Derek Fisher is the ultimate optimist

[Andrew]

Or, to use Dime's heading: Derek Fisher Is Delusional, Thinks Knicks Could Win 63 Games Next Year

“But we don’t really have to put a number on it,” Fisher continued. “We are 6-21 in games [decided] by six points or less this year. So we lost 21 games on two possessions. So we don’t have go from 15 to 36 next year. We can go from 15 to 63 if we really want to. But that is up to us.”

Points for positive thinking and looking on the bright side, I suppose. Realistically though...come on. Even with the Eastern Conference in the prolonged funk that it's in outside of its top five seeds, it seems highly unlikely that next year's Knicks will be on the level of this year's Hawks. Improved, with a better record to show for it? Sure, that's feasible. 60+ wins? At the risk of having to chow down on some humble pie this time next year, I doubt it.

[Patr1ck]

I think this is just getting overblown and he is misunderstood. It's important to have high expectations and it's a important to not get complacent with the less than mediocre season they played this year. What I think he is saying is if they can improve on winning close games then they can also play other games better and end up with even more wins. He clearly stated when asked about the possibility of a 23 game turnaround as the Bucks did this year from last year, that they don't need to use a number. He also took responsibility saying it was up to the Knicks and not just what he thinks.

[NovU]

Agreed Pdub. Looks like he's just saying they could have a turnaround season next year.

They actually were a pretty good team 2 seasons ago btw. But I am skeptical that was their ceiling. I'm not too high on Melo led Knicks especially now that he's over 30.

[Andrew]

Unless he never actually said half the things he said there (thank you, Yogi Berra), I don't think he's really being taken out of context. Again, assuming he wasn't misquoted, his exact words were "So we don’t have go from 15 to 36 next year. We can go from 15 to 63 if we really want to. But that is up to us." That's putting a number on their improvement that's setting the bar very high, and seemingly suggesting that their struggles this season are all down to attitude. Granted, that's a part of competition and sport, but the Knicks' problems go a long way beyond that.

If he'd said something like "I believe we can be a lot better next year" or "If we change our attitude and sort a few things out, I believe we can really surprise people", then I'd agree with you. That wouldn't be unfeasible, and words like "delusional" would be blowing his statements out of proportion. But he's gone so far as to mention the 60 win mark, and suggest that they can get there "if they really want to"...as if that's the only thing holding them back.

[benji]

Basically it looks like when asked if the Knicks could turn it around like the Bucks he not only agreed but went farther to point to their close games, which is random, and meant it as "not only can we win 36 games but add another 21 wins that we lost at the buzzer due to random chance" (which is 57 but whatever) and thus potentially shock people even more. The "if we want to" meaning that they lost those 21 games because of their lack of effort or desire.

As I pointed out in another thread he has one of the worst starts for a coach in NBA history, and he's got four more years on his deal, Andrea Bargnani has been his key player for the last month, he needs optimism where he can find it.

[Andrew]

That's true. I wouldn't fault anyone for their optimism and desire to make things better. However, when you throw out a bold number like that, someone's going to be eating crow: you, or the naysayers. My feeling is that it won't be the naysayers.