Mike D'Antoni's influence on our resurgence

Meh... I guess he does deserve some credit.. he has been managing timeout situations and lineups alittle better recently.. And we are playing some defense. Still has a long ways to go before I support him tho.
 
We'll see how well Chandler is implemented into the offense once Amare comes back. That will be a big test. Amare is not going to be happy unless he has the majority of those pick and rolls.

If you hear the postgame interviews, Jeremy kept telling D'antoni that he was good and could stay in the game. D'Antoni joked that he wouldn't listen to Lin as much anymore and probably rest him more.

Besides... the way TD and Bibby have been playing? The game was way too close to let them drag our team down. If you noticed, Lin let Shump and others initiate the offense and kind of acted as a decoy to get some rest in the 4th quarter. That let him conserve some energy and save some juice for defense. He's a smart guy. He'll be okay.

Lin cooled off after a hot start. I think he went 1-12 in the second half. That isnt a big help. Heck TD could do that easy.:thumbsup:

If you're balling you always tell the coach you're good. I did..
 

iSaYughh

Starter
Crazy⑧s;205857 said:
Why the sudden turn around, though? For Mike, I mean, not you.

I agree with Smokes' answer to this, but I'll offer a slightly different perspective, based off a couple assertions.

A fundamental theorem of basketball is that Irrespective of whether your coach is a genius or retard (and I don't believe either actually exist in the NBA), the execution of players is what is going to determine the play on the court.

Many offenses, and especially D'antoni's, are predicated upon a reasonably good PG. Contrary to what some have said, and which has clearly been proven wrong, this doesn't require some proven All Star pg to swoop in and "save" the team.

The PG is literally the rudder of the ship, and if you are getting atrocious play from your point guard play (and have no legitimate point-forwards, either), you are going to have a helluva time resembling a competent team.

See: MIA much of last year, and that was with Magic'esque passing by Lebron, and the sheer force of superior talent.

The very fair question follow-up question has been: why didn't MDA adapt, change, work around this.

I believe the answer to that is

*being stubborn

but also,

*being pragmatic

No doubt D'antoni showed an almost painful lack of flexibility in the area of adaption. In this regard, you could make a great case that he should have; except I would say no coach would have, ultimately, no good coach anyhow. Especially, Phil Jackson. (who, truthfully, wouldn't even sniff a job like ours unless the precise star power he desires to coach is firmly in place).

I actually like that D'antoni didn't bend over and try to put lipstick on a pig too much, prior to Lin. This is where the pragmatism comes into play. And I could be giving MDA too much credit, as I this assertion can't be proven -- but I think D'antoni is an intelligent man, and an intelligent basketball mind, so barring him being a lucky tard, I think it's a pretty safe assumption.

He was stubborn, but I'm glad he didn't change his style and make our team some pseudo-half court, plodding, heavily designed-play team. Even i this would have made us look better, more adaptive, more overtly cognizant of the situation.

1, the key players we have don't fit that ultimate style in any way -- especially Amare. our key players' ultimate potential is rooted in the style and system of play that D'antoni bases his coaching upon. and you just can't deny the career years, and development so many players have had under MDA. bring up Renaldo Balkman and Anthon Randolph is like bringing a toy knife to a bazooka battle with the names and basketball facts that could be dropped.

2, the changes that thus could have been in this regard would have made us better in the short-term, but ultimately retarded the potential necessary to legit win a title in this day and age.

And we had, at the time, a legit PG en route -- Baron -- and of course were looking for longshot options -- like Lin. So I don't think MDA was necessarily damning our season, and going down with the ship by not making those immediate, adaptive changes, either.

His being stubborn would have been moreso criminal if he was actually willing to let our season surely tank without even having a .1% chance of contending.

Most importantly, MDA considers himself to be able to run a brilliant, league-leading offense. He obviously thinks our Knicks could have the NBA's best offense, and at a baseline the type of defensive play we currently have. A stubborn consistency in adhering to what you pride and base your coaching abilities upon is understandable, and maybe necessary at this level in the NBA.

MDA never really bitched when Dolan overhauled the team mid season last year just as we had gelled as a young team on the rise.

MDA didn't bitch when a PG was flipped for a defensive Center (which, according to dogma, is death to D'antoni to lose a PG for a defensive, true C).

Coaches, like players -- the good ones at least -- define their lives by doing what they are trained to do, and know how to do.

Dolan's job (and the GM's) is to understand that, and not **** with it when making the choices as to who coaches and plays. And if a coach isn't the right fit, you fire them, plain and simple. This is the GM's job and the owners -- it actually isn't on the coach to bend over for a constantly in flux roster, especially when they have an elite pedigree and style of play they obviously base their coaching acumen upon.

I commend MDA for how handled the past season and a half, especially to the public and media.

