The Indiana Pacers executed a remarkable comeback in Game 1, which has raised concerns for the New York Knicks, who are now facing the reality of being behind in the series. Following a challenging Game 2, where the Knicks lost 114-109, they find themselves in a precarious situation as they prepare to head on the road. Historically, no NBA team has successfully overcome losing the first two games of a conference finals series at home to win, although there is always a possibility for unprecedented outcomes. For the Knicks to reverse their fortunes, improvements are necessary.

The Knicks have managed to slow down the Pacers' pace compared to their regular-season gameplay, yet it remains insufficient. The Pacers thrive on quick transitions, utilizing swift passes instead of lengthy dribbles, and consistently getting behind the defense, a strategy they employed effectively in both Games 1 and 2. While Mitchell Robinson's offensive rebounding has been commendable, it may be worth focusing more on transition defense to enhance urgency in returning to defend. Offensively, adopting a more methodical approach could be advantageous—encouraging longer possessions to wear down the Pacers' energy.

In analyzing the Knicks' performance, the team has consistently struggled with assists, logging only 18 in their latest contest, with over half of their baskets in Game 2 being unassisted. The high number of attempts from Jalen Brunson, who took 52 field-goal attempts in the first two games, implies that New York risks becoming predictable on offense. The Pacers possess multiple scoring threats, necessitating diligent defense from all five Knicks defenders at all times. While Brunson's capabilities are substantial, over-relying on isolations and pick-and-roll plays could afford the Pacers' defense much-needed moments of respite. Implementing more offensive variety is vital, especially considering the Knicks averaged 27.5 assists during the regular season.

The Knicks trail only by six total three-pointers in this series, an achievable deficit given the competitive nature of the games. However, the lack of aggression from New York's perimeter defenders, particularly when Aaron Nesmith showcased his three-point shooting in Game 1, highlighted defensive lapses. A more proactive approach in scrambling to contest shooters—perhaps by switching screens more willingly—might pay dividends, especially since Myles Turner does not pose a significant threat down low. The Knicks' approach to defending the three-point line must adjust if they hope to successfully counter the Pacers' scoring potential.

Pascal Siakam stands out as a potential game-changer for the Pacers, having averaged a team-high 20.2 points during the regular season and scoring 39 in Game 2. Addressing this threat requires a nuanced defensive strategy; while traditional doubling may not be feasible due to his versatility in scoring, occasionally adding an extra defender could disrupt his rhythm. Moreover, the Knicks might benefit from alternating between zone and man-to-man defenses to create confusion amid the Pacers' dynamic offensive sets.

The performance of the bench is an additional concern for the Knicks, as they have been outscored 52-28 through the first two games, a gap that highlights their depth issues. Key players like OG Anunoby and Jalen Brunson are logging significant minutes, with fatigue potentially becoming a factor as the series progresses. While the Knicks may not be able to fully tip the depth advantage, contributions from players like Miles McBride or Cameron Payne could provide crucial support. Even a few impactful minutes from a less-utilized player could offer the starters the rest they need to maintain competitive energy levels as the series unfolds.