Roll the dice or just pick one.
Nearly a year has passed since Mitchell Robinson last took the floor for the Knicks, but his long-awaited return is now imminent, and it couldn’t come at a better time for the team’s defense.
Earlier this week, head coach Tom Thibodeau acknowledged Robinson’s absence, stating, “Mitch was projected to be the starting center on our team. So we’ve gone 50-something games without our starting center.” Was this simply high praise for Robinson’s long-awaited, and much-missed impact, or an unintended critique of Karl-Anthony Towns’ defensive play? While Towns has thrived offensively and on the boards in Robinson’s absence, his defensive shortcomings have been evident.
Robinson’s return will trigger a significant shift in the lineup, with Towns expected to slide to the power forward position. That means one of Josh Hart, OG Anunoby, or Mikal Bridges will be pushed to the bench. Based on his performance this season, Bridges seems like the logical choice, but that scenario will not happen. There are too many politics involved with that decision. After all, Knicks president Leon Rose won’t want to face scrutiny over sending five first-round picks to Brooklyn for a player relegated to a reserve role.
Hart, the team’s undeniable emotional leader, brings relentless energy and all-around versatility despite being undersized at 6-foot-4. On any given night, he’s a triple-double threat and an indispensable presence. He and Brunson are the Knicks’ Batman and Robin. They are the reason they made it as far as they did last season. Hart’s numbers have only improved this season, and his impact was sorely missed during his few absences due to injury this season. But at his height, he faces tough matchups that Anunoby, at the three-spot, does not. If the Knicks opt to move Anunoby to the bench, they sacrifice their best finisher and top perimeter defender.
Robinson’s return, if he can stay healthy, will bolster the Knicks’ depth and expand Thibodeau’s rotation from eight to nine players. However, it also presents a dilemma: adding defensive stability comes at the cost of offensive fluidity. It’s a good problem to have, since depth has been a pressing concern, but the question remains: who will be the odd man out?