You're fooling yourself if you think Phil Jackson would have showed a 1/100th dedication and heart to this city and franchise; and can look to the on-court and media disgrace that Larry Brown freely engaged in, if you want an example of how most coaches (especially ones with pedigree) would have acted.

:2cents:
 

smokes

Huge Member
I agree with iSayUghh to some degree.

I'd definitely err on the side of "stubbornness" over "pragmaticism" (is that a word?) in this case, however, being stubborn is not so bad if there is an end game in sight (Baron Davis).

This is not some thread like the MDA apology thread nor am I absolving MDA from his many coaching sins in the past. This is more to point out that as well as Lin, Jefferies, Novak, Tyson, Fields, Shumpert being a big influence in our upswerve, MDA deserves credit too.

And amid the losing streak and even since, there have been a lot of things said about MDA like "so now we're good, let's just hope MDA doesn't find a way to screw it up" which I think is unfair. He's improved our record and our play consistently for 4 years with the exception of a blip after Melo was added.

Another thing I hear is "well MDA should have seen Lin was good blabla" well then so should all the other teams that had him on their roster and the 99.9% of talent scouts that also overlooked him.

Regardless of our awful defense previously, we are now playing good defense. Regardless of our awful offense this season we are now playing great offensively! Instead of wondering how Mike can screw things up how about we wonder how good this team can be, an MDA offense (best in the league) with a very good defense, with a pretty damn nice roster.
 

RunningJumper

Super Moderator
I agree with iSayUghh to some degree.

I'd definitely err on the side of "stubbornness" over "pragmaticism" (is that a word?) in this case, however, being stubborn is not so bad if there is an end game in sight (Baron Davis).

This is not some thread like the MDA apology thread nor am I absolving MDA from his many coaching sins in the past. This is more to point out that as well as Lin, Jefferies, Novak, Tyson, Fields, Shumpert being a big influence in our upswerve, MDA deserves credit too.

And amid the losing streak and even since, there have been a lot of things said about MDA like "so now we're good, let's just hope MDA doesn't find a way to screw it up" which I think is unfair. He's improved our record and our play consistently for 4 years with the exception of a blip after Melo was added.

Another thing I hear is "well MDA should have seen Lin was good blabla" well then so should all the other teams that had him on their roster and the 99.9% of talent scouts that also overlooked him.

Regardless of our awful defense previously, we are now playing good defense. Regardless of our awful offense this season we are now playing great offensively! Instead of wondering how Mike can screw things up how about we wonder how good this team can be, an MDA offense (best in the league) with a very good defense, with a pretty damn nice roster.
Didn't we have less wins in his second season with us?

Anyway, somebody mentioned in the Jerry West talking about Jeremy Lin thread, it's nice to be talking and being excited about one of our players than complaining about MDA for a change.
 

Red

TYPE-A
Love the enthusiasm Smokes but...

We have a long climb ahead of us.

Incorporating the Broadway Bigs. Lin has superseded Mike's penchant for LOW % SHOTS by going to the hole, hence The Mad Byson's offensive resurgence. I would say this is inspite of Mike- meaning I and everyone saw our strength (Bigs) but were unable to exploit them

Lin comes in, drives and dishes, lobs to JJ and TC, and all of a sudden "he's a genius"... I can't co-sign that because IMO he had enough talent to get the ball inside more, and didn't... Lin did.

But as I said, it matters not that Mike gets the credit when we finally realize how to play fundamentally. Although I know, and You should too, that was OPPOSITE to Mikes approach.

Anyway, I think we should wait until playoff time comes before deciding on Mike. We're a work in progress and then the top coaches and decisions will be there and needed- then we can see if Mike learned his lesson.

Don't you think it's strange that we are winning by doing things totally opposite of what Mike wanted? We've had our highest % of high % shots since he's been here.

Chandler is getting the ball early and often- that wasn't Mike.

Cutting down the threes- that's not Mike.

Rebounding and put backs which are directly related to more scoring inside- not Mike.

So either Mike has learned his lesson, chose to acquiesce, or was left with no choice. Either way we're winning, so no complaints from me. (I do however recall many DNP's, and 40+ threes per game... and scrubby TD who hasn't been seen since)
 
Last edited:

p0nder

Starter
I have also been impressed by some of the things MDA is doing on this winning streak. He seems to be using an 8-9 man rotation but spreading the minutes around very nicely. Shump, Novak and JJ's usage have been pretty good and timely.

Also i'm seeing better things out of designed plays. The novak 3 pt play in minny was beauty. I'm also seeing better plays off of in-bounds passes. Much more effective usage of screen's and off the ball movement as well. Situational offense is starting to come along nicely. Time outs are being used appropriately, tho sparingly so as not to disrupt the flow.

Defensively I am seeing good work on the match ups. Our perimeter defense is much improved as the streak has gone on. JJ is being assigned to the right match up and there is a great amount of communication going one between the players.

