NYK MIL 98
MIL @ MIL
127 98
Fri, Feb 27
Analysis
+29
L
@ CLE CLE
94 NYK CLE 109
CLE @ CLE
94 109
Tue, Feb 24
Analysis
-15
W
@ CHI CHI
105 NYK CHI 99
CHI @ CHI
105 99
Sun, Feb 22
Analysis
+6
W
vs HOU HOU
106 HOU NYK 108
HOU vs HOU
108 106
Sat, Feb 21
Analysis
+2
L
vs DET DET
126 DET NYK 111
DET vs DET
111 126
Thu, Feb 19
Analysis
-15
W
@ PHI PHI
138 NYK PHI 89
PHI @ PHI
138 89
Wed, Feb 11
Analysis
+49
L
vs IND IND
137 IND NYK 134
IND vs IND
134 137
Tue, Feb 10
Analysis
-3
W
@ BOS BOS
111 NYK BOS 89
BOS @ BOS
111 89
Sun, Feb 8
Analysis
+22
L
@ DET DET
80 NYK DET 118
DET @ DET
80 118
Fri, Feb 6
Analysis
-38
W
vs DEN DEN
127 DEN NYK 134
DEN vs DEN
134 127
Wed, Feb 4
Analysis
+7
W
@ WAS WAS
132 NYK WAS 101
WAS @ WAS
132 101
Tue, Feb 3
Analysis
+31
W
vs LAL LAL
100 LAL NYK 112
LAL vs LAL
112 100
Sun, Feb 1
Analysis
+12
W
vs POR POR
97 POR NYK 127
POR vs POR
127 97
Fri, Jan 30
Analysis
+30
W
vs SAC SAC
87 SAC NYK 103
SAC vs SAC
103 87
Wed, Jan 28
Analysis
+16
W
@ TOR TOR
119 NYK TOR 92
TOR @ TOR
119 92
Wed, Jan 28
Analysis
+27
W
@ PHI PHI
112 NYK PHI 109
PHI @ PHI
112 109
Sat, Jan 24
Analysis
+3
W
vs BKN BKN
66 BKN NYK 120
BKN vs BKN
120 66
Thu, Jan 22
Analysis
+54
L
vs DAL DAL
114 DAL NYK 97
DAL vs DAL
97 114
Mon, Jan 19
Analysis
-17
L
vs PHX PHX
106 PHX NYK 99
PHX vs PHX
99 106
Sun, Jan 18
Analysis
-7
L
@ GSW GSW
113 NYK GSW 126
GSW @ GSW
113 126
Fri, Jan 16
Analysis
-13
L
@ SAC SAC
101 NYK SAC 112
SAC @ SAC
101 112
Thu, Jan 15
Analysis
-11
W
@ POR POR
123 NYK POR 114
POR @ POR
123 114
Sun, Jan 11
Analysis
+9
L
@ PHX PHX
107 NYK PHX 112
PHX @ PHX
107 112
Sat, Jan 10
Analysis
-5
W
vs LAC LAC
111 LAC NYK 123
LAC vs LAC
123 111
Thu, Jan 8
Analysis
+12
L
@ DET DET
90 NYK DET 121
DET @ DET
90 121
Tue, Jan 6
Analysis
-31
L
vs PHI PHI
130 PHI NYK 119
PHI vs PHI
119 130
Sun, Jan 4
Analysis
-11
L
vs ATL ATL
111 ATL NYK 99
ATL vs ATL
99 111
Sat, Jan 3
Analysis
-12
L
@ SAS SAS
132 NYK SAS 134
SAS @ SAS
132 134
Thu, Jan 1
Analysis
-2
W
@ NOP NOP
130 NYK NOP 125
NOP @ NOP
130 125
Tue, Dec 30
Analysis
+5
W
@ ATL ATL
128 NYK ATL 125
ATL @ ATL
128 125
Sun, Dec 28
Analysis
+3
W
vs CLE CLE
124 CLE NYK 126
