Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 30

Thread: MDA Truth Serum Thread: Only Facts Need Apply

  1. #1
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    2,845
    Rep Power
    11

    Breaking News MDA Truth Serum Thread: Only Facts Need Apply

    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:
    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.
    For clarity, this is how I will define various words used:

    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.

    More precisely:

    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).

  2. #2
    Veteran StEpHoN_mArBuRy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Queenz
    Posts
    3,086
    Rep Power
    15

    Default

    He still needs to go.. fact is his system isn't made for this roster -__-

  3. #3
    Veteran Clyde & The Pearl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    1,463
    Rep Power
    5

    Default

    Originally Posted by iSaYughh
    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:

    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.

    More precisely:

    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).
    After all these accolades for the SSOL system what exactly did we win last year?

    What are we winning this year?

    Please, just the facts...

  4. #4
    Veteran Sprewell-Houston's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Germany/Mount Vernon NY
    Posts
    1,357
    Rep Power
    5

    Default

    Originally Posted by StEpHoN_mArBuRy
    He still needs to go.. fact is his system isn't made for this roster -__-
    But the coach was here before the roster was assemble so why the **** do we sign/trade for players who don't fit into his system?

    **** like that only happens with the Knicks man....

  5. #5
    TYPE-A Red's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    2,308
    Rep Power
    14

    Default The Emperor Has No Clothes


    1. the emporer has no clothes
    Used to express when many people believe something that is not true.
    Putting things into perspective I extrapolated some numbers.

    Knick PG's since 2008-09, making note of their point and assist averages for their career. I compared these numbers to Steve Nash and here are the results:

    POINT GUARDS (* = Combo guard, rookie, back-up <minimal playing time>)

    Marbury, Duhon, *Robinson, Felton, Billups, *Carter, *Shumpert, Bibby, *Lin, Nash (as a baseline)

    The baseline used is Steve Nash whos career point & assist averages =
    14.6 & 8.5

    Main Findings

    1. When including the numbers from (*) Robinson, Carter, Shumpert, and Lin the average = 11.1 & 4.5, thats below (-3.5 & -4.0) the Nash baseline

    2. Without rookies, combo-guards, or back-ups (Robinson, Carter, Shumpert, Lin)
    average = 14.0 & 6.0, comparable to Nash (-.6 & -2.5)

    3. Stephon Marbury (followed by Billups +.9/-3, Bibby +.4/-2.9, and Felton
    -1.1/-1.8) was closest to the baseline at 19.3 & 7.6 or +4.7/-.9
    Making the banishment of Marbury mathematically counterintuitive towards replicating the Nash baseline

    4. In terms of +/- difference for all point guards with multiple years of experience (NOT *) Duhon had the worst split in points at -7.6 & -3.7
    which begs the question (in reference to 3.), why would Duhon receive MORE minutes than Marbury?

    5. According to the split, Mike Bibby 15.0 & 5.6 is the closest available player to the Nash baseline

    6. Brandon Jennings = 16.3 & 5.4 (+1.7/3.1)

    **These figures do not account for stats other than points and assists.

    Next I'd like to list some factual issues with interpretation of the system SPREAD PICK & ROLL (after all it's NOT the idea but how it is interpreted and displayed when observing it's application)

    a) Produces MORE low % shots THAN high % shots

    b) Amare Stoudemire who has primarily been coached by Mike D'Antoni since leaving high school, has

    -shown no evidence of developing a viable post up game
    -been quoted as saying he was never taught defense
    -shown evidence of NOT being able to play next to another scoring star
    -not been adept at passing out of the double team
    -lacks other big man nuances such as rebounding and other defensive metrics
    -played center as much as power forward
    -been working on expanding his range to the three point line

    c) Has not produced an NBA champion

    d) Has produced more regular season MVP's (1 out of 10+ guards or <10%) than NBA championships

    SEVEN SECONDS OR LESS


    In a nut shell: Running & Gunning, getting the ball quickly up court, finding an open shot before the defense gets set.

    Note the difference between the system (Spread Pick & Roll), and the philosophy or approach (SSOL)

    On the New York Knicks...

    They needed a knowledgeable, disciplinarian type coach who would instill toughness. Instead, much to everyone's surprise, he chose Mike D'Antoni.