And most importantly the guys seem to be having fun out there. JJ and Shump are the first guys up out of their seats after a big play by the starters, Fields is resurgent with Lin and their secret handshake. Tyson is getting involved and smiling a lot more then he was during our 1-9 stretch. the team just seems to be getting along and gelling really well.

All positives and can be somewhat attributed to D'antoni's prep/influence/coaching.
 

nyk_nyk

All Star
Love the enthusiasm Smokes but...

We have a long climb ahead of us.

Incorporating the Broadway Bigs. Lin has superseded Mike's penchant for LOW % SHOTS by going to the hole, hence The Mad Byson's offensive resurgence. I would say this is inspite of Mike- meaning I and everyone saw our strength (Bigs) but were unable to exploit them

Lin comes in, drives and dishes, lobs to JJ and TC, and all of a sudden "he's a genius"... I can't co-sign that because IMO he had enough talent to get the ball inside more, and didn't... Lin did.

But as I said, it matters not that Mike gets the credit when we finally realize how to play fundamentally. Although I know, and You should too, that was OPPOSITE to Mikes approach.

Anyway, I think we should wait until playoff time comes before deciding on Mike. We're a work in progress and then the top coaches and decisions will be there and needed- then we can see if Mike learned his lesson.

Don't you think it's strange that we are winning by doing things totally opposite of what Mike wanted? We've had our highest % of high % shots since he's been here.

Chandler is getting the ball early and often- that wasn't Mike.

Cutting down the threes- that's not Mike.

Rebounding and put backs which are directly related to more scoring inside- not Mike.

So either Mike has learned his lesson, chose to acquiesce, or was left with no choice. Either way we're winning, so no complaints from me. (I do however recall many DNP's, and 40+ threes per game... and scrubby TD who hasn't been seen since)

Damn RED, you basically said everything I was going to say.

I agree what we're witnessing is the opposite of Antoni ball. More points in the paint and a higher overall FG% due to higher % shots. Novak's success is primarily due to Lin's drives to the basket and his ability to make TC a threat on offense. All of these things open up the perimeter for a guy like Novak to excel. Antoni wanted Bibby and TD to play PnR and shoot 3s. Lin is playing PnR and attacking the paint which = better results.

I think ON THE COURT, Lin has a better understanding than MOA. We all know the biggest advantages MOA saw in TD and Bibby was their potential for making 3s. MOA likes to spread the floor for shooters, while Lin prefers to attack, draw the defense and drop off or lob to the post guys.

:2cents:
 

amazinz5

Benchwarmer
Love the enthusiasm Smokes but...


Lin comes in, drives and dishes, lobs to JJ and TC, and all of a sudden "he's a genius"... I can't co-sign that because IMO he had enough talent to get the ball inside more, and didn't... Lin did.

nobody penetrates, so we attempt low % fgs = mda suxorz
lin penetrates, creating high % fgs = mda suxorz

do they not offer logic classes at the schools you people went to?
 

nyk_nyk

All Star
nobody penetrates, so we attempt low % fgs = mda suxorz
lin penetrates, creating high % fgs = mda suxorz

do they not offer logic classes at the schools you people went to?

If you're calling 3s low % fgs then MOA will not agree with you. Do some research and you will find that MOA sees open 3s as a higher % or equal to shot attempts in the paint.
 

nixon7

Benchwarmer
Not black or white but grey

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.
 

amazinz5

Benchwarmer
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'
 

amazinz5

Benchwarmer
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 shit with toney as the pg. if were gonna conclude anything for sure its that the COMBINATION of lin and mda works.
 

Red

TYPE-A
Damn RED, you basically said everything I was going to say.

I agree what we're witnessing is the opposite of Antoni ball. More points in the paint and a higher overall FG% due to higher % shots. Novak's success is primarily due to Lin's drives to the basket and his ability to make TC a threat on offense. All of these things open up the perimeter for a guy like Novak to excel. Antoni wanted Bibby and TD to play PnR and shoot 3s. Lin is playing PnR and attacking the paint which = better results.

I think ON THE COURT, Lin has a better understanding than MOA. We all know the biggest advantages MOA saw in TD and Bibby was their potential for making 3s. MOA likes to spread the floor for shooters, while Lin prefers to attack, draw the defense and drop off or lob to the post guys.

:2cents:

Thanks, I actually feel the same about your posts (no homo). I don't have to write much because you basically covered it. Like my brother from another mother.lol

On topic...
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.
 

smokes

Huge Member
If you're calling 3s low % fgs then MOA will not agree with you. Do some research and you will find that MOA sees open 3s as a higher % or equal to shot attempts in the paint.

No he doesn't see them as higher or equal % they have a higher or equal weighting from the amount of points they produce which is proven. The problem we've had all season is our 3's have a) not been very open and b) not been falling.
 

iSaYughh

Starter
youre confusing straight % with weighted average. 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.

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.

Sound ****ing post.

+3
 
Last edited:
Top