1992 NBA East Semifinals Game 6 Chicago Bulls at New York Knicks, May 14, 1992, Knicks Forces Game 7

Описание: CHI 86, NYK 100 - Knicks Forces a Deciding Game 7

Player of the game:
Patrick Ewing: 27 PTS, 59 FG%, 8 REB, 1 AST, 3 BLK

Notable performances:
John Starks: 27 PTS, 64 FG%, 8-9 FTM, 3 REB, 4 AST, 5 STL
Xavier McDaniel: 24 PTS, 50 FG% 11 REB, 2 AST, 1 STL

The 1992 Eastern Conference Semifinals between the New York Knicks and the Chicago Bulls is one of my favorite NBA Playoff series of all time, along with Detroit's championship run in 2004.

The rebroadcast of Game 5 on our local cable sparked my interest and opened Pandora's box for me to explore 90s NBA basketball ten years ago.

The heated matchups between Jordan and Pippen against Starks and McDaniel had all the drama you could want in a basketball game. They traded shots, dunks, hard fouls, face-guarded and trash talk while still playing efficiently and effectively until the deciding Game 7, where the better team ultimately won the series.

What impressed me the most was their ability to make midrange jumpers in crowded spaces while battling for position with shoving, pushing, and clawing. In modern playoff games, when some physical play is allowed, players often lose stamina due to the constant banging, leading to fatigue, loss of focus, resulting to a high volume of missed shots. This was evident in the Celtics and Nets series in 2022, where Kevin Durant and Kyrie Irving experienced a significant drop in their shooting percentages.

However, this series was different. Despite the increased physicality, hand checking, and crowded lanes both teams maintained their shooting accuracy throughout the seven game series.

For some context: At the time, without analytics to consider points per attempt, it was believed that shooting in the midrange and the paint was the most efficient way to score. Clock management by teams also didn't help, so perimeter shots were often discouraged by coaches in this era. Players like John Starks, who attempt three-pointers in transition even when successful, are often benched by their coaches.

The ideology and philosophy of coaches at the time were simply different, potentially limiting some players' ability to revolutionize the game and change the rules, as we have seen in the modern era of basketball.

This is why I believe learning history is crucial. Without context, we may mistakenly underestimate the challenges of the past and fail to recognize the barriers that past greats had to overcome to innovate and pave the way for future stars.