I could've chosen a better word, you're right. But what I was trying to say was two par:
1. The Knicks don't win off talent. They have grit, drive, vet savvy, chemistry, and a clear identity. The whole is better, for the Knicks, than the parts. For the Spurs, I think they have more raw/young/yet-to-fully develop talent than the Knicks
2. If we want to play it out on its face, of the Knicks who played last night 6 were first-round picks, 5 were second-round picks, and 1 went undrafted. That's an aggregate draft position of 30.75 (if you give undrafted a ranking of 61). Of the Spurs who played last night, 7 were first-round picks and 2 went undrafted. The Spurs players averaged a 21.56 draft position (if you give undrafted a ranking of 61).
Above all, I love hoop and I really enjoy the discourse here. I don't post merely to get nods. I post to spark convos and go back-and-forth (respectfully) with y'all. So, thanks, Kento, and many others for the thoughtful comments!
Was a big fan of you, your unique jump shot back in your Milwaukee days and your graceful transition as a humble former player on here. Do think calling the Knicks just somewhat talented is a bit disrespectful. More depth and one of the most talented starting 5 in the league.