    I was immensely disappointed.

    All I heard about him is what a great player and coach he was in the Italian league. Guess what, this ain't Italy and I'm unimpressed.

    His so-called innovative speedball offense was supposed to revolutionize the game. In this league, defense and toughness is what wins championships, not offense.

    How many championship teams won by trying to outscore their opponent instead of defend? None.

    Hit the open man and shoot in seven seconds or less. What kind of strategy is that? Sounds like streetball to me; it's hardly rocket science.

    He had great success in Phoenix, averaging around sixty wins over a four-year span. However, his Phoenix teams were always characterized as soft and were exposed on the defensive end, especially as they advanced farther.

    How many finals appearances did Phoenix make during his tenure? Zero.

    [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
    This approach:

    -Increases possessions for both teams therefore is nullified as a viable strategy
    -Reduces rebounding %
    -Reduces put back %
    -Increases fast-break opportunities
    -Increase turnover %
    -Increases injury likelihood
    -Reduces player specific strategy

    Mike D'Antoni has to go.

    It is not easy to call for the exodus of a coach who averaged 58 wins a season in his previous job, who is as kind and decent as they come. Nor does it seem fair to call for the head of a coach who, some would say, helped resurrect this franchise and made the Knicks relevant again. But when players are devoid of respect for a coach's basketball acumen, when the opposition laughs over the transparency of his game plan -- so much so that D'Antoni's players intimated they had instituted their own changes at halftime of a close-out game -- the need for a change simply cannot be denied.

    [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]

  6. #6
    TYPE-A Red's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    2,308
    Rep Power
    14

    Cool cont'd

    Part Deux...

    Notwithstanding the tremendous effort displayed in Games 1 and 2, the New York Knicks cannot play defense, folks! Primarily because schematically it's never important, nor has it ever been a priority in D'Antoni's mind.

    The same coach who's being paid $6 million per season here was out in Phoenix because he would not heed former Suns executive Steve Kerr's advice that he simply couldn't win a championship with his system. Fast-forward to three full seasons later and nothing has changed.

    There are high pick-and-rolls. There's Amare Stoudemire coming from the corner, getting the ball near the elbow, with everyone and their grandmother knowing that's exactly what is going to occur. Or there's Stoudemire coming from the low block to set screens -- except everyone knows he's getting the ball and that he's not going to set a screen. And intertwined with it all is the arrival of Carmelo Anthony, assigned to doing pretty much the same thing.

    "Coach knows offense," one player explained. "It would be nice to set plays, control pace and not jack up shots just because you're open. But that's what Coach does. You could live with it if we played defense. But obviously, we haven't done that much. Good, bad or otherwise, all I can say is that I've never seen anything like this."

    Who has?

    What team has a 6-foot-9, 230-pound player like Shawne Williams assigned to stand around and shoot 3s? What team has an athlete like Bill Walker, who's 6-6, 220, programmed to do the same? How can such a haphazard, frenetic brand of basketball -- you constantly hear D'Antoni screaming at players to shoot whenever open, no matter how much time is on the shot clock -- be permitted to continue when your $100 million franchise player just completed his ninth season? When Anthony, your other franchise player, just completed his eighth season? When both are signed for more than $80 million apiece over the next four seasons, yet based on the fatigue and injuries, neither looked as if he was physically conditioned to go another game in this series?

    Just as important, what kind of players will you draft if this system remains in place? Knowing D'Antoni won't play guys who don't fit in?

    The New York Knicks need a coach -- not a system. Coaches smirk at the luxury of preparing a game plan against it. Even folks like Charles Barkley have characterized D'Antoni's refusal to recognize the futility of his ways as "pure stubbornness."

  7. #7
    Superstar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    929
    Rep Power
    4

    Default

    I'm going to say it again, antoni has no clue why were losing, so he has no clue how to fix it, it's time to go.We have been doing the exact same thing, during this losing streak, either he refuses to make any adjustments, or doesn't know what adjustments to make, what ever the reason is , it shows he shouldn't still be running this team.Please stop with all this SSOL crap please, either it's not working, or he doesn't know how to run it without STEVE NASH, another reason he has to go.I'm just tired of people posting novels on this great SSOL, and how it's base on ball movement and spacing, please all iv'e seen is ISO with everyone one the 3point line waiting to be spoon fed, it wasn't that different with nash either, it's just he's a HOF player who keeps his dribble, and has a deadly mid range game to bail out the Offense if something went wrong.

