A very intelligent and wise KO vet posted this. Which just underscores how deep misinformation and inaccuracies run, that riddle the *basis* for why people think MDA is so bad.
Note: I will concede the possibility you may even be right about MDA. However, should we not give pause to the dogged dismissal of MDA, when it is being based, on at least *some* fundamental level....from patently incorrect assumptions and inaccurate information?
The quote:For clarity, this is how I will define various words used:Only an idiot bases his entire philosophy and taking the lowest pct shot on the court, and as if that's not assine enough, he wants his players rushing to do just that.
How does this make sense to anyone?
If you have a HOF PG and a roster full of snipers, you might be an entertaining team that can win a post season series or two.
SSOL= MDA's philosophy and system
Efficient Shot= A shot that carries a high point value; this is connected to, but not based upon a shot's make %.
WinningShots= The shot(s) that carry the highest rate of points; the basketball equivalent of analyzing a baseball player's RunsCreated or WinShares. The ultimate analysis for determining the true worth of a shot, and it's quantitative value to winning a game(s).
Let's begin with some general corrections:
SSOL is not based upon taking 3pointers. You may think this, you may say it a millions times, but it is not factually true.
It is a grossly inadequate and an irrelevant truth to say the 3pt is a "low % shot". It's the equivalent of a politician saying we are cutting spending, by cutting a few programs while the true revenue of the country remains stagnant and overall spending is still creating further deficit.
Of course, it's true -- they are cutting spending.
The 3pt shot is one of the most efficient, best point producing shots in basketball -- the corner 3 is arguably the best.
Pointing to it's obviously lower % of makes, vs a 2pt shot, is again, true, but doesn't reflect the shots actual worth, and it's positive, superior impact on scoring more points.
Note: this is one reason MDA will often say something like "we just need to score more points". Which you can mock, yes; but you are mocking a statement tethered to purely quantitative mathematics and studies of game theory and statistics.
That statement -- "we just need to score more points" is in reference to the simple, yet enlightened truth that creating more points is the most productive thing an offensive system can do, and can have direct quantitative control over.
D'antoni isn't a fool, even if thinking so makes you feel better about yourself or if it helps soothe the pain of losing by presenting a convenient answer.
This is the most vital thing that an offensive system can do. Generate the creation of points. Specifically, the most points in a given game, defined by taking the highest quality shots, and taking as many of those as possible.
That statement is in referring to this core truth, of how points are created, and the true value of shots.
So yes, a system which *when executed* creates quality 3 pt opportunities is a good thing -- a very good thing. It's just smart, simple, enlightened basketball.
And that is what SSOL revolves around:
Creating a system with the greatest ability to *create* the most points, founded up the elusive realities of mathematics, statistics, and game theory.
Whether you do or don't care for SSOL the system or MDA the man, the quoted paragraph at the top (and all opinions based upon anything that quote states or alludes to) are inaccurate.
And to at least *some* degree, your views upon SSOL and MDA are being based upon logical fallacies and inaccurate assumptions.
What is SSOL predicated upon:
Spacing, movement, speed, quick decision-making, on-court freedom.
Note: on-court freedom is not chaos; nor does it preclude precise, systematic practice and studying of the aforesaid spacing/movement/tempo/decision-making.
Do SSOL squads take lots of 3pointers or more than most teams?
Yes. Because the 3pt shot is a high quality, winning shot, and SSOL creates an environment where quality 3pt shots are abundant.
Do SSOL teams *need* lots of 3 pt shooters?
No. No more than most teams could use several floor spreaders with range.
Should an SSOL team place a premium on players who *can* shoot the 3?
Yes! Because the 3pt shot is a high-efficiency, point producing shot, and because SSOL creates an abundance of opportunity for this shot, placing a premium on having players who can shoot the 3 is placing a premium on creating the most points.
Additionally, people who did not seem like terribly good 3pt shooters, can often have their %s raised to being very respectable 3pt shooters because of the quality looks they will *naturally* find themselves in, by way of the system creating a greater abundance of quality 3pt shots.
What about the front court!?!??
What about it? So long as your bigs are in good shape and can run the floor reasonably well, they can do their banging and dishing inside, per usual.
A la' Stoudemire.
Is it a coincidence, despite injury, he has been one of the most efficient inside scorers in the game and a perennial all-star? All while operating for almost the entirety of his career, since entering the NBA, under MDA and SSOL.
Again, one of the most efficient *inside* scorers in the NBA.
The spacing, flow, and high-quality outside scoring and 3pt shooting creates an environment *conducive* for inside scorers to thrive.
Chandler, despite this stank ass offense we have right now, is thriving in a career-year type of way, the way any quality center who can run the floor should be able to absolutely thrive as a true C in a SSOL system.
But wait, doesn't SSOL demand extremely rare, elite players and point guards?
No. SSOL makes it easier for players' to be effective. Period. This is why so many have had career years, career renaissances, and exceeded expectations playing for MDA and under SSOL. It doesn't take a terribly amazing player profile to be able to thrive. Less than almost any other NBA team.
See: career years, rises in 3pt %s, exceeding expectations.
It is also why so many NBA players have wanted to play for MDA, and respect him.
Simply put, re: players,
we executed a top 5 NBA offense last year, in Year 1 as a cohesive team, with a mundane borderline NBA starter (Felton), an unknown 2nd round rookie (Fields), an overpaid all-star many said would not replicate his career numbers (Stoudemire), the worst Center roster in the entire league, and a couple inexperienced but talented forwards (Gallinari, Chandler).