You can refer to examples with me. Anything you bring up, there's a good chance I will remember it. A bolster for that comment, if you don't mind sir.That said I think MDA is one of the better (he really his) coaches at drawing up a play late in a game if he needs to.
Did you watch the Boston series? Sorry, I don't mean to come across as facetious, but our offence in that series (including game 1), and throughout the latter 15 odd games of the season was locked in the doldrums.But I think ultimately he'd rather just let the game play out and rely on his players and the system to find a good open look. Much of the time he can get that open shot w/ out calling a time out.
ISO, arc spacing, ISO, uneventful high pick, ISO, ISO, shoot off the dribble, arc spacing - 3 after 3 after 3, long rebound, so often resulting in an opponent [Rondo] transition layup - repeat.
My cooking is ****, but with famished dinner guests, my cup overfloweth with culinary praise. Same ****, different bucket. Again, not trying to be facetious.The system and philosophy is that good w "his" players - A pass=>first PG, knock down shooters and someone to who can set the pick and is a threat to finish.
However, to say that I've grown weary of the mentioning of absent requirements - [Only registered and activated users can see links. ] - for a winning philosophy that boasted a 50% failure rate this year, is an understatement. If it aint broke, don't fix it. If it is, buy a new one.
There is, as always, a counter point to this: when MD's offence has been inevitably deduced by opposing defences, its stagnancy relies upon shots created by an isolated individual. When the numbers game - or system, whatever you want to call it - fecks up, the blame is transferred to those that are relied upon to counter it as individuals. The human equation of a numerical machination - as I like to call it. This, BTW, is when you see Mike in his most animated tirades.Nobody talks about the times when he's gotten Gallo a look late, or Felton, or Amare w success.. In many of these cases he's relied on the players to do what they do within his schemes. The same is the case for most coaches. But when the players feck it up he gets the blame.
What's with the use of % on the blame-o-meter around here? And why is it always so drastically in the favour of Mike D'Antoni?IMO when there's a late bungle the coach is about 20% culpable in those cases on average, good coaches that is.. The worse the coach the more that percentage goes up. MDA is a good coach.
Honestly, if we refer to the same handful of sets we used all season, what do we expect? When have we EVER had an ace up our sleeve in the form of a play outside of the ever iterative? And, as Red exemplified with the double high screen in a loss to Boston, why don't we utilise more intricate/deliberate plays, such as the DHS, that incorporate Amar'e's athletic dominance in the paint? In fact, when Melo was acquired, we ran less V cuts, screens, and so forth, with a multi-faceted scoring machine on our team, than we did with Wilson Chandler, such as shall be displayed for you, in super slow mo below:
This decrease in fluidity in a motion offence, be it a facet of the SSOL as above, or not, was the death pang of Landry Fields' effectiveness offensively.
That is 100% the fault of the coach.
You're right. They do. Why wouldn't they? But as I mentioned to our resident flag bearer in enemy territory, TR1LL1ON, this is not the be all and end all of successful clutch coaching. If anything, it's this lack of creative thinking that was the bane of our offence after the Melo trade.Most coaches (the smart ones), when they have great players, get the hell out of the way and let them earn it th0ugh..