  8. #8
    Veteran Sprewell-Houston's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Germany/Mount Vernon NY
    Posts
    1,357
    Rep Power
    5

    Default

    Originally Posted by Red



    Putting things into perspective I extrapolated some numbers.

    Knick PG's since 2008-09, making note of their point and assist averages for their career. I compared these numbers to Steve Nash and here are the results:

    POINT GUARDS (* = Combo guard, rookie, back-up <minimal playing time>)

    Marbury, Duhon, *Robinson, Felton, Billups, *Carter, *Shumpert, Bibby, *Lin, Nash (as a baseline)

    The baseline used is Steve Nash whos career point & assist averages =
    14.6 & 8.5

    Main Findings

    1. When including the numbers from (*) Robinson, Carter, Shumpert, and Lin the average = 11.1 & 4.5, thats below (-3.5 & -4.0) the Nash baseline

    2. Without rookies, combo-guards, or back-ups (Robinson, Carter, Shumpert, Lin)
    average = 14.0 & 6.0, comparable to Nash (-.6 & -2.5)

    3. Stephon Marbury (followed by Billups +.9/-3, Bibby +.4/-2.9, and Felton
    -1.1/-1.8) was closest to the baseline at 19.3 & 7.6 or +4.7/-.9
    Making the banishment of Marbury mathematically counterintuitive towards replicating the Nash baseline

    4. In terms of +/- difference for all point guards with multiple years of experience (NOT *) Duhon had the worst split in points at -7.6 & -3.7
    which begs the question (in reference to 3.), why would Duhon receive MORE minutes than Marbury?

    5. According to the split, Mike Bibby 15.0 & 5.6 is the closest available player to the Nash baseline

    6. Brandon Jennings = 16.3 & 5.4 (+1.7/3.1)

    **These figures do not account for stats other than points and assists.

    Next I'd like to list some factual issues with interpretation of the system SPREAD PICK & ROLL (after all it's NOT the idea but how it is interpreted and displayed when observing it's application)

    a) Produces MORE low % shots THAN high % shots

    b) Amare Stoudemire who has primarily been coached by Mike D'Antoni since leaving high school, has

    -shown no evidence of developing a viable post up game
    -been quoted as saying he was never taught defense
    -shown evidence of NOT being able to play next to another scoring star
    -not been adept at passing out of the double team
    -lacks other big man nuances such as rebounding and other defensive metrics
    -played center as much as power forward
    -been working on expanding his range to the three point line

    c) Has not produced an NBA champion

    d) Has produced more regular season MVP's (1 out of 10+ guards or <10%) than NBA championships

    SEVEN SECONDS OR LESS


    In a nut shell: Running & Gunning, getting the ball quickly up court, finding an open shot before the defense gets set.

    Note the difference between the system (Spread Pick & Roll), and the philosophy or approach (SSOL)



    This approach:

    -Increases possessions for both teams therefore is nullified as a viable strategy
    -Reduces rebounding %
    -Reduces put back %
    -Increases fast-break opportunities
    -Increase turnover %
    -Increases injury likelihood
    -Reduces player specific strategy

    1) You can't include Marbury in this, he never played for D'Antoni in New York

    2) You shouldn't do this based on Steve Nash's career averages but his averages during the 4 years under D'Antoni in Phoenix when making a thread about D'Antoni. What Nash averaged in his Mavericks years is irrelevant for this 'analysis' or whatever it is...

    3) There are a lot of qualitative conclusions in your 'analysis', however these are always debateable and discussable, they're hardly facts - which the topic of the thread suggests.

