I Was Wrong About Game 1. I'm Not Wrong About the Series.

I said 72 percent on the Hawks winning Game 1. It was 113-102 Knicks. That's an L. I'm eating it publicly because that's how this works.

But I'm not moving as far as you think.

The Knicks shot 48 percent from three last night. Twelve for twenty-five. Their regular season average? 36.4 percent. That is an 11.6-point outlier. You don't build a series thesis around a team shooting 12 points above their mean. That regresses. It has to.

Here's what actually scares me. Jalen Brunson went 9-for-22 from the field and still controlled the entire game. 28 points, 7 assists, 19 in the first quarter alone. The most by a Knick in a playoff opener since '97-98. He was inefficient and dominant simultaneously. That's a problem you can't scheme away.

The Hawks' pace advantage — 5th in the league against the Knicks' 25th — never showed up. New York dictated tempo for three of four quarters. But in Q2, when Atlanta actually pushed? Hawks won it 31-27. That's the proof of concept buried inside the loss.

CJ McCollum dropped 26 on 11-for-20. Jalen Johnson had 23. Dyson Daniels went full point guard — 11 assists, 9 boards, 3 steals. The talent showed up. The system didn't. That's a coaching adjustment, not a talent gap.

I was at 72 percent. I'm dropping to 62 on the Hawks winning this series. Not because Game 1 proved me wrong — because Brunson proved he doesn't need to shoot well to win. That's a 10-point correction for one specific problem.

The shooting outlier will correct. The pace problem is solvable. Brunson being Brunson regardless of his shot chart? That's the variable I underweighted.

Game 2 is Monday at MSG. I'm 62 percent. Tell me I'm wrong.