MDA is not the worst coach in history, nor is he the best.
His offensive system has some merits, but he needed Woodson (or someone like him) to get the defense playing better. He is not good at in-game adjustments, and does not understand how to use players that are limited role players.
No one knew Lin could be this good, but it was obvious to many that Toney Douglas was just not any good as a PG/facillitator. BTW, this does not mean that Douglas is worthless as a player, just that he cannot do that particular role well.
Add to this that Bibby was always a shooter not a great facilliitator, and had lost a step or two, Shumpert is a real talent but not a true PG either. Even Davis is not a true PG/facillitator, more of a shooting PG. So we felt that when 8 games under .500 why not try Lin?
The same goes for Novak, when the Knicks were shooting 5-25 in threes in some games and losing by 7.
The same goes for the Utah game where Chandler is in foul trouble, Stat and Jorts are out, and Al Jefferson is killing us inside. Yes, MDA eventually put in JJordan and stopped the bleeding inside, but about ten minutes later than he should have. Yes, we won the game, but it didn't need to be that hard, and that sort of mistake could cost us a playoff game against a stronger opponent.
No one confuses JJordan with Bill Russell, or Balkman with Rodman; but they are not totally worthless, and should get minutes when the situation on the floor calls for it. The difference between a championship and a 2nd round exit is often how the 10-11-12 players on the bench are used or not used. About small timely adjustments in the game, not looking at film later, or making the adjustment after you are down 15.
youre confusing straight % with weighted average. you do know a made 3 doesnt count the same as a made 2 right? that point makes the difference in the chance of making a shot less meaningful. MIKE DANTONI's team is taking high % shots, and people are assuming that just because lin is creating them, it has nothing to do with dantoni. its an assault on logic. unless you have significant samples of lin with dantoni, lin with another coach, and dantoni with another pg, you cannot draw conclusions as far as who is responsible for the success strictly from the box score. the truth is they BOTH deserve credit, but i can understand those simple-minded or mentally lazy people needing a simpler explanation like 'its x or its y'
actually, we have a plenty big sample of lin under another coach where he didnt produce and the offense wasnt nearly as good as ours is now. on the other hand, dantoni couldnt do **** with toney as the pg. if were gonna conclude anything for sure its that the COMBINATION of lin and mda works.
We said IF we can improve the defense (check), and IF we can use our advantages (our bigs, check), then Mike can take the credit no problem. As long as we win.
The best thing I can say is this is as much a learning experience for D'Antoni as it is for everyone. Is Mike ahead of the curve? We shall see.
For whatever reason and maybe its his +/- ratio Dantonio thought Walker was the right choice. And winning 5 straight with walker getting the minutes makes feel that see something we do not OR they have zero faith in Balkman.
bc the bottom line, is that MDA's system and philosophy is, if any, based entirely off that very simple goal and basketball truth:
take the best shots, the shots that carry the greatest point total per shot; and take the greatest number of those shots.
In a sense, this is Moneyball'esque, because it's about "buying" (or at least acquiring) points; whereas MB is all about acquiring "wins" in the most pure and direct way possible. For basketball, the closest equivalent to wins is points.
This is simply how you can have the greatest control over scoring the most points, and thus the greatest control over winning.
None of this is mutually exclusive to being a good defensive team, either. It's just, to my knowledge, there is no proven or logically designed defensive system that exhibits the type of direct control over outcome (on any given set of players), that this type of offensive approach carries.
Most good NBA players and coaches pretty much admit this truth, too: good defense is much more rooted in very basic concepts that have to be taught and executed on an individual level; and that it's more or less issues that most people encounter on their high-school JV squad, and revolve around effort and general team cohesion and pride.
mike definitely has the reputation of a coach that doesnt emphasize the importance of defense, which is what people complain about. i'm okay with that assessment and im very okay with the mda-offense and woodson-defense pairing. it works in football, right? the most important thing people love to omit/deny about dantoni is when speaking clearly in terms of offense, he puts his players in position to score tons of points, and within his plays draws up great off the ball movement as well as movement of the man with the ball to influence defenses. that's why im pissed when people want him fired for not having succeeded the past couple years (lol seriously?) or for being bad at much less significant aspects of the job. we could bring in someone that makes better substitutions, calls timeouts when he should, uses fouls, sure. but you arent gonna bring anyone in that will give you a points per possession like he does with any given roster. maybe the haters just need to see him with lin, melo, stat, and ty to see why hes an nba coach and a damn good one, despite his shortcomings.
Yeah points per possession which is only inflated by the enormous amounts of 3s taken. Over the course of a season, that stat may look nice but if you drill down per game you will probably see that it also cost you some close games. Basketball is about pace and MOA (from his days in PHX and now NY) has shown that he just simplifies it to score more points than the other team. The problem with this is that you're not always going to be efficient shooting the ball. 3s aren't always going to be your saving grace. Sometimes you have to work for it by drawing fouls and getting to the FT line, scoring in the post, taking higher % shots when possessions are most vital.
Antoni has always been overrated, but I guess you're still wearing the Nash quilt over your head. Any coach that NEEDS 1 type of player to be successful isn't a damn good coach to me.
YES! When you don't succeed for a couple years then there is a chance you will get fired. That's how it works in the NBA.