  9. #9
    Knicks Guru hometheaterguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    1,017
    Rep Power
    11

    Default

    I think with everything being posted the one thing that is not taken into the equation is that D'antoni has never had a consistent roster since he started. The Knicks have cycled their rosters every year since D'antoni became head coach. I don't care who you had as a head coach, no one would have the ability to win in that type of environment. You also have a owner in Dolan that still listens to Isiah Thomas and that is evident in the product we have now. Walsh quite because of the Melo trade and we are back to what we were before the process started; a collection of players that can't coexist.
    Landry Fields game has tanked since Melo
    STAT has tanked since Melo.... Anyone still have the Knicks games saved prior to the Melo trade??? Go back and rewatch them and you can see how this team was starting to come together until Dolan and Thomas pulled the rug from under the franchise..
    Now they are serious talks for trading STAT and Chandler for Howard and Hedo Turkoglu.... If this trade goes through (I hope it does since Howard and Melo is a better fit); another year with a revamped roster! AND... still no pg!

  10. #10
    Member unloopme's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Jill Martin's Thong
    Posts
    222
    Rep Power
    4

    Default

    I'm sorry guys, but I don't need statistics and over analysis to tell me what I've witnessed with my own eyes regarding 'Antoni.

    1. His sub patterns are without logic. He grinds his best players into powder while allowing possible contributors to languish on the bench and never establish a role for themselves.

    2. He does not know, or does not convey how to take advantage of obvious + matchups for his players against any given team. There's always something to exploit against EVERY team in this league.

    3. He does not use time-outs as a tool to make adjustments, stop runs(this year, a bit. It's probably Woodson in his ear,) make matchup subs in crunch time...nada.

    4. SSOL is SOL without high % perimeter shooters and an effective distributing PG.

  11. #11
    Moderator
    CoolClyde's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Bronx
    Posts
    2,402
    Rep Power
    19

    Default Ughh

    between KBlack's thread/prose, this praise of SSOL thread, and RED's meticulous reply, there's been a lot to read lately, most of it intelligent and well-thought out. I applaud them all.

    However, one of the main reasons I do not like Antoni is his attitude, his holier-than-thou approach to games and players, especially young ones, and those in his doghouse. His banishment of Starbury and N8, not using players, like Jordan Hill, Anthony Randolph, Jerry Jordan, never thinking of using Corey Brewer, his love of Duhound and Girafferies, his short rotation that causes stress towards end of season, his horrible substitutions, not fouling at end of game up by 3, etc. I still believe having a prime Steve Nash and young A'marewas the main reason for his success in the NBA, which has not translated to New York.

    That, and the fact that these threes have gotten out of control, and yet he continues to espouse this philosophy when the SSOL is not being run anyway.

    Hence, I say fire Antoni and his whole damn system. The team's been blown up enough, let's blow up the coaching staff at this point.

    Amen.

  12. #12
    TYPE-A Red's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    2,308
    Rep Power
    14

    Cool

    Originally Posted by Sprewell-Houston
    1) You can't include Marbury in this, he never played for D'Antoni in New York

    2) You shouldn't do this based on Steve Nash's career averages but his averages during the 4 years under D'Antoni in Phoenix when making a thread about D'Antoni. What Nash averaged in his Mavericks years is irrelevant for this 'analysis' or whatever it is...

    3) There are a lot of qualitative conclusions in your 'analysis', however these are always debateable and discussable, they're hardly facts - which the topic of the thread suggests.
    1) Marbury was on the Knicks correct? Hence his relevance.

    2) Tell us a better benchmark in regards to needing a point guard will you.

    3) There is no debate, look the stats up yourself. Possession totals, low percentage frequency.

    Or if you watched the past few seasons Knick seasons it's evident in the film.

    Understand that "facts" without context are meaningless. It's a fact that multiple GM's wanted Mike D'Antoni to hire a defensive assistant, how this is interpreted is debatable, yet remains a fact.

  13. #13
    TYPE-A Red's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    2,308
    Rep Power
    14

    Default

    Originally Posted by CoolClyde
    between KBlack's thread/prose, this praise of SSOL thread, and RED's meticulous reply, there's been a lot to read lately, most of it intelligent and well-thought out. I applaud them all.

    However, one of the main reasons I do not like Antoni is his attitude, his holier-than-thou approach to games and players, especially young ones, and those in his doghouse. His banishment of Starbury and N8, not using players, like Jordan Hill, Anthony Randolph, Jerry Jordan, never thinking of using Corey Brewer, his love of Duhound and Girafferies, his short rotation that causes stress towards end of season, his horrible substitutions, not fouling at end of game up by 3, etc. I still believe having a prime Steve Nash and young A'marewas the main reason for his success in the NBA, which has not translated to New York.