CLE vs CLE
126 124
Thu, Dec 25
Analysis
+2
L
@ MIN MIN
104 NYK MIN 115
MIN @ MIN
104 115
Wed, Dec 24
Analysis
-11
W
vs MIA MIA
125 MIA NYK 132
MIA vs MIA
132 125
Sun, Dec 21
Analysis
+7
L
vs PHI PHI
116 PHI NYK 107
PHI vs PHI
107 116
Sat, Dec 20
Analysis
-9
W
@ IND IND
114 NYK IND 113
IND @ IND
114 113
Fri, Dec 19
Analysis
+1
W
@ ORL ORL
132 NYK ORL 120
ORL @ ORL
132 120
Sat, Dec 13
Analysis
+12
W
@ TOR TOR
117 NYK TOR 101
TOR @ TOR
117 101
Wed, Dec 10
Analysis
+16
W
vs ORL ORL
100 ORL NYK 106
ORL vs ORL
106 100
Sun, Dec 7
Analysis
+6
W
vs UTA UTA
112 UTA NYK 146
UTA vs UTA
146 112
Sat, Dec 6
Analysis
+34
W
vs CHA CHA
104 CHA NYK 119
CHA vs CHA
119 104
Thu, Dec 4
Analysis
+15
L
@ BOS BOS
117 NYK BOS 123
BOS @ BOS
117 123
Wed, Dec 3
Analysis
-6
W
vs TOR TOR
94 TOR NYK 116
TOR vs TOR
116 94
Sun, Nov 30
Analysis
+22
W
vs MIL MIL
109 MIL NYK 118
MIL vs MIL
118 109
Sat, Nov 29
Analysis
+9
W
@ CHA CHA
129 NYK CHA 101
CHA @ CHA
129 101
Thu, Nov 27
Analysis
+28
W
@ BKN BKN
113 NYK BKN 100
BKN @ BKN
113 100
Tue, Nov 25
Analysis
+13
L
@ ORL ORL
121 NYK ORL 133
ORL @ ORL
121 133
Sat, Nov 22
Analysis
-12
W
@ DAL DAL
113 NYK DAL 111
DAL @ DAL
113 111
Thu, Nov 20
Analysis
+2
L
@ MIA MIA
113 NYK MIA 115
MIA @ MIA
113 115
Tue, Nov 18
Analysis
-2
W
vs MIA MIA
132 MIA NYK 140
MIA vs MIA
140 132
Sat, Nov 15
Analysis
+8
L
vs ORL ORL
124 ORL NYK 107
ORL vs ORL
107 124
Thu, Nov 13
Analysis
-17
W
vs MEM MEM
120 MEM NYK 133
MEM vs MEM
133 120
Wed, Nov 12
Analysis
+13
W
vs BKN BKN
98 BKN NYK 134
BKN vs BKN
134 98
Sun, Nov 9
Analysis
+36
W
vs MIN MIN
114 MIN NYK 137
MIN vs MIN
137 114
Thu, Nov 6
Analysis
+23
W
vs WAS WAS
102 WAS NYK 119
WAS vs WAS
119 102
Tue, Nov 4
Analysis
+17
W
vs CHI CHI
116 CHI NYK 128
CHI vs CHI
128 116
Mon, Nov 3
Analysis
+12
L
@ CHI CHI
125 NYK CHI 135
CHI @ CHI
125 135
Sat, Nov 1
Analysis
-10
L
@ MIL MIL
111 NYK MIL 121
MIL @ MIL
111 121
Wed, Oct 29
Analysis
-10
L
@ MIA MIA
107 NYK MIA 115
MIA @ MIA
107 115
Sun, Oct 26
Analysis
-8
W
vs BOS BOS
95 BOS NYK 105
BOS vs BOS
105 95
Fri, Oct 24
Analysis
+10
W
vs CLE CLE
111 CLE NYK 119
CLE vs CLE
119 111
Wed, Oct 22
Analysis
+8