The Knicks’ current predicament in the NBA Finals is a fascinating study in contrasts, and it all hinges on one player: Jalen Brunson. On paper, Brunson is the engine of this team—the primary playmaker, the shot creator, the guy who’s supposed to carry them when it matters most. But here’s the paradox: the Knicks are winning games despite Brunson’s minutes, not because of them. Personally, I think this is one of the most intriguing storylines of the series, and it raises a deeper question: Can a team truly thrive when its star player is both its greatest asset and its most glaring liability?
Let’s break this down. The Knicks are up 2-1 in the series, yet they’ve been outscored by 13 points with Brunson on the court. That’s a staggering statistic, especially when you consider he’s logging the most minutes on the team. What makes this particularly fascinating is that Brunson isn’t exactly underperforming. He’s dropping 30-point games, hitting clutch shots, and doing everything you’d expect from a star guard. But the Knicks’ success seems to come when he’s not on the floor. Take his first-quarter struggles, for example. In those opening minutes, Brunson has been ice-cold, shooting just 22.7% from the field while the Knicks dig themselves into double-digit deficits. It’s almost as if the team is playing against itself when he’s out there.
What many people don’t realize is that the Knicks’ comebacks have consistently coincided with Brunson’s rest periods. In Game 1, they cut a 10-point deficit to three during his first break. In Game 2, it was a nine-point deficit shaved to three. Game 3? An 11-point deficit reduced to four. This isn’t a coincidence—it’s a pattern. The Spurs’ offense sputters during these stretches, and players like Karl-Anthony Towns step up to fill the void. From my perspective, this suggests that the Knicks’ offense becomes more balanced and less predictable when Brunson isn’t dominating the ball.
But here’s where it gets complicated. When Brunson is on fire, he’s unstoppable. In Game 1, he single-handedly erased a 14-point deficit in the second half, scoring 19 points in the final 18.5 minutes. The problem? That kind of heroics isn’t sustainable, especially against a defense anchored by Victor Wembanyama. The Spurs’ rookie phenom has made life miserable for Brunson, forcing him into mid-range jumpers and limiting his drives to the rim. If you take a step back and think about it, this series is as much about Wembanyama’s defensive mastery as it is about Brunson’s offensive struggles.
The real issue, though, isn’t Brunson’s individual performance—it’s the Knicks’ reliance on him. When he’s off, the entire offense stalls. In Game 3, the supporting cast went 1-for-16 in the fourth quarter, and Brunson’s disastrous third quarter put the team in a hole they couldn’t climb out of. This raises a deeper question: Is the Knicks’ strategy too Brunson-centric? In my opinion, it is. While he’s an incredible talent, the team’s inability to generate offense without him is a glaring weakness.
What this really suggests is that the Knicks need to rethink their approach. They can’t keep relying on Brunson to bail them out every game, especially when the Spurs have figured out how to neutralize him. One thing that immediately stands out is the need for more playmaking from other players. Towns, Josh Hart, and Miles McBride have shown flashes of brilliance, but they need to be more consistent. If the Knicks can create a more dynamic offense, they’ll be less vulnerable when Brunson has an off night.
Looking ahead, I’m curious to see how the Knicks adjust. They’ve survived Brunson’s minutes so far, but as we saw in Game 3, that strategy has its limits. Personally, I think they need to embrace a more egalitarian approach—one where Brunson is a key piece, not the entire puzzle. If they can do that, they might just have a shot at closing out this series. But if they keep relying on Brunson to be their savior, they’re playing with fire. And in the NBA Finals, that’s a risky game to play.