    That, and the fact that these threes have gotten out of control, and yet he continues to espouse this philosophy when the SSOL is not being run anyway.

    Hence, I say fire Antoni and his whole damn system. The team's been blown up enough, let's blow up the coaching staff at this point.

    Amen.
    Amen.

  14. #14
    Member unloopme's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Jill Martin's Thong
    Posts
    222
    Rep Power
    4

    Default

    Originally Posted by CoolClyde
    between KBlack's thread/prose, this praise of SSOL thread, and RED's meticulous reply, there's been a lot to read lately, most of it intelligent and well-thought out. I applaud them all.

    However, one of the main reasons I do not like Antoni is his attitude, his holier-than-thou approach to games and players, especially young ones, and those in his doghouse. His banishment of Starbury and N8, not using players, like Jordan Hill, Anthony Randolph, Jerry Jordan, never thinking of using Corey Brewer, his love of Duhound and Girafferies, his short rotation that causes stress towards end of season, his horrible substitutions, not fouling at end of game up by 3, etc. I still believe having a prime Steve Nash and young A'marewas the main reason for his success in the NBA, which has not translated to New York.

    That, and the fact that these threes have gotten out of control, and yet he continues to espouse this philosophy when the SSOL is not being run anyway.

    Hence, I say fire Antoni and his whole damn system. The team's been blown up enough, let's blow up the coaching staff at this point.

    Amen.
    Obviously we agree on these points.
    I also think that 'Antoni's time in NY has exposed him as the fraud he is, and I can't see this guy getting another coaching job in this league.
    Last edited by unloopme; Jan 29, 2012 at 11:55.

  15. #15
    Veteran KingofNy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    1,492
    Rep Power
    6

    Default

    Originally Posted by StEpHoN_mArBuRy
    He still needs to go.. fact is his system isn't made for this roster -__-
    Exactly.

    All that matters is this system doesn't work for our players and I think all of us are tired of blowing up our team to just get that "one more player" to make us a good team. Sorry to tell you guys, we've been "one player away" for years it seems now and an OLD, CRIPPLED Baron Davis isn't saving crap.

    This system doesn't work without a PG like Nash in his prime, sorry but it doesn't. AND Even when D'Antoni had 3 ALL-STARS and SHAQ in most of their primes, he still couldn't win a title.

    You guys can say what you want, but WATCHING games our guys are ALWAYS out of position, setting weak @ss screens, barely cutting, NEVER playing inside/out, quick to chuck, and consistently getting caught behind the shot clock which ends up in us shooting AT LEAST 20 BAD shots a game. SSOL is good when you have an All-star PG, but this team doesn't and isn't running it properly to begin with.

    How some of you can still vaguely support D'Antoni boggles my mind. He sits our good players, gives guys like Jeffries and Douglas almost starters minutes. Sits proven PG's like Lin and lets Douglas fire away. Ugh. But I guess we have to have some dumb people so the rest of us can be smart. I wish our fan base had less dumb people because D'Antoni would of probably been gone a long time ago when fans stopped paying Dolan's bills when he kept making bad decision after bad decision going back to the Isiah days. Most of us seen this collapse happening before it even started...

    I knew that if we didn't change something we we're in trouble and surely enough, we didn't change sh*t. We added a ton of players and really only lost Billups and Shawne Williams. What's the problem? The problem is our coach and his one-way approach to coaching this team. He can't evolve in his system and play calling and it shows by our play on the court. Fire Dan and Mike D'Antoni!

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 51
    Last Post: May 04, 2010, 12:20
  2. Religulous
    By LJ4ptplay in forum Hangout
    Replies: 69
    Last Post: Nov 10, 2008, 14:10
  3. Christianity in 30 Seconds
    By KnicksFan4Realz in forum Hangout
    Replies: 425
    Last Post: Sep 19, 2008, 16:15
  4. The Bible - Proof that Christianity is True
    By Paul1355 in forum Hangout
    Replies: 154
    Last Post: Jul 12, 2008, 18:38

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •